Randomness or Determinism?

[rocklobster]

I just saw the movie Knowing. In the movie, Nicholas Cage's character gives a lecture about an ages old argument. Is everything random, or is it determined? I was wondering where you people stand on this argument.
Note to mods: If you think this thread deserves a lock, I will understand.

[TriezGamer]

I don't think either is an absolute, so...

[minakichan]

My answer to this question is "who cares?" Either way, there's nothing one can do about it, and it doesn't affect daily life. Additionally, while it makes a nice philosophical question, believers in either philosophy have no way of making a legitimate argument for their side because randomness and determinism both exist in some quantities in this universe and it isn't possible to trace to see whether the either is the other's cause.

[Paul]

Well, I tend to believe in pre-destination, which God has a plan laid out for each of our lives and He will do what it takes to get us there. If that means causing events in our lives to bring us to where He wants us to be for His glory, especially if we are not listening, He will.

That is all I will say on the topic.

P.

[ADXC]

Well, I tend to believe in pre-destination, which God has a plan laid out for each of our lives and He will do what it takes to get us there. If that means causing events in our lives to bring us to where He wants us to be for His glory, especially if we are not listening, He will.

That is all I will say on the topic.

P.

I'll agree with this.

[Fish and Chips]

One day a man accidentally wandered into a theological convention on purpose. He wandered around until he came to the Calvinist table.
"Can we help you?"
"I came here."
"Oh no, you belong over there!" And they pushed him over towards the Arminianist table.
"Can we help you?"
"I was sent here."
"Oh no, you belong over there!" And they pushed him back to the Calvinist table.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

This age-old argument is hard (or impossible) to come to a conclusion because it's a very Modern train of thought. Since we've been socialized to interpret and process data in a Modern way of thinking, it would make sense that this would seem to be a very difficult question due to the limitations of Modernity.

So I don't care nor does it matter. God is above the Modern thought processes and interpretations. Therefore, Western reason cannot and will not come with a satisfying answer.

[blkmage]

Aren't we more postmodern than modern?

Anyway, I was more disappointed to find that this wasn't about randomness vs. determinism.

[Dante]

Anyway, I was more disappointed to find that this wasn't about randomness vs. determinism.

I was disappointed that this wasn't free-will verses fate.

Ultimately the above two choices are both too boring and I highly doubt that reality in its incredible intricacies is really that banal. I would be far more inclined to believe that reality implements something far more bizzare then anything mentioned thus far.

Whether history is determined by randomness or determinism one might even ask if history even is well ordered to begin with. For instance.

Consider the following moral paradox:

4 planets in a basically straight path, each 1 light year from each other in an imaginary universe.

The two outer planets hate each other

The two inner planets hate war.

The two inner planets declare that they will convene on anyone who starts a war and use their armies to crush the planet that declares first.

Now let's say the left outer planet fires it's laser of doom at the right planet and much to it's surprise, three years later, the right planet's laser hit's it surface...

In other words from the left planets perspective, and the left inner planet's perspective,
the left planet was the aggressor in the war.

However, using special relativity, we can deduce that it took three years for the light from the right planet to reach the planet and that means according to the right planet it fired it's laser first only to get hit by a counter-attack by the left-most planet three years later.

In other words, the universe seemingly permits two different time-lines according to where you sat in the event.

The right-most planet saw itself as the aggressor of the war and the left-most planet as the peaceful nation (really really good telescopes would see the people there smiling and going about their day to day lives while a laser homed in on their sad little world).
Right most planet fires
Left most planet launches counter-attack

The left-most planet saw itself as the aggressor and believed however that the right-most planet launched the counter attack.
Left most planet fires
Right most planet launches counter-attack

When the two inner planets convene each one reports a different ordering of events from two different time lines. In other words, there were two aggressors to the war and two defenders in the war.

This leads to an ethical paradox... who should the inner planets declare war on?

The above example is hardly random mind you, but it does bring into question what a history actually is and whether it looks the same for you as it does for me.

[Dante]

Mind you. Logically I realize that it might be true that random is the opposite of determined in which case my statement doesn't make sense. It only makes sense if one considers it possible for something to be not random yet not determined. Not random yet random would obviously be a contradiction.

[Sanji07]

I was disappointed that this wasn't about randomness (llama, World War II, etc.) vs. determinism (being determined to do something). Ah well, that would have been a hard question for me anyways. XP

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Aren't we more postmodern than modern?

Anyway, I was more disappointed to find that this wasn't about randomness vs. determinism.

We're slowly verging into post-modernity, but the majority of Western society, especially information gathering and processing, I would say is mostly modern.

[Lady Kenshin]

Determinism.

[uc pseudonym]

You can all ponder for yourselves whether it was this thread's fate to be locked, or whether it was because the initial question was generally interpreted as theological and consequently rule-breaking.