(June 27, 2018 at 8:15 pm)JairCrawford Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 8:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What argument are you referring to here?

The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening (if odds can even be involved, as there is much we do not even know about how it happened, however I'm trying to stray away from a God of the Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt), the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did, to our galaxy forming the way it did, to our star to our planet to being able to sustain life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us. You don't necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works, but the odds remain absolutely staggering. And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds.

That's essentially the crux of the argument.

Quote:The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening (if odds can even be involved, as there is much we do not even know about how it happened, however I'm trying to stray away from a God of the Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt).
...

What staggering odds?  In order to calculate odds, I need to know the range and number of actual possibilities, not the range and quantity of speculations.  And so do you.  Since you admit "there is much we do not even know about how it happened", the only rational statements concerning the probability of the occurrence of the big bang, inflation, etc., is (i) I don't know what the probabilities were when they occurred and (ii) since they have already happened, the probability of them occurring as they did is 1.

Quote:... the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did....

Neither you or I know what the "odds" are of the galaxies forming as they did.  Your use of the adjective "staggering" demonstrates expectation/confirmation bias.  The actual empirical evidence coupled with our current understanding the physics leads to the conclusion  that it is highly probable galaxy formation is quite natural and an expected set of events.  The probability of galaxies forming as they did is 1.

Quote:...to our galaxy forming the way it did....

Our galaxy would form just like others.  See above.  It's probability of formation is subsumed into the proability of all galaxies forming.  You can't count the same thing twice.

Quote:...to our star to our planet to being able to sustain life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us....

Our star is a main sequence star, which is very common.  Our planet is made of natural elements and molecules and it appears that planets like Earth are quite common.  Taken together, both render conditions for carbon based life to emerge and subsequently evolve, i.e., temperature range, appropriate/needed elements and molecules, energy transfer, all coupled with the laws of chemistry and physics.  The emergence of a carbon based life precursor only requires the formation of a self-replicating molecule capable of mutation and subject to natural selection.  After that, biological evolutionary processes facilitate all that arises afterwards, including you and me.

In any event, life exists in sustaining environments.  Recent research indicates that life may be an inevitable consequence of such environments because life increases entropy more quickly than most non-life.

Quote:...
You don't necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works....

Inserting a god into the gaps does not lead to knowledge, it's just pretending to know.

Quote:...but the odds remain absolutely staggering....

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

Quote:...And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds....

Take the time to learn the difference between an argument and a mere assertion.  Here, those theists are merely asserting.  They present no rational argument.

Quote:...
That's essentially the crux of the argument.

Also study probability theory.  You are misapplying it by assuming a specific and special goal, among other reasons.

It's true I never properly studied probability. I was a music major haha. So perhaps a bad choice of wording.

However, I still stand by the evolution that led to us. Those are huge odds that innumerable species overcame to get to us. If any of our predecessors died out before we had a chance to evolve, that's it. All the way down to the bacteria from the beginning. They could have died out as well. I still find that absolutely mind blowing.

And the grand context of the universe it's as nothing

This is a good video showing why the probability argument is silly.

(June 28, 2018 at 9:20 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: It's true I never properly studied probability. I was a music major haha. So perhaps a bad choice of wording.

However, I still stand by the evolution that led to us. Those are huge odds that innumerable species overcame to get to us. If any of our predecessors died out before we had a chance to evolve, that's it. All the way down to the bacteria from the beginning. They could have died out as well. I still find that absolutely mind blowing.

My undergraduate degree is in classical guitar performance, so I was also a music major.

I strongly suspect you are biasing your thinking with concepts of purpose, specific goals and special reference.  Note the several references to "we" and "us" bolded above in your post.  If you assume a certain end result of biological evolution, as if the purpose of it was to drive exclusively to "us", as if "we" were the sole goal of evolution and/or if you believe you are special, then you do not understand the biological theory of evolution, at least not completely.

(June 29, 2018 at 8:25 pm)sdelsolray Wrote:

(June 28, 2018 at 9:20 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: It's true I never properly studied probability. I was a music major haha. So perhaps a bad choice of wording.

However, I still stand by the evolution that led to us. Those are huge odds that innumerable species overcame to get to us. If any of our predecessors died out before we had a chance to evolve, that's it. All the way down to the bacteria from the beginning. They could have died out as well. I still find that absolutely mind blowing.

My undergraduate degree is in classical guitar performance, so I was also a music major.

I strongly suspect you are biasing your thinking with concepts of purpose, specific goals and special reference.  Note the several references to "we" and "us" bolded above in your post.  If you assume a certain end result of biological evolution, as if the purpose of it was to drive exclusively to "us", as if "we" were the sole goal of evolution and/or if you believe you are special, then you do not understand the biological theory of evolution, at least not completely.

Oh nice! I love the guitar. All kinds. It has such a great sound. Can't play it for the life of me though lol. My principal instrument was piano and organ was my secondary. I majored in composition.

I won't deny that there could be biases in my thinking. To be biased is to be human, after all. But the point I stress is, regardless of interpreting meaning into it, we are, as a matter of fact, here. There were processes that had to take place for the current state of things to exist. And the prospects of what had to take place, even within biology and natural selection, to get from point A to point B, are astonishing.

(June 29, 2018 at 5:10 am)robvalue Wrote: This is a good video showing why the probability argument is silly.

The methodology is sound: the sample size is one, therefore, Craig is right in using one.  'Other Universes' is only a metaphysical speculation. Even if the multiverse existed that doesn't negate a cause. Space, time, energy, matter are effects, and these contingent realities cannot make themselves. The principle of casualty is the cause always precede and is greater (they also initiate the transaction) than the effect; aka, a popsicle stick stuck in the sand at a 120 angle slanted from the ocean may have sand blown on to it that clumps which increases in weight until gravity overcomes the resistance. Wind, Gravity and then sand sliding. Negative infinities are only mathematical constructs.


23 Views · View Upvoters

(June 30, 2018 at 11:10 pm)snowtracks Wrote: 'Other Universes' is only a metaphysical speculation.

And your God is what again?

(June 27, 2018 at 8:15 pm)JairCrawford Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 8:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What argument are you referring to here?

The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening (if odds can even be involved, as there is much we do not even know about how it happened, however I'm trying to stray away from a God of the Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt), the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did, to our galaxy forming the way it did, to our star to our planet to being able to sustain life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us. You don't necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works, but the odds remain absolutely staggering. And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds.

That's essentially the crux of the argument.

I'm guessing that you're of the delusion that the anthropic assertion isn't bullshit then.

JairCrawford Wrote:The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening ( if odds can even be involved as there is much we do not even know about how it happened however I am trying to stray away from a God of the
Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt ) the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did to our galaxy forming the way it did to our star to our planet to being able to sustain
life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us. You do not necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works but the
odds remain absolutely staggering. And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds

All probabilities exist between 0 and l and any that are random have an equal chance of occurring. And so claiming staggering odds
for the Universe occurring as it has is simply an argument from emotion. And emotion has absolutely nothing to do with probability

There is nothing special about life. It is merely one process in the chain of transition that can be traced right back to the Big Bang. We only think life is
special because we ourselves are life which is circular reasoning. Furthermore the Universe is not hard wired for life. Life is hard wired for the Universe

Biology is applied chemistry and chemistry is applied physics and so there is no need to invoke God Of The Gaps to explain cosmology and evolution
Also the Big Bang is not just something that has already happened for space is still expanding so it is a present event every much as it is a past one