AB
But there are valid reasons for believing that you were brought into existence as a result of conscious intent rather than being the unintended consequence of purposeless, unguided forces.
That may or may not be true, but the
point of this exchange is to show
YOU why
YOUR specific argument “the chances of me existing unguided are very remote, therefore God” is circular, and therefore
wrong. By all means try to find some different justifying arguments for your belief “God” if you want to, but
YOU can and should now abandon this argument specifically.
You may try to dismiss these reasons by making up alternative explanations - but in doing so you are starting from the premise that there is no God. The circular reasoning works both ways.
I don’t need to make up anything. For all I know there may be a god. For all I know you may have some sound reasons for thinking there’s a god. What I also know – and so now do you – is that “the chances of me existing unguided are very remote, therefore god”
cannot be one of those arguments.
The odds in question are far greater than winning a single huge lottery. They are more akin to me winning the national lottery every week for the rest of my life. You may argue that no matter how great the odds, any combination is just as likely as the rest. In the case of the cosmological constant, the precision needed for planets and stars to form has been estimated at one part in ten to the power of 120. Far greater than the example you give in your following post. The point is that in every other combination there would be zero possibility for any form of life to exist because there would be no planets or stars. I know this cannot be taken as absolute proof of conscious intent, but surely you must accept that it is valid evidence of the likelihood of conscious intent.
No, for the reasons I’ve explained and that have gone straight over your head. This is point of
principle, not a discussion about numbers. Even if the imaginary lottery had odds against winning a bajillion times greater than those you set out here,
somebody would in it. Would that person be entitled to think their win was “valid evidence of the likelihood of conscious intent” or only that the winner just happened to be them?
Your fundamental mistake here is still circular reasoning: “my existence is so unlikely that a god must have guided the process” ONLY works of you
also install a god
ab initio to intend your existence all along. Try to understand the principle here rather than disappear down rabbit holes about the scale of the unlikeliness of your existence.
The number of tickets the hypothetical lottery company sells is completely, utterly, entirely
irrelevant. Do you now understand why?