It appears that you don't understand the probabilities. For the Powerball lottery, the chances that a specific person will win is 1 in 150 million which is very unlikely, at least in my book.
The lottery argument is gamblers fallacy at its best, first of all to win the lottery you must first participate and of course to create the lottery game with laws and rules for participation, again the Physical Universe had a beginning, it couldn't participate on something that didn't even exist. You must first have a Universe to create a lottery machine that pulls numbers from the physical Universe, even if the lottery argument was a serious argument it has the problem of eternal past physical causes, BVG Theorem destroys that argument. Even the lottery doesn't escape chance, imagine what it would take to create the lottery game by chance, the fact that you talk about lottery that pulls a specific number it means that your argument depends on Determinism, if we could measure the force of the balls and everything that influence the result it would be a Deterministic event. Scientists have built a machine that finds out the result of the coin flip by 99.9%.
A random walk of RNA molecules did result in functional RNA enzymes capable of filling the function of proteins.
20 In Vitro Selection of Functional RNA Sequences | Szostak | Cold Spring Harbor Monograph Archive
I am not sure you have read the article...
In the case of this discussion, we are only aware of one winner, and not how many tickets were sold. That is the point being made.
The winner must participate to the game to win.
The probability of the same person winning 5 in a row is the same as 5 different, but specific, people winning. That is the problem with the fine tuning argument, they are doing the calculations afterwards. They are painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole.
Whats the difference between your existence and a lotto draw? The difference is the existence of an independently specified target or pattern. Let each of the 14 million possible lotto predictions be represented by a ping-pong ball. Place all 14 million balls in a big bag, and shake well. Brown (apparently) reaches blindly into the bag and pulls out the one winning ball. Why is this amazing? It is not just that his ball is unlikely any ball is unlikely. It is this low probability coupled with the fact that the winning ball is specified independently of Browns choice. While the balls are all still in the bag, one is a winner (independent of Browns choice) and the rest are losers. He didnt just pick an unlikely ball; he picked the winning ball. He cant pull out just any ball and proclaim: I win.
Now fill the bag with balls representing the vast number of possible outcomes of different egg-sperm combinations. The hand of fate goes into the bag and out you come. Why isnt this anything special? Because there is nothing to single out this ball, improbable though it is, while it is still in the bag. We only know who you are after you come out of the bag. You are not specified independently of the choice of ball. Whatever ball comes out of the bag, the corresponding person can proclaim: I win. (In this game, you win by existing.) You cant lose!
Let me illustrate the difference another way. I shoot an arrow at a huge wall, 100 metres away. When the impact zone is inspected, we find that the arrow has hit the centre of a small red spot. The probability of hitting this point on the wall is tiny. Am I a talented archer? It depends. If I proclaimed: watch me hit that red spot before firing the arrow, then Im the new Robin Hood. However, if I shot the arrow and then took some red paint and painted the spot around my arrows impact point, then you cant reach any conclusion about my archery skills.
So which of these cases does the fine-tuning of the universe resemble? Potential universes can be marked intelligent life can/cannot live here independently of the properties of the actual universe. This universe is not special because it is ours. It is special because it can support intelligent life. When we consider the fine-tuning of the universe, we are not considering the probability of this universe. We are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. Choose a different sperm, you get a different person. Choose a different universe, and you almost certainly do not get a different form of intelligent life. You get no intelligent life at all. The fine-tuning of the universe involves a low probability event and an independently specified target, and thus cannot be dismissed as just another low probability event.
What are the chances that our universe would emerge with the costants it has? 1 in 1. Why? Because it happened.
The problem here is that you can't prove a machine that creates Universes randomly therefor the Universe emerged because it was intended by God.
Upvote
0