statistical argument used by apologists

[BH]

Hello,

Apologists use the argument that statistically speaking, the universe would more than likely have formed in such a way it either never could have formed any atoms, just subatomic particles or if atoms were formed it would have taken so long they would have never been anything other than hydrogen and helium. The atoms by that time would have been so sprwad out they would not have formed any stars, ect.

I may not be repeating the argument just right but I think you all have heard something along these lines.

The the apologist argues since our universe was statistically speaking the odd one out it must have been made by a creator.

Of course statistics, even if their argument is true our universe would be the less likely one, would not prove God made it or had to have made it.

But let's turn this around.

Let's say the universe went the other way and all we have are subatomic particles, helium atoms, and hydrogen atoms, all running around space and having a good time.

Let's suppose you are a helium atom and could think. And you conclude that this universe you are in is nothing but hydrogen and helium and subatomic particles .Also you conclude more than likely this is how the universe statistically speaking was more than likely going to turn out to be. Then you conclude that there is a God and that he made it and the fact that the likelyhood statictically speaking the universe would be this way is evidence he deliberately made it this way. And you crunch more numbers and come up with theoretically speaking our universe and conclude that if the universe were truly not guided in its formation by God our universe would be evidence for that.

How do you prove our little thinking helium atoms wrong?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My layman's view of statistical arguments is that one can use statistics to demonstrate the likelihood or non-likelihood of anything to any degree one wishes. It just all depends on how you frame the argument and apply the statistics. The likelihood of any one event is just about zero. Given events the likelihood of an event changes.

Interestingly the likelihood of invisible spacemen that live outside universal constraints is absolutely zero.

 

[Bomb#20]

How do you prove our little thinking helium atoms wrong?

Same way you prove the real-world apologists wrong. Their argument is self-contradictory. It postulates that the observed characteristics of the universe are necessary in order for thinkers to be around to observe a universe; and it also postulates that there was a thinker around before the universe's characteristics were established.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hello,

Apologists use the argument that statistically speaking, the universe would more than likely have formed in such a way it either never could have formed any atoms, just subatomic particles or if atoms were formed it would have taken so long they would have never been anything other than hydrogen and helium. The atoms by that time would have been so sprwad out they would not have formed any stars, ect.

It should also be pointed out that there's no scientific basis for thinking the universe is in any narrow range necessary for life. To pick an example, sure, epsilon is .007; and sure, according to current understanding of physics, an epsilon of .006 or .008 would be inconsistent with the formation of life. The problem with that argument is that according to current understanding of physics, an epsilon of .007 is also inconsistent with the formation of life. This is because according to current understanding of physics, every observed value of every physical constant is inconsistent with everything. That's how it goes whenever your two well-established fundamental theories of physics are inconsistent with each other. So until we have a theory of quantum gravity, claims of fine-tuning are pure speculation.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Physics seems to point to a multiuniverse, where am infinite Universe has infinite pocket Universes. Statistically, it may be that the vast majority are failed Universes that have no life, and maybe no matter as we enjoy. So we are lucky to live in one of the statistically rare pocket Universes that can sustain life. It may be that our pocket Universe is of a type that is rare to 1 X 10**500, but with infinite time and and space to work in, we had infinite pocket Universes that can have life.

Theists have doubted this, but as a number of cosmologists have stated, this is where known physics seems to be leading us, and it's not just something made up to save appearances. If we accept this view, statistic works for the idea that we won the cosmic lottery by shear chance. So the fine tuning argument for theism is not a problem.

Bluntly, I hold more faith in physics and cosmology as created by knowledgeable people based on evidence, then ideas spawned by the theological claims of ancient sheep herders.

And of course, we may not be the only life in this pocket Universe. Maybe the Universe, if it was created, was created for their sakes, not ours.

 

[Lion IRC]

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

 

[Lion IRC]

I suppose there's no reason God couldn't keep on making more and more universes.

 

[Kharakov]

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

What about all the worlds that gave Jesus cookies when he showed up, instead of being assholes and crucifying him? Why the hell would he come back here?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

Or one where just a fictional story was invented.

 

[sdelsolray]

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

An infinite number of universes does not necessarily mean an infinite number of different universes.

 

[Lion IRC]

Simultaneously?
No, I agree they need not all exist at the same time.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

An infinite number of universes does not necessarily mean an infinite number of different universes.

Think about it, if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of universes that are identical to this universe except for some infinitesimal difference infinitely far in the future. How does that help us understand anything?

 

[Sarpedon]

The problem with the statistical model is that it has plenty of hidden assumptions. One is the idea that for any given value, each possible value has an equal chance of occurring. For example, the fine tuning argument says that if any of the various 'constants' in the universe were a different value, life as we know it would be impossible. If, for example, gravity were stronger and the electromagnetic force was weaker it may make the formation of complex molecules impossible. A weaker Strong force would make heavier atoms unstable, etc.

To illustrate this point, imagine another constant of the universe: pi. If one believes that one constant, say G (gravity) can change, why not pi? Well, the answer to that is that pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Changing it would yield something that isn't a circle. So what is G? Is it truly a number that can be adjusted with a knob, or is it fixed in value by other factors, known or unknown? The assumption that the numbers can change is unsupported by evidence. (btw, I don't take credit for this analogy, I don't remember where I read it. It might have been Douglas Adams)

But that assumes these values can be changed, and that any given value is as likely as another. Imagine a person who buys a lottery ticket, thinking there is a 50/50 chance of winning, because they either win or lose. In reality, there are many possibilities that lead to the same result.

 

[Underseer]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

 

[funinspace]

My layman's view of statistical arguments is that one can use statistics to demonstrate the likelihood or non-likelihood of anything to any degree one wishes. It just all depends on how you frame the argument and apply the statistics. The likelihood of any one event is just about zero. Given events the likelihood of an event changes.

I'd say this phrase fits the issue well: Statistics don't lie, people lie with statistics

 

[ronburgundy]

As with all such "too unlikely to be chance" arguments for God, this one is equal to saying that if I buy a lottery ticket it is almost certain that it won't be a winning lottery ticket. Thus, if it turns out to be a winner, it must be divine intervention.
The extremely improbable will always occur, given enough opportunities. Only if one presumes that our Universe is the result of the first opportunity does the result seem at odds with chance predictions. And such a presumption is pure egocentrism, much like the person who prays and happens to recover from an illness, ignores all the countless unanswered prayers by others who did not recover.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As with all such "too unlikely to be chance" arguments for God, this one is equal to saying that if I buy a lottery ticket it is almost certain that it won't be a winning lottery ticket. Thus, if it turns out to be a winner, it must be divine intervention.
The extremely improbable will always occur, given enough opportunities. Only if one presumes that our Universe is the result of the first opportunity does the result seem at odds with chance predictions. And such a presumption is pure egocentrism, much like the person who prays and happens to recover from an illness, ignores all the countless unanswered prayers by others who did not recover.

Some people win the lottery the first time they play.

 

[ronburgundy]

As with all such "too unlikely to be chance" arguments for God, this one is equal to saying that if I buy a lottery ticket it is almost certain that it won't be a winning lottery ticket. Thus, if it turns out to be a winner, it must be divine intervention.
The extremely improbable will always occur, given enough opportunities. Only if one presumes that our Universe is the result of the first opportunity does the result seem at odds with chance predictions. And such a presumption is pure egocentrism, much like the person who prays and happens to recover from an illness, ignores all the countless unanswered prayers by others who did not recover.

Some people win the lottery the first time they play.

Yes, but never was their ticket the only ticket played. With enough players, someone has to win. Thus, it is extremely likely (and 100% certain with enough players) that a ticket with an a priori odds of 1 in millions will win by pure random chance. So, someone was going to win, and the person who won had a good of chance odds as anyone else. The egoism is in inferring that after the outcome is determined that because it benefits you that it was always destined to be that way. This childish egoism is what leads to the belief that some force must of interfered with mere chance to make the result in your favor.

 

[Malintent]

I was playing poker the other day with some friends. I was dealt a Queen of Spades, Jack of Hearts, Nine of Hearts, Seven of Spades, and a Two of Spades.
What are the chances of that!!!!????

It must have been divine intervention, because the mathematical odds of me getting dealt that exact hand is over 311 MILLION to ONE.

 

[sdelsolray]

An infinite number of universes does not necessarily mean an infinite number of different universes.

Think about it, if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of universes that are identical to this universe except for some infinitesimal difference infinitely far in the future. How does that help us understand anything?

I don't think so. My point is that an infinite set does not necessarily contain all that could be. For example, the infinite set of integers does not contain all numbers. An infinite set of universes does not necessarily contain every possible universe. Indeed, it could simply contain an infinite number of the exact same universe. I would agree that you can construct/define an infinite number of universes in which each universe is different. That is just one possible construct, not the only construct.