(October 23, 2014 at 12:47 pm)datc Wrote:Lets try an anology to point out the flaw in your argument.(October 23, 2014 at 11:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Imagine a vat full of marbles...an infinite number of them. All the marbles are white except one. One marble is red. The red marble represents ThereExist[nothing]. The white marbles represent different configurations of ThereExist[Something]. Is it possible that you could randomly draw the red marble? Sure. What is the probability of drawing the red marble? Its 0.Very good. Without realizing it, you have produced another argument for God's existence called "argument from particularity."
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because while it is possible for ThereExist[nothing] to be the case, the probability it will be the case is 0.
The argument is almost as you have put it. We ask: Why is the world this and not something else? Either it was designed for a purpose, such that the purpose (or end) constrained the universe (or means) to a single thing or at least a finite set; or its essence was randomly pulled somehow out of an infinity of possible worlds. But not the latter, because the probability of this world’s being chosen in such a way is exactly zero. It is impossible to consider for selection every member of an infinite set.
Why did Bob win the lottery instead of anyone else? Either the lottery board specifically picked Bob's ticket or Bob's ticket was pulled randomly out of millions of possible tickets. But it can't be the latter because the probability of Bob's ticket being chosen is effectively 0. Therefore, Bob's ticket was chosen by the lottery board.
Do you see the flawed reasoning in the analogy? Do you see how I used the same arguments in the analogy as you did in your "argument from particularity?" Do you realize the flawed reasoning in your "argument from particularity?"
