Summations Only

For example my MP3 player has a random play button. It isn't actually random, there is some sort of algorithm that determines the next song to play. But we all use the word random for what it does.
This is much less random than the example of rolling the dice, but no one has a problem calling it random.

You are completely and utterly missing my point.A deterministic universe is completely non-random.If you can't get that, then I give up. False. Unpredictability is not randomness. Its a lack of information. Why are you so reluctant to understand that determinism prevents randomness?

Just FYI, I won't respond to what you write to me.

Die rolling for any practical purpose is completely random.
In the context Faith brought it up, she implied a god controlled result, as opposed to how everyone sees randomness and how the term is generally, ubiquitously used.So I see no value in taking a common sense random event like die rolling.... dissecting to a microscopic level and determine if you had every piece of information before hand. You could predict it.
You can't have every piece of info except in theory. Practically..nope.Why is the practical random event of rolling a die such an issue because I use " random" the way every single logical person, in this context, would?I need a heading beating wall type icon. :-))

Hi Golffy, I've been reading your posts with interest.Some things you need to know about the people here. You'll see that most of your combatants have been here for many, many years. If you look back over the threads, you'll also find that every possible combinations of discussions about both religion and evolution has already been had. It's rare to find something to argue about that hasn't already been done to death here many times.Consequently what we have here are a bunch of die hards - often extraordinarily intelligent and often very knowledgeable people who are unfortunatley also contrary twats who simply like to argue for no other purpose other than to argue when nothing much else is happening. It gets extremely tiresome at times, especially if you're really trying to sort something out.So it's important to log fairly quickly when you're just being trolled and who most is likely to be doing it. Then back out of pointless discussions when it's obvious that there's nothing more useful likely to be found.'nuff said.

Sure, no problem.Maybe not "completely", but your point is not lost. Pretty much, but not exactly.For example, you could just drop the die straight down from a height of 1 mm and the only force on it would be gravity.If the 6 was face up when you dropped it, then the 6 would still be face up when it landed on the table, and you could predict the result every time.You'd complain that the roll wasn't fair, and you'd be right, but that's only because we didn't introduce enough forces to make the result look random.Since it was so easy to predict the result, wouldn't you say that it was not random?What if I slid it across the table so that there was also a lateral force, but not enough to make it roll off of the six-side facing up? Wouldn't you say that it was still not random?Why, then, if I add an additional force that makes us unable to predict the result, do you all of the sudden start calling it random?If you insist that every roll must be random, then you must also admit that when I drop it from 1 mm that it is random as well. But you won't be able to say that.What you are calling complete randomness, is actually only a complications of the number of forces that makes us unable to predict the result.But if we did know those forces, then we could predict it. So how can it really be random? Isn't it just the appearance of randomness?I agree that for all intents and purposes, we're totally fine with calling it random.I'm just pointing out that it actually isn't. The only reason I'm insisting on the point is because of the way you were ridiculing the idea.You were acting as if it was so hilarious that someone would even make the claim that there's nothing to do but laugh at it. But in actuality, the claim turns out to be true and you're left with egg on your face.So sure, a die roll is random.But its not really random from the point of view of the laws of physics. Every roll is just the result of a bunch of forces acting on the die in a completely predictable manner.

Tangle,
Thank you.
I read, just briefly some other threads. I don't "know" the personalities very well. I am impressed with the intelligence though. It's high level, in my opinion.
I can screw myself over just as nicely as some other guys. I haven't really seen, what I'd call trolling. Not quitting..sure.
But I could easily be a nave newbie getting worked over by some smart guys. It's possible.
Anyway, I try not to be too cynical about anybody and save that for religion:-))
I appreciate the helpful advice and really everybody has been just fine here, I'm far from perfect myself and full of my own flaws.
I have little doubt the boys have seen arguments before. That seems likely. Seems to be a veteran group of discussers actually.
I "might" get better at this.
Thanks

Because when someone says roll the dice, they mean roll the dice. Not drop it from 1mm high. That would be dropping the dice from 1mm. I think there would be some friction too and probably some other forces. No I do no not think so. Someone could bump the table, high wind could come up, earthquake. So you could not predict the result EVERY time.

How many philosophical views have you looked at?
Because what I see, in general ( not saying it applies to you), is people born to the correct parents, in the correct geography, end up with the correct religion. Just "roll the dice on what religion that is". Then once fully ladled, they can't see anything else, all the while claiming they can. Does this read as extreme indoctrination?If you have rehashed all this many times prior and don't feel like going over it again. No problem.

Christians, probably like most theists, tend to have an inability to consider anything contrary or critical to their beliefs. Instead of looking at evidence objectively, they throw out the evidence, dig in their heels and spout dogma.
That is why they can be so easy to defeat logically, logic is not usually part of their argument. To them logic and evidence is a negative. Something they feel would weaken their arguments. All you have to do is follow our resident fundies to see this in action.

I have read most of the Book of Buddha and have gone through the Qu'ran as well as reading books on comparative religions. Certainly all of the things that you mention are going to have an impact on what religion we choose. For that matter someone born in the western world is more likely to choose atheism than someone in other parts of the world.Actually, if you read the Bible carefully it is clear that in the NT it isn't people that get their theology right that are serving God but those who have hearts that love unselfishly. Just read Matthew 25 and the sheep and the goats. The sheep were the ones who fed the hungry, visited the prisoners etc without any idea that they were doing these things for God. They just did them because it was what people with loving hearts do. There was no mention have believing the right doctrine.All of the major world religions have as part of their doctrine some version of the "Golden Rule". God reaches out to all mankind, (even atheists )and all mankind can respond to that still small loving voice of God regardless of theology.However I do believe that in the case of Jesus God did do something unique. I believe that His Word or wisdom was made incarnate in Jesus and that through Him He established a Kingdom of all people tasked with reflecting His love, justice, peace etc into the world. I realize that when you look at the church it doesn't always look that way but on the other hand there is a great deal of good being done by individuals in the church. There is an 85 year old woman from our relatively small church who next week is going to Kampala to work in an AIDS hospital there for a month. As a retired nurse she has been doing this for several years now. Our local surgeon from a different church gives up his practice for a month very year to go to Zambia to volunteer in the hospital there.I think that so often that we are inclined to look at religion as a way to get God on our side so that He will serve our purposes in this life and/or the next, which is what leads to questions such as you just asked. The point should be not be how do we get God to serve our purposes, but how we can serve His purposes. How is it that by reading arguments for against the resurrection and coming to a conclusion is extreme indoctrination. The best debates IMHO on the subject are between NT Wright and Dom Crossan or Marcus Borg. I am assuming that jar would take Crossan's or Borg's position whereas I find Wright's views more compelling. It isn't indoctrination at all. It is simply the very human search for what is truth. We aren't all going to come to the same conclusions as we all on faith establish a worldview. I have concluded that my understanding of Christianity is the best worldview on offer.One other quick question. In an early post where you listed all those questions, you mentioned unfulfilled prophesies of Jesus. Could you give me a Biblical reference for what you were referring to.Cheers

You haven't shown that "most everyone" of those old dudes were superstitious. I'm guessing that most logical ancients probably thought casting lots was random and that they actually wanted random results when they cast lots. That's the take I get from reading the Bible. I'd take this further to say that superstition is by definition illogical thinking. On the other hand, superstition seems to be highly present among groups of people today, so maybe we don't want to conclude that modern people are typically logical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nicely said, Golffly.

Yes, this makes my point better than I did. There is a history of cause and effect behind every event that occurs, a complex chain or in fact a multiplicity of chains of cause and effect, and that is what we can't see or trace, leaving us with the assumption of randomness although every single link the chain has a cause that has a cause that has a cause etc.. I assume spiritual causes at work in the chains though others may not.I remember being impressed with one description of Buddhist meditation I found many years ago, that described its goal as becoming free of karma, by learning in deep concentrated meditation how to trace the causes and effects that make you subject to karmic effects. It's a pretty esoteric idea about a terrifically laborious practice and it's hard to believe it's possible, but it supports the idea of a universe that is shot through with complex causes and effects.

Theodoric,
That is pretty much what I think.
They can't look at contrary evidence without bias. Not possible.