The theist evolution argument

[Chas]

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.

---

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.

No.

The point is that the argument is naive at best. If we could go back to the conditions of any time in the past and let it all happen, the probability that it would come out the same are vanishingly small.

Their hidden assumption is that it has to result in us. Well, no, it doesn't.

---

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.

Wrong, grasshopper.

I agree with you.

[Minimalist]

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.

Craig, flaming jesus-freak asshole that he is, has doubtlessly never tried to calculate the odds that his particular vision of god...existing outside of time and space...poofed the universe into existence 6,000 years ago.

The reason that Craig would never do this is quite simple. He's a con man who wants to keep his doltish audience happy. They don't think much, either.

[MindForgedManacle]

It's probably best not to take Schrödinger's thought experiment literally.

[max-greece]

It's probably best not to take Schrödinger's thought experiment literally.

But....but.....I just bought the gun and everything.