Is the use of the term random a valid scientific explanation or just a pseudoname for unknown? I'm asking if it isn't essentially illogical to ascribe the existence of an event, (e.g the origin of the universe) to a random predecessor event. My humble understanding of logic adheres to a cause and effect process (if this / then that). I realize that randomness has been given a fundamental role in reality, via qm. What I'm asking is why randomness (which is the unknown) should be accepted as a logical cause. How is logically consistent to rely on an explanation which cites the random action of certain phenomena to be in a certain place and time and having certain properties of spin, etc. etc. as the fundamental cause of macro events which then proceed logically (sequentially and continuously) through space and time. Doesn't it seem a stop gap stretch of the imagination explanation, that doesn't refute anything? Furthermore, when we look at events which have occurred and which have been calculated to have had infinitessimal likely probablites to have occurred in the time given (e.g. the origin of life on earth) is it not illogical to ascribe these events to randomness? Would the logical person not conclude that something very very improbable would not happen by chance, and that there must be some unknown but overriding reason, which overtook the improbabilities?