mofo said:

Isn't the assumption of random input into a system framed by rational theory analogous to a theistic explanation of things?  It just seems to me that it allows one to gloss over a very important part of the mechanism or reality.

---

Quote:

Is it really random? or does it just appear random to humans?

---

mofo said:

Or can it even be understood at any deeper level than it is already?

---

Quote:

If our brains were simple enough for us to easily understand, we would be so simple that we couldn't understand them.

---

DieCommie said:

I dont buy it.  I think there are things that are impossible to make a correct prediction, and there is no inherent difference between 'really' random and something we can never predict.  Creating a distinction between the two, which we can never know, is 'mental masturbation' (for lack of a better phrase).

---

Tchan909 said:

I think the point here is that atheism is just as irrational and faith-based as fervent religiosity, which I generally tend to agree with.

---

How did atheism jump into this thread? I do side with the OP that our current explanation of there being random events, with no further inquiry into their causes, is akin to proposing God as an explanation for some event--both are equally unprovable and ultimately uninteresting.  But if you're gonna say atheism is just as irrational as fervent religiosity, I have a bone to pick with ya.

Fervent atheism, as defined by the adamant belief that there is NO god, is just as unprovable as fervent theism (the belief that there IS a god.)  But to say that this places them on an equal footing is foolish, IMO.  I can hold the belief that invisible pink unicorns exist, but you would hardly call that belief as irrational as the belief that invisible pink unicorns DON'T exist.  Even though agnosticism is the only truly tenable logical position (tenable as it doesn't say anything at all :P), there is a certain force of probability that makes leaning towards one side or the other preferable to sitting on the middle of the fence-post.

The Cypher said:

Fervent atheism, as defined by the adamant belief that there is NO god, is just as unprovable as fervent theism (the belief that there IS a god.)

---

Quote:

But to say that this places them on an equal footing is foolish, IMO.

---

It all depends on the individual, and what relationship he or she would like to have with reality.

Belief OR disbelief in the universe as a body or brain of a supreme being doesn't even tangentially involve rational thought - it's a matter of personal choice, personal perspective, what makes sense to you more than the other ideas.

So pink unicorns probably don't exist, but I find things such as the absolute/objective nature of consciousness to be a MUCH grayer area of knowledge than the presence on earth of magical fairy creatures.

I'd like to dance naked through the forests giving offerings to the Great Mother, myself, but I know people would look at me funny. I'm weak.

Quote:

The Cypher said: ...but how do you propose to prove that there are things we will never be able to make a correct prediction about

---

The Cypher said:

I'm just curious... what examples would you give from science that we can't predict?

---

Boots said:

Sort of like playing random songs on your iTunes. Operating within the laws of the computers given instructions, these songs will never be fully random, just as close to random as it can be.

---