Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Job 33:6]

In this case the answer is a given for both me and any deist. For a Christian? Well, there's a lot more to be unpacked and explained if you think it was God.

I would agree that God creating and designing the universe comes with more questions than simply believing that things were all random and that's just the way that it is. I just don't think that the latter is a better explanation.

A woman walks into a casino, plays slots, and hits a one in a gazillion jackpot.

Steven Hawking said it quite well when he said that there are enormous odds "against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang".

 

[Bradskii]

Steven Hawking said it quite well when he said that there are enormous odds "against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang".

Like ours? Almost impossible. But what are the odds of a specific universe completely unlike ours emerging? Exactly the same.

I don't think you get this.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Meaning that the probability of a one off by random chance is low or that it is an unlikely explanation.

That doesn't follow. All you have done is demonstrate that one value may be slightly variable, but it doesn't appear to make a difference to the chances of this universe existing with intelligent life. So you're no further towards a meaningful probability calculation than you were before.

The only honest probability calculation for the existence of this universe and intelligent life gives a result of 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

That doesn't follow. All you have done is demonstrate that one value may be slightly variable, but it doesn't appear to make a difference to the chances of this universe existing with intelligent life. So you're no further towards a meaningful probability calculation than you were before.

The only honest probability calculation for the existence of this universe and intelligent life gives a result of 1.

Knowing that the constants can be different itself is the case for improbability of the universe being as it is.

I think there's a question of if we have to see a million people lose the lottery before we can conclude that if we see one person win the lottery that the odds are 1/1,000,000.

I would think that if the constants do change, then much like with winning lottery numbers that change, there must be some probability other than one for the winning ticket.

How could we say that the universe couldn't have existed in a way in which gravity prevented its expansion before life formed? Especially if we can see that constants may change.

If we can't say that the universe couldn't have existed in such a way, Then we couldn't say for sure that the odds are 1.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Knowing that the constants can be different itself is the case for improbability of the universe being as it is.

I think there's a question of if we have to see a million people lose the lottery before we can conclude that if we see one person win the lottery that the odds are 1/1,000,000.

I would think that if the constants do change, then much like with winning lottery numbers that change, there must be some probability other than one for the winning ticket.

How could we say that the universe couldn't have existed in a way in which gravity prevented its expansion before life formed? Especially if we can see that constants may change.

If we can't say that the universe couldn't have existed in such a way, Then we couldn't say for sure that the odds are 1.

Yet you cannot demonstrate any other possibility. It doesn't matter how much you "think" things could be different. The only thing we can say for certain is that this universe exists with intelligent life. Probability = 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yet you cannot demonstrate any other possibility. It doesn't matter how much you "think" things could be different. The only thing we can say for certain is that this universe exists with intelligent life. Probability = 1.

I don't think that you're really demonstrating that this is the only way things could be either, simply because it's all that you know.

Especially if you could see that constants of the universe can actually be different.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't think that you're really demonstrating that this is the only way things could be either, simply because it's all that you know.

I never made that claim.

Especially if you could see that constants of the universe can actually be different.

That's the claim you are making but cannot support. Perhaps you should spend some time reading through what has actually been said in this discussion, not what you think has been said. You may finally come to understand that there is a difference between what we know and what we can imagine. Probability calculations are only meaningful for what we know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think this really changes the circumstances. Unless it were the case that the universe in one extreme pole were to have one extreme value of a constant, whole the other pole were to have another extreme.

It doesn't change the circumstances, but it tells us more about them; it would be evidence in support of that hypothesis. It could have been otherwise.

What is considered an 'extreme' value for a parameter isn't particularly relevant, only that it can vary through space and/or time. For example, if the universe is spatially infinite (a valid proposition under General Relativity), and if the constants vary from place to place, then the cosmological multiverse is a distinct possibility.

Demonstrating that these constants could exist in other proportions wouldn't necessarily change the odds of the anthropic principal in a meaningful way. But it would demonstrate that these constants could change or could exist in different proportions.

The anthropic principle doesn't have odds; it's just the observation that intelligent observers necessarily find themselves in a universe that can support intelligent observers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How many other people are playing, as in multiverse theory?

It depends on the particular multiverse and timescale you're considering, but most involve an extremely large or potentially infinite number.

Personally I'd go with a divine creation and purpose, certainly over multiverse theory.

That's understandable, you're emotionally invested in divine creation and purpose. But that has no bearing on whether or not a multiverse or multiverses exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Meaning that the probability of a one off by random chance is low or that it is an unlikely explanation.

You don't seem to understand the implication of the possibility that the 'constants' could vary in our universe. It would mean that in other places they could be different and life wouldn't be able to exist, but the values they have here would be a consequence of that variation over a sufficiently large space, not something inherently inexplicable.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't seem to understand the implication of the possibility that the 'constants' could vary in our universe. It would mean that in other places they could be different and life wouldn't be able to exist, but the values they have here would be a consequence of that variation over a sufficiently large space, not something inherently inexplicable.

Meaning that the probability would be extraordinarily tiny for the values to be ideal for life in the universe (and the formation of the universe itself) if such constants change.

Saying that constants can change doesn't make it more likely that we would exist.

But rather it's saying that these constants don't change at all and simply are, is what would ensure that we would be here with a probability of 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

Meaning that the probability would be extraordinarily tiny for the values to be ideal for life in the universe (and the formation of the universe itself) if such constants change.

Saying that constants can change doesn't make it more likely that we would exist.

But rather it's saying that these constants don't change at all and simply are, is what would ensure that we would be here with a probability of 1.

I think it's worth noting that not all constant values would allow for intelligent life.

So let's say we have event possibilities 1 through 10. And in 1 out of 10 you have a universe with intelligent life.

And let's say in 2 out of 10 you have a universe without life.

Then the other 7 out of 10, you have no universe at all.

The probability for us existing in this scenario would be 1/10.

And because Constants can fluctuate, and are not static and not stuck or fixed on a single value, the 7/10 lifeless universes, or 9/10 without intelligent life, are feasible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Meaning that the probability would be extraordinarily tiny for the values to be ideal for life in the universe (and the formation of the universe itself) if such constants change.

The idea is that given a sufficiently large or infinite space, there would be a parameter landscape of all combinations, making a habitable zone inevitable.

Saying that constants can change doesn't make it more likely that we would exist.

Well, no. We already exist. But a full landscape of variation would make our 'local' parameter environment inevitable. Whether life would necessarily arise is currently an unknown, but the available evidence suggests that numerous roughly Earth-like planets exist, and that life arose surprisingly soon after conditions became suitable on Earth.

But rather it's saying that these constants don't change at all and simply are, is what would ensure that we would be here with a probability of 1.

We already are here with a probability of one.

You need to distinguish between the possibility of the constants having different values emerging from the big bang, and the possibility of the constants varying across space and/or time in the post-big bang universe. I've been talking about the latter, not the former.

Of course, if we discover a reason that means the constants could not have been different, i.e. a universe must inevitably have those constants, then everyone would be satisfied - but the hint that the constants might vary is not encouraging for that possibility.

 

[Bradskii]

I think there's a question of if we have to see a million people lose the lottery before we can conclude that if we see one person win the lottery that the odds are 1/1,000,000.

I would think that if the constants do change, then much like with winning lottery numbers that change, there must be some probability other than one for the winning ticket.

No. The probability of the winning ticket being won is...1. But you think that it had to be Mr. Sapien. And the guy was lucky. So your reaction is: 'The chances of him winning were one in a million. So it must have been designed that he win it'. But it was entirely random.

 

[Job 33:6]

The idea is that given a sufficiently large or infinite space, there would be a parameter landscape of all combinations, making a habitable zone inevitable.

This itself seems like a bold assumption. A parameter landscape of all combinations of physical constants? It isn't a conclusion based on anything observed in cosmology. It's just an assumption used to explain how we might be in what appears to be a well tuned space in the universe.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. The probability of the winning ticket being won is...1. But you think that it had to be Mr. Sapien. And the guy was lucky. So your reaction is: 'The chances of him winning were one in a million. So it must have been designed that he win it'. But it was entirely random.

Just because someone wins the lottery, this doesn't mean that the probability of the winning ticket being won is 1. But rather the winning ticket would be one of countless other tickets that serve as alternative possible outcomes. So if you have a million tickets, if someone wins, their chances of winning were 1/1,000,000.

And in a case in which the other 99% of options in which Intelligent life wouldn't exist, I would say that Mr. Sapien did have to win.

 

[Bradskii]

Just because someone wins the lottery, this doesn't mean that the probability of the winning ticket being won is 1.

Yes it is.

There's a lottery. There was a draw. There was an outcome. That's a certainty. The odds of one specific outcome aren't relevant. But if that outcome means that you win, lucky you. If you didn't win then there'd be another outcome. And the odds of that would be exactly the same as you winning.

There's a universe. There was a big bang. There was an outcome. That's a certainty. The odds of one specific outcome aren't relevant. But if that outcome means that we win, lucky us. If we didn't win then there'd be another outcome. And the odds of that would be exactly the same as us winning.

In other words, the chances of there being a lifeless pile of rocks taking up the same space as you are, are exactly the same as you sitting there reading this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I walk into a building, in the middle of the building there's a button. I push the button and a man walks over and punches me in the face.

What are the odds of me getting punched in the face when I push that button?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes it is.

There's a lottery. There was a draw. There was an outcome. That's a certainty. The odds of one specific outcome aren't relevant. But if that outcome means that you win, lucky you. If you didn't win then there'd be another outcome. And the odds of that would be exactly the same as you winning.

There's a universe. There was a big bang. There was an outcome. That's a certainty. The odds of one specific outcome aren't relevant. But if that outcome means that we win, lucky us. If we didn't win then there'd be another outcome. And the odds of that would be exactly the same as us winning.

In other words, the chances of there being a lifeless pile of rocks taking up the same space as you are, are exactly the same as you sitting there reading this.

You can't look at something merely in hindsight and call the odds of an event 1. It's like a rolling a die, it falls on a 2 then saying that the odds of getting 2 is 1/1. When in actuality it's 1/6 (on a standard 6 sided die).

In an existence where constants change, the number of possible outcomes of constant values for a universe are innumerable. Like a dye with a gazillion sides. Some have suggested scenarios in which there are a gazillion universes, all of different constants or perhaps a single universe which contains a gazillion constants within it, thereby guaranteeing an outcome with us in it. But both of these conclusions sound like extreme stretches of the imagination.

 

[Bradskii]

You can't look at something merely in hindsight and call the odds of an event 1.

You can look at it with hindsight or foresight. The odds of an an event are 1. The odds of a specific event are not the same and may be infinite.

We are an event. I'm certain that you believe otherwise. Hence the confusion.