(December 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't see why "magic" is necessary.

Why can it not just be some being, person or entity who has control over the situation, much like someone has control over the design and manufacturing of lottery tickets and can theoretically ensure that someone wins.

Are you claiming that the person who fixed the lottery is also omnipotent?

He doesn't need to be.

All he needs is access to the winning ticket.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Are you claiming that the person who fixed the lottery is also omnipotent?

He doesn't need to be.

All he needs is access to the winning ticket.

How would he know what random numbers would be drawn as the winning ticket for that day?

(December 5, 2012 at 10:18 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: He doesn't need to be.

All he needs is access to the winning ticket.

How would he know what random numbers would be drawn as the winning ticket for that day?

We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.

This is conceivably realistic, is it not?

(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:18 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How would he know what random numbers would be drawn as the winning ticket for that day?

We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.

This is conceivably realistic, is it not?

Therefore god?

(December 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Zen Badger Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.

This is conceivably realistic, is it not?

Therefore god?

Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"

That would be "therefore God is conceivable"

(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.

This is conceivably realistic, is it not?

So the man would be god, the money would be the universe, and the ticket would be...I think this analogy is falling apart. We have no evidence the man rigged it, but cannot prove that he did not. However, no one has ever seen the man, and some think the money is coming from another source. Some claim to hear his voice in their head, and...no...that's not it. The fine tuning argument, even if it succeeded, would only apply to deism. The point of the analogy was supposed to be that it is nt impossible for life to arise by chance because we are here now, and there is no evidence that a god created life, even if he created the universe, for which there is no evidence either.

---

(December 5, 2012 at 10:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"

That would be "therefore God is conceivable"

Finite, mortal humans cannot exist without being created by an intelligent designer, but said designer can just be there for no reason? I find the existence of the creator harder to prove than the creation of the lesser beings.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:41 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Therefore god?

Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"

That would be "therefore God is conceivable"

Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

(December 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.

But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.

So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.

I thought North Korea already did that.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.

This is conceivably realistic, is it not?

So the man would be god, the money would be the universe, and the ticket would be...I think this analogy is falling apart. We have no evidence the man rigged it, but cannot prove that he did not. However, no one has ever seen the man, and some think the money is coming from another source. Some claim to hear his voice in their head, and...no...that's not it. The fine tuning argument, even if it succeeded, would only apply to deism. The point of the analogy was supposed to be that it is nt impossible for life to arise by chance because we are here now, and there is no evidence that a god created life, even if he created the universe, for which there is no evidence either.

Yes, it would lead us to conclude that given fine-tuning, the existence of a God-like mind is more plausibly true than not. In effect, yes, at minimum, deism.

But besides that your analogy seems to be arguing that it's "not impossible" for the universe it come about through naturalistic means. I agree with you- it's strictly possible. Even a 1 in 10^10^123 chance is still strictly speaking a chance.

But at what number point do you stop and say "Yeah, it's still strictly speaking a possibility that a Dolphin puked out a baby who pooped out the painting of the Mona Lisa. It's just not a realistic consideration."

Where is one to draw the line?

(December 5, 2012 at 11:18 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Yes, it would lead us to conclude that given fine-tuning, the existence of a God-like mind is more plausibly true than not. In effect, yes, at minimum, deism.

But besides that your analogy seems to be arguing that it's "not impossible" for the universe it come about through naturalistic means. I agree with you- it's strictly possible. Even a 1 in 10^10^123 chance is still strictly speaking a chance.

But at what number point do you stop and say "Yeah, it's still strictly speaking a possibility that a Dolphin puked out a baby who pooped out the painting of the Mona Lisa. It's just not a realistic consideration."

Where is one to draw the line?

I honestly don't know. I'm curious as to why you think that god is the more likely explanation, rather than the one that is technically possible, but too unlikely to matter. Why can an omnipotent being exist for no reason why mortal, finite ones cannot?