HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Can random events happen if all depends on the action of almighty God?

 

Random - what does it mean?

 

Some say that random just means we don't know why something acted in such a way. Obviously that is inadequate for there are loads of things we don't know why they do what they do and that does not mean they are random!  Others say that random is just an action that happens and is pointless.  Real randomness would refer to something coming and going from nothing - no cause works on it.  It has nothing to do with causes.

 

For something to be random, it seems that nothing must cause it to behave in a certain way or a number of ways.  But something always does - this is not the time to discuss that though.

 

The best or only understanding is that random means something is happening blindly. It is unintended. It is accidental. It is not predictable. Whatever happens then is not happening because it has a divine purpose. Do not make the mistake of thinking that randomness is just unpredictability. That would mean that an event is not random if you know or should know how it happened. Knowing how it happened has nothing to do with making it random.

 

Randomness means that something is taking place for no INTENDED reason. Do not take your mind off the fact that randomness does not exist except as something that happens without it being intended by anyone.

 

Is the usefulness of the concept of randomness what matters not randomness?

 

For many thinkers, "randomness only seems to happen. An event happens the way it would if nothing at all were causing it. But in fact countless and unimaginable causes are making it produce the result. What matters to us is not that the event truly is random but that it is as useful as something that is really random and it must be down to blind forces. It looks random to us for there are too many causes involved for us to see them.  But we don't want to think all things are regimented but we will be happy if there are so many causes that we cannot fathom and which make a thing look really random.  We want to think we won the prize by chance even if there were countless causes we could not predict or see.  Random is useful as a concept not as a reality.  It does not matter if something is random as look as it manages to look random." 

 

Surely then it is important that most of these causes behind randomness NOT be intelligent or intentional?  That ruins the attraction.  Those who want to use randomness as a working hypothesis or a fantasy are being atheists in practice.  It will not do that an all-powerful God will let things be random for by letting he is still controlling.  Letting your dog out on to the road is still an act of control.


God and Randomness

 

If random meant something was popping into existence from nothing that would mean there is no need for the notion of a creator God. If God created it, it would not be random.

 

Resignation

 

If you see God as the being who rules all and knows all and whose will cannot be changed except by him then you will feel you must resign to it for defiance does nothing and can do nothing and only makes you feel worse about the terrible things he lets happen.

 

Whether God controls all things or lets things do their own thing (that is still control for he lets it happen) this lazy resignation will be on the table.

 

No Natural Evil

 

Religion worries about moral evil - bad things done intentionally by beings with a conscience.  Natural evil is evil that is not down to any free agent.  It may be seen as accidental evil or as good as.  Strictly speaking if there is a God then there is no natural evil.   For example, he creates earthquakes.

 

For the religious believer one event is an accident and another one is not.  It is very cherry picked.  A car crash that you walk away from is seen as planned by God but if you break your whole body it is seen as an accident.

 

Here is another way they employ this kind of unfair and selective reasoning.  They dismiss the fact that the way nature works is down to the direction accidents put it in.  An accident is never an event but a series.  A car crashes direct results are accidents too.  So if you find a money box thrown from a car in a crash you can't say it was not an accident as well.  You won't want to call it an accident for you see it as you getting lucky.

 

Another example.  They say it is God’s plan for women not to have abortions for God set up nature for women to nurture their unborn and born children.  But it is only luck that there are no cases where babies start off by themselves in children, men and women.  If that was happening we would definitely be using abortion especially if it happened to most people. We could as easily have that setup as the setup we have now. 

 

A mistake made in a schoolbook is categorised as an accident and nobody says God set up the mistake so it is essentially his - he simulates mistakes.  Mistakes are not really mistakes.

 

God's providential care

 

The idea that God looks after you just because others are suffering and dying not you is thin and superstitious.  You don't know what God NOT caring for you would look like.  So it is just a guess.  You use the suffering of others to over-value yourself and your benefits.

 

A bomb explodes outside your house when you are at the supermarket. Your house is reduced to rubble.  You say that if you had been at home you would be dead. Can you or should you say that if there is a God? What if God was so determined to keep you alive that being at home the bomb would have done no harm?  What if God's plan was that you would not be at home so there was no if? 

 

You talk about God's plan to spare you when you don't know if it is about you.  Perhaps he only spared you not for you but for something else?  There is arrogance in you.

 

Its random when it suits you to think its random

 

People seem to like the thought that we are puppets in a divine scheme one day and the next day they want to think that God himself takes risks with you and has made risk possible by allowing real accidents to happen.  So God can create randomness and some of us end up as victims of it.  The notion of a God who takes the risk of sending his son to die for you risks his love by offering to you when you are in danger of rejecting it is sheer sentimentalism and is impossible ESPECIALLY if there is a God. Yet for people of Christian faith it would be the main attraction.  The question of if accidents are real or not is an extremely important one for people suffer because of them and must be thought through and not treated so disrespectfully by flip-floppers.


Can an All-Powerful God who creates all let random events happen?

 

Nobody can give an argument telling us how God can cause all things and still cause events to be random.  They just assume it and say he can and hope you don't see the contradiction.

 

Believers say God can create creatures and things that he cannot control so that they can do random things. They would tell you, "God causes people and nature to be able to cause things themselves. So God's being a cause is not in competition with anything that has the power to be a cause. It empowers it to cause. God then is the cause of all things one way but this is compatible with you being the real cause of the decisions you make and the actions you perform."

 

To understand what we mean by creation it is helpful to see the doctrine as saying that God has more to do with what we are and do than we do. Creation being distant enough from God to diminish his responsibility for what happens in it is out. I may choose to hit a ball with a stick but God enables me to do it and choose it and enables the influences that cause me to do it. My own part if any is not even worth thinking about. And if I make a choice I make it because of God’s assistance and creative power and not against it.

 

You have a crate of wine. If you cause others to cause their drunkenness that does not make you any less of a cause. God causing you to cause things is still God causing things. If he makes you then he is the only important cause.  Even if you were independent you are still nothing compared to his role.  And there is no true independence for God giving it to you is still in control.  God giving you independence is not the same as a spouse giving it for the spouse is not your maker and the one giving you what you have.
 

Random means God is not involved. Or does it?  If all things come from God then God is involved.  He has far more to do with what something does than it has.  If something acts random it is still not random if there is a God.  The randomness is just a divine deception.

 

Continual Creation

 

God is supposed to have started the universe off so God is called the first cause. If there is a first cause that started all other causes and started the universe then what? Christians say that this first cause idea does not matter so much as the belief that God creates now for creation is not a past event but a continuing one. Yet the first cause looks like a first cause as in making a universe that was started off and wound up and left to run by itself. What does that say? That the first cause was not God or a creator.  A creator would only try to make it look like it did nothing but start the ball rolling if it did not want a relationship with us.  It would mean an impersonal creator.  It would not be God to us for it would be unworthy of worship. 

 

By the way, if a universe can do without God continually creating it it does not need him to start it off.

 

Fine-tuned

The universe is supposedly fine-tuned so that life on earth can happen. Believers might say that all can be random but the clever design of the universe and its being fine-tuned for life are not random. 

 

If God and randomness can agree, then it is possible that there could be a God and still a natural or non-God explanation for fine-tuning.

 

Biology

 

In evolutionary biology, what does random mean? Though evolution is believed to have started by chance it is not kept going by chance. The pattern came about by chance and so chance does not need to and cannot direct evolution.  The pattern is strictly speaking directing nothing - a snowflake is just what it is, something that looks designed but is not.  So randomness then is largely not about chance but means that changes happen regardless of whether they are useful to the creature or not.  The changes have resulted in a pattern that is useful for us now but may not be in a thousand years when the pattern makes us so advanced that we prove it is not real advancement when we blow ourselves into atoms in a nuclear conflagration. 

 

Believers in God say that God not chance rigged it so that the pattern would appear. Unbelievers say the pattern was created by chance but is not a pile of chances itself.  These views are incompatible.  One has intention and the other does not.

 

Can we choose one or the other? If so then God is not important. God is not God. God to be God cannot be a menu item.

 

Religion answers that God as an intelligent being is the only answer for random generates only disorder.

 

It is not true that chance creates only what we would see as useless chaos. It can cause a framework.

 

If God is directing evolution then we should speak of intention. Intentional guidance of evolution means evolution has nothing to do with chance.  It means that evolution is about intention and it is intention we should be dwelling on.  Evolution ceases to be a theory but a mere symptom of intention.  Intention becomes the real theory.

 

The appeal of saying that God and randomness are compatible

If God is the one true cause of all things then what room does all that leave for chance or randomness? Religion cannot say that God causes chance events to be chance. But sometimes it does say it. It is pretending that randomness can happen even in a universe kept in existence and ruled by almighty God. Religion likes this doctrine for it helps it face how science shows that the way the universe works is as if nothing intelligent is behind it at all. The notion that the universe looks designed so there must be a designing God is going out of fashion.

 

Free will
 
God causes all things and thus how they will behave. You have free will then because of God and not in spite of him which means there is no getting away from his control. A God who permits you to act is still controlling.
 
The doctrine that there are no accidents
 
A tremendous infinite sequence of events takes place thus enabling you to enjoy a coffee in x street at x time with x your friend at x o clock on x planet in x solar system ad infinitum. One major thing was how dinosaurs had to become extinct by what looks like an accident in order for man to even appear. Some might say the whole past is about making your coffee date happen! They might say, "Why not? The whole universe works together. There are no real accidents." If there are no real accidents then they are quite logical.
 
People fear that which will never be controlled so they run after miracles and see them as signs that there are forces that can take control and which probably will at some point.  They think belief in miracles helps their sense of meaning in life. Belief in miracles will not give you a real sense of meaning for they are said to be beyond the powers of the universe and an intrusion. It is the assumption you make that the universe won't always be left to do its own thing, but that benign intervention will take control that gives meaning. Most of the meaning comes not from belief in the miracles but in the assumptions you leap to. You find meaning in the mundane more than you realise. After all you spend most of your week thinking little about magic and miracles. Realise it and your problems with meaning in life will lessen or evaporate.
 
When somebody commits suicide, religious people have no problem saying, "She couldn't live without her job. He couldn't live without his child." That is really telling people that if they think they have no hope then they are right! They show at times like that what they really think! And they are the people who are part of a religion that tells atheists that they cannot have hope! If we really think life drove a person to suicide, then it follows that suicide is to be responded to like an accidental death. The thought that your loved ones will not take it personally if you take your own life will only encourage you. You will reason that people have to suffer whatever time you die anyway so their pain will not put you off. Religion has the same flaws as the hypocritical society it emerges from. It is no help.
 
Prayer and chance
 
Believers seem happy with prayer though they must see it works no better than chance does. Do they want to believe that God uses chance to answer prayer? They act that way. There must be a buzz in imagining that chance is on your side. And it is arrogant because if chance is chance it cannot be on anybody's side.  Chance is that which God will not interfere with or control so to feel it is on your side makes you feel stronger than God!

 

Many religious people mean chance when they talk about the good things they have got from God.  They make chance their God when it seems to favour them.  The religious divinisation of chance is what religion's faith with its terrible doctrines is based on. For example, Hell and original sin and the goodness of people being left to suffer by God.  To say that a good God can let these things happen or decree them is to declare chance to be God.  Those doctrines when based on an evil foundation must be evil themselves even if they would be okay on another foundation.

 

Randomness makes God a deceiver for it is superficial randomness. It is not random at all but a lie.  When people pray to such a God it is really chance they are invoking for you cannot really trust a God like that!!

Random makes God cruel

Why do people want the idea of God to agree with the idea of random?  Why does God make randomness?  Is it to let bad things happen? If so then genuine respect for goodness does not exist. Randomness is an amoral neutral act with a neutral amoral intention.

 

If there are a million events and one of them is random and the rest are not then that is absurd. The one cannot be random.  The other events make it what it is and give it what ever room to act they want to so it is not truly random.

 

If the event kills then God is responsible.

 

If there are two random events then there is randomness. The more events that are random the more things are left to happen by sheer chance and without any purpose. If God allows three random events and people die then he has not got total responsibility for that but a lot. If he allows four then he is less responsible. Even if he allows a billion random events he still has some responsibility.  Somebody is still dead and everybody is at risk of being killed and its because he chose to make it possible and decreed how random it would be.  Would a cancer doctor be good if he did not help person x but set it up for chance to do the trick?

The risk

Risk and evil make an interesting combination. Risk is seen as good if it can lead to something good. Risk is seen as bad if it leads to something bad. Whether risk is good or bad is assessed not by the motive but by the result. So a risk by itself is merely morally neutral or nothing to do with being moral or immoral.
 
The idea that evil and sin are worth the risk of you doing good instead presumes that risk is a good thing which is nonsense. It is about the consequences not the risk.
 
For that reason the notion that evil fits an all-loving God is absurd.

The random can plunge you into great happiness or untold misery. Random is seeking something good but at a risk. Wanting riches or a bicycle or any thing is not worth the risk. If you seek them at such a great risk then you are being self-destructive or putting what is okay for you before what is safer or better for you. And praying for a bike for others is invoking the random into the life of another and thus is other-destructive. You even have people who invoke the random for others but they would not want it for themselves.  You cannot risk yourself without risking others.  A risk will strike somebody else if you elude it.  With all these facts to hand, is it any wonder that some of the most prayerful people who ever lived have been the most toxic and the most dangerous? Is it any wonder they are aflame with violent religious passion that leaves many innocent people dead in its wake?

 

The past

 

When we say something terrible in the past should not have happened we mean and only mean that the forces of chance should have fell in a better random order.  And if free agents with free will did the harm it does not matter at all now for they cannot go back and choose differently.  What matters is that the bad thing happened and sadly cannot be undone.  The past being left in the past is a principle and it is the truth for the past really is in the past even if we try for it not to be.  Deliberately bad acts are in the past and really only matter when they are about to happen.  Thus our desire for justice is essentially a desire for revenge.  So even if we want to believe that morality matters what good does it do?  It is foolish to say we need faith in a moral God's plan and this saves us from randomness for it saves us from damn all.  Random or not it does not help us with the past.
 
Conclusion
 
God and random are incompatible. We need to believe that accidents really are accidents so belief in God must be discarded.