(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...

Take yourself as an example. Given the number of eggs your Mom produced in her life, the incredible number of sperm your Dad cycled through in his life, and the specific timing of the mating that produced you, what were the odds of you existing, with the exact DNA that you happen to have? VERY VERY small. Repeat that statistical thinking back through just a few generations, and you are looking at a chance for you to exist that is practically infinitesimal. And yet, here you are.

In hindisight, probability doesn't mean anything.

(May 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: 'this internet thing'? How old are you exactly?

haha old enough to be astouned by it's uses and it's contribution to mind evolution (and revolution) and young enough to be an IT pro...

(May 2, 2014 at 9:54 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(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.

And as Max says, after the fact, the one out of a kazillion chance that actually happened will seem incredibly special. But in fact each time you run the experiment, there has to be some result or other.

---

(May 2, 2014 at 9:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Take yourself as an example. Given the number of eggs your Mom produced in her life, the incredible number of sperm your Dad cycled through in his life, and the specific timing of the mating that produced you, what were the odds of you existing, with the exact DNA that you happen to have? VERY VERY small. Repeat that statistical thinking back through just a few generations, and you are looking at a chance for you to exist that is practically infinitesimal. And yet, here you are.

In hindisight, probability doesn't mean anything.

Yeah it makes the one-in-a-million lucky sperm that became me seem a dime a dozen. Oh hell, everyone was as lucky and special as I was, weren't they? Damn.

(May 3, 2014 at 1:15 am)whateverist Wrote:

(May 2, 2014 at 9:54 am)Zen Badger Wrote: 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.

And as Max says, after the fact, the one out of a kazillion chance that actually happened will seem incredibly special. But in fact each time you run the experiment, there has to be some result or other.

Not sure if this is nail on the head the point I want to make, but I don't think "who cares, no matter how incredibly unlikely the result is; you wouldn't be here to question the probability with retarded apologetics if it hadn't happened" is something your average theist just can't wrap their head around.

"Well, it's incredibly unlikely that all those things would just "by chance" combine over 14 billion years! It's so unlikely, that I demand you reproduce it right now, by random chance, or I shall conclude it's improbable right now!"

As if you're discussing going to Arby's to pick up a Reuben sandwich, and they reject the possibility of having a Reuben sandwich tonight if you can't spontaneously generate one in your living room while they watch.

And now to fuck everyone up, just because I can:

This is going to be a bit long, sorry about that, but I'm yet to come up with an efficient way of communicating this:

Craig argues that there is a 1 in 10^500 chance of this universe forming. He gets that number from String theory but he never explains where. I might return to that in a later post but suffice to say once you see it you'll agree it is not a solid foundation on which to build a proof of God.

Further, it should be noted that String theory itself, whilst promising, is not universally accepted and there are several aspects of the universe that classical theory explains better.

For now however:

Remember my pack of cards. The probability of the order was 1 in 10^67. If I were to ask the same question for 2 packs of cards the probability of the order of the 2 of them would be 1 in 10^134.

Now I am not very good at my 67 times table so I'll jump to 10 packs of cards. The probability of the order of 10 packs of cards is 1 in 10^670.

That is less likely than the universe itself (Craig's 10^500 number).

There are more than 10 packs of cards in the universe.

Something's wrong.

So far we've argued that calculating the probability for something that has already happened, that we weren't predicting, is meaningless. I'm using packs of cards but you can, in reality use any number of events. Watch a feather being blown in the wind - what is the probability of it following that path? I use cards because people can understand the basis for the calculations - there is a large, but limited number of possible outcomes.

The question is - is there another way of looking at it that gets around the problem that a random order of a pack of cards has a 1 in 10^67 chance whilst the probability of pre-announcing the order of a randomly shuffled pack of cards is exactly the same, 1 in 10^67?

I'd say there is - but I agree with Schroedinger and you all, apparently, don't.



Schroedinger's cat thought experiment is as follows:

Cat and a loaded gun in a sealed box.

You do not know the cat is alive or dead until you open the box to find out.

Therefore the cat is both alive and dead in the box until you open it.

Schroedinger was trying to show that the idea of the observer determining the outcome was ridiculous. I agree with him. None of you do.

Lets return to a shuffled pack of cards.

Choose the first card. It turns out to be the 2 of diamonds. What is the probability that that card is the 2 of diamonds? I said 1 in 52 and you all agreed with me.

But from the above that can only be true if the card you are holding in your hand is actually every card in the pack until such time as you look at it at which point it becomes the 2 of diamonds.

The real question I am asking is - what is the probability that this card is whatever this card is? The answer to that is actually 1 (in 1 if you like).

Unless I ask the question what is the probability that this card is the 2 of diamonds BEFORE I look at it the question is meaningless.

That card was, and always will be, the 2 of diamonds. We are confusing our discovery of the order of the pack of cards with the actual order of the pack of cards.

Of course - this only applies if you are all right, and Schroedinger was wrong.

So - did that fuck anyone up?

Please note - this is part 1 a of my argument against the fine tuning argument. There are many more parts.

Another way of thinking about it.

Put your hand into a barrel of sand and pull out one grain.

That you will pull one out is 100%.

But that it will be any particular one is a gazillion to one.

(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...

That argument is based in the believe that men was chosen by God to rule this earth. That's why the whole idea of a simple weak tiny ape evolving into the dominant species of the planet gives the allusion that it only could happened with the help of a supernatural entity that backed him up all the way. But let's be realistic if reptiles would had learned how to erect walk we all be having scales by now.

Nevertheless even after William Lane Craig adds God in the evolutionary process he still defends a book that claim we were made from dirt.

Ummm we still have scales...don't we?

(May 3, 2014 at 3:12 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Ummm we still have scales...don't we?

Well my bad I mean reptile scales covering all our skin.

(May 3, 2014 at 2:33 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Another way of thinking about it.

Put your hand into a barrel of sand and pull out one grain.

That you will pull one out is 100%.

But that it will be any particular one is a gazillion to one.

Maybe that one grain will consider itself the beneficiary of the miracle of your Zenny Will.