What do you think?
Rate this book
Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology
As technology allows a better view of the universe, R. C. Sproul asks an important question: Can chance be responsible for all that is?
In a lively dialogue with modern thinkers from Einstein and Hume to Niels Bohr and Carl Sagan, Not a Chance consults the laws of logic, linguistic and scientific theory, and mathematical understanding to probe the cause-effect relationship. Now in paperback, it is the only book-length critique of chance causation written by an evangelical. Sproul shows that the origin of the universe and humankind cannot be explained as a result of chance, and that chance can coexist neither with God nor with the natural sciences.
Readers interested in cultural apologetics and in the Bible and science, and anyone seeking a rational defense of creation, will be intrigued by this book. Twenty-five illustrations are included to aid the readers understanding.
In a lively dialogue with modern thinkers from Einstein and Hume to Niels Bohr and Carl Sagan, Not a Chance consults the laws of logic, linguistic and scientific theory, and mathematical understanding to probe the cause-effect relationship. Now in paperback, it is the only book-length critique of chance causation written by an evangelical. Sproul shows that the origin of the universe and humankind cannot be explained as a result of chance, and that chance can coexist neither with God nor with the natural sciences.
Readers interested in cultural apologetics and in the Bible and science, and anyone seeking a rational defense of creation, will be intrigued by this book. Twenty-five illustrations are included to aid the readers understanding.
250 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1994
About the author
R.C. Sproul
693 books2,096 followersDr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.
Ligonier Ministries began in 1971 as the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Ligonier, Pa. In an effort to respond more effectively to the growing demand for Dr. Sproul’s teachings and the ministry’s other educational resources, the general offices were moved to Orlando in 1984, and the ministry was renamed.
Dr. Sproul’s radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. Dr. Sproul produced hundreds of lecture series and recorded numerous video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living.
He contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, spoke at conferences, churches, and academic institutions around the world, and wrote more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and wrote a commentary on that document. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible, previously known as the New Geneva Study Bible.
Dr. Sproul had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Miss. He was ordained as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
July 28, 2013
In the defense of the Christian faith, there are many approaches. But this book by R.C. Sproul is more than a defense of Christian faith, it is a very readable introduction to philosophy and logic.
There are, he argues, four possible causes for the cosmos. But only one of them stands the test of logic. This leads him to provide the arguments for a "necessary cause" of the universe, and that cause can only be God. No other cause has within it the "necessary being" to produce the world as we know it.
In his exploration of "chance," then, Dr. Sproul is keen to demonstrate the logical impossibility of the cosmos being the cause of its own existence. To self-create requires something to exist and not exist at the same time. And this violates the law of non-contradiction.
This book, together with his introductory lectures on the history of philosophy titled "The Consequences of Ideas" should be required reading for anyone interested in Christian apologetics.
This book helps establish Dr. Sproul as a first rate theologian, philosopher and logician.
There are, he argues, four possible causes for the cosmos. But only one of them stands the test of logic. This leads him to provide the arguments for a "necessary cause" of the universe, and that cause can only be God. No other cause has within it the "necessary being" to produce the world as we know it.
In his exploration of "chance," then, Dr. Sproul is keen to demonstrate the logical impossibility of the cosmos being the cause of its own existence. To self-create requires something to exist and not exist at the same time. And this violates the law of non-contradiction.
This book, together with his introductory lectures on the history of philosophy titled "The Consequences of Ideas" should be required reading for anyone interested in Christian apologetics.
This book helps establish Dr. Sproul as a first rate theologian, philosopher and logician.
November 10, 2014
R.C. Sproul has not written a small-minded, fear-mongering diatribe against science. His purpose in Not a Chance is to point out the precipitous slide into fiction that occurs when the brilliant minds that discover and describe the unseen workings of God’s creation attempt to make a side step into the realm of philosophy.
Typically, the debate about origins revolves around the controversy of how the universe bridged the gap between “nothing” and “something.” Intelligent design advocates argue from Scripture that God spoke everything into being. The burden of coming up with matter (or energy) of any kind with no Prime Mover places the atheist in contradiction with the laws of his own scientific method:
(1) ex nihil, nihil fit — “out of nothing, nothing comes”;
(2) the law of noncontradiction — for something to, essentially, create itself, it must be and not be at the same time;
(3) the impossibility of the contrary — if A is, non-A cannot also be at the same time and in the same relationship.
Sproul’s argument necessitates the clarification of the complexities of speech, causality, what it means to know, and what it means to be. He includes in this section a most helpful description of essence and persona as they relate to the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation.
Since it seemed to R.C. Sproul that chance has been, over time, ascribed the dignity of causality in scientific musings, he invited Keith Mathison to close this updated edition of the book with a final dialectic chapter addressing scientific and philosophical arguments which have come to light in the ten years since the initial publication of Not a Chance. Even if the reader is, like me, a died-in-the-wool creationist and impatient with all the verbal gymnastics of those who would strain logic in order to strain-out a Creator, there is food for the soul and for the mind in Not a Chance. Most of the science discussed in the book had not found its way into the average high school physics class thirty years ago, and there is much to be gained from reading Sproul’s history of quantum theory and his descriptions of dark matter, virtual particles, and the working hypothesis of dark energy. Not a Chance presents strong and compelling arguments which should be of interest to the atheist who wishes to be intellectually honest and to do his homework. Of equal value, it is a reminder to the Christian that, in all our arguments and speculations about God and His creative work, we are only approaching the “edges of His ways.”
I received this book free from Baker Publishing Group. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa....
Typically, the debate about origins revolves around the controversy of how the universe bridged the gap between “nothing” and “something.” Intelligent design advocates argue from Scripture that God spoke everything into being. The burden of coming up with matter (or energy) of any kind with no Prime Mover places the atheist in contradiction with the laws of his own scientific method:
(1) ex nihil, nihil fit — “out of nothing, nothing comes”;
(2) the law of noncontradiction — for something to, essentially, create itself, it must be and not be at the same time;
(3) the impossibility of the contrary — if A is, non-A cannot also be at the same time and in the same relationship.
Sproul’s argument necessitates the clarification of the complexities of speech, causality, what it means to know, and what it means to be. He includes in this section a most helpful description of essence and persona as they relate to the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation.
Since it seemed to R.C. Sproul that chance has been, over time, ascribed the dignity of causality in scientific musings, he invited Keith Mathison to close this updated edition of the book with a final dialectic chapter addressing scientific and philosophical arguments which have come to light in the ten years since the initial publication of Not a Chance. Even if the reader is, like me, a died-in-the-wool creationist and impatient with all the verbal gymnastics of those who would strain logic in order to strain-out a Creator, there is food for the soul and for the mind in Not a Chance. Most of the science discussed in the book had not found its way into the average high school physics class thirty years ago, and there is much to be gained from reading Sproul’s history of quantum theory and his descriptions of dark matter, virtual particles, and the working hypothesis of dark energy. Not a Chance presents strong and compelling arguments which should be of interest to the atheist who wishes to be intellectually honest and to do his homework. Of equal value, it is a reminder to the Christian that, in all our arguments and speculations about God and His creative work, we are only approaching the “edges of His ways.”
I received this book free from Baker Publishing Group. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa....
December 21, 2014
Empirical science has staked its claim to Alpha status in the world of truth. However, not all disciplines are quite ready to bow down to the god of the senses. RC Sproul and Keith Mathison do a brilliant job in refuting empirical science's claim to supremacy and show why philosophy is not DOA in regards to interpreting general revelation.
I highlight that this is a book dealing with general revelation because both authors are known as theologians. This is not a book on theology and does not engage the topic with Scripture. Also, Not a Chance is not a diatribe against science.
What this book is is a much-needed affirmation/defense of the laws of causality and non-contradiction while at the same time being a refutation of the causal power of Chance. Sproul and Mathison present a polemic that is forceful, cordial, and clear. It is supremely readable and will benefit all who invest time with it.
The world of philosophy(be it theist, deist, atheist, or agnostic) is not ready to ride peacefully into the night while those bearing lab coats and telescopes tell everyone what is really real. I am thankful for Not a Chance and the needed pushback it so timely provides.
I received a review copy of this book.
I highlight that this is a book dealing with general revelation because both authors are known as theologians. This is not a book on theology and does not engage the topic with Scripture. Also, Not a Chance is not a diatribe against science.
What this book is is a much-needed affirmation/defense of the laws of causality and non-contradiction while at the same time being a refutation of the causal power of Chance. Sproul and Mathison present a polemic that is forceful, cordial, and clear. It is supremely readable and will benefit all who invest time with it.
The world of philosophy(be it theist, deist, atheist, or agnostic) is not ready to ride peacefully into the night while those bearing lab coats and telescopes tell everyone what is really real. I am thankful for Not a Chance and the needed pushback it so timely provides.
I received a review copy of this book.
April 30, 2026
C'est un livre accessible du théologien et pasteur réformé R. C. Sproul où il vulgarise bien les critiques des nombreux non-sens philosophiques de physiciens et cosmologues contemporains (Peter Atkins, Leonard Mlodinow, Stephen Hawkins, Lawrence Krauss, etc.) quand ils parlent de l'origine de l'univers
Il montre comment de nombreuses affirmations par ces derniers s'opposent frontalement aux principes fondamentaux de la logique et de la philosophie comme le principe de non-contradiction (comme par exemple qu'un atome se trouve à un endroit et à un autre en même temps ou lorsque certains parlent de "d'auto-création", *self-creation* en anglais) et le principe ex nihilo nihil fit (de rien rien ne sort) comme quand ils disent que tout s'est créé par le seul hasard.
Il souligne comme principal erreur le passage de la définition du hasard comme l'ignorance de cause inconnue de nous qui agissent sur des effets (chez des Modernes comme Hume) à l'attribution d'un pouvoir causal ou hasard qui en soi n'en a pas réellement car ne désigne pas un objet précis bien défini (chez des physiciens contemporains).
Il présente également le fameux problème philosophique du sujet-objet, qui consiste à rendre compte de l'objectivité de notre connaissance sensible, étant donné que nos sens ne semblent nous apporter que des informations au sujet des phénomènes et non pas de l'essence réelle des choses. A cette fin, Sproul cite de nombreux auteurs, comme Francis Schaeffer (sur la théorie de la correspondance de la vérité), Gordon H. Clark (sur le relativisme et le scepticisme auquels nous mènent inéluctablement l'empirisme, et donc il faut comme seul fondement possible de la certitude l'existence de Dieu et la Bible), Georges Berkeley (problème "subjectivisation" des sens auquel il remédie avec la perception objective de Dieu) et David Hume (comment passer de nos sens à une connaissance certaine ?). Sproul répond à ce problème en invoquant la distinction aristotélicienne entre substance et accident selon ce courant. La science permettrait de connaître les accidents des choses et des phénomènes, mais pas nécessairement leur substance. Ce qui permet d'équilibrer à la fois notre connaissance factuelle et réelle scientifique, et notre limite épistémologique qu'on a juste titre souligné des philosophes cités précédemment.
Dans un autre chapitre, Sproul présente le rôle de régulateur ou de garde-fou que joue la logique classique en particulier, vis-à-vis de la science, car elle présente des règles que la science ne pourra jamais en aucun violer sous peine de miner ses propres fondements. Il joue ce rôle principalement à travers le principe de non-contradiction que malheureusement de nombreux scientifiques enfreignent ta tort au vu de leur ignorance de la philosophie, même s'ils sont sans aucun doute d'excellents scientifiques.
Self creation ("création par soi" ou "autocréation") en anglais désigne une création à partir de soi-même, tandis que la création spontanée désigne une création à partir de rien (absolument aucune chose ou matériau préexistante). Ces deux options sont absurdes car elles mènent à la des contradictions, l'autocréation à "L'univers a existé avant qu'il n'existe.", la création spontanée à "Le néant a un pouvoir causal.".
Dans deux ou trois autres chapitres, vers la fin Sproul présente un argument cosmologique de type thomiste/cause première basé sur une disjonction de cas entre différentes possibilités précises :
1. Soit l'univers s'est autocréé (self-created) ou créé spontanément ;
2. Soit l'univers a une cause transcendante ;
3. Soit l'univers est éternel (a toujours été) ;
4. Soit enfin l'univers a été causé à travers une régression infinie de causes à effet, c'est-à-dire une série de causes à effet dans laquelle on peut remonter à l'infini sans premier maillon.
Il rapporte l'histoire de la pensée de Bertrand Russell au sujet de cet argument et la critique qu'il en fait. Russell, dans son enfance, était un partisan de cette argument, mais il commença à le remettre en question à partir de son adolescence. Pour lui, le problème de l'argument était qu'une régression infinie était possible, mais Sproul répond que cela n'explique pas vraiment la série tout comme Frederick Copleston dans son débat avec Russell (sans vraiment développer).
La première possibilité est absurde pour les raisons énoncées auparavant.
L'option restante est la plus défendable, la position selon laquelle l'univers est éternel et donc qui n'a pas de cause personnelle transcendante. J'ai l'impression que malheureusement Sproul n'y répond pas vraiment.
Dans l'avant-dernier chapitre, Sproul s'attarde à réfuter et mettre en avant plusieurs erreurs d'éminents physiciens contemporains, comme Peter Atkins, Miroslav Leonard, Stephen Hawking et Lawrence Kraus. Ces auteurs prétendent que la création ex nihilo est possible, c'est-à-dire que l'univers a pu se créer à partir de rien, mais soit ils défendent réellement ce point et ils tombent donc dans une absurdité, contredisant le principe de non-contradiction, ou alors ils se révèle que pour eux, le néant n'en est pas réellement un car ils le redéfinissent comme par exemple par une chose concrète comme la présence d'ondes ou de loi de la physique quantique ou le vide quantique. Krauss est particulièrement au pire malhonnête ou au mieux négligeant car il assume avoir exagérer le titre de son livre *A Universe from Nothing* où il dit explicitement qu'en fait il ne va vraiment défendre que le néant a créé quelque chose.
Dans le dernier chapitre, le second auteur du livre Keith Mathison fait une recension d'un livre récemment paru à l'époque sur le sujet de la relation foi, science et foi, principalement autour de sujet de la physique, par exemple la physique quantique le fine tuning. Pour l'auteur, les résultats de la physique quantique semblent démontrer que le monde n'est pas déterministe, mais laisse une porte ouverte à l'indéterminisme, et donc au pouvoir du libre arbitre. Le fine tuning une donnée en faveur de l'existence de Dieu.
Il montre comment de nombreuses affirmations par ces derniers s'opposent frontalement aux principes fondamentaux de la logique et de la philosophie comme le principe de non-contradiction (comme par exemple qu'un atome se trouve à un endroit et à un autre en même temps ou lorsque certains parlent de "d'auto-création", *self-creation* en anglais) et le principe ex nihilo nihil fit (de rien rien ne sort) comme quand ils disent que tout s'est créé par le seul hasard.
Il souligne comme principal erreur le passage de la définition du hasard comme l'ignorance de cause inconnue de nous qui agissent sur des effets (chez des Modernes comme Hume) à l'attribution d'un pouvoir causal ou hasard qui en soi n'en a pas réellement car ne désigne pas un objet précis bien défini (chez des physiciens contemporains).
Il présente également le fameux problème philosophique du sujet-objet, qui consiste à rendre compte de l'objectivité de notre connaissance sensible, étant donné que nos sens ne semblent nous apporter que des informations au sujet des phénomènes et non pas de l'essence réelle des choses. A cette fin, Sproul cite de nombreux auteurs, comme Francis Schaeffer (sur la théorie de la correspondance de la vérité), Gordon H. Clark (sur le relativisme et le scepticisme auquels nous mènent inéluctablement l'empirisme, et donc il faut comme seul fondement possible de la certitude l'existence de Dieu et la Bible), Georges Berkeley (problème "subjectivisation" des sens auquel il remédie avec la perception objective de Dieu) et David Hume (comment passer de nos sens à une connaissance certaine ?). Sproul répond à ce problème en invoquant la distinction aristotélicienne entre substance et accident selon ce courant. La science permettrait de connaître les accidents des choses et des phénomènes, mais pas nécessairement leur substance. Ce qui permet d'équilibrer à la fois notre connaissance factuelle et réelle scientifique, et notre limite épistémologique qu'on a juste titre souligné des philosophes cités précédemment.
Dans un autre chapitre, Sproul présente le rôle de régulateur ou de garde-fou que joue la logique classique en particulier, vis-à-vis de la science, car elle présente des règles que la science ne pourra jamais en aucun violer sous peine de miner ses propres fondements. Il joue ce rôle principalement à travers le principe de non-contradiction que malheureusement de nombreux scientifiques enfreignent ta tort au vu de leur ignorance de la philosophie, même s'ils sont sans aucun doute d'excellents scientifiques.
Self creation ("création par soi" ou "autocréation") en anglais désigne une création à partir de soi-même, tandis que la création spontanée désigne une création à partir de rien (absolument aucune chose ou matériau préexistante). Ces deux options sont absurdes car elles mènent à la des contradictions, l'autocréation à "L'univers a existé avant qu'il n'existe.", la création spontanée à "Le néant a un pouvoir causal.".
Dans deux ou trois autres chapitres, vers la fin Sproul présente un argument cosmologique de type thomiste/cause première basé sur une disjonction de cas entre différentes possibilités précises :
1. Soit l'univers s'est autocréé (self-created) ou créé spontanément ;
2. Soit l'univers a une cause transcendante ;
3. Soit l'univers est éternel (a toujours été) ;
4. Soit enfin l'univers a été causé à travers une régression infinie de causes à effet, c'est-à-dire une série de causes à effet dans laquelle on peut remonter à l'infini sans premier maillon.
Il rapporte l'histoire de la pensée de Bertrand Russell au sujet de cet argument et la critique qu'il en fait. Russell, dans son enfance, était un partisan de cette argument, mais il commença à le remettre en question à partir de son adolescence. Pour lui, le problème de l'argument était qu'une régression infinie était possible, mais Sproul répond que cela n'explique pas vraiment la série tout comme Frederick Copleston dans son débat avec Russell (sans vraiment développer).
La première possibilité est absurde pour les raisons énoncées auparavant.
L'option restante est la plus défendable, la position selon laquelle l'univers est éternel et donc qui n'a pas de cause personnelle transcendante. J'ai l'impression que malheureusement Sproul n'y répond pas vraiment.
Dans l'avant-dernier chapitre, Sproul s'attarde à réfuter et mettre en avant plusieurs erreurs d'éminents physiciens contemporains, comme Peter Atkins, Miroslav Leonard, Stephen Hawking et Lawrence Kraus. Ces auteurs prétendent que la création ex nihilo est possible, c'est-à-dire que l'univers a pu se créer à partir de rien, mais soit ils défendent réellement ce point et ils tombent donc dans une absurdité, contredisant le principe de non-contradiction, ou alors ils se révèle que pour eux, le néant n'en est pas réellement un car ils le redéfinissent comme par exemple par une chose concrète comme la présence d'ondes ou de loi de la physique quantique ou le vide quantique. Krauss est particulièrement au pire malhonnête ou au mieux négligeant car il assume avoir exagérer le titre de son livre *A Universe from Nothing* où il dit explicitement qu'en fait il ne va vraiment défendre que le néant a créé quelque chose.
Dans le dernier chapitre, le second auteur du livre Keith Mathison fait une recension d'un livre récemment paru à l'époque sur le sujet de la relation foi, science et foi, principalement autour de sujet de la physique, par exemple la physique quantique le fine tuning. Pour l'auteur, les résultats de la physique quantique semblent démontrer que le monde n'est pas déterministe, mais laisse une porte ouverte à l'indéterminisme, et donc au pouvoir du libre arbitre. Le fine tuning une donnée en faveur de l'existence de Dieu.
November 19, 2014
This is a review of the book Not a Chance: God, Science and the Revolt Against Reason by R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison. This review was written by my wife, as she was the one who read the book. Her review:
Do you like rhetoric? Philosophy? Arguing a point ad nauseum? Then, you will love this book. Do you like to think deep thoughts? Come across big words only academics use? Again, this book is for you.
Sproul and Mathison spend the first four chapters just on debunking the word "chance." The following are some of the arguments the authors voice:
Faulty assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions.
Self-creation is logically impossible.
Chance as a real force is a myth.
It has no basis in reality & no place in scientific inquiry.
Chance must be demythologized once and for all.
It took them 223 pages to conclude: What are the odds that something can come from absolutely nothing? There is not a chance.
My opinion—this book was not written for the general public.
Do you like rhetoric? Philosophy? Arguing a point ad nauseum? Then, you will love this book. Do you like to think deep thoughts? Come across big words only academics use? Again, this book is for you.
Sproul and Mathison spend the first four chapters just on debunking the word "chance." The following are some of the arguments the authors voice:
Faulty assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions.
Self-creation is logically impossible.
Chance as a real force is a myth.
It has no basis in reality & no place in scientific inquiry.
Chance must be demythologized once and for all.
It took them 223 pages to conclude: What are the odds that something can come from absolutely nothing? There is not a chance.
My opinion—this book was not written for the general public.
August 4, 2017
"If chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot exist. The two are mutually exclusive."
If you just read that quote then, congratulations! You know as much about this book as I do! It's very likely I'm not smart enough to understand what Sproul is trying to say, but it seems to me he's making the same point ten million ways and never moving forward in his argument.
Sproul very clearly explains why "chance" does not have the power of causality. He examines the scientific arguments of theoretical physicists like Einstein and Niels Bohr, picking apart their claims about the universe and the logic behind them. But he doesn't go any further than theory and philosophy. I bought this book expecting more application and apologetics so it was a bit of a letdown.
If you just read that quote then, congratulations! You know as much about this book as I do! It's very likely I'm not smart enough to understand what Sproul is trying to say, but it seems to me he's making the same point ten million ways and never moving forward in his argument.
Sproul very clearly explains why "chance" does not have the power of causality. He examines the scientific arguments of theoretical physicists like Einstein and Niels Bohr, picking apart their claims about the universe and the logic behind them. But he doesn't go any further than theory and philosophy. I bought this book expecting more application and apologetics so it was a bit of a letdown.
May 26, 2014
Superb gets you thinking
Excellent book, provides much food for thought. I laughed at times at the absurdity of some of the scientist's thinking. I had to stop at times, and just think. Definitely a must read for anyone defending the faith, or seeking answers.
Excellent book, provides much food for thought. I laughed at times at the absurdity of some of the scientist's thinking. I had to stop at times, and just think. Definitely a must read for anyone defending the faith, or seeking answers.
November 24, 2018
I’m sure it’s a great book but it was difficult to read, digest and follow. Ponderous. I would only recommend it to folks who are truly interested in delving into a philosophical and theological perspective on why “chance” cannot be a cause of for the existence of anything.
November 20, 2014
Sproul does a good job refuting something coming from nothing.
September 15, 2017
R. C. Sproul is one of evangelical Protestantism's leading theologians, but his book, "Not a Chance: God, Science, and the Revolt Against Reason," isn't intended to preach to the choir, nor is it a book that will tell you much about Jesus, or Christianity. Sproul's short (two-hundred-page) document is intended to answer the question "Is it possible an act of chance led to creation of our world?"
His answer, of course, is no, but this book is not one that appeals to the emotions. There's little about personal faith; rather, Sproul searches ancient philosophers and scientists, comparing and contrasting their ideas and suppositions with those of modern science.
Throughout, he argues that there is no possibility that "chance" could be a causal agent for creation or change. Chance as a cause is a myth, and in Sproul's view, modern scientists seeking to explain the origin or the universe err in giving power to something that doesn't exist.
The book is a general overview of subjects relating to chance and to cause and effect. Those with a deep interest in these subjects will probably want to continue their studies further--and Sproul offers up many ancient and modern thinkers, both those with whom he agrees and those with whom he does not, that one could seek out. For those, like myself, with little inclination to do this, it serves as a well-rounded, and easily digested, summary of the arguments between science, religion, and philosophy, as regards chance.
He also gets into the problems of language, in discussing chance. Little things, like describing something as happened "by chance," are loaded with possible confusion. Sproul feels that modern scientists have become lazy with their language in many cases, and even lazier when assigning chance as having real value. It's not logical, he asserts, and he's got some good arguments to back up this supposition. And again, this is done with little preaching. As the author states, he's written other books that can relate his personal feelings about Christianity, and why that religion offers the big answers to the big questions. "Not a Chance" is a focused and well-written argument against something coming from nothing, by accident.
His answer, of course, is no, but this book is not one that appeals to the emotions. There's little about personal faith; rather, Sproul searches ancient philosophers and scientists, comparing and contrasting their ideas and suppositions with those of modern science.
Throughout, he argues that there is no possibility that "chance" could be a causal agent for creation or change. Chance as a cause is a myth, and in Sproul's view, modern scientists seeking to explain the origin or the universe err in giving power to something that doesn't exist.
The book is a general overview of subjects relating to chance and to cause and effect. Those with a deep interest in these subjects will probably want to continue their studies further--and Sproul offers up many ancient and modern thinkers, both those with whom he agrees and those with whom he does not, that one could seek out. For those, like myself, with little inclination to do this, it serves as a well-rounded, and easily digested, summary of the arguments between science, religion, and philosophy, as regards chance.
He also gets into the problems of language, in discussing chance. Little things, like describing something as happened "by chance," are loaded with possible confusion. Sproul feels that modern scientists have become lazy with their language in many cases, and even lazier when assigning chance as having real value. It's not logical, he asserts, and he's got some good arguments to back up this supposition. And again, this is done with little preaching. As the author states, he's written other books that can relate his personal feelings about Christianity, and why that religion offers the big answers to the big questions. "Not a Chance" is a focused and well-written argument against something coming from nothing, by accident.
December 12, 2017
Sproul and Mathison systematically confront modern day scientists and their illogical and irrational claims of the origins of the universe. Here is a basic synopsis of Not A Chance.
Chance is merely the probability of something happening. If we flip a coin, the chances of it landing on heads is fifty percent. But chance doesn’t cause it to land on heads. Chance isn’t an entity and has no power to cause anything to happen.
Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning. If the universe has a beginning then that means at one time there was absolutely nothing. If there is nothing, then nothing comes.
The problem is that many scientists are claiming the universe came by chance. If chance has no power, how could it create a universe? Most scientists are saying that “nothing” actually isn’t “nothing”. They say nothing, but then say that there was space and gravity and due to the law of gravity a universe was created. Well, space and gravity is SOMETHING! So how did space and gravity get there?
You cannot say with humility that by “chance” a universe created itself and came into existence.
The only logical and rational explanation of something coming from nothing is a self- existent eternal being.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is a heavy philosophical read with some science. This book will take you to a new level of thought and will make your brain hurt if you are a novice in philosophy. Just make sure you read slow, take plenty of notes, and meditate on what you read before moving on. Enjoy!
Chance is merely the probability of something happening. If we flip a coin, the chances of it landing on heads is fifty percent. But chance doesn’t cause it to land on heads. Chance isn’t an entity and has no power to cause anything to happen.
Most scientists agree that the universe has a beginning. If the universe has a beginning then that means at one time there was absolutely nothing. If there is nothing, then nothing comes.
The problem is that many scientists are claiming the universe came by chance. If chance has no power, how could it create a universe? Most scientists are saying that “nothing” actually isn’t “nothing”. They say nothing, but then say that there was space and gravity and due to the law of gravity a universe was created. Well, space and gravity is SOMETHING! So how did space and gravity get there?
You cannot say with humility that by “chance” a universe created itself and came into existence.
The only logical and rational explanation of something coming from nothing is a self- existent eternal being.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is a heavy philosophical read with some science. This book will take you to a new level of thought and will make your brain hurt if you are a novice in philosophy. Just make sure you read slow, take plenty of notes, and meditate on what you read before moving on. Enjoy!
December 4, 2021
The audacity and ignorance of this book to simply refute chance as a nonstarter in the first chapter is utterly ridiculous. The author would likely not believe in evolution. The very fact that the cells in our bodies are not superpositioned, but decay over time, the mere fact that we have antimatter and black holes, where scientists have proven that information is destroyed in black holes, clearly has a lot to say about the reality of chance, which does not automatically mean God can’t be a personal God and an existent one. My little hypothesis is that beings in this universe are ripped by a sinful chasm from high reality, insomuch that we are largely on our own program. Just a small idea that honestly can’t be proven way or another. But to unite chance and religion, that’s where true understanding lies, because faith is in need of science and science is devoid of tactile sensory revelation and human purpose. I find it very beautiful that Christ died for my sins, but I also see that there is a speed of light in the universe, that the universe was to exist by chance in no other fashion but the laws of physics.
November 8, 2018
After the first full chapter I was tempted to put the book away (thankfully it improved thereafter). The author writes as if he is offended that as a theologian and philosopher that he does not automatically understand quantum theory. The writing seemed overly arrogant – which surprised me as I would never accuse the author of the same. After that the book settled down into something that was boring. Ultimately the book is a treatise against those new atheists who push scientism (the self-refuting philosophical view that only science can tell us anything) in the place of science, and then come up with philosophically absurd theories wrapped in scientific language to “prove” that the universe appeared from nothing. I cannot fault the arguments made in the book, but there are better books on similar topics that are much more interesting to read (e.g. Lennox).
November 30, 2021
I remember commenting in my blog recently about how some people think Christianity and science are mutually exclusive. This book is all about creationism from a Christian scientist's point of view, mostly based on the claim that people like Richard Dawkins make that the universe was "created by chance, out of nothing".
This was quite a dense read, but it felt painstakingly researched, and felt like a comprehensive guide to how the writer came to his conclusions. I had read similar in other books, but not to the level of detail that I saw here.
This is definitely worth reading, but you'll want to avoid distractions to get the most out of it.
This was quite a dense read, but it felt painstakingly researched, and felt like a comprehensive guide to how the writer came to his conclusions. I had read similar in other books, but not to the level of detail that I saw here.
This is definitely worth reading, but you'll want to avoid distractions to get the most out of it.
July 28, 2020
Sproul is excellent at synthesizing and explaining different philosophical strains. I would have enjoyed a bit more on the consequences of different ideas and philosophies. He does a good job explaining different philosophical ideas and why we can't logically ascribe causal power to chance. He doesn't though really do much to explain why believing something illogical like that is so bad. I think if you want a good summary of philosophy from a theologian philosopher this is great book to go to.
July 27, 2022
Sproul being Sproul.
He was a genius.
He does philosophy affordable for every mind. I'll admit that the reading was hard for me, but kept me interested through all.
The conclusion says it all:
"Scientists may be able to show mathematically consistent ways in which the existence of any of these somethings could lead to other somethings. But what are the odds that something can come from absolutely nothing? There is not a chance."
He was a genius.
He does philosophy affordable for every mind. I'll admit that the reading was hard for me, but kept me interested through all.
The conclusion says it all:
"Scientists may be able to show mathematically consistent ways in which the existence of any of these somethings could lead to other somethings. But what are the odds that something can come from absolutely nothing? There is not a chance."
January 5, 2024
This book was wonderful. It was honestly not what I expected but it was great. It was full of a lot of scientific information to explain how the world did not come to being by chance but by design. Sproul did a great job explaining things and working through them.
4 stars because he added a chapter and new appendix by Mathison and it honestly felt like it was all over the place and didn’t go with the rest of the book.
4 stars because he added a chapter and new appendix by Mathison and it honestly felt like it was all over the place and didn’t go with the rest of the book.
February 25, 2018
A diatribe in the classical sense against chance as an instrumental cause. People often use the word as a magical cause. Dr Sproul offers a sustained logical critique against much of the sloppiness of language in the scientific world. In the last chapter he takes several famous atheists, a la Dawkins and Krause, to task for nonsensical statements and other logical fallacies. A worthy read.
April 5, 2021
The sections on philosophy were really enjoyable. I skimmed through the chapters on quantum physics & math, seeing as I suck at those areas. But I’m not going to give the book less than 5 stars because of my ignorance. RC was a great theologian, & am equally amazing philosopher.
September 7, 2021
The basic argument of this book I think could have been boiled down to a few chapters. That is my biggest issue with this book… The middle chapters seem long and overly philosophical while the end chapters are the best (though still very philosophical).
November 10, 2021
This book is a solid shorter length read that contains such topics as why “chance” does not have causal power and why something cannot come from nothing. I found it to be a satisfying read, and the chapters covering some basic principles of logic very helpful and engaging.
October 9, 2022
In some aspects I found this book somewhat repetitive, although I liked that the author thoroughly reasoned through supposedly "scientific" statements, and showed how illogical and baseless they were.
July 22, 2023
An excellent book on a specific lie of modern "science". In addition to the primary topic one gets an introduction to landscape of the topic. In typical R.C. Sproul fashion, the topic is unpacked with clarity in conversational fashion.
November 24, 2023
This is a great book on the importance of logic and causality in science. I was especially surprised by the positive exposition of Hume near the end of the book. If you've never taken at least a Philosophy 101 class, it will be difficult reading.
August 28, 2017
I enjoyed this book.
January 4, 2018
It's a tricky book to read but really good and makes you think.
April 4, 2018
90 percent of this was over my head. But reading the book deepened my respect for the brilliance of R.C. Sproul.
February 22, 2020
Chance is a statement of probability not a force acting on anything.
September 18, 2021
Excellent book! Heavy on philosophy and logic. I think it's the kind of book that needs to be absorbed and then reread periodically.
May 8, 2022
Apologetics against some theory of relativity and other new philosophy derived from it, especially when these theory used in theology.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews