Best Theistic Arguments

[Joods]

---

The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening (if odds can even be involved, as there is much we do not even know about how it happened, however I'm trying to stray away from a God of the Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt), the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did, to our galaxy forming the way it did, to our star to our planet to being able to sustain life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us. You don't necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works, but the odds remain absolutely staggering. And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds.

That's essentially the crux of the argument.

The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening (if odds can even be involved, as there is much we do not even know about how it happened, however I'm trying to stray away from a God of the Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt).
...

What staggering odds?  In order to calculate odds, I need to know the range and number of actual possibilities, not the range and quantity of speculations.  And so do you.  Since you admit "there is much we do not even know about how it happened", the only rational statements concerning the probability of the occurrence of the big bang, inflation, etc., is (i) I don't know what the probabilities were when they occurred and (ii) since they have already happened, the probability of them occurring as they did is 1.

... the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did....

Neither you or I know what the "odds" are of the galaxies forming as they did.  Your use of the adjective "staggering" demonstrates expectation/confirmation bias.  The actual empirical evidence coupled with our current understanding the physics leads to the conclusion  that it is highly probable galaxy formation is quite natural and an expected set of events.  The probability of galaxies forming as they did is 1.

...to our galaxy forming the way it did....

Our galaxy would form just like others.  See above.  It's probability of formation is subsumed into the proability of all galaxies forming.  You can't count the same thing twice.

...to our star to our planet to being able to sustain life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us....

Our star is a main sequence star, which is very common.  Our planet is made of natural elements and molecules and it appears that planets like Earth are quite common.  Taken together, both render conditions for carbon based life to emerge and subsequently evolve, i.e., temperature range, appropriate/needed elements and molecules, energy transfer, all coupled with the laws of chemistry and physics.  The emergence of a carbon based life precursor only requires the formation of a self-replicating molecule capable of mutation and subject to natural selection.  After that, biological evolutionary processes facilitate all that arises afterwards, including you and me.

In any event, life exists in sustaining environments.  Recent research indicates that life may be an inevitable consequence of such environments because life increases entropy more quickly than most non-life.

...
You don't necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works....

Inserting a god into the gaps does not lead to knowledge, it's just pretending to know.

...but the odds remain absolutely staggering....

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

...And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds....

Take the time to learn the difference between an argument and a mere assertion.  Here, those theists are merely asserting.  They present no rational argument.

...
That's essentially the crux of the argument.

Also study probability theory.  You are misapplying it by assuming a specific and special goal, among other reasons.

---

[Angrboda]

Still, we have this intuition that if the values needed to be in a certain range, then it is unlikely those values would end up in that range purely by chance. Just like the argument from design, the crux of the argument is based upon the idea that similar applications of this intuition have proven reliable, so this application of the intuition is likely to be reliable. I'm not aware of anyone tackling the question of the reliability of the intuition itself. In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on arguments for design, it points out that there are significant differences between the application of that argument's central intuition in the Caputo case, and how it is applied to the case of possible design by a God (See main article, HERE). I have to wonder if the same cannot be said for the various intuitions underlying the composite argument that JairCrawford has referenced.

[JairCrawford]

The staggering odds of the Big Bang happening ( if odds can even be involved as there is much we do not even know about how it happened however I am trying to stray away from a God of the
Gaps argument so take this aside with grain of salt ) the staggering odds of the galaxies forming the way they did to our galaxy forming the way it did to our star to our planet to being able to sustain
life to then the spark that started life to then all the evolution of life that had to survive to lead to us. You do not necessarily have to fit God into the gaps to know how some of this stuff works but the
odds remain absolutely staggering. And some theists make the argument that a creator is more probable than not under these staggering odds

There is nothing special about life. It is merely one process in the chain of transition that can be traced right back to the Big Bang. We only think life is
special because we ourselves are life which is circular reasoning.

That sounds a touch nihilistic, though. Is that the price for abandoning all circular reasoning? To lose all meaning in life? Life in and of itself is not special? I mean, I've even heard Richard Dawkins talk about how truly special life is and he is pretty militant against theism.

[sdelsolray]

Did you know that you don't have to quote a person and then re-quote the same thing just to answer them?

Yes, of course.  I rarely quote a complete post I am responding to only to be followed by a sentence/phrase by sentence/phrase deconstruction of the same post, which in essence repeats the target post twice.  I did it here because I thought that the complete post had a good chronological flow and contained some context that is best observed by reading the entire post from start to finish.

Usually, I don't do this and when I want to reply point by point I do what others do by quoting a small portion of the post followed by my specific comments and observations just about that small portion.

Anyway, new member JairCrawford appears to be an intellectually honest theist, which is rare on this forum (and many other forums), so I hope he/she sticks around.

Thanks for the tip.

[Joods]

I love how my post seemed to have landed in my sig line. Anyway, you're welcome, sdel.

[sdelsolray]

My undergraduate degree is in classical guitar performance, so I was also a music major.

I strongly suspect you are biasing your thinking with concepts of purpose, specific goals and special reference.  Note the several references to "we" and "us" bolded above in your post.  If you assume a certain end result of biological evolution, as if the purpose of it was to drive exclusively to "us", as if "we" were the sole goal of evolution and/or if you believe you are special, then you do not understand the biological theory of evolution, at least not completely.

Oh nice! I love the guitar. All kinds. It has such a great sound. Can't play it for the life of me though lol. My principal instrument was piano and organ was my secondary. I majored in composition.
...

I simply do not have much of a knack at composing music, despite much effort.  I certainly relish good music composition adequately performed and I've often been astonished and amazed at the talent and results of many composers and arrangers.

...
I won't deny that there could be biases in my thinking. To be biased is to be human, after all. But the point I stress is, regardless of interpreting meaning into it, we are, as a matter of fact, here. There were processes that had to take place for the current state of things to exist. And the prospects of what had to take place, even within biology and natural selection, to get from point A to point B, are astonishing.

Yes, cognitive and emotional biases are prevalent in humans.  I believe it is important to learn how to identify their presence and to take appropriate action to mitigate, diminish or outright eliminate them once detected.

Yes, we are here.  As to historical processes which "needed" to occur to reach the present state of existence in detail, I have been studying some recent research (isolated to biological evolution) which plausibly suggests that there may be many paths to the same evolutionary result, akin to the idea that there may be several ways to drive a car or walk to a particular store.  So, I'm not sure all prior events had to occur as they did in order to arrive as things are now.  I would agree, however, that many were very likely necessary precursor events.

Again, you seem to have a preconceived belief that the emergence of current existence was a preconceived goal.  I can only suggest that you experiment by removing that "axiom" from your thinking and see where that leads you.

Yes, astonishing, along with remarkable, wondrous, inspiring and many other similar adjectives, can be used to describe our contemplation of reality.  Nevertheless, use of such words have little, if anything, to do with probability of the emergence of current reality.

[Angrboda]

Yes, cognitive and emotional biases are prevalent in humans.  I believe it is important to learn how to identify their presence and to take appropriate action to mitigate, diminish or outright eliminate them once detected.

Generally speaking, the evidence seems to be that the majority of our biases cannot be so easily mitigated.

[sdelsolray]

Yes, cognitive and emotional biases are prevalent in humans.  I believe it is important to learn how to identify their presence and to take appropriate action to mitigate, diminish or outright eliminate them once detected.

Generally speaking, the evidence seems to be that the majority of our biases cannot be so easily mitigated.

I agree that the process of (i) learning what a particular bias is and what it is not, (ii) identifying my use of that bias (this one is hard because the generation of it is generally subconscious), (iii) observing the emergence of the bias in consciousness in real time and (iv) taking control on that biased decision and attempting to mitigate the bias is hard work.

Let me give you a mundane example.  I have a home recording studio that I began building in about 1998, and I had some prior limited experience with recording music.  The information I gathered concerning analog to digital and digital to analog converters ("converters") was generally along the lines of, 'The expensive converters blow the cheap converters out of the water' or 'If you can't hear a marked difference you have tin ears'.  When I compared inexpensive converters with expensive converters I was convinced this was true.  I believed I heard a significant difference between them.  No surprisingly, I purchased expensive converters.

Fast forward several years and I learned about AB and ABX testing.  Basically, this is a scientific way to test that conclusion.  Put to these tests, I could not consistently tell the difference between the two, at least not enough to conclude one was better or different than the other.  I also learned, through this and other aural research, that there are differences among and between converters but the differences are subtle and generally exist in the analog stages of the converter circuits.

So, I changed my view on them and realized my thinking was infected with expectation and confirmation biases.  I mitigated those biases (as regards converters) and, as a side benefit, became a better listener (to music, not necessarily to anything else).

[surreptitious57]

There is nothing special about life. It is merely one process in the chain of transition that can be traced
right back to the Big Bang. We only think life is special because we ourselves are life which is circular reasoning

That sounds a touch nihilistic though. Is that the price for abandoning all circular reasoning? To lose all meaning in life? Life in and
of itself is not special? I mean I have even heard Richard Dawkins talk about how truly special life is and he is pretty militant against theism

You can give meaning to your own life of course but that does not make it any more special in the grand scheme of things. For how human beings
interpret their own existence is a matter for them and them only. Long after we have become extinct the Universe will carry on existing regardless

[The Grand Nudger]

If it were the "price" (laying aside that there is no such price, lol) that wouldn;t make it any less true, nor would it make god belief any less silly. For comparison, imagine you have a bunch of poor people running around deciding to think of themselves as rich when they aren;t. God beliefs turn out poorly for all of the same reasons that delusions of wealth turn out poorly.