External Influences

[Whatsthepoint]

Yes.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't think anyone, save an ontological realist, would try to claim probability theorems are pre-existing, metaphysical entities,

And even then they'd have to be a specific type of ontological realist, of course.

however that dosen't mean chance is simply a human construction

Could you explain why not? Could the concept of chance exist without us?

(as English is an artificial construction to describe real thoughts)

How "real" thoughts are is surely a topic of wide-ranging debate in the philosophy of mind? It depends exactly what you mean by "real" here, so you may have a point on this.

perhapse the mathematical system used to describe the likelehood that X will happen is a human construction, however like physics equations it is describing a real phenomena, not like a rainbow perhapse, bu8t probability theory does describe the likelehood a given event will "happen" more or less.

True, probability theory does describe and predict real phenomena, but ascribing something to chance or to luck is to take a certain perspective on the matter, which, as far as I know, is something only humans can do. The fact that the chance of something happening can be predicted mathematically with some degree of precision does not necessarily mean that chance itself can be said to have independent reality outside of human thought. That's almost like saying that the number 2 exists somewhere in nature.

Isn't it? :?

I suspect we may be looking at two different aspects of a gestalt here. In any case, it's good to see another new member of the forum with some grounding in philosophy. Let's hope it helps us get out of the trap that aamirsaab is no doubt laying for us...

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

...Let's hope it helps us get out of the trap that aamirsaab is no doubt laying for us...

Peace

LOL, it's not a trap! .

Ok so our resident aethiests have all answered yes (well I think Barney said yes but I'm not sure...oh well don't matter). Thank you all for your responses so far.

Someone mentioned something about a mathematical probability. Only problem I have with that is that luck in and of itself doesn't rely on a probability - it has mysterious properties hence it's called luck.

Ok. Now we've established that external influences do exist (both theists and aethists believe they exist). What is most interesting about external influences is that they can be called various names. One reason for doing so is:

They are concepts that we have invented in order to help explain to each other our attitudes towards certain events.

Therefore, it can be said external influences are a form of coping strategy. Psychologically, belief in external influences is a sign of mental sanity and normality. So there is no problem in believing in external influences.

Now, here is a mind boggler: there is no tangible evidence for luck, chance or coincidence. Infact, there is no tangible evidence for external influences in general. However, we do see their effects and in order to have some understanding (aka a coping strategy) we name those external influences i.e luck, chance, coincidence etc etc.

In a similar way, for theists, there is no tangible evidence for God. Yet, His properties and attributes are exactly the same as what we call external influences in that we can only identify the existence of God through certain actions - there are no specific tangible attributes that we, as theists can point out to and say: Yes this is God - exactly the same as with any external influence, noone can actually pinpoint and say this is an external influence (other than by identifying any effects as already stated). In which case God, at least according to theists, = an external influence (since His properties are all identical to external influence). So, if my chain of thought is correct in making this link it therefore means that aethiests do actually believe in the existence of God (the external influence) - they simply do not chose to call it that.

Now, what puzzles me is: why? Given everything I have stated about external influences and the linkage with God, why do aethiests not call it God?

 

[Gator]

I am no longer tingly.

 

[Trumble]

Just a quick question: Do aethiests accept external influences? I.e. chance, coincidence, luck etc.

I don't accept the question as coherent (in the technical sense) as it seems to be one big catagory mistake. "Chance", "coincidence" and "luck" are not "influences" at all, external or otherwise. They are merely labels applied to an event, or sequence of events, after they have occurred, the potential application of which are determined by convention. "Chance" can also be used in reference to future events in terms of probabilities such as betting odds, say, but that doesn't seem relevant here.

Consequently

there is no tangible evidence for luck, chance or coincidence.

is untrue, and

In a similar way, for theists, there is no tangible evidence for God. Yet, His properties and attributes are exactly the same as what we call external influences in that we can only identify the existence of God through certain actions - there are no specific tangible attributes that we, as theists can point out to and say: Yes this is God - exactly the same as with any external influence, noone can actually pinpoint and say this is an external influence (other than by identifying any effects as already stated). In which case God, at least according to theists, = an external influence (since His properties are all identical to external influence). So, if my chain of thought is correct in making this link it therefore means that aethiests do actually believe in the existence of God (the external influence) - they simply do not chose to call it that.

simply does not follow.

Better explain that with an example. Let's take coincidence. One day I am returning home from work when I remember that there is no food at home for the evening meal. I therefore pop into the supermarket and buy pasta, pesto, asparagus and a bottle of sparkling mineral water with a dash of citrus flavouring to wash it down with. I get home and find that my wife, who also remembered the fridge was empty also popped into the shops on her way home and bought - you guessed it - pasta, pesto, asparagus and a bottle of sparkling mineral water with a dash of citrus flavouring. Coincidence!!

Maybe. What if pasta, pesto, asparagus and a bottle of sparkling mineral water with a dash of citrus flavouring happened to be our very favourite meal which we ate at least once a week. Not quite so remarkable, then. Or how about if she bought diet coke rather than the mineral water? Still less remarkable a coincidence. And if I had bought a take-away curry home instead? No coincidence at all. Whether something is a coincidence or not is purely a matter of convention. There is no empirical way to measure or observe whether a particular set of events constitutes a 'coincidence' or not. Likewise with "luck" and (in the first sense) "chance". None are some sort of external force capable of influencing events, hence the attempted analogy/identification with God fails.

 

[wth1257]

Greetings,


And even then they'd have to be a specific type of ontological realist, of course.

there a tricky bunch, that's what you get for dealing with Greek Philosophy

Could you explain why not? Could the concept of chance exist without us?

Not the concept, there would still be a likelehood that a given event would occur as a result of a given set of circumstances

How "real" thoughts are is surely a topic of wide-ranging debate in the philosophy of mind? It depends exactly what you mean by "real" here, so you may have a point on this.

sure, however seeing as I just did my finals in that subject, I do not feel like discussing that for a year or two

True, probability theory does describe and predict real phenomena, but ascribing something to chance or to luck is to take a certain perspective on the matter, which, as far as I know, is something only humans can do. The fact that the chance of something happening can be predicted mathematically with some degree of precision does not necessarily mean that chance itself can be said to have independent reality outside of human thought. That's almost like saying that the number 2 exists somewhere in nature.

does gravity exist indipendent of humans?

I suspect we may be looking at two different aspects of a gestalt here.

Perhapse

In any case, it's good to see another new member of the forum with some grounding in philosophy. Let's hope it helps us get out of the trap that aamirsaab is no doubt laying for us...

Thank you

As to aamirsaab's trap, he's said it's no trap, but I AM really curious about what his ultimate point is, I honestly have no idea.

Come on aamirsaab!

Don't keep us in suspense to long

Peace

peace to you as well

 

[KAding]

Even if we do follow your logic, wouldn't God require sentience, unlike chance? Why would we call any external events, which were not part of a deliberate plan, God?

 

[intra]

The term atheist shouldn't really be seen as any kind of institution, although there are certainly atheist groups, alot of people have gradually developed these beliefs through solo experiences and those around them, not specifically any teachings or scriptures.

So it is difficult to determine the most common philosophy of life an atheist would use.
Some people have seen the shaping and alteration of their faith and being an athiest can be a result of this.
Technically in some cases atheism can be justified to an extent.
Other people however simply turn their backs on their faith for materialistic purposes, like having a pleasurable life and simply not finding faith a requirement etc.

Ultimately it is a neautral outcome as the philosophies of life spectrum is so diverse and ranges in various beliefs about life, particularly when it comes to atheists.

 

[aamirsaab]

I am no longer tingly.

Sorry if you got hyped up about it. It's just a thread . No, please continue to participate. I'm interested in the answers - which I'm sure there shall be a considerable range of. This whole thread was for the benefit of aethiests - I know you guys always get the short end of the straw with threads (they either outrightly insult/mock you or they have nothing in it that you can actually comprehend), so I thought I'd dedicate one just for you all. Aren't I a bad-ass.

I don't accept the question as coherent (in the technical sense) as it seems to be one big catagory mistake. "Chance", "coincidence" and "luck" are not "influences" at all, external or otherwise. They are merely labels applied to an event, or sequence of events, after they have occurred, the potential application of which are determined by convention. "Chance" can also be used in reference to future events in terms of probabilities such as betting odds, say, but that doesn't seem relevant here.

That's exactly my point. We name the external influence as coincidence, chance etc. In a similar fashion, for theists, we call it another name (God or rather The Will of God) - and I have already explained why we name it: as a coping strategy otherwise we'd go insane.

....Maybe. What if pasta, pesto, asparagus and a bottle of sparkling mineral water with a dash of citrus flavouring happened to be our very favourite meal which we ate at least once a week. Not quite so remarkable, then. Or how about if she bought diet coke rather than the mineral water? Still less remarkable a coincidence. And if I had bought a take-away curry home instead? No coincidence at all

That is not an example of coincidence though....it's an example of context. Coincidence was shown in the first example (i.e. if the context was simply you both went shopping and came back with the exact same food products). Let us take a definition of coincidence from the
dictionary

co·in·ci·dence Audio Help /koʊˈɪnsɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-in-si-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance: Our meeting in Venice was pure coincidence. 2. the condition or fact of coinciding.
3. an instance of this.

^ it doesn't mention context (in the way that was shown in trumble's second part of his example). If context (in the way that was shown in trumble's second part of his example) is know, it isn't really a coincidence.

Even if we do follow your logic, wouldn't God require sentience, unlike chance? Why would we call any external events, which were not part of a deliberate plan, God?

Perhaps, but as stated before: both chance and God are intangible - no physical (or hard) evidence of either, they are simply names that we attribute to certain events.

So again, my question is: why not call it the will of God? What are the aethiest's reasons for not calling a lucky incident/coincidence/chance the will of God when essentially both are exactly the same (as has already been established).
There is no right and wrong answer. I'm interested in your views for now. Oh and I shall dismiss the ''well I don't believe in God'' type answers. Unless of course, you've approached it properly. If it's just those 6/7 words it's not a valid answer.

p.s

...Come on aamirsaab!

Don't keep us in suspense to long

Lol. The end result will ultimately be only as good as the answers I get. For now, the question has changed to the above: Why not call chance, coincidence or luck (all names for an external influence) the will of God.

 

[Trumble]

That's exactly my point.

I think you may be missing mine.

We name the external influence as coincidence, chance etc.

No, we don't. You are still making exactly the same catagory mistake. There is no "external influence" to label as coincidence or chance etc in a non-theistic worldview. There are, of course, a virtual infinity of events going on that affect us that we never even know or think about, but they are not "external", they are just part of the world around us. If in crossing the road I get hit by a maniac driving at 100 mph I am 'unlucky', certainly, but not as a result of "external influence" but because of an idiot driver I did not know, and couldn't know, would be there. I arrived at the crossing precisely at that time not because of "external influence" but because I had stopped to tie my shoelace a few seconds before. The shoelace had come undone not because of "external influence", but because I had been careless in tying it. And so on.

In a theistic worldview, of course, you might assign responsibility for those things, or a specific combination of them, to God as an active agent in controlling everything but in an atheistic world view there is no equivalent and no need for one. Hence the analogy fails.

That is not an example of coincidence though....it's an example of context.

Coincidence is determined by context, that was precisely my point. Two or more events form a "striking" combination simply because people think they do. It's purely subjective, and determined by convention.

I'm afraid when it comes to philosophy dictionary definitions simply won't do! What does "by mere chance" actually mean? You are making the assumption that it means the relevant events were the result of some sort of external force. I have demonstrated no such force need exist in an atheistic metaphysics.

 

[aamirsaab]

No, we don't. You are still making exactly the same catagory mistake. There is no "external influence" to label as coincidence or chance etc in a non-theistic worldview.

But in your last post you admited:

They are merely labels applied to an event, or sequence of events, after they have occurred, the potential application of which are determined by convention.

This given in addition to the many aethiests who have all answered yes external influences exist clearly mean they do exist - or atleast we think they exist based on our perception. We give them a name to cope with the situation.

In a theistic worldview, of course, you might assign responsibility for those things, or a specific combination of them, to God as an active agent in controlling everything but in an atheistic world view there is no equivalent and no need for one. Hence the analogy fails.

But we (both athiests and theists) do assign responsibility to things we cannot explain though. That's the whole point of my thread. My question is why do aethiests chose not to call it the will of god (in some cases, they vehemently appose the idea!) but they do admit that some sort of externality exists.

Coincidence is determined by context, that was precisely my point. Two or more events form a "striking" combination simply because people think they do. It's purely subjective, and determined by convention.

Subjectivity is key to this thread's magic and hopefully will crop up again in this thread where I will go in detail.

I'm afraid when it comes to philosophy dictionary definitions simply won't do! What does "by mere chance" actually mean? You are making the assumption that it means the relevant events were the result of some sort of external force.

No, I'm saying that we, aethiest or theist, give a reason to everything (especially things that are without our control). My new question is in it's more refined terms: why do aethiests disregard the will of God but accept calling a situation lucky, coincidence etc.

...I have demonstrated no such force need exist in an atheistic metaphysics.

I will remind you again: all the aethiests that have participated in this thread have admitted there are things completely out of there control (e.g some sort of external force). As humans (regardless of our faith), we are psychologically supposed to believe in some sort of external influence because it acts as a coping strategy: if we only believe in internal forces then we will blame ourselves for every event.

 

[Gator]

No, I'm saying that we, aethiest or theist, give a reason to everything (especially things that are without our control). My new question is in it's more refined terms: why do aethiests disregard the will of God but accept calling a situation lucky, coincidence etc.

Hello. No worries, I was just joking about the tingly thing!

Well, most of the arguments would be covered by KAding and trumble already.

I'm trying to see what you are driving at. Here's a little example.

You and I are on the street having coffee at a small shop to demonstrate our protest of the large corporate evil entity known as starbucks (small "s" intentional). A person on the sidewalk opposite is walking down the street. He get hit on the head by a bag of flour that fell off a ledge of a window (don't like hitting him with a piano). He's unhurt but is covered in flour. We laugh and laugh and then....

Gator: Wow, what were the chances of that!

Aamirsaab: Well, why don't you think it was Allah who caused that?

G: I don't believe that the universe is directed by a sentient being so it had to have been what I would label chance and coincidence, though its really just the result of a non-random highly complex series of chaotic events.

A: But you don't have any evidence that that wasn't caused by Allah. As you said the possibility of that happening is remote.

G: True, but trillion and trillions of opportunities for that sort of thing to occur happen all the time. We just happen to witness when one of them occured. We live in uncertainty and subscribe a subjective probability matrix to possible events though those event are themselves non-random.

A: But its an untangible external force so you have to label it something and you label it chance as a coping mechanism. Why not label it God?

G: I don't know about coping. I name things all the time like antelope and car. And chance is not a force itself but rather an idea like freedom or truthiness. Its a word to describe my percieved risks in this unguided universe. I believe its unguided because I don't see a guiding hand behind my perception of this reality.

A: Man this coffe is bad.

G: Agreed, lets go to Starbucks.

This little drama was just meant to show my thought process. let me know if I have your arguments correct and we can continue it at the next place.

Thanks!

 

[Trumble]

This given in addition to the many aethiests who have all answered yes external influences exist clearly mean they do exist - or atleast we think they exist based on our perception. We give them a name to cope with the situation.

What they have said, while certainly relevant to the course of the thread, is irrelevant to the argument I am presenting. They have merely fallen into making the catagory mistake you presented them with. Quite apart from which the distinction between "exist clearly" and "we think they exist based on our perception" is fundamental.. to illustrate that I merely need to ask you to consider to consider God in terms of first one and then the other.

But we (both athiests and theists) do assign responsibility to things we cannot explain though. That's the whole point of my thread. My question is why do aethiests chose not to call it the will of god (in some cases, they vehemently appose the idea!) but they do admit that some sort of externality exists.

Again, you need to be very careful as to what you mean by externality. If I may ask a question of the atheists myself, do any of you believe that "luck", "chance" or "coincidence" exist as discrete entities , capable of influencing what happens to us (as would be the case with God)? If you do, then you owe aamirsaab an answer to that question.

Subjectivity is key to this thread's magic and hopefully will crop up again in this thread where I will go in detail.

I look forward to it as this has been a very interesting discussion, but IMVHO you will need to change tack somewhere. I understand what the point of your thread is, I just believe it to be based on a mistake.

As humans (regardless of our faith), we are psychologically supposed to believe in some sort of external influence because it acts as a coping strategy: if we only believe in internal forces then we will blame ourselves for every event.

That may well be; I'm not a psychologist. I do not believe in such an influence. Actually, as a Buddhist "if we only believe in internal forces then we will blame ourselves for every event" is pretty near the mark. We call it karma.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So again, my question is: why not call it the will of God? What are the aethiest's reasons for not calling a lucky incident/coincidence/chance the will of God when essentially both are exactly the same (as has already been established).

I am completely baffled.

You asked us if we beleive in forces outside our own selves. Of course there are such forces, including each other, weather patterns, whatever. MOST of what goes on in this world is not controlled by me or you. We live in environments beyond our personal control in many ways.

Then you talk about getting lucky. I assume this means low probability occurences taking place and us experiencing or observing them and labelling them such. We could also label all the high-probability occurences (It'd take a while, but we could do it). Does labelling the one and not the other somehow create a magical force attached to the one we've labeled? A sentient force? A force we should worship and call God?

You seem to think so, as you ask us why we don't consider these events (pointing, for some unknown reason, only to the low probability ones) to be God's mysterious forces.

As a believer, you may beleive that God directs all occurences on earth, but then again you may not, as that would seem to erode free will. As atheists we obviously don't believe in God, so don't believe he's directing these occurences. That should be obvious...

It seems clear to me that you've lost yourself in semantics. That or you don't appreciate what probability means. No supernatural force need intervene for low probability events to take place. Low probability events WILL take place (just less frequently than high probability events). No magic needed.

 

[aamirsaab]

and hello. Thanks for the replies.

...
Well, most of the arguments would be covered by KAding and trumble already.

I'm trying to see what you are driving at. Here's a little example.

You and I are on the street having coffee at a small shop to demonstrate our protest of the large corporate evil entity known as starbucks (small "s" intentional). A person on the sidewalk opposite is walking down the street. He get hit on the head by a bag of flour that fell off a ledge of a window (don't like hitting him with a piano). He's unhurt but is covered in flour. We laugh and laugh and then....

Gator: Wow, what were the chances of that!

Aamirsaab: Well, why don't you think it was Allah who caused that?

G: I don't believe that the universe is directed by a sentient being so it had to have been what I would label chance and coincidence, though its really just the result of a non-random highly complex series of chaotic events.

A: But you don't have any evidence that that wasn't caused by Allah. As you said the possibility of that happening is remote.

G: True, but trillion and trillions of opportunities for that sort of thing to occur happen all the time. We just happen to witness when one of them occured. We live in uncertainty and subscribe a subjective probability matrix to possible events though those event are themselves non-random.

A: But its an untangible external force so you have to label it something and you label it chance as a coping mechanism. Why not label it God?

G: I don't know about coping. I name things all the time like antelope and car. And chance is not a force itself but rather an idea like freedom or truthiness. Its a word to describe my percieved risks in this unguided universe. I believe its unguided because I don't see a guiding hand behind my perception of this reality.

A: Man this coffe is bad.

G: Agreed, lets go to Starbucks

This little drama was just meant to show my thought process. let me know if I have your arguments correct and we can continue it at the next place.

Thanks!

The example is on the right track. I'll re explain the new question at the end of this reply.

What they have said, while certainly relevant to the course of the thread, is irrelevant to the argument I am presenting. They have merely fallen into making the catagory mistake you presented them with. Quite apart from which the distinction between "exist clearly" and "we think they exist based on our perception" is fundamental.. to illustrate that I merely need to ask you to consider to consider God in terms of first one and then the other.

Ok, I have no problem with that. Perhaps I should clarify: by external influence I do not neccessarily mean God or a deity or supreme being. Rather, I mean something that is completely out of our control (i.e beyond our comprehension) accept their existance and, here is the key part, they are simply words we use to describe the event.
I'm glad you mentioned perception though, as it is another key point.

I look forward to it as this has been a very interesting discussion, but IMVHO you will need to change tack somewhere. I understand what the point of your thread is, I just believe it to be based on a mistake.

Thank you for your input. The more on this thread, the better as far as I am concerned.

That may well be; I'm not a psychologist. I do not believe in such an influence. Actually, as a Buddhist "if we only believe in internal forces then we will blame ourselves for every event" is pretty near the mark. We call it karma.

Another key point. All three of the key points mentioned in the discussion so far will relate to the end result.

....
Then you talk about getting lucky. I assume this means low probability occurences taking place and us experiencing or observing them and labelling them such. We could also label all the high-probability occurences (It'd take a while, but we could do it). Does labelling the one and not the other somehow create a magical force attached to the one we've labeled? A sentient force? A force we should worship and call God?

I mentioned luck, chance and coincidence since those words are commonly used to explain a situation that is out of our control.

As a believer, you may beleive that God directs all occurences on earth, but then again you may not, as that would seem to erode free will. As atheists we obviously don't believe in God, so don't believe he's directing these occurences. That should be obvious...

I'm fully aware of that perspective. I wanted to see if there were any others.

It seems clear to me that you've lost yourself in semantics. That or you don't appreciate what probability means. No supernatural force need intervene for low probability events to take place. Low probability events WILL take place (just less frequently than high probability events). No magic needed.

I fully accept that there is no magic involved in mathematics. I only used luck as an example - it wasn't the core of the question.

My key question is in cases where some would say: coincidence, luck etc why do they seem to shun any answer pertaining to: the will of God? (Other than the fact that they don't believe in the existence of God.

Here's a clue: the joyce principle.

P.s; I was in a rush for this post so if I have made any glaring mistakes forgive 'em!

P.p.s; where did all the aethiests go?!

 

[ranma1/2]

i dont think any of us here think of luck as a force. as stated by pretty much all of us, its just what we call it when chance (somewhat random events) falls in our favor.

 

[aamirsaab]

i dont think any of us here think of luck as a force. as stated by pretty much all of us, its just what we call it when chance (somewhat random events) falls in our favor.

Bingo!
So now what I want to know is why if a thiest calls that an act of God or the Will of God, an aethiest is allowed to admonish it automatically? Other than not believing in God in the first place - I believe there must be more than one reason to this and that's what I want to find out.

The whole point of this question, for me, is to understand why certain aethiests automatically say: ''No, it's not God, it is such and such''. I want to know if there is some sort of stigma, or anything, involved in the thought process when upon reading.

Note: Not every aethiest on this forum has done this. I am asking in order to gauge the response from the many athiests we have.

 

[barney]

Bingo!
So now what I want to know is why if a thiest calls that an act of God or the Will of God, an aethiest is allowed to admonish it automatically? Other than not believing in God in the first place - I believe there must be more than one reason to this and that's what I want to find out.

The whole point of this question, for me, is to understand why certain aethiests automatically say: ''No, it's not God, it is such and such''. I want to know if there is some sort of stigma, or anything, involved in the thought process when upon reading.

Note: Not every aethiest on this forum has done this. I am asking in order to gauge the response from the many athiests we have.

I missed the trap! Nahh Nahh! My answer is basically "you make your own luck".

Why not call Chance "God"? Well simply because God is supposed to be a sentinant construct that can act and interact in meaningful ways.
The "Chance" element is simply random. If God is randomness, what is the point in praying/worshipping/hoping for paradise. If God is "chance" our pious actions count for nothing.

 

[Trumble]

Other than not believing in God in the first place - I believe there must be more than one reason to this and that's what I want to find out.

The whole point of this question, for me, is to understand why certain aethiests automatically say: ''No, it's not God, it is such and such''. I want to know if there is some sort of stigma, or anything, involved in the thought process when upon reading.

You've lost me now. Why do you think more must be necessary than "not believing in God in the first place"? Surely that is sufficient reason? Indeed, I don't see how an atheist could offer any other answer without ceasing to be an atheist and becoming an agnostic instead.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But in your last post you admited:
This given in addition to the many aethiests who have all answered yes external influences exist clearly mean they do exist - or atleast we think they exist based on our perception. We give them a name to cope with the situation.

This line of argument is growing more baffling every time I check the thread!

A few points:

1) I'm not sure that all the atheists who have answered say that they believe in 'luck' or 'chance' as an independently existing force. In fact, most of us have said precisely the opposite...

2) All this talk of 'external influences' is just confusing the issue. We don't have a satisfactory definition of 'external influences', and it's difficult to see what specific limits are attached to that concept. What type of thing would fall under it?

Light?
Gravity?
My girlfriend?
The television?
Aliens?

Any of these things could count as 'external influences' in some way, so the concept is too vague to have any useful function in this discussion.

And perhaps most importantly:

3) Even if aamirsaab's argument is sound, it diminishes god to being a humanly-invented concept, designed as a coping strategy, and with no objective reality. This is pretty much what most atheists say god is anyway, so I can't see how this benefits the theistic view at all.

[A side point:

wth1257 asked me whether gravity exists independently of humans, and of course it does, but relatively speaking it's a much simpler concept than something like 'luck', which involves a judgement-call. In the case of luck, that judgement-call means that the human mind is necessary for the concept to have any coherence at all, which is not the case with gravity; bodies will continue to be attracted to each other whether we are around or not.]

Peace