Probability and the Natural Universe

[brainpan]

Many people allude to probability in arguing against the possibility that the creation of our universe was guided by natural law and processes.Their arguments seem reasonable at first glance, but that often owes to the fact that probability theory has a tendancy to be counter intuitive.

I'll start with the fine-tuned universe argument used by many creationists. "A universe that is created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned," or life friendly. Therefore, the likelihood that our universe came into being naturally is also low."

Let's break that argument down into it's two parts, starting with the first: "a universe that is created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned," or life friendly.

In logical notation, this can be rendered as P(F|N)<<1.
P=probability
F=fine-tuned universe
N=creation of universe guided by natural law and proceses
<<1=the occurance is exceptionally unlikely, much less than 1 (a certainty).
P(A|B)=the probability that a is true, given that b is true

The fine-tuned universe argument becomes a non sequitur when it continues: "Since a universe created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned, then the probability that an existing fine-tuned universe came into existence naturally is also low.

The second part of the fine-tuned universe argument can be rendered as P(N|F)<<1. Notice that the values of N and F have changed places, which is an invalid function in probability theory.

To make this easier to understand, I will exchange the fine-tuned universe argument with a card playing analogy.

R = I am holding a Royal Flush
W = I will win this poker hand

If R is true, then W is quite likely to be true also. P(W|R)=1. Let's exchange the placement of R and W to see how this function effects our probability statement. P(R|W)=1. Now we are saying that since I will win this hand, I am almost certain to be holding a royal flush, which isn't true. Virtually every winning poker hand is not a royal flush.

[heel31ok]

lets break it down to this , A universe that is created by natural processes has no probability.fine tuned or whatever I agree with you there is not even sensical to add to the equation.
Or in the sense from the side of it being probable fine tuned means nothing. so you could say A universe that is created by natural processes is probable.Either it is or it aint but the degree is not a factor.

[brainpan]

Huh. Well that was a lot easier than I had expected. I guess it's settled then.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Ok. I understood almost none of that.

BP, can you give the 'Paint by numbers' version.........

Please?

[AgentM]

Ok. I understood almost none of that.

BP, can you give the 'Paint by numbers' version.........

Please?

I second Alvin. :confused:. You'll have to dumb down your 4th year university philosophy theories for us. I'm a trades student, not a philosophy major :).

[Craig]

Brainpan,

You have a point; however, I think that a fairly sophisticated reader could criticize your argument as being a consequence of the construction of language, rather than corresponding with any objective reality. In other words, they could reject it on the grounds of a second order criticism.

[Riddley]

Ok. I understood almost none of that.

BP, can you give the 'Paint by numbers' version.........

Please?
If you replace the poker game with a game of Cripple Mr. Onion?...
Here is Terry Pratchett and Ian Stewart talking about such things (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/relativelyeinstein.shtml) Scroll down to the TP picture
Maybe only marginally connected but any chance to catapult some Pratchett propaganda.

[brainpan]

Brainpan,

You have a point; however, I think that a fairly sophisticated reader could criticize your argument as being a consequence of the construction of language, rather than corresponding with any objective reality. In other words, they could reject it on the grounds of a second order criticism.I think it's a consequence of logic, but it's fair to accuse me of failing to deal with the external reality. My rejection of TAP's (Theologic Anthropic Principle) "it's so improbable" argument is itself a second order criticism vis-a-vis the actual probability of a naturally created, fine-tuned universe. I have nothing to say about the probability of something like that.

The "its so improbable" argument presents us with a non sequitur. [Therefore P(N|F)<<1] does not follow from [If P(F|N)<<1]. Those two short sentences sum up my entire argument. As a sophisticated reader, do you consider that to be valid reasoning on my part?

[brainpan]

Ok. I understood almost none of that.Only because I'm an idiot. The concept is pretty simple, I'm just too stupid to express it that way. (IOW it's my fault)

Assume I am holding a royal flush. I tell the other players I will win that round of poker. The probability of my claim being true is a near certainty. After the following hand is dealt, assume a third party knows which cards were passed to each player. He announces that I have a winning hand again. Without looking at my cards, I beam with satisfaction because I know I must have been dealt another royal flush.

That is the kind of nonsense you end up with when you exchange P(a|b) with P(b|a) when making statements about probability, but that is exactly what the "it's so improbable" argument does.

[FlyingGuineapig]

One of the difficulties with using probability in these arguments is we don't really know the odds. We can make guesses, but those tend to reflect the initial beliefs/biases rather than actual statistical data.

Now, the equation and point you're getting at, brainpan, do appear correct - they don't really tell us much about what the actual odds are.

Basically, belief in a Creator says "The reason why you got a royal flush is that the game is rigged". We've got the complication that we don't know (for certain) the game - how many cards are there, what's their composition - and there's only been one hand dealt (to our knowledge). So trying to guess as to whether receiving that royal hand is just good luck or the work of someone stacking the deck in our favor doesn't get too far.

[USViking]

I am not sure that probability is an important issue
in the creation of the universe.

Where it is important lies in the fact that the values
of all the physical constants are fine-tuned to allow
us to exist.

This includes everything from the charges and spins
of elementary particles, to the speed of light, to the
strength of gravity, etc., etc., etc.

If any one of these was different by the smallest fraction,
we would not be here.

The odds against this degree of fine-tuning are lower than
the odds of every poker player in Las Vegas being dealt a
royal straight flush at the same time.

This cosmic coincidence in our favor is obvious, and has
been a lively topic of discussion among the big guns at the
forefront of science, many of whom are not at all sympathetic
to revealed religion (I am not sympathetic, either).

[Meek Heir]

Where it is important lies in the fact that the values
of all the physical constants are fine-tuned to allow
us to exist.

But the nature of our existance dictates that we would be designed to exist in a universe that is "fined-tuned" to fit us. But that does not mean that if the physical constants were signifigantly different some other form of life suitable for that universe would not exist.

Of course the universe is "fined-tuned" for the life present in it. But the assumption that this is the only set of constants that would produce life does not logically follow. That is what Brainpan means with P(a|b) is not equal to P(b|a).

[USViking]

But the nature of our existance dictates that we would be designed to exist in a universe that is "fined-tuned" to fit us. But that does not mean that if the physical constants were signifigantly different some other form of life suitable for that universe would not exist.

Of course the universe is "fined-tuned" for the life present in it. But the assumption that this is the only set of constants that would produce life does not logically follow. That is what Brainpan means with P(a|b) is not equal to P(b|a).
I was not trying to make the case you describe above;
different constant values might have led to the evolution
of different forms of life, as you say.

Brainpan seemed to me be focusing on the creation
of the universe rather than its attributes.

[Meek Heir]

I was not trying to make the case you describe above;
different constant values might have led to the evolution
of different forms of life, as you say.

Brainpan seemed to me be focusing on the creation
of the universe rather than its attributes.

He was talking about the relationship between how the universe was created (natural processes versus special creation) and it's attributes (fine tuning). Both.

[dittohead not!]

Only because I'm an idiot. The concept is pretty simple, I'm just too stupid to express it that way. (IOW it's my fault)

Assume I am holding a royal flush. I tell the other players I will win that round of poker. The probability of my claim being true is a near certainty. After the following hand is dealt, assume a third party knows which cards were passed to each player. He announces that I have a winning hand again. Without looking at my cards, I beam with satisfaction because I know I must have been dealt another royal flush.

That is the kind of nonsense you end up with when you exchange P(a|b) with P(b|a) when making statements about probability, but that is exactly what the "it's so improbable" argument does.

The probability that an orderly universe came about by random chance is much lower than the probability of getting a royal flush in a poker game, lower by many orders of magnitude, so low in fact, as to be a virtual impossibility. A better analogy would be passengers on a jetliner arguing about whether the well designed and orderly airplane on which their lives depend was created by intelligence, or whether it just came about by random chance. Even that analogy is wanting, as the universe, and the little blue green planet on which our own lives depend, is much more complex than even the most sophisticated jetliner.

[brainpan]

A better analogy would be...I wasn't comparing card games to cosmology. I used the hypothetical poker game to clarify the result of playing fast and loose with values in probability theory.

[dittohead not!]

I wasn't comparing card games to cosmology. I used the hypothetical poker game to clarify the result of playing fast and loose with values in probability theory.

Yes, I understand that. Nevertheless, can you calculate the probability that the Earth, let alone the universe, came about by random chance?

[Meek Heir]

The probability that an orderly universe came about by random chance is much lower than the probability of getting a royal flush in a poker game, lower by many orders of magnitude, so low in fact, as to be a virtual impossibility. A better analogy would be passengers on a jetliner arguing about whether the well designed and orderly airplane on which their lives depend was created by intelligence, or whether it just came about by random chance. Even that analogy is wanting, as the universe, and the little blue green planet on which our own lives depend, is much more complex than even the most sophisticated jetliner.

If the natural laws of the universe created jet planes on a regular basis this might be an applicable analogy. As is you are just one more person who claims to know enough about the universe to know whether it would require a supernatural being. One more person who is wrong.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Only because I'm an idiot. The concept is pretty simple, I'm just too stupid to express it that way. (IOW it's my fault)

Assume I am holding a royal flush. I tell the other players I will win that round of poker. The probability of my claim being true is a near certainty. After the following hand is dealt, assume a third party knows which cards were passed to each player. He announces that I have a winning hand again. Without looking at my cards, I beam with satisfaction because I know I must have been dealt another royal flush.

That is the kind of nonsense you end up with when you exchange P(a|b) with P(b|a) when making statements about probability, but that is exactly what the "it's so improbable" argument does.
So you end up with something factually accurate, but totally up ones arse......Ok, got it.

But where does that leave us?

[Alvin T. Grey]

The probability that an orderly universe came about by random chance is much lower than the probability of getting a royal flush in a poker game, lower by many orders of magnitude, so low in fact, as to be a virtual impossibility. A better analogy would be passengers on a jetliner arguing about whether the well designed and orderly airplane on which their lives depend was created by intelligence, or whether it just came about by random chance. Even that analogy is wanting, as the universe, and the little blue green planet on which our own lives depend, is much more complex than even the most sophisticated jetliner.
Important point that.
From what I understqand, the Universe encompases everything. Yes?
Before the Universe there was nothing? - Yes?
Now. When you are speaking about an infinatly small probability that something will happen, you are talking about a single point in time a single occurance, if you will.

Insert a coin, play the game. Take the chance. Game over. (lets face it the odds are stacked against a stable universe being created.

But you forget something.
Be cause time is a dimension of this universe, time cannot exist outside of it, no more then length, breath, or depth, could.
Because probability or 'Odds' are based one single event. (one roll of the dice, one time, in one set of circumstances.) they preclude the symultanious occurance of an infinate rolls of that same dice.
One of which is going to be a seven - the hard way.
I read somewhere that the Universe is the way it is......because this is the way it is. - It couldn't be stable any other way.
Purely conjecture.....There could have been an infinate amount of 'Big Bangs' before this one. Each resulting in a universe destined for gods waste paper bin.

[steveksux]

Important point that.
From what I understqand, the Universe encompases everything. Yes?
Before the Universe there was nothing? - Yes?
Now. When you are speaking about an infinatly small probability that something will happen, you are talking about a single point in time a single occurance, if you will.

Insert a coin, play the game. Take the chance. Game over. (lets face it the odds are stacked against a stable universe being created.

But you forget something.
Be cause time is a dimension of this universe, time cannot exist outside of it, no more then length, breath, or depth, could.
Because probability or 'Odds' are based one single event. (one roll of the dice, one time, in one set of circumstances.) they preclude the symultanious occurance of an infinate rolls of that same dice.
One of which is going to be a seven - the hard way.
I read somewhere that the Universe is the way it is......because this is the way it is. - It couldn't be stable any other way.
Purely conjecture.....There could have been an infinate amount of 'Big Bangs' before this one. Each resulting in a universe destined for gods waste paper bin.Whoa! Duuuuude!! :eek: ;)

[dittohead not!]

Important point that.
From what I understqand, the Universe encompases everything. Yes?
Before the Universe there was nothing? - Yes?
Now. When you are speaking about an infinatly small probability that something will happen, you are talking about a single point in time a single occurance, if you will.

Insert a coin, play the game. Take the chance. Game over. (lets face it the odds are stacked against a stable universe being created.

But you forget something.
Be cause time is a dimension of this universe, time cannot exist outside of it, no more then length, breath, or depth, could.
Because probability or 'Odds' are based one single event. (one roll of the dice, one time, in one set of circumstances.) they preclude the symultanious occurance of an infinate rolls of that same dice.
One of which is going to be a seven - the hard way.
I read somewhere that the Universe is the way it is......because this is the way it is. - It couldn't be stable any other way.
Purely conjecture.....There could have been an infinate amount of 'Big Bangs' before this one. Each resulting in a universe destined for gods waste paper bin.

Would one of those infinite big bangs create a jet aircraft without any intelligence calling the shots?

[Dangerrmouse]

Since he postulates an infinite number of Bangs, how many would you like?

[steveksux]

If you're suggesting the fact that we're here proves that there's a Designer, I would have to point out he's not very intelligent if he only managed to produce 1 planet out of billions that can support life.

Randy

[Meek Heir]

Would one of those infinite big bangs create a jet aircraft without any intelligence calling the shots?

And here is were you lose the ability to see your analogy as an abstract way of think about something (based on your own preconception that the universe was created) and start thinking that it is an accurate portrayal of the way things are.

[dittohead not!]

And here is were you lose the ability to see your analogy as an abstract way of think about something (based on your own preconception that the universe was created) and start thinking that it is an accurate portrayal of the way things are.

Not only that, but I have a preconception that the jetliner was created as well.

[Ethos]

We may calculate the odds of receiving a certain hand within a game of poker because we know what the initial card and player counts are.

Imagine a game of poker in which the deck of cards and number of players are both without limit.

Calculate the odds now.

Ethos

[dittohead not!]

We may calculate the odds of receiving a certain hand within a game of poker because we know what the initial card and player counts are.

Imagine a game of poker in which the deck of cards and number of players are both without limit.

Calculate the odds now.

Ethos

In an infinite number of poker hands, there would be an infinite number of royal flushes.

If there is an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite number of earths, just like the one we live on, and an infinite number of people just like you.

How do you know that there is an infinite number of universes?

[Meek Heir]

Not only that, but I have a preconception that the jetliner was created as well.

And you continue with your sophistry.

[Ethos]

In an infinite number of poker hands, there would be an infinite number of royal flushes.

If there is an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite number of earths, just like the one we live on, and an infinite number of people just like you.

How do you know that there is an infinite number of universes?

I have no such knowledge, though there are respectable theories positing just that circumstance. In either event, limited or infinite, there is not yet a definitive baseline to extrapolate from, therefore it is illogical to base a probability argument on an assumption.

Also important to note that technically speaking, "infinite" is not a number.

Ethos

[brainpan]

Yes, I understand that.Are you sure? Do you understand why there is no need for me to substitute the poker game with a jetliner?
Nevertheless, can you calculate the probability that the Earth, let alone the universe, came about by random chance?Why would you ask me this question? You say you understand my argument, but your comments lead me to suspect you dont.

I apologize if you only want to expand the discussion beyond my original argument, I have no problem with that and I appreciate the contribution. I just want to make sure you understand that your question has nothing to do with my original point, which was only to argue against TAP's invalid use of probability.

As I explained to Craig in this thread, I have nothing to say about the probability of any sort of universe coming into existence. There are too many unknowns in the equation to make a useful guess.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Whoa! Duuuuude!! :eek: ;)
Not really. I finished reading A Short History of Nearly Everything. recently. Fascinating book.
Anyhoo. I think the author described it by using gravity as an example. Make it a little more weak, and you get a flat, dark, and rather uninteresting universe. Make it a fraction more strong, and it collapses in on itself before anything interesting gets to happen.
It is the way it is, because that's the way it is. It dosn't specifically need a creator. Eventually the stability of the universe achieves itself. If the physics is right as I understand it.

(I think)

[brainpan]

So you end up with something factually accurate, but totally up ones arse......Ok, got it.I don't know what you meant by that. It sounded awfully cheeky and it made me grin, but... :confused:

Could you rephrase your comment?
But where does that leave us?It leaves us with a solid rebuttal to one of TAP's arguments about probability. It also leaves us with a way to diagram the problem in order to make it more clear.

The next time someone hits you with the "its so improbable" argument, just whip out the logical notation on him. :)

[brainpan]

Would one of those infinite big bangs create a jet aircraft without any intelligence calling the shots?Sounds like you're wanting to rework Sir Fred Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" argument. ;)

[Dangerrmouse]

The Fred Hoyle who postulated that viruses (and life) arrive(d) on Earth on comets?

[Alvin T. Grey]

He announces that I have a winning hand again.

Something that's factually accurate


Without looking at my cards, I beam with satisfaction because I know I must have been dealt another royal flush.

But leading to a conclusion thats totally up ones arse...(not correct at all IOW, from having one's head up one's arse.....)

[dittohead not!]

Sounds like you're wanting to rework Sir Fred Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" argument. ;)

OK, I had to look that one up:

Order does not spontaneously form from disorder. A tornado passing through a junkyard would never assemble a 747.

As we can see below, the first part of that statement isn't totally correct, but the second part is.

Response:
This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.

True enough, but nothing about this statement says that there is or isn't an intelligence behind the evolutionary process.

Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity

If something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously, how could something as complicated as the Earth arise spontaneously?

Given the 747 analogy, such a complex machine could not just happen all by itself, nor could it be created all at once out of chaos. The 747, like a human body, started as something much simpler, as wheels, inclined planes, levers, and fire, then evolved into what it is today. It didn't evolve all by itself, however.

There is no way for science to prove that there is an intelligence behind the universe, or behind evolution, or anything else in nature. Conversely, there is no way for it to prove the opposite. It just seems counter intuitive that the order and complexity we see all around us just came about on its own.

[Ethos]

It just seems counter intuitive that the order and complexity we see all around us just came about on its own.

In what way(s) do you distinguish between concepts you feel are "counter-intuitive" and those that are simply beyond your current scope of knowledge?

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

Until machines such as the 747 analogy reproduce themselves, then their existence depends upon their being conceived and built by creatures who are alive and sufficiently evolved to do so. That is where the analogy falls.

[dittohead not!]

In what way(s) do you distinguish between concepts you feel are "counter-intuitive" and those that are simply beyond your current scope of knowledge?

Ethos

The concept of order coming out of chaos spontaneously is counter-intuitive. Our experience is that if anything is left on its own, it degenerates. A car left in a field will eventually rust and fall apart. A pile of rusty parts will never assemble themselves into anything that works.

The workings of the universe are beyond my current scope of knowldege, but I don't feel too badly about that. I'm pretty sure that they're beyond the current scope of knowledge of mankind. We're only just barely beginning to understand the workings of life on this planet.

[steveksux]

Not really. I finished reading A Short History of Nearly Everything. recently. Fascinating book.I wasn't really making fun of the point, I just though it sounded deep like the stuff people discuss after a few joints.... :D

Randy

[Meek Heir]

If something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously, how could something as complicated as the Earth arise spontaneously?

It did not arrise spontaneously. It formed through natural proccesses over time. Processes which result in the formation of many planets. Including Gas gaints whose moons could become home to life. Earth's "complexity" is only a figment of your imagination.

It just seems counter intuitive that the order and complexity we see all around us just came about on its own.

And the Earth revolving around the sun is counter intuitive when you look up. Not so counter intuitive when you know what's actually happening.

[dittohead not!]

It did not arrise spontaneously. It formed through natural proccesses over time. Processes which result in the formation of many planets. Including Gas gaints whose moons could become home to life.

No, it did not arise spontaneously. That's what I've been saying all along. It didn't spontaneously form through natural processes over time either.

Earth's "complexity" is only a figment of your imagination.

You can look at the interrelatted web of life on this planet and say that it's not complex? Can you give a simple explaination of how a monarch butterfly finds its way back to where its parents started, thousands of miles from its birthplace? Can mankind create so much as an amoeba? You have a strange idea of "complex."

And the Earth revolving around the sun is counter intuitive when you look up. Not so counter intuitive when you know what's actually happening.

Yes, but once you understand gravity and centrifical force, it becomes quite clear. It can even be demonstrated with a ball and a rubber band.

Wait! Did I say understand gravity? Well, humans haven't really reached that point yet, have we? We know that it exists. That's enough to explain the Earth revolving around the sun.

[sub_zer0]

I'll start with the fine-tuned universe argument used by many creationists. "A universe that is created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned," or life friendly. Therefore, the likelihood that our universe came into being naturally is also low."

Let's break that argument down into it's two parts, starting with the first: "a universe that is created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned," or life friendly.

In logical notation, this can be rendered as P(F|N)<<1.
P=probability
F=fine-tuned universe
N=creation of universe guided by natural law and proceses
<<1=the occurance is exceptionally unlikely, much less than 1 (a certainty).
P(A|B)=the probability that a is true, given that b is true

The fine-tuned universe argument becomes a non sequitur when it continues: "Since a universe created by natural processes has a low probability of being fine-tuned, then the probability that an existing fine-tuned universe came into existence naturally is also low.

The second part of the fine-tuned universe argument can be rendered as P(N|F)<<1. Notice that the values of N and F have changed places, which is an invalid function in probability theory.

To make this easier to understand, I will exchange the fine-tuned universe argument with a card playing analogy.

R = I am holding a Royal Flush
W = I will win this poker hand

If R is true, then W is quite likely to be true also. P(W|R)=1. Let's exchange the placement of R and W to see how this function effects our probability statement. P(R|W)=1. Now we are saying that since I will win this hand, I am almost certain to be holding a royal flush, which isn't true. Virtually every winning poker hand is not a royal flush.

Doesn't mean that you won't get a royal flush... Evolution cannot arise by way of beneficial related mutations.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Doesn't mean that you won't get a royal flush... Evolution cannot arise by way of beneficial related mutations.
Er, yes it can.
That is what evolution is.

[steveksux]

Doesn't mean that you won't get a royal flush... Evolution cannot arise by way of beneficial related mutations.Evolution is more likely than the royal flush you're so quick to point out might happen... :lol:

Randy

[Meek Heir]

No, it did not arise spontaneously. That's what I've been saying all along. It didn't spontaneously form through natural processes over time either.

Over time is mutually exclusive from spontinaety. You might need to look up a different word if you are going to continue this arguement. Something that means not natural rather then instantaneous.

You can look at the interrelatted web of life on this planet and say that it's not complex? Can you give a simple explaination of how a monarch butterfly finds its way back to where its parents started, thousands of miles from its birthplace? Can mankind create so much as an amoeba? You have a strange idea of "complex."

The Earth is complex, but so is a perfect shpere. However by dropping liquid metal I can easily produce the latter. The Earth is not "complex" in the sense that it is very easy to create because it is a natural result of natural proccesses.

Yes, but once you understand gravity and centrifical force, it becomes quite clear. It can even be demonstrated with a ball and a rubber band.

Indeed, and when you realize that the sun is actually millions of miles away and much larger then the Earth. Otherwise your analogy only indicates the sun's revolution.

But that is my point. When you know all the natural processes that lead to the formation of Earth then it is not counter intuitive at all that it came about without intervention.

[dittohead not!]

Over time is mutually exclusive from spontinaety. You might need to look up a different word if you are going to continue this arguement. Something that means not natural rather then instantaneous.

Over time and spontaneously aren't mutually exclusive. Life, as an example, could have been created over time, could have arisen spontaneously over time, could have been created quickly, or could have arisen spontaneously and quickly. Of the four choices, the one that is most plausible is that it was created over time, in other words, neither instantaneously nor spontaneously.

The Earth is complex, but so is a perfect shpere. However by dropping liquid metal I can easily produce the latter. The Earth is not "complex" in the sense that it is very easy to create because it is a natural result of natural proccesses.

A perfect sphere is a very simple shape, not complex at all. The interrelated web of life is highly complex and well balanced. Let' see you create that!


Indeed, and when you realize that the sun is actually millions of miles away and much larger then the Earth. Otherwise your analogy only indicates the sun's revolution.

But that is my point. When you know all the natural processes that lead to the formation of Earth then it is not counter intuitive at all that it came about without intervention.

Perhaps when we understand all of the natural processes that lead to the formation of the Earth, then perhaps it won't be counter intuitive. I doubt it, and also doubt that either of us will live long enough to see humankind actually understand those processes in any great detail.

[faithfulservant]

If you're suggesting the fact that we're here proves that there's a Designer, I would have to point out he's not very intelligent if he only managed to produce 1 planet out of billions that can support life.

RandyWOW!!! That was a really dumb post!! First of all, you don't have a clue if there are other life bearing planets. Second of all, if the Earth is the only life bearing planet, couldn't that be by the choice of the Creator?
I was truly amazed that you actually posted this, Randy. It's way below the norm for you...

[faithfulservant]

Are you sure? Do you understand why there is no need for me to substitute the poker game with a jetliner?
Why would you ask me this question? You say you understand my argument, but your comments lead me to suspect you dont.

I apologize if you only want to expand the discussion beyond my original argument, I have no problem with that and I appreciate the contribution. I just want to make sure you understand that your question has nothing to do with my original point, which was only to argue against TAP's invalid use of probability.

As I explained to Craig in this thread, I have nothing to say about the probability of any sort of universe coming into existence. There are too many unknowns in the equation to make a useful guess.The point isn't so much the number of unknows, but the restrictions created by the known factors. These known factors (little things like gravity, time and space) are what places restrictions on just what can happen. Just because we don't if there is such a thing as anti-gravity, doesn't mean that if I lift my pencil off the desk and let go that it won't fall. There are known restrictions on reality and these restrictions are what creates the logic behind the idea that this universe and our exisitince are statistical anomolies of incredible size.

[steveksux]

WOW!!! That was a really dumb post!! First of all, you don't have a clue if there are other life bearing planets. Second of all, if the Earth is the only life bearing planet, couldn't that be by the choice of the Creator?
I was truly amazed that you actually posted this, Randy. It's way below the norm for you...Not sure if I should thank you or flame back... :confused: ;)

More of a wisecrack, than a thesis, actually.

Based on the number of stars, galaxies, planets, etc, its almost a foregone conclusion there's life out there somewhere, even intelligent. Evolution seems to be a process that rewards success continuously. Should be only a matter of time if enough life arises on a planet.

I think the only thing less likely than us being the only intelligent life in the universe is having that other life close enough to us in space (out of the vast expanse of the universe) AND time (out of the 10-20 billion years the universe has existed, plus the billions of years to come) that we'd actually run into each other or be able to detect each other somehow.... Had aliens flown by just 150 years ago, no radio signals, no remotely detectable sign of intelligent life, they could have passed us by without a second thought.

Randy

[Meek Heir]

Over time and spontaneously aren't mutually exclusive. Life, as an example, could have been created over time, could have arisen spontaneously over time, could have been created quickly, or could have arisen spontaneously and quickly. Of the four choices, the one that is most plausible is that it was created over time, in other words, neither instantaneously nor spontaneously.

My apologies. I had believed that spontaneously was synonymous with instantaenously, rather then being a word for without external cause. In which case I would say that the Earth very easily could have arisen spontaneously, because the laws of nature dictate it's creation.

A perfect sphere is a very simple shape, not complex at all. The interrelated web of life is highly complex and well balanced. Let' see you create that!

Give me a Counter-Earth with no life and Four billion years.

Perhaps when we understand all of the natural processes that lead to the formation of the Earth, then perhaps it won't be counter intuitive. I doubt it, and also doubt that either of us will live long enough to see humankind actually understand those processes in any great detail.

Humankind already understands enough that it is no longer counter intuitive. Many individuals may not know all that we know about those processes and it is quite possible that some people are incapable of understanding the vast scope of the universe. But that doesn't change the fact that we already know enough.

[faithfulservant]

Not sure if I should thank you or flame back... :confused: ;)

More of a wisecrack, than a thesis, actually.

Based on the number of stars, galaxies, planets, etc, its almost a foregone conclusion there's life out there somewhere, even intelligent. Evolution seems to be a process that rewards success continuously. Should be only a matter of time if enough life arises on a planet.

I think the only thing less likely than us being the only intelligent life in the universe is having that other life close enough to us in space (out of the vast expanse of the universe) AND time (out of the 10-20 billion years the universe has existed, plus the billions of years to come) that we'd actually run into each other or be able to detect each other somehow.... Had aliens flown by just 150 years ago, no radio signals, no remotely detectable sign of intelligent life, they could have passed us by without a second thought.

Randy

:sorry: It was not intended as an attack, but rather a highly sarcastic comment on your post. You've gotta admit, you left yourself hanging out there with that one. :flowers:

[dittohead not!]

My apologies. I had believed that spontaneously was synonymous with instantaenously, rather then being a word for without external cause. In which case I would say that the Earth very easily could have arisen spontaneously, because the laws of nature dictate it's creation.

One of those laws of nature is that order doesn't come from chaos spontaneously.

Give me a Counter-Earth with no life and Four billion years.

Let's just keep it simple. Create just one living organism from scratch, in a petri dish maybe.

Humankind already understands enough that it is no longer counter intuitive. Many individuals may not know all that we know about those processes and it is quite possible that some people are incapable of understanding the vast scope of the universe. But that doesn't change the fact that we already know enough.

Yet, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

[Alvin T. Grey]

One of those laws of nature is that order doesn't come from chaos spontaneously.
It dows if order is the natural ground state.




Let's just keep it simple. Create just one living organism from scratch, in a petri dish maybe.
Ok, point taken. But to make it fair, the Petridish will have to be the size of the universe. It should contain all of the matter and energy.
Then I get to let it cook for 16 or so billion years.



Yet, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
I know. Exciting isn't it?

[Meek Heir]

One of those laws of nature is that order doesn't come from chaos spontaneously.

But it does with an influx of energy. I wonder what could give energy to something like the Earth. Maybe a gaint ball of fire in the sky?

Let's just keep it simple. Create just one living organism from scratch, in a petri dish maybe.

The last time it took 2 billion years on a planet covered with the the materials to make it. Human intervention might be able to shorten it up a bit. But I'd still need about 5 square miles, 200 years, and a lot of fancy equipment.

Yet, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

Most of what we don't know is on a specific level that has no little bearing on the subject under discussion. Greater precision is unlikely to refute much of our macro theories.

[steveksux]

:sorry: It was not intended as an attack, but rather a highly sarcastic comment on your post. You've gotta admit, you left yourself hanging out there with that one. :flowers:I figured you weren't, same as me when I said I didn't know whether to thank you for thank you or flame you... :D Basically kidding around...

Randy

[brainpan]

True enough, but nothing about this statement says that there is or isn't an intelligence behind the evolutionary process.Nor should it. That question is best left to the theologians and philosophers.
If something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously, how could something as complicated as the Earth arise spontaneously?The quote indicated homo sapiens could arise, incrementally, from spontaneous action. The author was careless with his word selection.
The 747, like a human body, started as something much simpler, as wheels, inclined planes, levers, and fire, then evolved into what it is today. It didn't evolve all by itself, however.Evolution occurs with a great deal of assistance from nature, guided by its laws.
There is no way for science to prove that there is an intelligence behind the universe, or behind evolution, or anything else in nature. Conversely, there is no way for it to prove the opposite.That's a fair assessment, but it doesn't put the two propositions on equal footing scientifically.
It just seems counter intuitive that the order and complexity we see all around us just came about on its own.Existence itself seems counter intuitive to me, but that's only because I'm a crazy mofo. ;)

[brainpan]

Oops. Meek Heir already dealt with the use of the word "spontaneous" in this discussion. Sorry.

[brainpan]

One of those laws of nature is that order doesn't come from chaos spontaneously.Order from disorder does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or any other physical law.

[dittohead not!]

Existence itself seems counter intuitive to me, but that's only because I'm a crazy mofo. ;)

Yes, it does, doesn't it? And yet, we do exist, or do we? How can we prove our own existence?

Is all that we see or seem,
But a dream within a dream?
(Edgar Allen Poe)

[Meek Heir]

Oops. Meek Heir already dealt with the use of the word "spontaneous" in this discussion. Sorry.

That's okay, I was using it wrong for most of the discussion.