# Does real 'chance' exist?



## Afterthought (Sep 14, 2011)

"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

If we can speak of real contingency of second causes, then does that mean chance really does exist (from the perspective of second causes)? Wouldn't it exist in the same way free will does? If chance does exist so, why the problem with saying things like "Good luck" or "You were lucky/unlucky" etc.?


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> If we can speak of real contingency of second causes, then does that mean chance really does exist (from the perspective of second causes)? Wouldn't it exist in the same way free will does? If chance does exist so, why the problem with saying things like "Good luck" or "You were lucky/unlucky" etc.?


 
"Coincidence" and "chance" are part and parcel of contingency of second causes. "Luck" suggests a kind of randomness which goes beyond contingency and denies the personal nature of Providence.


----------



## KMK (Sep 14, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "Luck" suggests a kind of randomness which goes beyond contingency and denies the personal nature of Providence.



This is an excellent point. The same would be true with the word "Fate", would it not?


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 14, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "Coincidence" and "chance" are part and parcel of contingency of second causes. "Luck" suggests a kind of randomness which goes beyond contingency and denies the personal nature of Providence.


Absolutely fascinating. This whole issue is probably one of the most mind-blowing I've learned in the past two weeks, yet the wording is right there in the WCF (and somehow I had missed it before then even though one of my first posts on this board had to do with those chapters!). And the potential of thinking in that way sure is large. (Edit: The Reformed view gets the best of all views: regularity in the universe's operation, contingency and chance, free will, and purposeful, personal direction to the universe/always meaningful events despite the contingent, free, and necessary second causes--yet the reformed view harmonizes all these in such a simple way!)

As for the words/phrases we use, I suppose I'm not surprised by "coincidence" since it is really just co-incidence, but until I had noticed this issue a couple of weeks ago, I would have been surprised by "chance," though I'm still uncomfortable saying I had "happened upon something by chance," but that's probably because I'm still learning to be precise in my word choices and don't have a precise understanding of the word "chance" (though I'd have no problem using "chance" in other contexts, such as this one here when discussing whether real chance exists from the perspective of second causes or in physics or mathematics where there are chance events or random errors/variables/events).

Thanks for the response!


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 14, 2011)

Ken

Your tying "fate" to Matthew's trenchant observation about "luck" and its impersonal, random nature is right on the mark and ties in with posts that various ones of us made with respect to Stoicism.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 15, 2011)

Not a chance.


----------



## J. Dean (Sep 15, 2011)

I guess I'm missing it, but I don't see the word "chance" in that quote from the WCF.

Chance is not a thing in the sense of an objective factor; chance is a term that describes mathematical probability. Now, is there anything wrong with noting the chances of something happening? No-provided that it is understood that chance must always give way to Divine Providence and God's sovereignty. 

From our perspective, there are chances and contingencies. From God's perspective, there is that which will come to pass by His decreed will. We don't see the whole picture, but thank God that He does, because He's the one who painted it!


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 15, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
> 
> If we can speak of real contingency of second causes, then does that mean chance really does exist (from the perspective of second causes)? Wouldn't it exist in the same way free will does? If chance does exist so, why the problem with saying things like "Good luck" or "You were lucky/unlucky" etc.?



In ordinary language sayings like "good luck" are not used to make statements about the nature of things but rather to convey attitudes toward someone. So there is nothing wrong with using those phrases. The metaphysical idea of chance or randomness would make all creation unable to make any sense, if things were truly always changing. One problem that quantum mechanics cannot solve is that we experience a very orderly reality but that theory at least predicts that this should not be so.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "Coincidence" and "chance" are part and parcel of contingency of second causes. "Luck" suggests a kind of randomness which goes beyond contingency and denies the personal nature of Providence.


 


J. Dean said:


> I guess I'm missing it, but I don't see the word "chance" in that quote from the WCF.
> 
> Chance is not a thing in the sense of an objective factor; chance is a term that describes mathematical probability. Now, is there anything wrong with noting the chances of something happening? No-provided that it is understood that chance must always give way to Divine Providence and God's sovereignty.
> 
> From our perspective, there are chances and contingencies. From God's perspective, there is that which will come to pass by His decreed will. We don't see the whole picture, but thank God that He does, because He's the one who painted it!


I am wondering if Rev. Winzer and J. Dean are saying the same thing as relates to _chance _and _contingency_.

In PRRD vol. 3, Muller writes (emphasis mine):​ Since it is possible for something to arise necessarily as far as the occurrence is concerned (_quoad eventum_), but contingently according to its manner of being produced (_quoad modum productionis_), future contingents can therefore be necessary according to the immutability of the decree (_immutabilitatem decreti_) and the infallibility of foreknowledge (_infallibilitatem praescientiae_), while remaining genuinely contingent in the secondary causality on which they depend proximately and immediately—which secondary causes are, by themselves, indefinite (_per se indefinitae_).

The Reformed also argue that God’s natural faculty of knowing and his unconstrained knowledge of events and things comprise all knowables, given that entities cannot be multiplied without cause: there is nothing that falls outside of the realm of possible and future existents (_nihil enim est, quod non sit possibile aut futurum_), which is to say that the categories of the possible and the actual are exhaustive. Nor is uncertain or indeterminate knowledge ever rightly attributed to God. Inasmuch as “God eternally knows himself and all possible worlds, he therefore knows whatever is knowable” and, since he knows all possible worlds as possible worlds, namely, as systems or concatenations of things in their relation and distinction, “he therefore knows all things distinctly and nothing confusedly.”​

Is contingency a matter of perspective alone? It would seem from the above, given the exhaustiveness of the possible and the actual, that no contingencies exist within God's necessary knowledge, but, as noted by J. above, only man experiences contingency. 

In other words, from God's point of view, is it, "if AMR does this, I, God, will do that" or "AMR cannot fail to this, as I, God, have decreed this thusly"?

Again, Muller, objecting to Gomarus and Walaeus of a _scientia hypothetica_:
_
If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed_ (1 Sam. 23:9[–13]). Response: The text does not deal with an action that might, hypothetically, have occurred _(__de actione ex hypothesi futura__)_, but with the plan and intention of the people of Keilah to betray David.
​In other words, the text does not point toward a hypothetical future in which David remained the night at Keilah and then claim to know that he actually would have been betrayed rather than somehow delivered from betrayal: the betrayal at Keliah is not a hypothetical future event, but no event at all and, prior to David’s decision not to remain there, a pure possibility (belonging, arguably, to the divine _scientia necessaria_). And, as a possibility, the betrayal of David, had he stayed the night, is nothing more or less than an unfulfilled intention in the minds of the inhabitants of the village, in fact, a false proposition of futurition, rendered false by the fact that its eventuality did not belong to the ultimate will or providence of God.There is nothing prior to the decree but pure possibility: God’s decree establishes the order of things—it does not proceed from foreknowledge of the order.​ 


AMR


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 15, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> I guess I'm missing it, but I don't see the word "chance" in that quote from the WCF.
> 
> Chance is not a thing in the sense of an objective factor; chance is a term that describes mathematical probability. Now, is there anything wrong with noting the chances of something happening? No-provided that it is understood that chance must always give way to Divine Providence and God's sovereignty.
> 
> From our perspective, there are chances and contingencies. From God's perspective, there is that which will come to pass by His decreed will. We don't see the whole picture, but thank God that He does, because He's the one who painted it!


The WCF speaks of second causes that have the nature of contingency (both here and elsewhere) i.e., they fall out contingently. From what I understand, contingent events are events that could have happened another way, as opposed to necessary events, which could not happen any other way. When we speak of chance, we certainly do speak of mathematical probability in some cases. However, in other cases, we say things like "This happened by chance," which not only means we could not have known it was going to happen the way it did but also that it could have happened another way.

Even in mathematical probabilities, we say, "This had a 70% chance of occuring," which means that there's a 30% chance of it not occuring, so again an event that could happen another way and so is contingent; the math only gives us an idea of how likely the event may occur but even with 99% chance of occuring, it could still occur another way. Thus, so far as I can see, chance is indeed "part and parcel of contingency of second causes," and so real chance is implied by the WCF. Since we also speak of free causes and so say the human will really is free, it would appear that we would have to acknowledge chance and random events--in the sense of contingency--to be quite real--from the perspective of second causes anyway. That's what I was getting at, anyway, when I was asking if real 'chance' existed (I do agree with your post!). I could be wrong in the way I use the word "chance," but there appears to be a philosophical difficulty with saying what exactly it is anyway....




jwright82 said:


> In ordinary language sayings like "good luck" are not used to make statements about the nature of things but rather to convey attitudes toward someone. So there is nothing wrong with using those phrases. The metaphysical idea of chance or randomness would make all creation unable to make any sense, if things were truly always changing. One problem that quantum mechanics cannot solve is that we experience a very orderly reality but that theory at least predicts that this should not be so.


Well, I disagree lol. But anyway...anyone who knows their stuff correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that quantum mechanics (in one interpretation of it, anyway)--though it admits there is real chance (in the sense of, even if we knew all the variables, we still could not predict some things)--yet the chance operates within boundaries; there are laws that bind the randomness. For example, in radioactive decay, some particles are emitted. In some kinds of radioactive decay, only certain kinds of particles can be emitted, but which ones are emitted and when is up to chance. Or virtual particles for another example. Though they randomly pop into existence, yet their energy determines how long they are allowed to last before they vanish. So we have chance operating within laws, and so it doesn't seem QM predicts an unorderly reality at our particular point of time in cosmic history [neither does Charles Peirce's, for that matter].




Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am wondering if Rev. Winzer and J. Dean are saying the same thing as relates to chance and contingency.


I'm thinking the same thing.

I'm not sure whether we can say contingency is a matter of perspective alone because then free will is a matter of perspective alone rather than a property of something God created, but I'm not sure what way to categorize them otherwise because I do agree with your post. Perhaps we say that contingent events really are contingent as second causes but God is in control of contingency and having decreed some events to fall out by it, He knows them as certain; therefore they are not contingent to God....but that does seem to say that contingency is a matter of perspective! Thanks for the Muller quotes!


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

I don't believe "luck" has to do with contingency. It is a concept describing what happens to a person, impinges on the realm of Providence, and gives credence to the unbiblical idea that there are random events in this world.

"Fate" is as impersonal as "Fortune." Like two rings placed at the top of a circle, they fall on opposite sides but finally end up side by side each other at the bottom of the circle.

Time and "chance" happen to all. Chance is an essential part of contingency. It is not merely a matter of perspective. The contingency is tied to the secondary cause (so it is a matter of objective perspective), but it is God who has decreed the contingent (so it is not mere subjective perspective). This is not a matter of "possible worlds," but of the real world which God has decreed. There is no place for counterfactuals in this scheme but there is certainly a place for alternative choice.


----------



## Philip (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Time and "chance" happen to all. Chance is an essential part of contingency.



Can you define exactly what you mean by "chance" and "contingency" here? I've generally assumed that contingency meant "could have been otherwise." That is for any given value of X, if X is contingent, then God could have created the world such that X does not come to pass or X is untrue.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Can you define exactly what you mean by "chance" and "contingency" here?



Chance, casually, without the necessary connection of cause and effect. To refer to the passage in Ecclesiastes, being swift does not necessarily result in winning the race.

Contingency, something which could be avoided and has the possibility of not coming to pass.


----------



## Philip (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Chance, casually, without the necessary connection of cause and effect.



So chance refers to effects with no cause?


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> So chance refers to effects with no cause?



Chance refers to effects which are the result of other causes. It happens to the person in view of the fact that there is a great diversity of secondary causes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 15, 2011)

Fascinating discussion.


----------



## Philip (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > So chance refers to effects with no cause?
> ...



Ok, so we're not violating causality here (you had me worried for a second there). Instead "chance" is a placeholder for "I don't know." Or (when dealing with probability) "here are the statistics given what has happened in similar circumstances." Chance holds subjectively for finite creatures who are not omniscient. 

I'm just trying to avoid us using chnace in the sense of "something so contingent that even God could not know it."


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 15, 2011)

If chance means "I don't know" for humans, then for it to be real chance there cannot be a necessary causal chain that we could hypothetically know. Instead, the real 'chance' we are speaking about is limited to second causes. They are effects of causes that we could never even hypothetically know, because we see chance events from the perspective of second causes. However, for God, it is not really chance because He knows the causes that led to those effects.

So for God, human free will is not really free will either because He knows the causes that led to the human decision? Am I understanding you rightly, Rev. Winzer? Or are you thinking more along the line of that such causes, by their nature, do not necessarily produce their effect, yet because God decreed that they would, they do produce that effect, and because He decreed and it brings it about, He knows the causes that led to that effect; while from the perspective of second causes, such causes do not necessarily lead to their effect, nor could we know those causes anyway? (Would you agree that there can be random events in the Universe in the sense that we could not possibly predict their happening even if we knew all the possible causes, though such events were decreed and well-known and brought about by God?)

(Edit: I suppose the key here is that the chance events do not necessarily follow from their causes. So even if we knew the causes, we would not necessarily know the effect.)


----------



## Philip (Sep 15, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> Would you agree that there can be random events in the Universe in the sense that we could not possibly predict their happening even if we knew all the possible causes, though such events were decreed and well-known and brought about by God?



I would say (more likely) that it's not humanly possible to know all the causes because of our finitude.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> So for God, human free will is not really free will either because He knows the causes that led to the human decision? Am I understanding you rightly, Rev. Winzer? Or are you thinking more along the line of that such causes, by their nature, do not necessarily produce their effect, yet because God decreed that they would, they do produce that effect, and because He decreed and it brings it about, He knows the causes that led to that effect; while from the perspective of second causes, such causes do not necessarily lead to their effect, nor could we know those causes anyway? (Would you agree that there can be random events in the Universe in the sense that we could not possibly predict their happening even if we knew all the possible causes, though such events were decreed and well-known and brought about by God?)



There is definitely genuine human free-will and contingency, even from God's perspective, because He decreed it. He not only decreed the events that come to pass, but the alternative choices which would come under a person's consideration. Thoughts are as real as events, and all are exhaustively decreed. Nothing comes about simply because it is decreed, but by a process of secondary causation which is both complex and diverse. Adding to the complexity is this phenomenon of human willing which is "creative" by design. God has given earth to the sons of men. What men do with the earth is a genuine "development" of the earth's potencies and energies. This is a unique secondary causation which cannot be accounted for by mere analogy with other mechanisms in the created order.

There is definitely nothing random in God's universe, not even from the human perspective, because we are always taught to think in terms of God ruling over all things. Chance is not random; it is casual. It happens to us as a result of other causes and forces which we do not control. But those causes and forces are governed by God, and therefore their actions are never random.

This is a complex subject; it is good to think it through in the calm atmosphere that is being displayed in this thread.


----------



## Philip (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Adding to the complexity is this phenomenon of human willing which is "creative" by design. God has given earth to the sons of men. What men do with the earth is a genuine "development" of the earth's potencies and energies. This is a unique secondary causation which cannot be accounted for by mere analogy with other mechanisms in the created order.



I want to be careful here for a couple reasons:

1) we don't want indeterminacy, which would be randomness

2) I'd rather get away from the word chance because the way it is used, it connotes randomness

3) We also want to avoid the Deistic "whatever is, is right" mentality


----------



## NB3K (Sep 15, 2011)

If there were such a thing as "chance" then there would not be an Omnipotent Sovereign God that declares:

Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. 

Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. 

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. 

Job 21:30 "For the wicked is reserved for the day of calamity; They will be led forth at the day of fury.

Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 
Isa 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. 

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 

Dan 4:34 "But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. 
Dan 4:35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?' 

Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. 

Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 
Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 


These are just a few of a great many passages of Scripture that should erase from our mind the utter thought that some how things simply happen by "chance" and not by the secret power and will of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 16, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In other words, from God's point of view, is it, "if AMR does this, I, God, will do that" or "AMR cannot fail to this, as I, God, have decreed this thusly"?


Perhaps it is getting lost in the careful use of words in the discussion, or I am a poor reader, but I am having trouble discerning a direct answer to my question.

Brother Winzer writes, in part:


> ...There is definitely genuine human free-will and contingency, even from God's perspective, because He decreed it...
> 
> There is definitely nothing random in God's universe, not even from the human perspective, because we are always taught to think in terms of God ruling over all things. Chance is not random; it is casual. It happens to us as a result of other causes and forces which we do not control. But those causes and forces are governed by God, and therefore their actions are never random.



What exactly is "genuine human free-will" implied here? The _liberty of spontaneity_ (choosing according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment of so choosing) or the _liberty of indifference_ (the ability to choose contrary to one's inclinations, that is, so-called libertarian free will)?

Am I correct in assuming, according to Rev. Winzer, that contingency exists from God's perspective, hence, "If AMR does this, I, God, will do that"? This view appears counter to the _If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed _objection Muller answers contrariwise cited above.

AMR


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Am I correct in assuming, according to Rev. Winzer, that contingency exists from God's perspective, hence, "If AMR does this, I, God, will do that"? This view appears counter to the _If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed _objection Muller answers contrariwise cited above.


 
God does not have conditional decrees, but He decrees conditions. WCF 3.2. The alternative of the text is a conditional state of affairs in David's choice making. The whole complexity of the situation in its various relations and conditions was decreed by God. Does that help?


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 16, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> Well, I disagree lol. But anyway...anyone who knows their stuff correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that quantum mechanics (in one interpretation of it, anyway)--though it admits there is real chance (in the sense of, even if we knew all the variables, we still could not predict some things)--yet the chance operates within boundaries; there are laws that bind the randomness. For example, in radioactive decay, some particles are emitted. In some kinds of radioactive decay, only certain kinds of particles can be emitted, but which ones are emitted and when is up to chance. Or virtual particles for another example. Though they randomly pop into existence, yet their energy determines how long they are allowed to last before they vanish. So we have chance operating within laws, and so it doesn't seem QM predicts an unorderly reality at our particular point of time in cosmic history [neither does Charles Peirce's, for that matter].



Of course there are some laws. The idea though is that I can be sitting there drinking a cup of coffe and then for no other reason than quantum flunctuations my coffee floats out the side of my cup and hangs there for a moment and than goes back. According to the laws of QM not only could this happen but it should happen as well. But it doesn't and that is their problem. Quantum fluctuations are used to "explain" how something can come from nothing because they "observe" particles appearing and disappearing randomly. The more likely explanation is that we only think we are looking at nothing but really our observation limited.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 16, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Am I correct in assuming, according to Rev. Winzer, that contingency exists from God's perspective, hence, "If AMR does this, I, God, will do that"? This view appears counter to the If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed objection Muller answers contrariwise cited above.


Perhaps stated thus: _*When* David *chooses* this COA over that, I will do such._ All elements have been decreed in advance by God: both the free-choice of David, as well as the conditional (expressed above as "when" rather than "if"). God has foreordained to re-act, not according to an _indeterminate priority with the creature,_ "what will David do?" (if a then b, or if x then y, as if contingency itself subjected the divine will), but he has foreordained a *response* for himself nonetheless.

I don't want to presume too much for Rev.Winzer, but let him speak.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 16, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Am I correct in assuming, according to Rev. Winzer, that contingency exists from God's perspective, hence, "If AMR does this, I, God, will do that"? This view appears counter to the _If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed _objection Muller answers contrariwise cited above.
> ...


Yes,this does help, Rev. Winzer.

AMR

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Am I correct in assuming, according to Rev. Winzer, that contingency exists from God's perspective, hence, "If AMR does this, I, God, will do that"? This view appears counter to the If David had remained the night at Keilah, he would have been betrayed objection Muller answers contrariwise cited above.
> ...


I admit the error of using "if" over the more correct "when", Rev. Buchanan. Thanks for the correction!

AMR


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> (expressed above as "when" rather than "if")



Thankyou, Rev. Buchanan, for this contribution. The "if/when" distinction is very helpful for distinguishing a counterfactual from a real condition. Good grammar comes to the rescue again!


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 16, 2011)

P.F.Pugh said:


> I would say (more likely) that it's not humanly possible to know all the causes because of our finitude.





armourbearer said:


> There is definitely nothing random in God's universe, not even from the human perspective, because we are always taught to think in terms of God ruling over all things. Chance is not random; it is casual. It happens to us as a result of other causes and forces which we do not control. But those causes and forces are governed by God, and therefore their actions are never random.


So let's see if I got this right. Chance is casual. It always has a cause [well, actually a complex chain of causes], but we humans could never know the cause because we are finite. However, such causes for chance events do not appear to necessarily bring about their effect. Thus, if we humans knew all the causes, we would know the effect, but because all the causes that we can know isn't enough to know all causes, chance to us appears to have causes that do not necessarily bring about their effects. Randomness...I suppose you're using it in the sense of "purposeless chance that even God is not in control of" (in math, we say an event is random if there is an equally likely chance of it occuring as any other related event, e.g., pulling a card from a deck is random if the chances were the same for pulling out any other card)? If so, it is understandable why there is no randomness in the universe. However, even with chance events, because God is in control over all the causes and because we are taught that God governs over them, we are not to think of them as purposeless events (i.e., random events) even though they are events that could have happened otherwise.

Because God decreed that some effects would fall out in such a way that they would not necessarily fall out from their causes (from a human perspective), we can say there is real chance in the universe, provided we qualify that God controls it, decrees it, and knows it and that such events are casual, which if we knew all the causes like God did (though we never could), we would be able to predict the effects. The same goes for our free will. We really have it because God decreed it, but it too has causes for its choices, which if we knew all the causes we could predict the choice, though only God does know and controls those causes.


So the answer to my OP question is: Yes, real chance exists, but only in a qualified sense. To humans and to second causes, chance exists. Chance exists from God's perspective because He decreed it that way. However, we are not to think of chance as purposeless because it is casual and God is the one who decreed it.




jwright82 said:


> Of course there are some laws. The idea though is that I can be sitting there drinking a cup of coffe and then for no other reason than quantum flunctuations my coffee floats out the side of my cup and hangs there for a moment and than goes back. According to the laws of QM not only could this happen but it should happen as well. But it doesn't and that is their problem. Quantum fluctuations are used to "explain" how something can come from nothing because they "observe" particles appearing and disappearing randomly. The more likely explanation is that we only think we are looking at nothing but really our observation limited.


Well, I'll just have to take your word for it for right now. It's a fascinating idea I'll have to keep in mind when I study QM this coming semester and for whenever I learn about Bell's inequalities and all that stuff that shows QM to have real chance, in the sense of that if we knew all the causes we could not predict the effect. I'm not sure, given what this thread has said, whether QM fits from a reformed theological perspective, but your idea would indeed make it fit.


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> So the answer to my OP question is: Yes, real chance exists, but only in a qualified sense.



The sum is -- Chance happens; it just doesn't happen by chance.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 16, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> The sum is -- Chance happens; it just doesn't happen by chance.


Well whoda thought?  Thanks for the help! I think I'm getting it, or at least better than when I started the thread.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 16, 2011)

Raymond, it seems from your posts that a lot of emphasis is placed on human ignorance of causes as necessary to their casual or contingent nature, as well as to our free will. Obviously humans are ignorant, but I am wondering if that ignorance is really an essential element of something being contingent or not. It doesn't seem so to me on the surface, but as long as questions are being answered, I figured I'd throw mine out there!


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Obviously humans are ignorant, but I am wondering if that ignorance is really an essential element of something being contingent or not.


 
I deny any belief can be established on the basis of ignorance.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Obviously humans are ignorant, but I am wondering if that ignorance is really an essential element of something being contingent or not.


I don't think it is in general. There's chance in the sense of "We don't know what caused it, but we know something caused it, and if we knew the causes, we'd be able to predict that effect." But there's also chance in the sense of "Even if we knew all the causes, we could not possibly predict the effect." And chance in the sense of "No cause or reason at all; it just happens." From what I understand from this thread, what we call chance is casual. So if we are talking about causes for what we call chance, then if we knew the causes we would know the effect, because the effect that we call chance would come from a complex of causes. So it seemed to me that ignorance would be the only way for us to call something chance, because if we knew what the causes were we would know what must follow. The other way for there to be chance from what has been discussed on this thread is if what we call chance has no necessary connection to its causes i.e., the causes of what we call chance events are do not necessarily produce those events, and so chance events could happen another way; that would not require ignorance for something to be contingent.

But it seemed from the thread that people were saying there are always causes to chance events, which made it seem to me that if we knew those causes, we could predict the event. But if we could not know those causes, then we could not predict the event, and so it would appear to us that the second cause was produced in a contingent manner (and so it also seemed to me that ignorance is essential to contingency in this world), yet because God decreed the events to fall out that way, they really are contingent. Although I could have misunderstood a bit (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).



Edit: Actually, as I've been thinking more on it, it seems that the events are contingent without being a matter of ignorance. There are causes to them, though they do not necessarily produce those chance events. But because God decreed all the causes that led to them, they only happen in one way, albeit in a way that by the nature of all the causes involved, they could have happened another way. Thus, even if we knew all the causes, we could not predict the event happening again. It's analogous to what was said earlier about David and free will; all the elements which have David choose one thing over another are there and decreed, yet by the nature of the elements in and of themselves, it could have happened another way. (Again, anyone correct me if I'm wrong)




armourbearer said:


> I deny any belief can be established on the basis of ignorance.


So we cannot believe in contingency for the reason that we are ignorant of its causes (so contingency isn't a matter of ignorance merely)?


----------



## Philip (Sep 16, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Obviously humans are ignorant, but I am wondering if that ignorance is really an essential element of something being contingent or not.



No. Contingency simply means that God could could have created the world such that X was not the case.


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> No. Contingency simply means that God could could have created the world such that X was not the case.


 
This presents contingency as hypothetical instead of real. The Confession presents it as something real; something decreed by God; something true of our freedom within the Providential order.


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> So we cannot believe in contingency for the reason that we are ignorant of its causes (so contingency isn't a matter of ignorance merely)?



There is no ignorance. "Chance" is believed in because we understand that there is a Divine and Personal Power which governs the world and transcends its processes. Think of conception. The gift of life. The difference between being and non-being. "Life" simply cannot be explained in terms of secondary causation.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 17, 2011)

"The decrees of God relate to all future things, without exception; whatever is done in time was foreordained before the beginning of time. His purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil; although, in reference to the latter, it may be necessary to distinguish between appointment and permission. It was concerned with things necessary, free, and contingent; with the movements of matter, which are necessary; with the volitions and actions of intelligent creatures, which are free; and with such things as we call accidents, because they take place undesignedly on our part, and without any cause which we could discover." From Robert Shaw's _Exposition_.

That certainly seems a matter of ignorance because to discover the cause is to know the cause. But he could be saying what you're saying, which is the kind of causes that produce chance are the kinds that we could not manipulate in such a way as to necessarily reproduce their effects.... I think anyway.



armourbearer said:


> There is no ignorance. "Chance" is believed in because we understand that there is a Divine and Personal Power which governs the world and transcends its processes. Think of conception. The gift of life. The difference between being and non-being. "Life" simply cannot be explained in terms of secondary causation.


So if it's not a matter of ignorance, then it's a matter of the causes not necessarily leading to their effects, and so we cannot explain those events in terms of secondary causation...(or are chance events simply events that cannot be explained by secondary causes?) I wonder then: are the extra causes that are needed to "push" those causes into producing the desired chance effect [as we would call it] come immediately from Divine power instead of God working through means? But I'll keep thinking about your example. For now though, I really should go to bed (it can be tough trying to find the right questions to ask sometimes!).


----------



## Philip (Sep 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > No. Contingency simply means that God could could have created the world such that X was not the case.
> ...



Comtingency can also be used to talk about false states of affairs. It is contingently true that I was born in Virginia. It is contingently false that I was born in London.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 18, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> Well, I'll just have to take your word for it for right now. It's a fascinating idea I'll have to keep in mind when I study QM this coming semester and for whenever I learn about Bell's inequalities and all that stuff that shows QM to have real chance, in the sense of that if we knew all the causes we could not predict the effect. I'm not sure, given what this thread has said, whether QM fits from a reformed theological perspective, but your idea would indeed make it fit.



Laws are simply for predictability. We can predict certian stuff based on regularity in natural laws. But remember the uncertainty principle in QM, you can never know the exact position or momentum of a particle at the same time, one or the other.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 8, 2011)

Okay, I'm ready to ask my questions now!

Are we speaking of chance in the sense of (1) ignorance, such that if we knew all the causes, we could predict the effect, but we don't know and can't know the causes so such events are chance for us? (2) Chance in the sense that even if we knew all the causes, we could not predict the effect? (3) Chance in the sense that it is impossible to predict the effect because such a configuration of causes that brought about the event do not occur all the time. However, if we had known those causes and the way they worked, we could have predicted that event. Because this unvierse is real and not hypothetical though, such events could really be described as chance.

It seems that (1) is being denied in this thread, but it also seems (2) is because we are saying that chance events always have a complex of causes. Is there a fourth option I am not understanding? In the case of life, it appears that God is an immediate cause. So perhaps the third option is that chance is whatever cannot possibly even theoretically be described in terms of second causes? Perhaps even that God is immediately involved in chance events, such that there are no second causes to describe the event by?


At any rate, from the "Method of Divine Government" by M'Cosh, I found these on contingency and chance.

"There are persons who willingly ascribe certain events to God, but hand over others to chance. Now there are senses in which we may allowably use the word chance; this we shall show forthwith. But in respect of production and purpose, there is, there can be, no such thing as chance. In this sense the word is simply expressive of our ignorance. An accidental event is one of which we may not be able to discover the cause or the purpose. But while man cannot discover the precise cause, yet he knows that there is a cause, and while the design may be concealed, yet there is most assuredly a purpose contemplated; and we may rest assured that the cause has been appointed to produce this particular effect, and this effect to serve the specific purpose. The wisdom of God is peculiarly seen in his constituting a large class of events as contingent in the view of man; but instead of being independent of God, it is specially by these events that he fulfils his own purposes, and becomes truly the governor of his own world."(190)

"II. In what circumstances may we discover an intended CONNEXION BETWEEN ONE PART OF God's WORKS AND ANOTHER?

We have said, that in the sense of being causeless or purposeless, no event happens by chance. But still there are two legitimate senses in which the word chance may be employed. First, it may be applied to an event of which the mode of production or the design is undiscoverable by us. Thus understood, many events may be described as accidental: and we have seen that great and beneficent purposes are served by the arrangement which admits of such. But there is a second sense, in which we may admit the existence of chance, and it is with this that we have now to do. While all events have a connexion with their immediate physical cause, and also with God as their ultimate author, it does not follow that every event has an intended connexion with every other. There cannot be such a thing as casual occurrences, but there may be, and often are, such things as casual concurrences. There may be conjunctions of events in respect of time or place, which are purely accidental, and this while the events themselves may all be traced to God. An eclipse of the sun and a devastating famine may happen about the same time; and true religion will teach us to refer both to God, but it does not follow that the two have a connexion with each other. It is one thing to declare that every event is connected with God as its author, and quite another to affirm that it is designedly related to every other which may be contiguous to it."(195)


"Our scientific inquirers, in investigating the separate laws, have not sufficiently attended to that particular disposition and distribution of the agents of nature, which necessarily issues in the uncertainty which everywhere meets our eye. The circumstance to which we refer arises from the complication, and it gives rise to the fortuities of nature. Man at times complicates the relations of natural powers, in order to produce fortuity. He shakes, for instance, the dicebox, in order that neither he nor any one else may be able to predict the die which is to cast up.

There is, we maintain, a similar complication in the Divine arrangement of natural agents, and all to produce a similar end—to surround man with events which are to him accidental, but which to God are instruments of government. We have seen that physical nature is so admirably adjusted as to produce a number of very beneficent general laws. The events occurring in this orderly manner may be anticipated, pains may be taken for welcoming them when they are expected to be good, and of avoiding or averting them when they are supposed to be evil. But all the results flowing from the adjustment of natural objects are not of this regular character. There are others, which, so far from being in accordance with any general law, are rather the result of the unexpected crossing and clashing, contact or collision, of two or more agencies. Falling out in an isolated, accidental manner, they cannot possibly be foreseen by the greatest human sagacity; the good which they bring cannot be secured by human foresight, nor can the evil which they produce be warded off by human vigilance.

Not that we are to regard the phenomena now referred to, as happening without a cause. Both classes of phenomena proceed from physical causes, but the one from causes so arranged as to produce general effects, and the other from causes so disposed as to produce an individual or isolated result. The general law of cause and effect is.—that the same correlated substances, in the same relations to each other, produce the same changes. Now,in the case of the events that occur according to general law, the relations continue the same, or are made to recur—and hence the regularity of the effects. In the case of the other events, the relations change—and hence the isolated nature of the effects; the same combinations of circumstances, the same adjustment of things, may never occur again, and so as to produce precisely the same results.

Hence it happens, that even when the causes are ascertained, the results, owing to the complicated relation of the substances and laws to one another, cannot be determined beforehand." (161-162)


So it appears--unless I am misunderstanding him--that he is using chance in the sense of ignorance of causes (1) such that if it were possible to know all the causes, then we could predict what would happen next, although we couldn't even hypothetically know that because of the complexity of nature.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 10, 2011)

Bumping.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> So it appears--unless I am misunderstanding him--that he is using chance in the sense of ignorance of causes (1) such that if it were possible to know all the causes, then we could predict what would happen next, although we couldn't even hypothetically know that because of the complexity of nature.



First, ignorance is culpable. Knowledge of limitation and sphere is not ignorance. Our Lord was not ignorant when He "grew in wisdom."

Secondly, "knowing all" should not come into the reckoning because it is an extension of the great temptation, Ye shall be as gods. Our happiness rests in being God's creatures.

Thirdly, God is free to work beside ordinary causes. Unless one has a means of predicting when He would choose to work in this way, it would not be theoretically possible to infallibly forecast outcomes on the basis of causation.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 10, 2011)

Thanks, Rev. Winzer! I guess that pretty much wraps this thread up then (unless I have another thought on this issue before the thread closes itself). Thanks also to anyone else who participated!


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> First, ignorance is culpable. Knowledge of limitation and sphere is not ignorance. Our Lord was not ignorant when He "grew in wisdom."



Would it be better to speak of nescience?



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, "knowing all" should not come into the reckoning because it is an extension of the great temptation, Ye shall be as gods. Our happiness rests in being God's creatures.



Very true, and very comforting.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Would it be better to speak of nescience?



I'm not sure; the point I'm trying to bring out is that the things unknown are a deliberate choice based on the knowledge of our limitations. Usually it is ignorance or lack of knowledge which leads to going beyond our province. I think it takes great wisdom to know our place. Hence I am reluctant to call it nescience. It could only be called nescience if the "science" itself was a legitimate undertaking. I regard it as an illegitimate undertaking. It is true science to know the God that worketh all things after the counsel of His will.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2011)

That clarifies the point, thank you.


----------

