Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the coincidences involved in bringing life as we know it into existence is infinitely greater than the deck of cards example.
Just imagine if I won the euro millions next week.  Then I won it again the following week, then every week again for the rest of my life -  it is certainly possible that they were all just coincidences, but how probable?  There is no remit in the "coincidences" of nature to produce and sustain life, yet the coincidences needed to produce life did happen and we are the living proof.  And the realistic probabilities involved far exceed the probability of me winning the lottery every week for the rest of my life.

Oh dear.

First, 52! Is an unfathomably vast number. There are more sequences in which 52 cards can be dealt than there are atoms in our planet. If you think you need even longer odds for life to be possible (bearing in mind by the way that we’re talking here only about the conditions required for very simple life before evolution got to work) then show your workings.

Second though, the actual probability calculation DOESN’T MATTER. It could be one in a trillion, one in a trillion trillion, or one in a bazillion gazillion AND STILL IT WOULDN’T MATTER UNLESS YOU COULD SHOW THAT WE WERE AN INTENDED OUTCOME FROM THE BEGINNING. That’s the point you’re still not getting. If a universe neither knows nor cares what life (if any) it will produce, then whatever that life might be cannot rationally conclude that the universe was made just right for its existence.     

Really try to understand this because it’s important. What you’re doing here is assuming a god with the plan “Alan Burns”, looking at all the condition necessary for Alan Burns to exist, then concluding that he fact their existence is evidence for god.

Can you see the problem with that? Yes, that’s right: your premise (“God”) and your conclusion (“God”) ARE THE SAME THING! I know you struggle with even simple reasoning, but surely even you can see the error you’re committing here can’t you?

Can’t you? 
   

[Spud]

Really try to understand this because it’s important. What you’re doing here is assuming a god with the plan “Alan Burns”,

Can you explain how or where Alan assumed that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Can you explain how or where Alan assumed that?

Yes, in the same place you did. The argument "our existence is fantastically unlikely, therefore god" only "works" if you think our existence was an intended outcome a priori. It's using the premise "god" to prove the outcome "god". And that's just bad reasoning.       

[ippy]

Can you explain how or where Alan assumed that?

Try This Book Spud or you Alan,  Biology for Beginners By Wilson McCord'.

I'll leave it for the pair of you to find the best price, not sure if there is any reference to god or not in this one.

Commiseration to the pair of you and kind regards, ippy.

[Spud]

Spud,

Yes, in the same place you did. The argument "our existence is fantastically unlikely, therefore god" only "works" if you think our existence was an intended outcome a priori. It's using the premise "god" to prove the outcome "god". And that's just bad reasoning.     

Not following you, sorry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Not following you, sorry.

Have a look at Reply 41435. Thinking that the unlikelihood of the conditions being just right for your existence is evidence for a creator god is wrongheaded no matter how matter how unlikely it is that those conditions are in place. It no more suggests a god who knew or cared about your existence than a particular sequence of a 52-card hand of cards randomly dealt suggests that the deck knew or cared about producing that particular hand.

This is the mistake that you and AB keep making. It’s not an argument about probability – whether the odds against the conditions necessary for you are one in a million, one in a trillion or one in any other number no matter how large is completely irrelevant. It only becomes relevant (at least potentially so) if you can demonstrate first that there was a god who intended your existence all along, so the odds against the conditions being just right for that plan to work are so unfeasibly high as to suggest they’re non-random.

And the problem with that of course is that it negates the argument because your premise (“God”) is necessary for your conclusion (also “God"), so they’re the same thing. And that's called circular reasoning.   

To put it another way: you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than the solipsism of assuming you to be the object of the universe, try looking at it from the perspective of the universe instead.                 

[Spud]

Blue hillside,
I appreciate your effort. I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God. Suppose it is the same as the probability that I will throw three 6s in three throws of a die. That's pretty unlikely, but can still happen by chance. 50 zillion 6s in a row is much less likely, but there's still a tiny probability that it could happen by chance.
What is the probability that I throw a six every time for eternity? That is zero. Is it possible that life and the universe are infinitely complex, and therefore the probability of them being formed by chance is zero, and therefore there must be an intelligence behind it all? We seem to be discovering more and more complexity over time.
Anyway. As I see it, this all originated with Romans 1:18-20. Here Paul implies that everyone should be able to know what God is like. Does that mean we should all know that God exists? That is a different question.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the probability that I throw a six every time for eternity? That is zero.

No it isn't - it is very small but not zero.

But the probability of throwing 6's continually for 1 million times is no different to any other pattern of one million dice throws. The reason why we think 6,6,6,6,6 is somehow remarkable but 6,3,6,4,2,1 isn't is to do with our ability to note patterns not the unlikeliness of those outcomes which are exactly the same.

[Spud]

No it isn't - it is very small but not zero.

But the probability of throwing 6's continually for 1 million times is no different to any other pattern of one million dice throws. The reason why we think 6,6,6,6,6 is somehow remarkable but 6,3,6,4,2,1 isn't is to do with our ability to note patterns not the unlikeliness of those outcomes which are exactly the same.

I'd say its zero, however I only have a finite number of throws before I'm dead. Whatever Romans 1 is saying, I think that in order for us to know if God exists he would have to reveal himself in a supernatural way. I don't think any religion comes close to Christianity in that respect.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd say its zero, ...

You can say it is zero all you like, but you are wrong. The probability of throwing any number of consecutive 6's is not zero, however small it might be.

And the difference between zero and not zero is hugely significant as it is the difference between something being possible and something being impossible.

[Gordon]

I'd say its zero, however I only have a finite number of throws before I'm dead. Whatever Romans 1 is saying, I think that in order for us to know if God exists he would have to reveal himself in a supernatural way. I don't think any religion comes close to Christianity in that respect.

You seem terribly mixed up, Spud, in that you are mixing things up terribly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whatever Romans 1 is saying, I think that in order for us to know if God exists he would have to reveal himself in a supernatural way.

Why would god need to reveal himself in a supernatural way - surely he could reveal himself in a totally natural manner that is impossible for anyone to challenge. Yes he hasn't - he might be terribly shy ... or perhaps he simply doesn't exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Blue hillside,
I appreciate your effort. I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God. Suppose it is the same as the probability that I will throw three 6s in three throws of a die. That's pretty unlikely, but can still happen by chance. 50 zillion 6s in a row is much less likely, but there's still a tiny probability that it could happen by chance.
What is the probability that I throw a six every time for eternity? That is zero. Is it possible that life and the universe are infinitely complex, and therefore the probability of them being formed by chance is zero, and therefore there must be an intelligence behind it all? We seem to be discovering more and more complexity over time.

First, it’s not zero but second you’re still not getting it. No matter how unfathomably vast the odds against there being the conditions necessary for your existence, the fact of those conditions tells you nothing whatsoever about whether they were intentionally put there. Continue with your analogy and say that the odds against your existence are the same as, say, rolling a trillion sixes in a row. Or a trillion trillion. Or a trillion trillion trillion if you like (the actual number is entirely irrelevant, but let’s take the first one to save me typing all those trillions).

Now let’s say that instead of a trillion sixes it was a trillion threes and some other life form emerged. Or that it was nearly a trillion sixes but the last number was five so a different sentient being again evolved. Or that it was any other combination of numbers such that a different sentient creature happened to evolve instead. Would they all be entitled to think they were the intended outcome all along, so there must have been some sort of divine intervention?

This is your basic, fundamental, utterly misleading mistake in thinking: you assume first that you were the intended outcome all along, and then marvel at the unlikeliness of that happening by chance. It’s very bad thinking though for the reason I explained – it needs “God” as both premise (to have the plan “Spud” a priori) and as the conclusion (to make the plan come to fruition). In short, you’re a solipsist and that’s what’s misleading you.

Try to understand this – really try: rather than just assume a universe that fits you, consider turning round the logical telescope and think instead of a you that fits the universe. However unlikely the chances of the conditions required for you, that doesn’t make make you any more special than any other type of life that might have arisen instead from any other combination of conditions.

I appreciate that correcting your thinking requires a paradigm shift from all your years of wrong thinking, but try nonetheless to grasp it because it’s important   
           

Anyway. As I see it, this all originated with Romans 1:18-20. Here Paul implies that everyone should be able to know what God is like. Does that mean we should all know that God exists? That is a different question.

And an irrelevant one. Focus on your mistake in reasoning for now and worry about the faith claims another time.   

[Outrider]

I appreciate your effort. I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God. Suppose it is the same as the probability that I will throw three 6s in three throws of a die. That's pretty unlikely, but can still happen by chance. 50 zillion 6s in a row is much less likely, but there's still a tiny probability that it could happen by chance.

Yep.

What is the probability that I throw a six every time for eternity? That is zero.

No.  It's infinitessimally small, but it's not zero and it will never ever reach zero, no matter how long you continue for.  That's the whole point of the infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare idea.

Is it possible that life and the universe are infinitely complex, and therefore the probability of them being formed by chance is zero, and therefore there must be an intelligence behind it all?

It's possible, but there's nothing intrinsic to the processes that suggests that - the thrust of the argument is not qualitative, it's quantitative.

We seem to be discovering more and more complexity over time.

Which arguably changes the odds, but doesn't switch it from being a probabilistic argument to a logical one, and the probability of an event that's already happened is 1.

Anyway. As I see it, this all originated with Romans 1:18-20.

The problem with falling back on scripture is that it is at best a poetic and metaphoric source, and therefore liable to the cognitive biases of the reader, and at worst it's an outright falsehood.  As a source of information for scientific enquiries it is useless.

O.

[torridon]

What is the probability that I throw a six every time for eternity? That is zero. Is it possible that life and the universe are infinitely complex, and therefore the probability of them being formed by chance is zero, and therefore there must be an intelligence behind it all?

At best you are only shifting goal posts.  If the chances of this universe existing as it does seem remote, what are the chances of an 'intelligence behind it' existing, because that is all you are splicing in.  How would you go about quantifying such a probability ? An 'intelligence behind it' explains exactly zero.

[jeremyp]

Not following you, sorry.

For there to be an intended outcome, there has to be an entity doing the intending.

[Spud]

Spud,

First, it’s not zero but second you’re still not getting it. No matter how unfathomably vast the odds against there being the conditions necessary for your existence, the fact of those conditions tells you nothing whatsoever about whether they were intentionally put there. Continue with your analogy and say that the odds against your existence are the same as, say, rolling a trillion sixes in a row. Or a trillion trillion. Or a trillion trillion trillion if you like (the actual number is entirely irrelevant, but let’s take the first one to save me typing all those trillions).

Now let’s say that instead of a trillion sixes it was a trillion threes and some other life form emerged. Or that it was nearly a trillion sixes but the last number was five so a different sentient being again evolved. Or that it was any other combination of numbers such that a different sentient creature happened to evolve instead. Would they all be entitled to think they were the intended outcome all along, so there must have been some sort of divine intervention?

This is your basic, fundamental, utterly misleading mistake in thinking: you assume first that you were the intended outcome all along, and then marvel at the unlikeliness of that happening by chance. It’s very bad thinking though for the reason I explained – it needs “God” as both premise (to have the plan “Spud” a priori) and as the conclusion (to make the plan come to fruition). In short, you’re a solipsist and that’s what’s misleading you.

Try to understand this – really try: rather than just assume a universe that fits you, consider turning round the logical telescope and think instead of a you that fits the universe. However unlikely the chances of the conditions required for you, that doesn’t make make you any more special than any other type of life that might have arisen instead from any other combination of conditions.

I appreciate that correcting your thinking requires a paradigm shift from all your years of wrong thinking, but try nonetheless to grasp it because it’s important   
           
And an irrelevant one. Focus on your mistake in reasoning for now and worry about the faith claims another time.

I totally do get it. Not sure why you think I don't - in 41456 I said "I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God". I meant as long as there is a tiny chance of it. However, if there was literally zero chance of the conditions being right for our existence, then we must have been intentionally put here. Maybe I can't prove that the chance is zero, but if it was zero, we could conclude that we were intentionally put here, could we not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I totally do get it. Not sure why you think I don't - in 41456 I said "I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God".

Because having told me you get it you immediately returned to the unlikeliness of the conditions being just right for your existence as if that had any significance at all.

I meant as long as there is a tiny chance of it. However, if there was literally zero chance of the conditions being right for our existence, then we must have been intentionally put here.

But no matter how long the odds, they’re never zero remember. “Very unlikely” and “impossible” are fundamentally different positions.

Maybe I can't prove that the chance is zero, but if it was zero, we could conclude that we were intentionally put here, could we not?

There’s no “maybe” about it. It isn’t zero. What you’re attempting here is, “OK, if somehow I knew every possible piece of data about the universe and none of them allowed for the conditions necessary for my existence, then something extra-universal must have been in play”.

Two problems there:

1. You don’t know very single piece of data in the universe, so you cannot bridge he gap between “unlikely” and “impossible”; and

2. Still you seem not to understand that this is an argument in logic, not in probability. Once again, you talked about things like the right amount of rain etc without grasping that you’re evolved to need that much rain, not that the right amount of rain is put there to suit you. Now apply the same principle to every other apparent co-incidence you think to be significant and you’ll see scale of the mistake.

As soon as you embed the fact that you fit the universe rather than the other way around your entire argument from incredulity about anything collapses.

[Spud]

Blue,
I note your assumption here, that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Now, just as it's impossible for a jumbo jet to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes, I think it's impossible for life to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes. Since jumbo jets exist, they must have been designed and assembled. Just so, since life exists, it must have been designed and assembled. As to me having a premise of God, I really think that is not the case. All I have done is look objectively at life on earth and conclude that it could not appear naturally (one reason being, for example, because we never observe life popping into existence).

[Stranger]

Blue,
I note your assumption here, that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Now, just as it's impossible for a jumbo jet to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes, I think it's impossible for life to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes.

Anybody who thinks the jumbo jet analogy is in the least bit relevant simply doesn't understand how evolution works. Try: Evolution 101.

As Daniel Dennett has said, if there were to be an award for the best idea anybody had ever had about understanding the world it should probably go to Darwin (and Wallace who also came up with the idea). As Dawkins said: "Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hit you between the eyes with stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity. Well might T. H. Huxley cry out, ‘How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!’"

It really is a (basically) simple idea that explains exactly why things appear to be designed. In a very real sense they were designed, just by a simple process, not a conscious mind. Added to which, if nature were designed by a conscious being, said being would be amoral at best.

And BTW, you have yet to respond to the evidence I gave in #41371. I answered your question #41372 in #41382.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I note your assumption here, that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

That’s not my “assumption” at all – it’s what a vast body of overwhelmingly well evidenced and exhaustively tested knowledge tells us is the case.

Now, just as it's impossible for a jumbo jet to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes, I think it's impossible for life to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes.

That’s just Paley’s watch ignorance and incredulity though. When there’s a perfectly well-understood natural process of evolution to hand, why on earth opt instead for a conjecture for which there’s no evidence at all?

Since jumbo jets exist, they must have been designed and assembled.

Yes, because there’s no known alternative way they could exist.

Just so, since life exists, it must have been designed and assembled.

Er, no. How is it even possible to have been alive in the last 150 years or so and still believe such an overwhelmingly wrongheaded thing to be true?

As to me having a premise of God, I really think that is not the case.

Yes you have if you think that the fact of the conditions necessary for your existence is delivering a plan of a conscious designer of some sort. If you want to argue the amount of rain etc being just right for you to be significant, you can’t escape that.   

All I have done is look objectively at life on earth and conclude that it could not appear naturally…

No you haven’t. If you’d looked objectively rather than with your god goggles on you wouldn’t be able to reject out of hand the epic amounts of evidence from multiple and independent sources that show you to be wrong about that.

… (one reason being, for example, because we never observe life popping into existence).

That’s a very bad reason:

- first it confuses abiogenesis with speciation;

- second, new species can emerge quickly when the antecedent species have fast enough metabolisms (bacteria for example);

- third, the ToE neither claims nor requires “life popping into existence” as you mischaracterise it.   

ANYWAY, none of that has anything much to do with the basic reasoning error you made and that I explained to you: it’s bad thinking to assume that the universe fits you rather than that you fit the universe. I’ve explained why to you at some length, you claimed to have understood your mistake, and now you seem to be reverting to type. Try to deal with the issue head on though: can you now see that, no matter how unlikely the fact of the conditions necessary for your existence, you cannot use that unlikeliness as evidence for “God” unless you also install “God” as having you as the plan in the first place?       

[Gordon]

Blue,
I note your assumption here, that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

That is what the evidence suggests, and that you don't understand or can't accept this is only an indication that you have some work to do.

Now, just as it's impossible for a jumbo jet to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes, I think it's impossible for life to form from its constituent elements by natural physical and chemical processes. Since jumbo jets exist, they must have been designed and assembled.

You are confusing the natural and the artificial.

Just so, since life exists, it must have been designed and assembled.

Aside from, and we've seen creationist types do this before, confusing abiogenesis with evolution you're begging the question here: a little homework, as noted above, would not go amiss, Spud.
 

As to me having a premise of God, I really think that is not the case. All I have done is look objectively at life on earth and conclude that it could not appear naturally (one reason being, for example, because we never observe life popping into existence).

This is just more of the same incredulous and ignorant theobollocks we've seen served up by a compatriot of yours in this very thread.

[Alan Burns]

No matter how unfathomably vast the odds against there being the conditions necessary for your existence, the fact of those conditions tells you nothing whatsoever about whether they were intentionally put there.

Absolutely wrong.
The more specific complexity needed to achieve a goal, the more probability that the goal was intended.
The puddle analogy provides little evidence for an intended goal, though it is certainly possible that the hole was meant to contain a puddle.
When it comes to contemplating the specific conditions needed to achieve the unfathomable complexity of life as we know it, there is no feasible comparison to the conditions needed to fill a puddle.

[Gordon]

Absolutely wrong.
The more specific complexity needed to achieve a goal, the more probability that the goal was intended.

Round and round we go - you're begging the question again.

The puddle analogy provides little evidence for an intended goal, though it is certainly possible that the hole was meant to contain a puddle.

Whoosh - I doubt you'd get it, Alan, to borrow from Blackadder, if it came in a box labelled 'It'.

When it comes to contemplating the specific conditions needed to achieve the unfathomable complexity of life as we know it, there is no feasible comparison to the conditions needed to fill a puddle.

Again you merit a 'whoosh', but I suppose your chronic personal incredulity allows for no other outcome.

[ProfessorDavey]

I totally do get it. Not sure why you think I don't - in 41456 I said "I understand that however low the probability of my existence, it still doesn't prove God". I meant as long as there is a tiny chance of it. However, if there was literally zero chance of the conditions being right for our existence, then we must have been intentionally put here. Maybe I can't prove that the chance is zero, but if it was zero, we could conclude that we were intentionally put here, could we not?

I don't understand the argument - if the chance of your existing is zero, it is zero. It doesn't matter whether some creator wants it to happen if the probability of it happening is zero is still cannot happen. It would be a bit like arguing about the likelihood of throwing 6,6,6,7 using a standard dice - there is no 7 so the probability is zero. Just because someone wants it to happen won't change the fact that it cannot happen.

If the probability is not zero (as is clearly the case) then I struggle to see why just because the probability is low then that leads to the notion that there is a creator. All you need are plenty of chances (lots of throws of the dice) and also the obvious fact that the only reason why we are having this conversation is because the low possibility thing happened. If it had not happened (quite possible) we wouldn't be around to be pondering on it.