This discussion is very interesting. Let see what the crux of believers' argument is here.

They are saying:"

We now exist here. Probability is 1 out of 1. My theory, God, (if he exist), will 100% produce what we have now. Your theory, random arrangement of molecules, will have 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of producing what we have now. Which is the better choice to believe"

Right now I have no idea about whether their argument holds anywater, but I am very sure this is the base of their logic. I leave it here for you all to analyze, or for us to analyse together.

(January 9, 2009 at 11:56 am)Ephrium Wrote: We now exist here. Probability is 1 out of 1. My theory, God, (if he exist), will 100% produce what we have now. Your theory, random arrangement of molecules, will have 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of producing what we have now. Which is the better choice to believe"

Right now I have no idea about whether their argument holds anywater, but I am very sure this is the base of their logic. I leave it here for you all to analyze, or for us to analyse together.

Their argument doesn't hold any water though, all they have is a single statement "God made all this.". No proof, no evidence even suggesting that as a possibility, just *faith* that what they have been told is right.

From my side there is (increasingly) lots of evidence suggesting that we are here due to a meandering walk around an ever changing environment.

Ermm..yes to the middle part, but I am thinking whether are there any Mathematicians or philosophers here who is able to clarify whether does this very common argument cited by them holds any weight?

To me, based on intuition, on the surface it does but when analysed out it does not.

I have high IQ, am in Mensa, but my brain thinks too slowly to get exact complete understanding, if not I would have analysed it myself.

(January 9, 2009 at 11:56 am)Ephrium Wrote: This discussion is very interesting. Let see what the crux of believers' argument is here.

They are saying:"

We now exist here. Probability is 1 out of 1. My theory, God, (if he exist), will 100% produce what we have now. Your theory, random arrangement of molecules, will have 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of producing what we have now. Which is the better choice to believe"

Right now I have no idea about whether their argument holds anywater, but I am very sure this is the base of their logic. I leave it here for you all to analyze, or for us to analyse together.

As a 'believer' I hear a lot of arguments for the existence of God based on mathematical probabilities and I'm not sure how reliable these probability based calculations are. Here is an example of one: the cosmological constant. Here is a quote from the book 'The Case for a Creator' - Lee Strobel. Strobel is interviewing Robin Collins Phd (physics):

'When I asked Collins..., he told me that the unexpected, counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant ''is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today.'' How precise is it? I asked. Collins rolled his eyes. ''Well, there's no way we can really comprehend it'', he said. ''The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. That's inconceivably precise.'''

How do they arrive at this calculation and if it is indeed correct why do physicist/mathematicians like Collins understand it to mean that it is not chance that accounts for this precise 'tuning'? Is it legitimate to rule out chance once you reach certain calculations?

They are reasoning from the end again though. They are saying "we are here because of XXXXX which has to be exactly that value" however, if the value was different then *we* wouldn't be here (but something else might be).

(January 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm)allan175 Wrote: They are reasoning from the end again though. They are saying "we are here because of XXXXX which has to be exactly that value" however, if the value was different then *we* wouldn't be here (but something else might be).

I get the feeling there's more to it than that although I see what you are saying.

I'm with allan on this.

One word: evidence.

If there were no evidence for evolution whatsoever of course it would seem unlikely. Evolution is not a theory of chance.

See my sig.

The point is there is extremely strong evidence.

It would be very implausible if there was no evidence and no reason to think evolution was scientifically true.

They just need to understand and accept the evidence.

But they don't. Because of course the whole thing about fundamentalism is they don't ever change their mind no matter what the evidence. If they do then its not fundamentalism. As Dawkins says the difference between being passionate and fundamentalism is that you can be passionate and still change your mind if the evidence changes. With fundamentalism everything in the world could oppose your view and you still wouldn't change your mind.

With fundamentalism, all the evidence can support evolution - and you can even see that and acknowledge that - but as a fundamentalist, you won't change your mind. Because when evidence contradicts your holy book - you throw out the evidence not the book. Because that's fundamentalism. Sticking to the fundamentals of your beliefs (a holy book) no matter how strong the evidence contradicting them is.

That's of course, beyond passion. That's passion + extreme ignorance. Passion and never changing your mind. No matter how illogical and delusional.
Evf

(January 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm)CoxRox Wrote:

(January 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm)allan175 Wrote: They are reasoning from the end again though. They are saying "we are here because of XXXXX which has to be exactly that value" however, if the value was different then *we* wouldn't be here (but something else might be).

I get the feeling there's more to it than that although I see what you are saying.

Well, yes, there is definitely more to it than I can sum up in a single sentence!

They arrive at their figures for some of the "fine tuning" by working out the fact that if they were a tiny bit different then certain things wouldn't happen eg: if protons & neutrons were held together a bit more weakly then there wouldn't be any of the heavier elements.

Wow ... Intersting thread, had to read through it a couple of times there ...

To quote Ephrium;

They are saying:

"We now exist here. Probability is 1 out of 1. My theory, God, (if he exist), will 100% produce what we have now. Your theory, random arrangement of molecules, will have 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of producing what we have now. Which is the better choice to believe"

... Essentially Yes they say IF god exists he would 100% create the earth the way it is ... the reason their logic seems to stand up is because we assume God does exist, a simple question might be what is the probability of God's existence (i.e. As well as the complicated intricasy of the universe there is also an omniscient & omnipotent being) Plus the probability of evoloution is not a single event ... so cannot be classed as such each mutation was random leading to a larger change.

It's a good way to try and flip the theory back on the evoloution camp but in the end is based on an assumption far less probable than the current universe defined by evouloution.

Regards

Sam

(January 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm)Sam Wrote: ... Essentially Yes they say IF god exists he would 100% create the earth the way it is ... the reason their logic seems to stand up is because we assume God does exist, a simple question might be what is the probability of God's existence (i.e. As well as the complicated intricasy of the universe there is also an omniscient & omnipotent being) Plus the probability of evoloution is not a single event ... so cannot be classed as such each mutation was random leading to a larger change.

The problem is that if you think the chances of the universe appearing due to "randomness" is slim, what are the chances of an entity capable of creating such a universe? They'd have to be vastly more complex!

(January 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm)Sam Wrote: It's a good way to try and flip the theory back on the evoloution camp but in the end is based on an assumption far less probable than the current universe defined by evouloution.

A misunderstanding. The universe is a result of natural processes. Evolution, while obviously still natural processes, is the result of self replication (with mutations, which may not be as significant a thing as expected).