|
I mostly agree, but let me play devil's advocate a couple of times.
I agree with the "if you built a robot", but if randomness is described as a lack of predictability, then surely the roll of a die can be random. Change your example a bit. Pick up a six-sided die and cup it inside of both of your hands so you cannot see it. Shake it around and toss it to the ground. Since there is no knowledge if the initial lay of the die, nor it's lay before being tossed, there is no way to accurately predict it's outcome (despite vibration or trajectory) and therefore, to our human sensibility, it's random.
The flip side then is the omnipotent being vs. existence of randomness. If a being is omnipotent, why is there an assumption that random > omnipotent rather than omnipotent > random?
The two above arguments, to some degree, cancel each other out. If it's a matter of perception, than randomness can exist. If an omnipotent being rules out randomness, and such a being exists, it's still only our perception that tells us that random > omnipotence, and that the one naturally excludes the other. Either way, it's a human perception call and can easily be shown either way.
As a sidenote, I would assume that an omnipotent being would be outside of the realm of randomness. By the lines fo the above arguments, it could be said that because we perceive time, god cannot exist because god would have to be outside of time (being omnipresent). Is time > omnipresence or is omnipresence > time?
|