Creation By Chance Is Absurd!
I remember one day we were outside the office building where I used to work in Finance along with a group of people witnessing a solar eclipse – this was in Florida sometime in 2017. After such a wonderful spectacle I said to my co-workers “what a magnificent creation our universe is”. The guy next to me, an engineer, began to laugh:
Man: “Creation?? What are you talking about?” he said in a demeaning way.
Me: “Yes, creation. Why do you ask? What other possible explanation can there be for such a perfect cosmos?”
Man: “Chance! The universe was created by chance!”
And this is where the fun began…
You see, chance creation is another form of self-creation. I explained self-creation in another article, which you can find here, but just as a reminder, in that article I explain why self-creation is absurd and an impossibility. I explained that for something to create itself it would have to be before it is. Nothing can self create because self-creation violates the logical rule of non-contradiction. If the universe created itself, what was it before it managed to create itself? And what was it before then to manage to turn into the form that would end up forming itself into this universe? I get a headache just thinking about it.
Pseudo science has realized that self-creation is an impossibility so they use another term for it: chance. The main objective of these “scientists” is not to explain how the universe came to be, but rather to do so assuming that there is no God. The working assumption for them is not “let’s look at all the options, including the possibility that God exists” but rather “since God doesn’t exist, how do we explain reality?”. Any true scientist would immediately realize that, when you eliminate an option because you don’t like it, then whatever conclusions you draw are not scientific. The method you’re using is not truly scientific because you’re not considering ALL available options.
Think about it this way: there’s a murder scene and the detective assigned to the case is a young man in his 30s. He walks into the crime scene and sees that the victim, a man in his 60s lying on the floor of his mansion’s study, has a beautiful young wife in her 30s who the detective knows because they both attended the same high school together. She and the detective had been sweethearts and he has fond memories of her. The victim is covered in blood due to multiple gunshots. The wife, or widow at this point, is also covered in blood and tells the story of how she found her husband just lying there on the floor and called 911. Now the detective feels an instant attraction for the mourning widow so, as he begins his investigation, he refuses to consider the wife as a suspect because his fond memories of her tell him she couldn’t possibly be the murderer, even though she herself is covered in blood. He assumes that she just got all this blood on her clothes by touching the dead body. That’s the detective’s working assumption and he won’t even consider the possibility that she might be the killer. Based on what he knows about her 20 years ago he doesn’t even take precautions to ensure that her hands are tested for gun powder, to see if she was the shooter. This is what these pseudo scientists are doing when they try to explain the existence of this perfect universe – they’re refusing to consider that perhaps there is a God and He’s the Creator of all things. Therefore, they’re not using proper scientific method but rather they allow their biases to fool them.
Now, how do we know that there is no chance that chance has anything to do with how the universe came to be?
It’s simple, really. We’re going to use language and logic. So, let’s get started.
In order to properly understand why chance has no chance of ever being the explanation for the universe’s existence, let me bring to the discussion this example that will clarify what chance is and how we use the term – therefore, applying proper language.
Suppose I have a coin that I will toss. What are the odds of it turning up heads or tails?
The answer is, 100%, of course. You see, if you thought the answer was 50% you need to read my question again. Since I said “heads OR tails”, I’m including both results. The coin is either going to land on its head or on its tail. So since these are the only two choices, the chance of the coin landing on either one of these two choices is 100%.
Now, let me change that question: what are the odds of the coin landing on its head?
Now the answer is 50%.
What causes it to land on its head?
Well, it’s going to depend on how high I toss it, the force that I apply, whether it starts on its head or tail, whether I catch it at a higher point or a lower point or whether I let it land on the floor, whether it rolls over as it lands on the floor, whether I flip it over after I catch it in the air or pick it up from the floor, whether there’s wind and so on. All these things have an influence on the result.
The next question that comes to mind is this: what influence did chance have on the result?
You’re probably scratching your head right now. So keep this question in mind while I present to you another alternative: suppose that, rather than me tossing that coin we have a robot arm in a vacuum, with no wind, where I can adjust the force applied to the coin and where it’s going to land, and I make sure that every time the coin’s starting point is heads. Would this controlled experiment increase the odds of it landing on its head?
The answer, of course, is yes. Because I control the environment (strength, starting point, no wind, etc) the coin will always land on its head because the factors influencing the result are those that we’ve just mentioned.
So let me ask you again: what influence did chance have on the result?
The answer is none! No influence whatsoever. Chance is not a factor. Chance is a word that we use to establish mathematical possibilities. It’s not a real thing with the power to do anything. It’s a mental concept that we’ve created in our heads such that we can calculate mathematical probabilities that an event may take place. But in and of itself it doesn’t have any power. It cannot do anything because chance isn’t anything. It’s not a thing. It has no being. Since it has no being it therefore has no power. Chance is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. I can toss a coin or I can build a robot to toss a coin because I’m something, I have being, I am a human being. As such, I have the power to do things. But chance has no being, it’s nothing and it therefore has no power to do things.
So these pseudo scientists are trying to convince us that NOTHING can produce EVERYTHING. Not only are they giving chance power, but they’re giving it the SUPREME power of creation! And they mock us for thinking that God is the creator? Isn’t it funny?
Back to my story about the engineer. He didn’t come to accept that God exists (though I never saw him again, as shortly after that I relocated to another State), but his face was somewhat pale when I was challenging his assumptions. Whether he spent any more time thinking about these things after that day is unclear to me, but what I must say is that anyone spending some time analyzing the chance theory will have to accept the fact that the theory is irrational. It’s a form of self-creation that does not belong in science.
Man: “Creation?? What are you talking about?” he said in a demeaning way.
Me: “Yes, creation. Why do you ask? What other possible explanation can there be for such a perfect cosmos?”
Man: “Chance! The universe was created by chance!”
And this is where the fun began…
You see, chance creation is another form of self-creation. I explained self-creation in another article, which you can find here, but just as a reminder, in that article I explain why self-creation is absurd and an impossibility. I explained that for something to create itself it would have to be before it is. Nothing can self create because self-creation violates the logical rule of non-contradiction. If the universe created itself, what was it before it managed to create itself? And what was it before then to manage to turn into the form that would end up forming itself into this universe? I get a headache just thinking about it.
Pseudo science has realized that self-creation is an impossibility so they use another term for it: chance. The main objective of these “scientists” is not to explain how the universe came to be, but rather to do so assuming that there is no God. The working assumption for them is not “let’s look at all the options, including the possibility that God exists” but rather “since God doesn’t exist, how do we explain reality?”. Any true scientist would immediately realize that, when you eliminate an option because you don’t like it, then whatever conclusions you draw are not scientific. The method you’re using is not truly scientific because you’re not considering ALL available options.
Think about it this way: there’s a murder scene and the detective assigned to the case is a young man in his 30s. He walks into the crime scene and sees that the victim, a man in his 60s lying on the floor of his mansion’s study, has a beautiful young wife in her 30s who the detective knows because they both attended the same high school together. She and the detective had been sweethearts and he has fond memories of her. The victim is covered in blood due to multiple gunshots. The wife, or widow at this point, is also covered in blood and tells the story of how she found her husband just lying there on the floor and called 911. Now the detective feels an instant attraction for the mourning widow so, as he begins his investigation, he refuses to consider the wife as a suspect because his fond memories of her tell him she couldn’t possibly be the murderer, even though she herself is covered in blood. He assumes that she just got all this blood on her clothes by touching the dead body. That’s the detective’s working assumption and he won’t even consider the possibility that she might be the killer. Based on what he knows about her 20 years ago he doesn’t even take precautions to ensure that her hands are tested for gun powder, to see if she was the shooter. This is what these pseudo scientists are doing when they try to explain the existence of this perfect universe – they’re refusing to consider that perhaps there is a God and He’s the Creator of all things. Therefore, they’re not using proper scientific method but rather they allow their biases to fool them.
Now, how do we know that there is no chance that chance has anything to do with how the universe came to be?
It’s simple, really. We’re going to use language and logic. So, let’s get started.
In order to properly understand why chance has no chance of ever being the explanation for the universe’s existence, let me bring to the discussion this example that will clarify what chance is and how we use the term – therefore, applying proper language.
Suppose I have a coin that I will toss. What are the odds of it turning up heads or tails?
The answer is, 100%, of course. You see, if you thought the answer was 50% you need to read my question again. Since I said “heads OR tails”, I’m including both results. The coin is either going to land on its head or on its tail. So since these are the only two choices, the chance of the coin landing on either one of these two choices is 100%.
Now, let me change that question: what are the odds of the coin landing on its head?
Now the answer is 50%.
What causes it to land on its head?
Well, it’s going to depend on how high I toss it, the force that I apply, whether it starts on its head or tail, whether I catch it at a higher point or a lower point or whether I let it land on the floor, whether it rolls over as it lands on the floor, whether I flip it over after I catch it in the air or pick it up from the floor, whether there’s wind and so on. All these things have an influence on the result.
The next question that comes to mind is this: what influence did chance have on the result?
You’re probably scratching your head right now. So keep this question in mind while I present to you another alternative: suppose that, rather than me tossing that coin we have a robot arm in a vacuum, with no wind, where I can adjust the force applied to the coin and where it’s going to land, and I make sure that every time the coin’s starting point is heads. Would this controlled experiment increase the odds of it landing on its head?
The answer, of course, is yes. Because I control the environment (strength, starting point, no wind, etc) the coin will always land on its head because the factors influencing the result are those that we’ve just mentioned.
So let me ask you again: what influence did chance have on the result?
The answer is none! No influence whatsoever. Chance is not a factor. Chance is a word that we use to establish mathematical possibilities. It’s not a real thing with the power to do anything. It’s a mental concept that we’ve created in our heads such that we can calculate mathematical probabilities that an event may take place. But in and of itself it doesn’t have any power. It cannot do anything because chance isn’t anything. It’s not a thing. It has no being. Since it has no being it therefore has no power. Chance is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. I can toss a coin or I can build a robot to toss a coin because I’m something, I have being, I am a human being. As such, I have the power to do things. But chance has no being, it’s nothing and it therefore has no power to do things.
So these pseudo scientists are trying to convince us that NOTHING can produce EVERYTHING. Not only are they giving chance power, but they’re giving it the SUPREME power of creation! And they mock us for thinking that God is the creator? Isn’t it funny?
Back to my story about the engineer. He didn’t come to accept that God exists (though I never saw him again, as shortly after that I relocated to another State), but his face was somewhat pale when I was challenging his assumptions. Whether he spent any more time thinking about these things after that day is unclear to me, but what I must say is that anyone spending some time analyzing the chance theory will have to accept the fact that the theory is irrational. It’s a form of self-creation that does not belong in science.