OK…I want numbers. What is the probability the universe is the result of chance?

[The Barbarian]

Your argument is sort of like saying that if I see elephant tracks, and the breaking of bushes and tree branches made by an elephant, then it could be just a person who decided to make me believe it was an elephant doing that or the footprints of the elephant were made by some other thing that just so happens to look like an elephant footprint but it isn't.

No. It's way more basic than that. It's the way probability works. I don't think you're dumb; I just think the math is something to which you haven't been introduced.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am pointing out that God is the designer of all creation.

The Creator. He's qualitatively different than a mere "space alien designer" of the IDers. No need to figure anything out; He is eternal and does not change, which is what a designer does as he designs. It's a fine point, but an important one for a Christian.

Mechanistic view? No that is not what I am pointing out.

I don't think you are. I'm just pointing out that contingency is no problem for an omnipotent Creator, who can use contingency or necessity as He will.

He created the particles and regulated them. Don't forget we came from the dust of the earth.

A God capable of creating non-living matter that brings forth living things as He willed, is far greater than any designer.

 

[Halbhh]

Even the most intelligent know that it takes a Regulator to control the "chance"
particles found in the universe. This is their ongoing unsolved mystery. The Regulator is God. The answer is 0. Blessings

Might I help with something further about this, from a believer that also has done more than a little hands on physics stuff, has learned plenty of physics?

Please consider: if God is able (and we understand that He is of course), then He'd be able to design a physics/chemistry that works.

Functions.

A butterfly, or a natural force like gravity, that actually works, is functional.

That doesn't need a constant guiding hand to manage it.

This is more important than it may seem at first glance -- for faith.

Since faith is to believe before seeing, to believe in what isn't visible, for faith to be possible.

It must not be easily clear in a simple way few could deny that God exists. Instead, at most, Nature must only suggest (however clearly at moments for someone) that God exists.

But His existence must be not yet easy to just see, like the sun or moon.

We have a situation where "faith" is possible, according to the definition: to believe without seeing.
(ergo, if proof of God was clear and easy to see, then faith would be precluded, prevented)

Ergo, if it was instantly obvious that particles must have God controlling them, then faith would be prevented. Obviated. At least for physicists.

Instead, we see a physics that works. Particles can even be truly random in movement, and that would still result (in a way that a physicist can understand, but I think most can if well explained) in a stable world just like we see. Randomness results in a stable world just like we see (but means for example there is a time duration wall/limit on weather forecasting that is highly accurate in detail, so that as time increases the forecast must become less and less certain). It's an identical outcome to what we see. The random movement of particles doesn't at all imply God exists. (If it did, we'd have a real contradiction in the Bible)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No. It's way more basic than that. It's the way probability works. I don't think you're dumb; I just think the math is something to which you haven't been introduced.

I can say the same for you. The more factors you add the more the math makes it more impossible that something is by random chance. It would be like saying that a watch you found in the forest happened by random chance. The odds of a watch creating itself out of nothing is impossible (statistically speaking). You want me to believe all the favorable factors of the Earth just being perfectly right over and over and over is by random chance. That is the argument of atheists who hate God. Why would you be in defense against evidences for God like atheists? It makes no sense. Are you on the side of God or not? I mean, even if you did not think this was not a good form of evidence for God, why don't you try and bring up a better form of evidence to lead people to God? Why just shoot down evidences for God?

 

[Halbhh]

Even the most intelligent know that it takes a Regulator to control the "chance"
particles found in the universe. This is their ongoing unsolved mystery. The Regulator is God. The answer is 0. Blessings

Please let me know if post #63 is too wordy or repeats something you already know, etc. I can shorten it to the most essential parts about random movements of particles.

 

[Halbhh]

I can say the same for you. The more factors you add the more the math makes it more impossible that something is by random chance. It would be like saying that a watch you found in the forest happened by random chance. The odds of a watch creating itself out of nothing is impossible (statistically speaking). You want me to believe all the favorable factors of the Earth just being perfectly right over and over and over is by random chance. That is the argument of atheists who hate God. Why would you be in defense against evidences for God like atheists? It makes no sense. Are you on the side of God or not? I mean, even if you did not think this was not a good form of evidence for God, why don't you try and bring up a better form of evidence to lead people to God? Why just shoot down evidences for God?

Because there are atheist ideologues over so many decades that have tried to falsely paint it that science disproves God, it can be less than obvious at first to most believers, who of course mostly don't have a degree in some of the hard sciences like physics or astrophysics or such, that it's really closer to the other way around. That in reality, the sciences gradually over time have slowly painted a picture that is more and more suggestive that God could exist, even just from the way physics is turing out over time ( subtle and significant thing).

But not a clear easy proof of God existing(!) -- any clear proof of God would contradict the bible about what "faith" really is: to believe before seeing! Clear proof would preempt/preclude/prevent the possibility of "faith".

It turns out, and it should not surprise in retrospect, that randomness in elementary particle behavior fits perfectly well with a beautifully functional nature/physics (and also accords perfectly with the world/nature as we observe it). A Nature that really works, and well.

This is because random acting particles in great numbers average out in stable ways: even though all the air molecules in a room could theoretically rush to one side of the room, leaving a vacuum on the other side, it never happens because the particles are huge in number, and on average the random fluctuations just cancel out. So, it's good to understand that random acting particles fit nature as we see it, and also accord perfectly well with nature being designed. One doesn't want to end up in a situation similar to arguing that horses cannot swim, and so on.

 

[The Barbarian]

can say the same for you. The more factors you add the more the math makes it more impossible that something is by random chance.

That's what I mean when I say you don't understand probability.

Let's say you get out of bed and the first word you hear from the radio is "economy."
When you look at the temp outside, it's 35 F.
After breakfast, you take a toothpick from a shaker, and it happens to be a blue one.
The car in front of you is a green pickup truck and the one in back is a garbage truck.
Someone messed up on the freeway but right after you passed that point, so it didn't delay you.
The guy you were supposed to meet that day was ill, so you had to revise you calendar to fix it.
Going home, you saw a Google maps truck.
Playing cards that night, your first hand: 2 of clubs, two red jacks, a nine of diamonds, and the ace of hearts.
The last word you heard from the television before turning in was "morning."

For all these things to have happened in that order is so stunningly unlikely that it probably has never happened to anyone else in the world. Yet things like this happen to everyone, every day.

You think you've proved that this kind of stunningly unlikely result is impossible, but it's not. It's quite common.

Now, if you predicted it, and it happened, that would be something quite different, um?

Suppose you roll a die a thousand times, and it comes up 2 every time. Another time you roll a specific sequence of numbers that seems entirely random to you. Assuming fair dice, which of these is more unlikely? The answer is, they are equally unlikely. This is what's tripping you up.

 

[The Barbarian]

You want me to believe all the favorable factors of the Earth just being perfectly right over and over and over is by random chance.

As you see, God can use contingency just as easily as He uses necessity. You're selling God short here.

That is the argument of atheists who hate God.

That's absurd. How could anyone hate something they think does not exist?

Why would you be in defense against evidences for God like atheists?

"I hate the most, faulty arguments for things I accept as true." Forgot who said that, but it's a very sensible position.

Are you on the side of God or not?

If, as I believe, God created mathematics, then He's on my side in this issue, at least.

I mean, even if you did not think this was not a good form of evidence for God, why don't you try and bring up a better form of evidence to lead people to God?

I cited a better one from Aquinas.

Why just shoot down evidences for God?

Truth matters to God. So it matters to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As you see, God can use contingency just as easily as He uses necessity. You're selling God short here.



That's absurd. How could anyone hate something they think does not exist?



"I hate the most, faulty arguments for things I accept as true." Forgot who said that, but it's a very sensible position.



If, as I believe, God created mathematics, then He's on my side in this issue, at least.



I cited a better one from Aquinas.



Truth matters to God. So it matters to me.

But your initial response did not make me think you were a believer in God. I had to check your religious affliation in order to know that. My point here is that you should have said, “I do not think this is a good argument for God, I prefer this one instead.”

*Then you list a really good argument for the existence of God.*

 

[Halbhh]

I can say the same for you. The more factors you add the more the math makes it more impossible that something is by random chance. It would be like saying that a watch you found in the forest happened by random chance. The odds of a watch creating itself out of nothing is impossible (statistically speaking). You want me to believe all the favorable factors of the Earth just being perfectly right over and over and over is by random chance. That is the argument of atheists who hate God. Why would you be in defense against evidences for God like atheists? It makes no sense. Are you on the side of God or not? I mean, even if you did not think this was not a good form of evidence for God, why don't you try and bring up a better form of evidence to lead people to God? Why just shoot down evidences for God?

So, following up on that post to you above, what it implies (once you learn enough about how order emerges from random behaving pieces), is that Nature, which of course is as God designed it to be, is "very good" for life (as we learn in the first chapter of Genesis), and naturally supports life. So, it should not be a surprise when we learn more about how nature supports life in all sorts of ways we didn't guess at, including in how mutations and cancers and immune systems and natural genetic variation and so on work from and of nature, by nature. In short, we have a nature that works, that is functional, that is beautifully designed (as opposed to the opposite situation of being non-functional and needing constant effort to maintain or make to work). Not only does gravity work naturally, without a need for maintenance, but so does all of nature, including all aspects of chemistry, biology. When we discover something in biology, it's not a challenge to God, but a wonderous display of His design. At most, such discoveries are only merely a challenge to ad hoc theories that people preferred to guess were the case.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's what I mean when I say you don't understand probability.

Let's say you get out of bed and the first word you hear from the radio is "economy."
When you look at the temp outside, it's 35 F.
After breakfast, you take a toothpick from a shaker, and it happens to be a blue one.
The car in front of you is a green pickup truck and the one in back is a garbage truck.
Someone messed up on the freeway but right after you passed that point, so it didn't delay you.
The guy you were supposed to meet that day was ill, so you had to revise you calendar to fix it.
Going home, you saw a Google maps truck.
Playing cards that night, your first hand: 2 of clubs, two red jacks, a nine of diamonds, and the ace of hearts.
The last word you heard from the television before turning in was "morning."

For all these things to have happened in that order is so stunningly unlikely that it probably has never happened to anyone else in the world. Yet things like this happen to everyone, every day.

You think you've proved that this kind of stunningly unlikely result is impossible, but it's not. It's quite common.

Now, if you predicted it, and it happened, that would be something quite different, um?

Suppose you roll a die a thousand times, and it comes up 2 every time. Another time you roll a specific sequence of numbers that seems entirely random to you. Assuming fair dice, which of these is more unlikely? The answer is, they are equally unlikely. This is what's tripping you up.

God can control even the rolling of a dice. So things in life are not random. In fact, I do not believe anything life happens without God's approval. So nothing happens by just some random chance. All things work together for good to those who love God. Again. Not random.

As for your parable: I didn't get it. I don't see how that relates to the idea that improbable things can happen all in one day. To me, it seems like you described an ordinary day.

But what if you turned on the radio, and you accidentally hit the dial and it was on a station where it told you to seek God today, and then you check the weather and it is 55 degrees out on the six day of the week (i.e. like Isaiah 55:6). Then you pick up a toothpick from a shaker and it falls over and one of these tooth picks lands on a napkin saying, “Seek.” Then you drive and you notice a green pick up truck that has a license plate that says “Seek.” The garbage truck behind the green pick up truck passes you and a piece of trash comes out of it and lands on your windshield. You see the numbers 556. Then someone messed up on the freeway but right after you passed that point, so it didn't delay you. You found this out by watching channel 556 on your cable or Satellite network. The guy you were supposed to meet that day was ill, so you had to revise you calendar to fix it. You see the only opening in your calendar and it is on the fifth month, fifth day, at 6:00PM (i.e. 556). You later discover that this number. Going home you notice a Google maps truck cut you off so as to turn on route 556. Playing cards that night, you lose the game with two cards that are five of hearts, and one card that is six of hearts at the end (i.e. 556). The last word you heard from the television before turning in was "seek." Now, if you were to say this was all just random and it does not mean anything, then I honestly cannot help you.

There are 200 factors that make for life as being fine tuned for mankind, and not just 5 or 10. The fact that all of these factors exist points to a Creator God. In fact, even the creation declares the existence of God according to the book of Romans. So I am not sure why you are arguing against this point. It seems like you are fighting against the existence of God even though your statement of faith implies you believe in God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So, following up on that post to you above, what it implies (once you learn enough about how order emerges from random behaving pieces), is that Nature, which of course is as God designed it to be, is "very good" for life (as we learn in the first chapter of Genesis), and naturally supports life. So, it should not be a surprise when we learn more about how nature supports life in all sorts of ways we didn't guess at, including in how mutations and cancers and immune systems and natural genetic variation and so on work from and of nature, by nature. In short, we have a nature that works, that is functional, that is beautifully designed (as opposed to the opposite situation of being non-functional and needing constant effort to maintain or make to work). Not only does gravity work naturally, without a need for maintenance, but so does all of nature, including all aspects of chemistry, biology. When we discover something in biology, it's not a challenge to God, but a wonderous display of His design. At most, such discoveries are only merely a challenge to ad hoc theories that people preferred to guess were the case.

So you are saying it is not random. If so, I agree. God designed all things with a design and purpose. The existence of all the favorable factors for life to exist points to a Creator God.

 

[Halbhh]

So you are saying it is not random. If so, I agree. God designed all things with a design and purpose. The existence of all the favorable factors for life to exist points to a Creator God.

Yeah, but to get to the point where one understands how something in physics begins to possibly suggest there is a grand design that is sublime and not just a random set of parameters....takes more than just a year or 2, I think. More than reading some popular science articles. But...on the other hand, it's possible to just look really well and closely at Nature at length at some moment, for a hour or 2 -- to really look at a leaf or a tree, or a waterfall, or the stars.... -- and begin to feel a real sense of awe and wonder.

For Einstein, he called it the "music of the spheres" trying to communicate his own sense of the wonder of it all. I think this is helpful to know: that often those in the sciences can experience a real sense of awe and wonder. So...we should not try to lecture them about the age of the Earth for instance! We might far better politely listen if they lecture us. Consider Paul in Athens.

Further, if one isn't personally inclined towards astronomy, for example, then that's not the particular place to throw one's net!! As Christ said, we need to at times realize we should cast the net on the other side of the boat. So, say, if one is very interested in agriculture, then one might travel to a meeting of farmers or such....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yeah, but to get to the point where one understands how something in physics begins to possibly suggest there is a grand design that is sublime and not just a random set of parameters....takes more than just a year or 2, I think. More than reading some popular science articles. But...on the other hand, it's possible to just look really well and closely at Nature at length at some moment, for a hour or 2 -- to really look at a leaf or a tree, or a waterfall, or the stars.... -- and begin to feel a real sense of awe and wonder.

For Einstein, he called it the "music of the spheres" trying to communicate his own sense of the wonder of it all. I think this is helpful to know: that often those in the sciences can experience a real sense of awe and wonder.

Not denying the wonder of God's creation can lead a person to God. But it doesn't take long for a person to think there is a Creator God if they count up all the perfect life conditions given to this Earth, too. There are 200 of them for life to exist comfortably today. To not consider this as an evidence for God is simply ignorance in my view. To say that a person cannot discover this quickly is also not true. They could read an article on the perfect life conditions that are needed for life to be here and to be comfortable. The earth is fine tuned for life not by some random chance, but by a Creator God. To deny this is to deny reality or God.

 

[Halbhh]

Not denying the wonder of God's creation can lead a person to God. But it doesn't take long for a person to think there is a Creator God if they count up all the perfect life conditions given to this Earth, too. There are 200 of them for life to exist comfortably today. To not consider this as an evidence for God is simply ignorance in my view. To say that a person cannot discover this quickly is also not true. They could read an article on the perfect life conditions that are needed for life to be here and to be comfortable. The earth is fine tuned for life not by some random chance, but by a Creator God. To deny this is to deny reality or God.

Oh sure. A child can discover something in minutes or just a day it might take an adult years to realize.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh sure. A child can discover something in minutes or just a day it might take an adult years to realize.

No doubt about it. But adults can also learn things just as quick as a child can, too.

 

[hedrick]

I have a master's degree that required more statistics than most people will see in a lifetime.

And I was once roped into teaching a statistics course. First, probability requires a repeated process. Properly speaking, it shouldn't be used to evaluate individual events, though in practice it often is. But at the very least it requires some kind of model. To be valid, the model should be proposed before the observation, as Barbarian points out, though that's a restriction that is also often violated (and doing so often creates results that are almost certainly meaningless -- sometime we should talk about how statistics are actually used in the social sciences. Yuck).

The calculation made by the OP assumes there are lots of independent variables set to random values. But as far as I know, no one has any idea the source of natural law, so that model is basically a straw man. No one is claiming that's how things happened.

As far as I know, there's no alternative. In my opinion, scientists simply don't have any reasonable model for where natural law came from. There are people who think multiple universes are possible. I think at some point it may even be possible to test for some models that result in multiple universes. But I don't believe anyone knows how to do that at the moment. About all we can say now is "it's very odd that so many parameters seem to be fine tuned." Observations that something is odd have, in the past, often led to interesting discoveries.

But history tells us that "we don't have a clue" doesn't mean we will never have a clue, and "therefore God did it" isn't a very good conclusion. We have no better idea how God got to be. I don't see how we can compare the likelihood of two processes, neither of which we have any clue about (how natural law got to be here vs how God got to be here).

I'd rather look at God's actions in history, religious experience, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

But history tells us that "we don't have a clue" doesn't mean we will never have a clue, and "therefore God did it" isn't a very good conclusion.

True. Fortunately, it's not important to our salvation.

The calculation made by the OP assumes there are lots of independent variables set to random values. But as far as I know, no one has any idea the source of natural law, so that model is basically a straw man. No one is claiming that's how things happened.

Science can't figure that out. But scientists can.

But history tells us that "we don't have a clue" doesn't mean we will never have a clue, and "therefore God did it" isn't a very good conclusion.

Yes. It's always a bad idea to define God in terms of what man can't do.

 

[The Barbarian]

God can control even the rolling of a dice. So things in life are not random.

Nuclear decay seems to be entirely a matter of probability. Again, God may permit chance, but is not limited by it.

As for your parable: I didn't get it. I don't see how that relates to the idea that improbable things can happen all in one day. To me, it seems like you described an ordinary day.

Hardly. It's unlikely that I just described anyone's day, ever. It's just that ordinary days, when you look at the events in them, are astonishingly unlikely.

But what if you turned on the radio, and you accidentally hit the dial and it was on a station where it told you to seek God today, and then you check the weather and it is 55 degrees out on the six day of the week (i.e. like Isaiah 55:6). Then you pick up a toothpick from a shaker and it falls over and one of these tooth picks lands on a napkin saying, “Seek.” Then you drive and you notice a green pick up truck that has a license plate that says “Seek.”...

Then it becomes a bit more interesting. But of course, things like that happens extremely rarely. For the reasons I mentioned.

There are 200 factors that make for life as being fine tuned for mankind, and not just 5 or 10.

There are as many factors for the Grand Canyon being formed the way it is. All factors were fine-tuned to make the strata what they are, the erosion the way it happened and so on.

Don't see a point here.

 

[The Barbarian]

That in reality, the sciences gradually over time have slowly painted a picture that is more and more suggestive that God could exist, even just from the way physics is turing out over time ( subtle and significant thing).

Subtle (and very deep) pun?
Alan Turing - Wikipedia