Did god know it? God’s relation to a world of chance and randomness

Benedikt Paul Göcke
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
A common type of argument against the existence of God is to argue that certain essential features associated with the existence of God are inconsistent with certain other features to be found in the actual world. for an analysis of the different ways to deploy the term “God” in philosophical and theological discourse and for an analysis of the logical form of arguments for and against the existence of God.) A recent example of this type of argument against the existence of God is based on the assumption that there are random processes or chancy states of affairs in the actual world that contradict God being absolute sovereign over his creation: Chancy states of affairs are said to entail a denial of divine providence or omniscience. argues that “classical Big Bang cosmology is inconsistent with theism due to the unpredictable nature of the Big Bang singularity.”) More often than not, however, this apparent conflict is formulated only intuitively and lacks sufficient conceptual clarification of the crucial terms involved. As a consequence, it is seldom clear where the conflict really lies. In what follows, I first provide a brief analysis of chance and randomness before I turn to cosmological and evolutionary arguments against the existence of God that in some way or other are based on chance and randomness. I end by way of comparing three popular conceptions of God as regards their ability to deal with God’s relation to a world of chance and randomness. Neither classical theism, nor open theism, nor indeed process panentheism has difficulties in accounting for God’s relation to a world of chance and randomness
Keywords Randomness  Chance  Predictability  Open theism  Classical theism  Process theology  Propensity
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-015-9531-4
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,131
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Humean Supervenience Debugged.David Lewis - 1994 - Mind 103 (412):473--490.
Philosophical Papers Vol. II.Lewis David - 1986 - Oxford University Press.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Chance Versus Randomness.Antony Eagle - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Probability and Scientific Inference.C. W. K. Mundle - 1959 - Philosophy 34 (129):150 - 154.
Probabilistic Algorithmic Randomness.Sam Buss & Mia Minnes - 2013 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 78 (2):579-601.
Skeptical Theism.Justin P. McBrayer - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (7):611-623.
Probability and Randomness.Antony Eagle - 2016 - In Alan Hájek & Christopher Hitchcock (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. pp. 440-459.
Chance, Explanation, and Causation in Evolutionary Theory.Jean Gayon - 2005 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27 (3/4):395 - 405.


Added to PP index

Total views
34 ( #233,158 of 2,237,214 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #193,109 of 2,237,214 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature