"Random Chance" Is Not Science
It's sometimes claimed that the universe could have started due to a random event. For example:
What caused the Big Bang itself?
For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.
At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
I argue that the concept of true randomness, or "acausality", cannot be considered as "science", because it is conceptually it's opposite.
A Binary Choice
Materialism is limited in it's options for how to explain the origins of the universe. There are only two options and one of them is "God"...
An explanation for the existence of the universe comes down to a binary choice. Either it was created intentionally by an intelligence for a purpose, or it was created unintentionally by an unintelligent thing for no purpose. Those are the only two options.
- An unintelligent creator: E.g. "Random chance" ("Quantum Foam" etc...)
Universe was created unintentionally by an unintelligent thing for no purpose.
Something from nothing.
- An intelligent creator. E.g. "God"
created intentionally by an intelligence for a purpose.
Something from something.
Materialism only has one option. It must hold that the universe began due to a non-intelligent primary-cause. A "random" event.
But the concept of random, probabilistic, "uncaused" events are a dead-end for science...
Acausal: No Cause
acausal: not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect.
“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal.
In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
In quantum physics, the timing of radioactive decay, for example, is random (“undetermined,” “acausal”).
There is no cause that triggers the nucleus of a radioactive atom .... (to) decay.
If an event has no cause though, it can't be explained or understood.
Explanation Requires A Cause
In order to understand a thing, & to explain it, we (only) have to understand WHY it exists.
A phone would be incomprehensible to a primitive culture because they wouldn't understand it's purpose. They wouldn't need to understand how it worked, or was made, or by whom, or when. They only would need to understand why it exists to understand it. I.e. "It's for talking to people who are far away."
Purpose / reason-for-existing is what defines a thing. If we can't explain WHY the thing exists, we don't understand it, by definition.
Therefore, if the purpose of science is to explain things, it must always assume a cause, and work to find it.
Acausal Is The Antithesis Of Science
antithesis: the direct opposite.
If something is truly random/acausal, then it can't be known. Science can't be done on it, it's outside the scope of knowledge.
Acausality is the end, and negation of science.
Genuine randomness, if it existed, would defy & undermine science. It would make the foundations of the universe forever unknowable, and render science ultimately impotent in it's quest to "understand the universe".
Acausality is an effect without a cause - equivalent to "something from nothing". It's illogical. We never observe something coming from nothing, science must be based on observation, therefore it's not science.
An effect without a cause within the universe implies a supernatural deity "reaching into" the universe & making changes, thus the only difference between 'Acausal' and 'God' is the level of intelligence, i.e. The former has none.
Acausal is Unprovable
There can never be any evidence that any phenomena is truly random.
It's an unprovable hypothesis: There could always be an underlying mechanism we don't know about.
Science / Mysticism
I know these words can be defined in different ways, but I suggest "science" and "mysticism" can be viewed as a duality:
Underlying science is the belief that the universe is knowable by the human mind.
Underlying mysticism is the belief that the universe is not knowable by the human mind.
Science says we can know the universe. Mysticism says the universe will forever be a mystery.
Acausal is, by this definition, a mystical claim. It states the universe is beyond knowledge.
Isn't "God-Theory" Also Anti-Science?
Unlike "acausal" which is a dead-end for science, "God-theory" allows science to continue.
While materialism states the universe has no purpose, if there's an intelligent creator then the universe exists for a reason, it has a purpose, and we can investigate what that might be.
The theory that the universe was created intentionally opens up a potential area of investigation that materialism closes down.
If there is no overarching reason for the universe, there is no ultimate "why" it exists, then that's the same as saying it has no explanation, it's beyond human knowledge.
Any true explanation needs to describe the "why" of the thing. If there is no why, then nothing can be explained.
This is why modern science has lost the ability to truly explain things, and all it has is models which describe "how" things work. The ideology of materialism has permeated science and taken away all ultimate meaning.
There's no advertising on this website.