... what a nice way to lend credibility to your statements. It's almost as if someone who is religious shouldn't be afforded the same respect as one who isn't.
But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern. You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.
Funny how we assume that something is random just because we don't see an apparent pattern. IMHO it's a fatal assumption in your logic.
None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe
For randomness being such an abundant feature, we sure haven't been able to reproduce it... in science or otherwise. In fact, one of the fundamental requirements of science is the ability to test a theory and reproduce the outcome given a set of constant inputs. Cause and effect. Take software, for example:
srand(time(0));
float fFakeRandomNumber = rand();
We have a pseudo-RNG that really all it does is produce an apparent random number. The important part is the first command... you gotta seed the RNG, and if you later seed the same RNG with the same value, you'll find that the outcome isn't random at all, it's just a cleverly designed algorithm that uses known constructs to produce known values... just in a fashion that mimics randomness.
Listen, I'm not denying the existence of randomness... I'm just say that nothing is always as it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
"Disclaimer - I am NOT religious."
... what a nice way to lend credibility to your statements. It's almost as if someone who is religious shouldn't be afforded the same respect as one who isn't.
What a sad world we live in.
But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern. You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.
Funny how we assume that something is random just because we don't see an apparent pattern. IMHO it's a fatal assumption in your logic.
None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe
For randomness being such an abundant feature, we sure haven't been able to reproduce it... in science or otherwise. In fact, one of the fundamental requirements of science is the ability to test a theory and reproduce the outcome given a set of constant inputs. Cause and effect. Take software, for example:
srand(time(0));
float fFakeRandomNumber = rand();
We have a pseudo-RNG that really all it does is produce an apparent random number. The important part is the first command... you gotta seed the RNG, and if you later seed the same RNG with the same value, you'll find that the outcome isn't random at all, it's just a cleverly designed algorithm that uses known constructs to produce known values... just in a fashion that mimics randomness.
Listen, I'm not denying the existence of randomness... I'm just say that nothing is always as it seems.