Is it logical to assume Random Chance serves as the first Cause for Existence (e.g. Big Bang, Life, etc.)?

Answer 1

No. Logically and mathematically the odds of life simply happening are about 100 billion to one.

And as far as the "big bang", where did the material come from?

Answer 2

That rather oversimplifies the ideas presented in the big bang theory and others.

However, since the above theories are "scientific" they are in fact "logical" because the scientific method is all about "logic".

Note that the above are not "laws" but "theories". They are put forth as likely explanations of the way things happened based on what can be "observed" and they generate predictions as to what else would be expected to be "observed" if they are correct. Experimentation helps to confirm or disprove these theories and once the latter is done a new theory is promulgated that fits the new observations.

Religion on the other hand is based on "faith" rather than "logic" and it is sad that people that claim to "believe" often feel it necessary to "prove" they are correct rather than "show" they believe by their actions. Religion can NOT be "proven" by empirical evidence and most of the texts (Bible, Quran etc...) specifically tell you that God's methods can not be understood by man so no "logic" would help you discern it and also that it is wrong to try to do so.

Answer 3

Sure. There's ample evidence of the probabilistic nature of matter in quantum physics.

However, your examples are skewed. It may have been the cause of the universe, as some sort of huge quantum event, though we'll probably never know. It may be that this universe is just one of an infinite number of others. Until we have evidence either way, the most we can say is that when it happened, we got the Big Bang. Inserting "God did it" into the explanation really doesn't add to it.

As for life, that wasn't really random, though randomness was a factor. Life was actively shaped by the environment. The nature of carbon atoms, not randomness, causes them to form strings. The temperature and make up of the Earth caused them to have the resources they did and multiply. The various stresses of the environment caused some to thrive better than others. In all of this, randomness provided the opportunity for change, though the actual shape of life was molded by the environment.

Answer 4

It sure serves as the cause of a lot of things. But there is more order then you think to things like the Big Bang and life. It isn't all random.

Answer 5

In order for random chance to be a logical choice then there would have to be an explanation of events that would lead to the conditions that we currently observe. No such explanation currently exists and as such it is not logical to choose random chance on the extreme possibility that it occurred despite our ability to understand the process.

Hope that helps.

Answer 6

Given enough time and the conditions, even 99.999% failure will suceed. The expanse of time and the size of the universe defeat Gods and man alike.

We humans base our lives on hours, days, years, and live for maybe a century. Our sun is young to middle aged and it is between 4 and 6 billion years old.
100 years = one mans life
5,000,000,000 years = mid life of average to small star.

An AU is an astronomical unit, it is roughly the distance between the sun and the earth. It is approximately 93 million miles. A fit human can run a mile in 5 minuets. It would take a person 177 years, non stop, to run to the sun.

The universe is too big and too old for us to fathom, so we come up with deities to help up cope and understand.

Answer 7

There is not even such a thing as chance. Here is how "luck" is defined: Luck is a covert act of God, who in his divine wisdom, CHOOSES not to put his overt signature on it.

And now, the rocks are crying out and saying that they WERE created IN A MOMENT:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=5725394906886443944

For an explanation, see Genesis 1; then go to Matthew 5:18

Answer 8

Logic plays a very small part here, what matters is what the evidence indicates and currently it is the big bang.

To say it differently logic dictates that you examine the evidence and reach an objective, verifiable conclusion from that.

Answer 9

The question is meaningless since it is asked in a time frame and from a point of view within this universe. Time, as we know it, is bound up in the universe. There is no "before the universe started". This may not make sense to you, but it's the best answer I can come up with.

Answer 10

This is one more example of what is possibly the best evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory.

The greatest evidence in favor of both the big bang and evolution may be that the critics of both must lie to make their arguments.

Answer 11

I enjoyed reading Stuart Kauffman's book "At Home in the Universe." He argues the appearance of life wasn't random, but nearly inevitable, because of emergent complexity.