Flip a coin

Is there randomness in nature?

Perform this simple experiment. Flip a coin. Will the result be heads or tails? Who knows? The result is entirely random, right?

No. You placed the coin on your thumb with the head or tail face showing. The flick of your thumb caused the coin to twirl at a set rate and fly through the air at a particular arc. The wind was just so and its bombardment with airborne particles just so that it landed on the ground on a particular edge. The velocity from the fall caused it to roll for a bit before winding down to reveal the face that will always provide these same exact results given all of the same physical conditions should you repeat this experiment forever.

So, here’s the deal. Either the universe is just an unfolding from the Big Bang (or the moment of creation) with some guises of randomness like our coin-flipping example, or randomness must be built into the system.

If randomness is not built into the system, then if a particular god knows and controls everything, then theists would have to admit their god and universe was predeterminist. For Christians, this is Calvinism. Calvinists ameliorate discomfort of living in a predetermined universe by simply presuming that they are part of the group that is saved. Now one can ask, “If everything is predetermined, what does it matter if I believe in God and follow him or not?” Well, basically, if you continue to serve God, you continue to assure yourself that you are part of the saved group.

But can’t God use randomness? Well, it depends on your theology. If God is omniscient and all powerful, no. If God knows everything, then there is no randomness. If God employs randomness, then he is not in control and is not all powerful.

For the atheist, these are much more mute points and academic. For all intents and purposes, we humans have evolved and interpret life as if it contained randomness. Consider any coin toss. We are not aware of the predetermined outcome set by the thumb flick and all the physical factors acting on the coin. We operate as if randomness existed even if it doesn’t. I don’t see how a theist can operate that way.

Now, I’d like to discuss the Calvinism debate through the lens of quantum physics, but I’d also like to discuss this question: Can evolution and meaning occur without randomness?


Cliff Martin said...


In a totally Newtonian world, with its fixed laws of motion, your contentions would be accurate. There could be no such thing as randomness. A strict predetermined outcome was inevitable. But variability is introduced both by Relativity and Quantum Physics. Then too, there is the variability introduced by free-will beings such as ourselves. If every mental thought, emotional response, and human choice can be explained by existing vectors of molecular motion, than Newton’s Laws would negate free will. But I have never been convinced of that. Living cells seem to defy Newton.

Quantum mechanics suggests a high level of randomness in subatomic (and atomic?) particles. I believe this randomness can affect DNA. Could it affect the turning of your coin? There are theorists who believe that quantum randomness could, given all the right conditions, and a convergence of random motions of particles, affect the movement of larger things. The on-going efforts to develop the all-encompassing unified theory may provide an answer to these questions.

My own theory, as I expressed in the earlier comment, is that God has built into this cosmos a randomness which guarantees that the outcome (which will favor his ultimate purposes!) will not be the result of his manipulation. The stage on which the moral drama of this cosmos is playing out is not rigged. The outcome is predictable, but not by predeterminism, rather by the principle that the powers of righteousness are superior to the powers of unrighteousness. Goodness, love and life all win in the end.

These are thoughts that are still in process. I have not worked out all the details. But I am very interested in hearing your comments, and the comments of other readers.

As for your question about evolution, it would seem that a purely naturalistic evolution (which I favor) is entirely dependent upon randomness. Would not evolution without randomness demand purposeful, intelligent engineering?

Tom said...


I need a better understanding of the physics side. You can probably help me out there. Certainly I can imagine quantum mechanics responding to a random number generator, if you will, that either acts random or truly is, I dunno. In either case, if randomness is acting at the subatomic level, then that will percolate all up the hierarchy to the molecular, cellular, and physiological levels making it so that a thumb flick will likely be imprecise and the resulting flip unpredictable.

I need you to clarify your opinion and your thoughts on my statement about an omnipotent/omniscient God and randomness. This is a square peg and round hole (and not a trap, I really want to know). If God has built in randomness, he is not in control, nor omniscient, right? I suppose he can stop the simulation, monitor the progress, and with an infinite knowledge of the past, have an intuition about where it's going, but this is not all-knowing.

Now, this gets to my question at the end of the post, can meaning be obtained without randomness? I don't think so. Similar to Montague's stance, I can see that organisms can evolve to ascribe value and form trust, love, and perform conscious decisions. All of this comes from a material basis, but randomness is key. So I want to explore, if God is love and requires faith, is randomness the key? If so, I can see how a benevolent God could create randomness and place it as an element in the universe. Now he may be the most knowledgeable and powerful supernatural there ever could be, but I don't see is how he remains omni-anything.

7K said...

Theology in the Modern era tried to define the big story of life via Calvin and Arminius. The debate was simply Calvin with his predetermination thesis and Arminius emphasizing free will. Since all this debate was tied to the concepts of "heaven" and "hell", Calvin said that just a few fortunates are predetermined for the "eternal" bliss while Arminius said, "Sorry, but if you flub the dub you're going to burn forever even if you join the club."

Physicists seem to fluctuate between the two concepts also, with randomness having the upper hand recently (i.e. chaos theory and string theory).

There is also an alternative theology that says God is not really omniscient: doesn't know the future. It explains some sticky problems, but not to complete satisfaction of all involved. For one thing, what do you do with biblical prophecy like Isaiah 53 that obviously foresees the cross? Or Jesus simply telling the Jews their temple would soon be destroyed and it was? And the list of these things goes on an on. It definitely suggests omniscience.

So I again posit that biblical predestination is God viewing the finished product which is realized in Christ and futurely in reconciliation and restoration of the whole world. But from our position, as beings without omniscience, we decide, we choose, and we operate out of free will, basically or rarely actually seeing into the future, other than educated guesses or possible prophetic information.

From the standpoint of evolution, as has been said, this means that random forces and the determinist "will" of God work in tandem to bring the desired result. All of this is possible when given an omnipotent God. Understanding it is another matter.

Tom said...

7K, you're still describing square pegs and round holes. You are saying that it appears and feels random to us, but really it isn't. How might randomness and God's will operate in tandem without conflict? I don't like your ultimate argument that it is beyond human understanding. Humor me and try not to appeal to faith, if possible.

Now, can't a not-entirely-omniscient God still make predictions? If I profess that it is going to rain this month, and it does, is not prophecy fulfilled? I'm just wondering, are the Biblical prophecies so precise that only an omniscient God could make them?

psiloiordinary said...

There is a fascinating area for us all here;

Quantum Physics is not random but probabilistic. This feeds through to the macro world as Newtonian physics and Relativity.

Also bear in mind that Newtonian physics is only deterministic in a practical sense because there is a limit to our precision of measurement.

Therefore we have no way of telling if, deep down, we have free will or not.

Yes it know it feels like we do.

Then again it feels like the sun goes round the world so feelings don't count for much in this sense.

Please also bear in mind that both relativity and quantum physics still have holes in them. God of the gaps anyone?

- -

I am content with not knowing if I have free will or not. I am content with not even knowing a way of finding out yet.

- - -

Evolution depends on "randomness" in the sense that variation is the fuel to natural selection BUT this natural selection seems to be as opposite to random as you can get.

- - -

Are we back with the antropic debate?

We have no clear evidence either way - Cliff votes for his God/ my Leprechauns and I say (sorry to be boring) we don't know.

7K said...

Sorry about the appeal to the supernatural or to leaning, I guess, on the crutch of faith.

I was simply trying to inject the theistic arguments into this difficult problem.

Flatland empiricism insists on describing this dichotomy with the tendency of Modern "either-or" thinking. Maybe physics is ready to graduate from that and consider the possibility of both operating in some symbiotic way. Same with theology, since both systems, in this regard, are considering the same mystery.

In my own poor comprehension, it seems possible that an omni-God could actually pull this off. It is a bit of "ordo ab chao", isn't it? The chaos resolves to order or vice-versa.

I used to note this in the Pythagorean letter (Y) or even Hegelian Dialectics. In fact, evolution itself seems to conform to this "law", if you will. Chaos ordering itself in a predetermined way. But then we're back to I.D. again, and we are trying to avoid that.

Actually, it doesn't matter, in looking at this, whether we view it as theist or atheist. We are still observing the same phenomenon and it ties us in knots.
Gordion knots (no reference to Gordon).

Cliff Martin said...

Tom: If God has built in randomness, he is not in control, nor omniscient, right?

If an computer analyst, having complete control over his computer and his own ability to write code, builds a random number generator, has he now degraded his knowledge, or lost control over his machine? If an omniscient God creates a universe with built-in randomness, does his ability to pull this fete off degrade his omniscience? or does it enhance it? This reminds me a little of the old logical conundrum: “Can an omnipotent Being create a rock so large that even he is unable to move it?” But in this case, I do not see the logical impossibility of an omniscient God who is able create a cosmos with unknowns (and unknowables) built in. Such a possibility only increases my awe.

Psi: Also bear in mind that Newtonian physics is only deterministic in a practical sense because there is a limit to our precision of measurement.

True. But not true for God if we posit such an omniscient being. In a Newtonian world, such a God could extrapolate forward and backward in time, indefinitely, with exact precision given a single snapshot in time, and the velocity and vectors of every subatomic particle. Again, if we are to allow for randomness over which even God does not exert control or have foreknowledge, I beleive we must appeal to the uncertainty principle of quantum physics.

7k: There is also an alternative theology that says God is not really omniscient: doesn't know the future.

7k is referring to “open theology”, a movement within evangelical Christianity that has gained a degree of acceptance. I subscribe to it, at lease in part. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to suggest that God does not know the future. This is impossible in a strictly Newtonian world. But present day physics restores the possibility, at least. (It should be noted that some “open theology” people believe that God “self-limits” his omniscience, so that he can “play along” with free will beings ... that he does in fact have access to full knowledge of the future, some of which he chooses not to avail to himself. This view seems forced and awkward to me. Back to Tom’s square pegs and round holes. It isn’t real.)

7k: For one thing, what do you do with biblical prophecy like Isaiah 53 that obviously foresees the cross? Or Jesus simply telling the Jews their temple would soon be destroyed and it was?
... to which Tom replies ...
Tom: Now, can't a not-entirely-omniscient God still make predictions? If I profess that it is going to rain this month, and it does, is not prophecy fulfilled? I'm just wondering, are the Biblical prophecies so precise that only an omniscient God could make them?

Quantum physicists cannot predict the movement of quark. But they can predict with a high degree of accuracy the movements of a mass of quarks. (Maybe this is what Psi means when he says the Quantum Physics is not random but probabilistic.) My own opinion is that Biblical prophesy is mostly of a nature that would not require absolute knowledge of the future. Again, a God who is able to (accurately!) see down the pike without absolute foreknowledge impresses me more than one who predicts the future just because he knows the future. Nothing supernatural or wonderful about that. (Is this double-talk?)

Steve Martin said...

Hi Tom,
Jumping in late here ... my position on most of this is probably close to Cliff's. Some brief comments.
1. I agree with psiloiordianry that "randomness" may not be the most helpful term for quantum mechanics and that probabilistic is better. And it is interesting to note the references to "free will". This is a VERY interesting discussion. What I find fascinating is that (it seems to me) the atheist / theist magnet on the implications of "randomness" have flipped recently ie. some atheists are proposing the
universe IS deterministic and that free-will is indeed an illusion.
At the same time, many theists are stating that randomness is inherent in the universe and are integrating this into their theology (see Cliff's references to "Open Theology" - also held by Process Thologians I believe). So, the poor ultra-calivinists need to not only defend a nearly indefensible position on a Loving God, but also find themselves
arm-in-arm with atheists to boot. Go figure. (Ok, sorry, that was
a cheap shot - but since I have lots of ties to Calvinism I assume
I have the leeway to take a few of those :-) )

2. So, I do not agree with the premise of this post that randomness somehow excludes God. My view is that when God created, he allowed his creation the functional integrity to be what it was. This includes “free-will” in higher order organisms like us, it could also included “free-will” / “randomness” at lower levels (eg. quantum level). But each of these levels of creation also has limitations. So for example, I can choose whether to walk left or right, but not whether to flap my arms and fly like a bird. Even though God is not “controlling” my actions, he can control macro-level outcomes. Whether God is omniscient in the sense of "knowing everything that will happen in the future" or just omniscient in the sense of "knowing everything there is to know ie. future events do not exist & so are unknowable" is an open question for me. It actually doesn't bother me either way.

Tom said...

Steve, my premise is not that randomness excludes God, but that randomness excludes an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God. Now that is not to say that such a God is not the most powerful God or that there are even any other Gods. I'm not even saying randomness is a God.

I am saying that I believe in randomness and if God is not omni-everything, what are the properties?

Steve Martin said...

Hi Tom,
Ah .. you are right. I should have read that a little more carefully.
Ok. The questions you ask are good and I think Christians have answered them in different ways.

1. God'somniscience & randomness:

a) that randomness is simply our finite human perspective & means we can't predict what happens. God is infinite & so can predict accurately. This line of thinking runs into trouble if in fact there is true, inherent "randomness" in the system (ie. indeterminancy instead of unpredicatability) like we now surmise in quantum mechanics.

b)God is outside of time and looks as the whole space-time map as "already happened". So he can see results of random events as well. Einstein & many phsysists have commented on this perspective on time.

c) God is omniscient in the sense that he knows all that is "knowable". Since the future hasn't happened yet, & somethings are truely indeterminite (eg. human choices), he does not know
the future precisely. This last position is that of Open Theology - which is deemed heretical in most Evangelical circles.

d) admit God is not omniscient. This is deemed heretical by majority of Christians. No Evangelicals would admit this.

In summary, all of a, b, and c have there problems but Christians wouldn't necessarily all agree that randomness implies God is not omniscient.

2. omnipotence and randomness

a)somewhat same as 1.a - that randomness is simply unpredictablility rather than inherent. Same problems as 1.a above.

b)that God as sovereign & omnipotent, has voluntarily limited his own power in creation to "let creation be" - ie. he gave us free will.

c) on the lines of c) above, God may not know the future in detail but he knows it well enough to react in such a way as to accomplish his purposes. He can bring good out of evil, life out of death.

d) Some Christians admit "God is not omnipotent". No Evangelicals would say this though.

Anyays, these are some of the ways Christians have responded (and as I've said before, we haven't worked all the implications out - at least I haven't). I doubt you will find any of these answers satisfactory for yourself but hopefully I've been able to briefly outline how Christians reconcile this issue.

My own answers. Either something like B or C with a healthy dose of A for #1. Either B or C for #2, not sure.

Tom said...

Steve, thanks for the enumeration.

Not to respond to here and now because it would require a book, but with postings on your blog or here, bear this in mind. My de-conversion from Christianity hinges on this. Evolution uses randomness and randomness (apparent to humans or indeed real) is part of nature or the system. What that has left me with is Deism at best. How you go from such an impersonal deity to a personal one who we had a relationship with and took on human form and died so that we could regain that relationship, well, it's a story I cannot piece together. I am still looking for definitions of sin and "God's image" in the context of evolution and randomness.

psiloiordinary said...

Thanks Steve,

Following on from Tom's questions don't forget the answering of prayers, Miraculous interventions in contradiction of the laws of nature and the issue of hell and eternal torture.

7K said...

"How might randomness and God's will operate in tandem without conflict? "

I'm thinking, "all things are possible with God" which is Jesus talking. "All" implies that he can live with conflict, and even that he invented it or allowed it to happen for some greater good.

"I'm just wondering, are the Biblical prophecies so precise that only an omniscient God could make them?"

There have been studies done on the mathematical probabilities in the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets regarding Jesus suggesting they were near-impossibilities. Of course, such studies can be skewed, a kind of "cooking the books". But I'll just say, I'm impressed.

Fundamentalism is basically a literal approach to scripture, almost exclusively literal. It is comforting to some because they feel secure in taking everything at face-value. These people tend to stay away from deeper probes into the fabric of it all which would cause them to have to question their own beliefs.

But I must say that the omni-God is certainly more than suggested by scripture. We are not omni-beings, as yet, but even the conversation here might suggest we have potential. In that sense, we might say that we are likenesses, the "image" of God, having this transcendent potential, even seeing it through the dark glass.

Doesn't the very fact that we can examine God, even believe or deny his existence, speak of our delegated powers, of our own transcendence, and of our free will? We seem to share some of this omniness.

I understand, too, that Jesus' wonder-working can be considered mythical fables and Jewish legends, but I think he was demonstrating the omni-stuff in human form, the potential that is in this highest-known evolutionary creature, and the quantum leap that is ahead. In that sense, Jesus becomes a kind of dimensional portal into the future of the story: a glimpse of the next stage of evolution.

I mentioned the Pythagorean Y, which attaches the monad to the duad, the random to the predetermined order, if you will. So it has always been observable, even if it doesn't yield easily to empirical logic.

Or Hegel: thesis and antithesis (random) resolving to synthesis (the predetermined, omni-gnosis of Deity).

psiloiordinary said...

Any one got some suggested links re those prophecies?

Sounds interesting to me in my (it feels like) never ending quest for evidence for god.

Cliff Martin said...


There are many popularly written apologetics books like the Josh McDowell series, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Also, you could do Google search such as Prophecies Prove the Bible and get a wealth of sites, pro and con.

Like 7k, I consider some of this rhetorical overkill. But Biblical prophecy is remarkable. I just don't think it rises to the level of proof of the Divinity. Then again, the purpose of prophecy is not about about proving the Bible. It is more about reconfirming a believer's faith as he passes through difficult times, and preparing us for things to come. But in the case of Messianic prophecies, there does seem to be an underlying purpose of validating the coming Christ.

Cliff Martin said...


I don’t know if your questions have been answered to your satisfaction. But I sense they have not. I want to restate my own thoughts, and ask that you respond.

I agree with you: meaning is hard to find without randomness. I believe this is true for the atheist and for the theist (at least this thiest!).

I see no conflict at all in a supernatural omni-being creating a cosmos that is driven by principles of entropy and randomness. Such a being would certainly be able to do such a thing. And if God did create such a cosmos, it would not detract from his omnipotence or omniscience, in my book. If we posit that the future is unknowable due to randomness (and if God so designed it) and if we posit that randomness is built in at the sub-atomic level and thus every level moving upward (and if God so designed it) where is the logical conflict for you?

If the computer spits out random numbers, how does this detract from the ultimate control of the designing engineer, or the operator?

As I have considered the possibility of such a cosmos, I find meaning to be enriched, and the omni- nature of God in no way diminished.

Tom said...


Thanks for addressing the meaning-found-only-from-randomness idea that has so far been ignored. Let me try to briefly describe it, but admittedly, I'm still flushing it out.

In a nutshell, if an organism lives in a random world, there is uncertainty and the organism must build assumptions of the likelihood of various events. This gives events meaning. If B always follows A, then this absolute knowledge is actually devoid of meaning at least in the sense of caring and also in providing any information. (If you are not familiar with Shannon's Information Theory, you might check it out. It deals with entropy in the sense of what is unknown). That is, given A, it does no good to fret or endorse B because B is absolute. If B is not absolute, but the organism knows the likelihood, that gives some wiggle room. It allows for scheming how B can become quicker, more pronounced, avoided, or delayed. Through evolution, B gains a quality that actually means something.

Now, it’s important to note that it cannot be completely random. There has to be some correlation between A and B.

Now, referring to your computer operator example. I can program and utilize randomness as an effective tool. I can pull the plug at any time. I can design various levels of randomness, probability distributions, etc. to coerce the process. The thing is, though, I’m using the computer and its random capabilities to deliver something I do not know. If I knew, I would not have to write the program to spit out the answers.

I have a difficult time accepting that the personal God of Christianity can really know the future. If He does, then he knew Jesus would be sinless and resurrected and who would be saved as a result. Sure that crown of thorns and nails had to hurt, but if God knew everything would turn out in the end, I don’t know if I can say it was the ultimate sacrifice. Abraham was about to give his son (Genesis 22) with a real unknown. Did God do at least that? Not if he knows the future.

Cliff Martin said...


Interesting that you should refer to the Abraham & Isaac story in Genesis 22. It is one of the OT Texts used to support the idea that God does not know the future, that he does not know the choices of free-will beings. It was a test for Abraham, designed by God (verse 1). As Abraham demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice Isaac, God stops him and says "Now I know ... (verse 12). The plain reading of the text would suggest that God was testing Abraham because he did not know what was in his heart, and he wanted to find out. There are many examples like this in the Bible. They get explained away in various ways. But the straightforward reading is clear: God tests hearts because he wants to find out how we will respond -- a senseless thing to do if he already knows.

It should be pointed out that some consider it heresy to suggest that God does not know the future in perfect detail. However, the Bible seems to teach this again and again.

7K said...

This is funny about this story illustrating that God doesn't know the future. The whole story is a parable of what God did at the cross; and it occurs 2,000 years before the cross.

It is an object lesson concerning what God was going to do through the sacrifice of his own son. It was not a cruel act, in that God already knew he was going to excuse Abe from the commanded carnage. But he did not excuse himself.

And his act of sacrificing his son was only cruel from the human, temporal aspect. We Christian theists believe the son rose from the dead. That also nullifies the death.

But I'm not making a Christian tract here. Just illustrating that Abraham's act was a prophecy of God's act 2,000 years later. Thus, it says to me that God knows the future.

Cliff Martin said...

I'm not set on open-theology, and I am not wanting to make an issue here ... but I don't understand your logic. For God to know about his future plans is completely different from his predicting how obedient Abraham will be. I might know that I am going to California for Christmas. That does not mean I know what the weather will be tomorrow, or whether my daugher will clean her room in the next hour.

7K said...

I'm cool with issues, Cliff. And a good point you make.

When we make plans we expect to get there, but don't know for sure. Some factor of entropy or chaos may stand in the way and thwart the plan.

Omniscience understands that the thing projected, in this case a picture of the sacrifice of the son, is a given. Another kind of strange example might be the Genesis 2 statement: "He will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel." Stated as a riddle, it becomes a reality. But it is stated as more than a possibility. It is stated as a fact. This is not intended to happen; it is going to happen.

But that may also just be my bias toward the material, granted.

psiloiordinary said...

Anyone for chaos?

Simple systems which can only be "predicted" i.e. worked out in advance by actually going through every single intermediate step.

When these simple systems involve real things (and not just mathematical constructs) we can't work them out first, we have to actual set the thing going and see what happens.

We can be fairly sure that the earth will still have a stable orbit around the sun in 1 million years hence (assuming that a black hole or other lump of matter does show up to mess things up for us) but we have no idea which side of our orit we will be on.

- - -

Of course using the secret maths of the rainbow leprechauns know exactly where the earth will be then.

- - -

"Deep Simplicity" by John Gribbin is a great introduction to this amazing topic and covers the maths only lightly.

psiloiordinary said...

And just to pick up Cliff's first sentence - in this Newtonian universe we can't even solve the three body problem.

psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

I have a Josh McDowell book and wrote an analysis here.

You will see that I didn't get any further than the first section - the whole book was built on logical quicksand.

Can you give me your most "remarkable" bit of biblical prophecy? I would like to look into it.



Cliff Martin said...

Psi, and all,

I am in Taipei with my wife, on our way to Phnom Penh later today where I will be doing some teaching for the next two weeks. I do not know what internet access I will have, nor if I'll have time. Just wanted you to know that if you do not hear from me for a couple of weeks, you'll know I haven't dropped off the earth. (just almost!)

Psi, like you I am not too impressed with Josh McDowell. His target audience is people who already believe, among whom he is quite popular. So his arguments are not nuanced, and never tentative as all "proofs" in this realm must be. I will think about what I consider the most remarkable prophecy. 7k has suggested a few already. But I want to identify in my own mind what is most remarkable. Part of the problem is that as soon as we have a truly remarkable prophecy (such as Daniel's visions, and interpretations of Neb's dreams) the discussion turns immediately to a denial of the historicity of the writing. Some of those issues get very technical.

The mindset of disbelief will always find a way. But I will try, nevertheless.

psiloiordinary said...

"All religions were forged as defences against this virus, chance. Once you have dreamt up a god or a goddess, you can abase yourself, offer up burnt offerings, put your knees to the ground or your bottom to the air, all in the hope that by fawnings and repeated praise you may ward off ill fortune, or gain an imaginary better world."
- Brian Aldiss, Science Fiction Novelist,
"Fiction or Prediction?", 2007

psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

Have a good trip - remember to cover a range of religious and non religious beliefs in your "teaching" - don't forget the Leprechauns.

- - -

You said this;
"Part of the problem is that as soon as we have a truly remarkable prophecy (such as Daniel's visions, and interpretations of Neb's dreams) the discussion turns immediately to a denial of the historicity of the writing. Some of those issues get very technical."

Trying to see if there is any evidence of this claimed prophecy seems like a pretty fundamental technicality to me.

You then said this;

"The mindset of disbelief will always find a way. But I will try, nevertheless."

Are you calling me a liar?

What evidence do you have for my "mindset of disbelief". You seem to be implying I have a closed mind on this subject.

Can I simply point to the last few weeks of me asking questions and giving thoughful and reasoned repsonses to you points, and ask you to withdraw that comment?

All I have done is ask for evidence.

Show me evidence and I will change my mind.

I have an open mind and I am willing to look at any evidence you have. I am willing to change my mind.

Are you?

Seems to me your mind is much more "set" than mine.

Have a good trip - I look forward to your prophecy and the evidence to support it.