Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

I would say that probability is a quantification of chance. Probability theory was initially created (by Pascal and Fermat) to deal with gambling.There is absolutely no requirement for the probabilities to be intentionally pre-determined. Naturally the probabilities Pascal and Fermat were looking at were not known in advance - that is what the theory was for.

The idea of a deterministic universe is destroyed by quantum theory.Quantum randomness is truly random, it can't be predetermined no matter how much information you gather. It's not a function of not knowing enough to figure out what will happen, we *can't* know what will happen because randomness is a function of the thing itself.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principleMomentum v position
Energy v timeBecause of the very nature of this universe the more precise we try to measure one of each pair the less precise we can measure the other. These are not limits to our technology but limits in the properties of canonically conjugate variables themselves. Bohr's principle of complementarity.Edited by AZPaul3, : Opps ... add source

Are you certain?

The Universe is a simulation based on strings (String Theory). Whatever created strings is the creator of the Universe. It is the number of strings that shows intelligent design. There are enough strings to create 200 sextillion stars, one of which would have the random development of a planet to create life.

Within a high degree of probability.

I just want to add that it is non compassionate intelligent design.

Yet what we see is at best ignorant design, inept design and design humans have been having to fix for hundreds if not millions of years.

My point is that probability and chance are the same thing.
You're still trying to claim that they're not.But, if we take your quote, and interchange "probability" and "chance"... it reads exactly the same.You're making up a difference that doesn't exist.
You're allowed to do that - but you're not allowed to suggest that everyone else should accept it because it feeds nicely into other arguments you'd like to make.Your original quote:

quote:

---

What I mean is that probability is strictly measured...when they make random chip generators for slot machines or print a million lottery tickets, there is a known probability of precisely which ones will be winners and how much they will pay. It is predetermined. The universe, if it arose solely by chance, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to you, a set probability.

---

Modified by swapping "probability" and "chance:"

quote:

---

What I mean is that chance is strictly measured...when they make random chip generators for slot machines or print a million lottery tickets, there is a known chance of precisely which ones will be winners and how much they will pay. It is predetermined. The universe, if it arose solely by probability, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to you, a set chance.

---

The words "probability" and "chance" have nothing to do with the point (I think) you're attempting to make.
It only adds confusion, I'd drop it if you'd like to actually make your point and not create confusion.I think you're trying to say something along the lines of:Slot machines have a chance/probability that is strictly known.
The universe, if it arose by chance/probability, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to Stile, a set chance/probability.To get to (what I think is) your point:1. I don't claim that the universe arose "from" a mindless math concept in any way - regardless of if it had a set chance/probability or not.
2. If anything, I may have previously claimed that if the universe arose from a mindless process, then that process may be able to be described mathematically - and that description may or may not include chance/probability.
3. I do think the universe arose from a mindless process (but I'm open to being shown to be wrong - as I openly don't know much about the beginning of the universe.)
4. I think the universe arising from a mindless process is infinitely more amazing that a universe arising from an intelligence of some sort.
-We know that intelligence is quite capable of creating things within their means - we do it all the time
-I know that many other intelligences are superior to mine and such intelligences are capable of creating-things-within-their-means that I could never do
-Why would I be impressed by one more "other intelligence" that's also "superior to mine" that is also capable of "creating-things-within-their-means that I could never do?"What I would find impressive - is if no intelligence was involved at all to create all we see and experience.
That would be novel.

Probability and chance, by definition, are exactly the same thing.
If you want to define them differently than everyone else - you're free to do so, but you're only adding confusion to whatever-other-point you're trying to make. I don't wish to argue such a thing.
But if I did, it would be easy to explain who or what determined the probability into concrete terms: It was determined by the constraints of reality itself.How can reality become to exist in a way that reality can't exist?
Reality can only exist as it is capable of existing. That is, if reality arose in a way that it couldn't exist - it wouldn't arise at all.
Therefore, if it's going to exist on it's own - it needs must do so by the limitations inherent within itself. Eh.
I don't think I'll be getting around to that, sorry. He tries to define chance and probability as two different things, and use that confusion to mask the actual confusion he's creating with his own argument.

Remember the last time he embellished (to say it politely) his apocryphal story of the physicist from Harvard banging is forehead in recognition of an error no Harvard physicist would have ever accepted in the first place.That is all it takes for me to discount to zero anything else this charlatan cares to spew forth.I'll pass.

Sproul does like his own voice. I bet he gets paid not just by the word but by the syllable. He has yet to find anything simple that he cannot make complex and inscrutable. Not word salad but rather the Salad Bar.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

Sproul is dead, by the way. But essentially are you saying that Sproul makes simple things mysterious? Simple answers are not complete. You say that God lied. I say that the answer surely *must* be deeper, since we already know that God cannot lie nor would have any need to lie.

How do we know that?

Scripture tells us. Also common sense. There is no rational reason nor need for God to lie.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.