Hallo again.
As I said in one previous post, @ youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU where William Lane Craig debates Christopher Hitchens about the existence of God, an argument from Craig caught my attention.
He said (long story short) that the probabillity of evolution through natural selection happening in such a way that it did, is so tiny, that it indicates the existence of a God that superintended the process.
That the odds of creation of man through this proccess are so slim, that is a strong indicator that God was involved...
Can I read your opinions about this?
I have to admit, at first it sounds quite legit to me...

How does Craig calculate those odds? Does he show his work, so to speak?

Take a pack of cards. Throw it into the air. Now gather them up.

Look at the top card. The probability that this card, whatever it is, is the first card is 1 in 52.

Now look at the second card. The probability that this card is whatever it is is 1 in 51.

The probability that of the first and second cards is 1 in 52 times 1 in 51.

Now repeat for the rest of the cards. The probability of the order of the pack is 1 in 10^67.

There must be a god!

Consider this:

To repeat that order:

Take one billion people, teach them to shuffle the cards 1 billion times per year. Get them to do it for 1 billion years.....on one billion planets.....in one billion galaxies.

Then repeat the whole things one billion times.

The probability you will repeat the order you randomly generated is about 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 (ten trillion).

In other words it is about the same as lining up the whole of the US debt in $1 bills and choosing the right one.

Strangely the probability for either event is 1 in 10^67. The first happened on your first try - the second needed a lot more effort.

Why?

Funny thing probability.

No, he doesn't, he quotes two guys Barem and Tippler.
I think I could agree that the odds of evolution to human from natural selection were extraodinary slim. Don't misinderstand what I am saying, OF COURSE the evolution theory is valid, the argument is whether it was possible without devine superintention.
It is a quite big video, the specific argument is articulated at 56:27 from Craig.
The interesting fact is that he got no answer from Hitchens.

He got no answer from Hitchens because an argument from personal incredulity doesn't require an answer: "I find this to be unlikely, therefore it can't be true," isn't anything with any weight.

Pretty standard WLC crapola, then.

So what you are saying max is that when the number of tests touches infinity, then all possible outcomes have 100% propabillity.
That's a valid response I guess.

---

(May 2, 2014 at 9:50 am)Jason_ab Wrote: So what you are saying max is that when the number of tests touches infinity, then all possible outcomes have 100% propabillity.
That's a valid response I guess.

(May 2, 2014 at 9:47 am)Jason_ab Wrote: No, he doesn't, he quotes two guys Barem and Tippler.
I think I could agree that the odds of evolution to human from natural selection were extraodinary slim. Don't misinderstand what I am saying, OF COURSE the evolution theory is valid, the argument is whether it was possible without devine superintention.
It is a quite big video, the specific argument is articulated at 56:27 from Craig.
The interesting fact is that he got no answer from Hitchens.

You seem to be under the impression that humans are the inevitable consequence of evolution.

In this, you are mistaken.

Yes, the chances of humanity evolving as we did are extremely slim. And such is the case for every other species alive.

But all that means is that chance fell our way, nothing else.

So what you mean is that we examine the probabillities of the outcome after the outcome has come to pass, but every outcome had the same probability at start.

So, agreing with Creig is like the guy that won the lottery who believes that there is a God, and that God fancys him.

(May 2, 2014 at 10:03 am)Jason_ab Wrote: So, agreing with Creig is like the guy that won the lottery who believes that there is a God, and that God fancys him.

Precisely. The chance of him in winning the lottery just happened to fall his way. No god required.

(May 2, 2014 at 9:36 am)Jason_ab Wrote: Hallo again.
As I said in one previous post, @ youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU where William Lane Craig debates Christopher Hitchens about the existence of God, an argument from Craig caught my attention.
He said (long story short) that the probabillity of evolution through natural selection happening in such a way that it did, is so tiny, that it indicates the existence of a God that superintended the process.
That the odds of creation of man through this proccess are so slim, that is a strong indicator that God was involved...
Can I read your opinions about this?
I have to admit, at first it sounds quite legit to me...

I find no way to assign odds to the likelihood that the observable universe developed by natural means vs deistic tending. On the other hand, once you buy the notion that evolution may well represent 'god's' plan, it isn't too much further to realize that what to us seems a myriad of criteria to be met might appear very different to a god that excretes galaxies. What to us may look like rows of pins each with its own requirements, may be addressable by a 'god' by simply rolling a strike. Greatest result for the least effort.

Personally, though I try to help the cerebrally challenged to make room for seeing the natural world as the manifestation of gods will, I don't see any god there myself. My gods are entirely subjective and inform me not at all about the world, the future or any grande designs. Instead they inspire me with art, humor and insight. I either have lazy ass gods or there simply isn't any great work required of me.