Logic of chance

[Sam]

Allan, Thanks for the corrections ...

I was probably a little lax in my use of terms ... I know the Universe isn't a result of evoloution, perhaps the current biosphere would have been a better term.

Also I was essentially getting at the same point i.e.;

Highly complex universe due to randomness = Improbable

Being capable of creating said universe from nothing must be significcantly more complex = Very Very Improable

Hope that clarifies what iwas rambling about

Regards

Sam

[Ephrium]

I am sure that there are many brilliant mathematicians and or philosophers who have completely analysed out the probabilities of these aint there. If So I wonder if there are any web links.

If the probabilities have been ironed out, why do the theists still keep making these same arguments?

The two arguments made by them:

Human has a very very tiny probability to be formed through random mutaions(Eventually)

Certain Values of physical properties, if altered by a very very small fraction, will cause the present life to not exist.



These are almost more in the realm of Mathematics and philosophy rather than Science. So we sure can reason it out

[allan175]

I am sure that there are many brilliant mathematicians and or philosophers who have completely analysed out the probabilities of these aint there. If So I wonder if there are any web links.

If the probabilities have been ironed out, why do the theists still keep making these same arguments?

The two arguments made by them:

Human has a very very tiny probability to be formed through random mutaions(Eventually)

Certain Values of physical properties, if altered by a very very small fraction, will cause the present life to not exist.

These are almost more in the realm of Mathematics and philosophy rather than Science. So we sure can reason it out

The trouble is that *most* people (myself included) are not that good at maths.
And the theists keep using the same argument because they work from the wrong direction (ie: the chance at the beginning is unlikely, whereas the chance at the end is certain) and so to them it is *obvious* that it is unlikely. The trouble is, as with a lot of things, that obvious solutions are not necessarily right.

[leo-rcc]

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

[DD_8630]

Also I was essentially getting at the same point i.e.;

Highly complex universe due to randomness = Improbable

Actually, it is randomness itself that allows large, complex structures to form. An initial uniform will be uniform for all time, but randomness will 'seed' tiny inhomogeneities that will, say, grab slightly more matter than the surroundings.

Being capable of creating said universe from nothing must be significcantly more complex = Very Very Improable

I've heard Dawkins say something to that effect. Why would a Creator necessarily be more complex than the Creation? As we all know, the universe can develop on its own without any obvious divine interference (the expansion of the universe, novae, evolution, etc, all occur naturally). So perhaps the Creator needs only to be at least as complex as the initial universe?

Basically, why does a Creator need to be complex?

[allan175]

Being capable of creating said universe from nothing must be significcantly more complex = Very Very Improable

I've heard Dawkins say something to that effect. Why would a Creator necessarily be more complex than the Creation? As we all know, the universe can develop on its own without any obvious divine interference (the expansion of the universe, novae, evolution, etc, all occur naturally). So perhaps the Creator needs only to be at least as complex as the initial universe?

Basically, why does a Creator need to be complex?

"At least as compes as the initial universe" is still adding an extra *unexplainable* step in the process for no *detectable/provable* reason!

[DD_8630]

"At least as compes as the initial universe" is still adding an extra *unexplainable* step in the process for no *detectable/provable* reason!

Perhaps, but that's not what I'm rallying against :p It's not the argument I'm interested in (I think we all know how daft the teleological argument is), but rather Dawkins' counter-argument. Consider it constructive criticism

[LukeMC]

I've heard Dawkins say something to that effect. Why would a Creator necessarily be more complex than the Creation? As we all know, the universe can develop on its own without any obvious divine interference (the expansion of the universe, novae, evolution, etc, all occur naturally). So perhaps the Creator needs only to be at least as complex as the initial universe?

Basically, why does a Creator need to be complex?

That's an interesting point. If the creator was a non-interventionist and had no interest in whether or not life would ever arise, then your point makes a lot of sense. If however, this god has planned to create the universe for us to live in, then it (the god) would have need to know from the start exactly what forces to create and how strong each of them should be for humanity to be possible. It would have to have known the very tiny, precise measurements of the universe we're in now, if it were to plan this from an early stage (hence having to be as complex as the current universe or more).

If the creator was only as complex as the initial universe, is it really a god?

Well that's my take on it

[DD_8630]

That's an interesting point. If the creator was a non-interventionist and had no interest in whether or not life would ever arise, then your point makes a lot of sense. If however, this god has planned to create the universe for us to live in, then it (the god) would have need to know from the start exactly what forces to create and how strong each of them should be for humanity to be possible. It would have to have known the very tiny, precise measurements of the universe we're in now, if it were to plan this from an early stage (hence having to be as complex as the current universe or more).

Ah, good point. I came to a conclusion like this one time when I was in the bath (where else): to have a complete and wholly accurate model of the universe, your computer would have to be at least as complex as the universe. I then realised that this might be the universe itself: a computation running in a much larger universe. Trippy.

But, this makes assumptions about the nature of knowledge, consciousness, and power (of the omnipotent variety): how do we know that a being can't be knowledgeable and powerful and simple? I'm even tempted to bring out the old theistic argument and say that such a Creator wouldn't necessarily be bound to the same intuitive models as us ^_^

If the creator was only as complex as the initial universe, is it really a god?

And therein lies the million pound question: what is a 'god'? The only consistent definition I have heard from modern theists is that 'god' is an intelligence that created the universe. Though its methods and intentions vary from religion to religion, this seems to be constant.

But, of course, this is thrown to the dogs when one introduces pantheons and the Graceo-Roman concept of 'numen' :p

[CoxRox]

: to have a complete and wholly accurate model of the universe, your computer would have to be at least as complex as the universe. I then realised that this might be the universe itself: a computation running in a much larger universe. Trippy.

I immediately thought of 'god' being applied to the same argument: to have a complete and wholly accurate model of a god or supernatural being, your computer (or mind) would have to be at least as complex as the said 'being'. You seem to be saying this in your next statement:

''But, this makes assumptions about the nature of knowledge, consciousness, and power (of the omnipotent variety): how do we know that a being can't be knowledgeable and powerful and simple? I'm even tempted to bring out the old theistic argument and say that such a Creator wouldn't necessarily be bound to the same intuitive models as us ^_^

......And therein lies the million pound question: what is a 'god'? The only consistent definition I have heard from modern theists is that 'god' is an intelligence that created the universe. Though its methods and intentions vary from religion to religion, this seems to be constant.

But, of course, this is thrown to the dogs when one introduces pantheons and the Graceo-Roman concept of 'numen' :p

''

I'm already worried that Stenger in 'God- The failed Hypothesis' proposes a 'god model'. He says: 'If we accept this procedure (hock:, then we can eliminate a whole class of objections that are made to types of logical and scientific arguments forumulated in this book.' page 39. I will hold fire and read his book and comment in the book review.