See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
I remember a religious analogy where the guy threw down a ton of cards and said something like "the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible, just like the order of the universe, so there must be a god"
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable.
The analogy would actually suggest to me that there are many possible outcomes, it makes no sense to point to this one outcome of the universe amongst the infinite number of equally unlikely possible universes and say "thats proof"
I dont see any proof of a God and the idea is even more unlikely to me than the universe existing in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong but unless I see or feel something that makes me change my mind I have no power to do so myself.
I do think Western Christian culture is the best though and I have no ill will towards Christians.
A better analogy is: try to make a detailed life simulation by throwing random words into a compiler and see if it makes anything. Spoiler alert: it won't.
In order to craft a detailed simulation you need structure and an expert software engineer. There is no such thing as using random strings to create a structured simulation, hence why it requires an engineer.
Just to interject with what I see as a fault in your logic
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable.
The example clearly states:
“the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible”
“The right order” obviously meaning 1-13 ordered by suit, which is 1/(10^67). Analogously, “the right order” for the universe is the one in which all the various independent variables (as i establish in the OP on the other side of the cross post) take just the exact, precise value needed to actually generate a universe where life can develop.
So please do check out the post, I’ve linked to it above in a couple places. It’s an unfortunate drawback of this site’s cross-post feature that so little detail makes it through to here.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeably.
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities.
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
[final paragraph]
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category.
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
I remember a religious analogy where the guy threw down a ton of cards and said something like "the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible, just like the order of the universe, so there must be a god"
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable. The analogy would actually suggest to me that there are many possible outcomes, it makes no sense to point to this one outcome of the universe amongst the infinite number of equally unlikely possible universes and say "thats proof"
I dont see any proof of a God and the idea is even more unlikely to me than the universe existing in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong but unless I see or feel something that makes me change my mind I have no power to do so myself. I do think Western Christian culture is the best though and I have no ill will towards Christians.
That guy made a bad analogy.
A better analogy is: try to make a detailed life simulation by throwing random words into a compiler and see if it makes anything. Spoiler alert: it won't.
In order to craft a detailed simulation you need structure and an expert software engineer. There is no such thing as using random strings to create a structured simulation, hence why it requires an engineer.
Just to interject with what I see as a fault in your logic
The example clearly states:
“the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible”
“The right order” obviously meaning 1-13 ordered by suit, which is 1/(10^67). Analogously, “the right order” for the universe is the one in which all the various independent variables (as i establish in the OP on the other side of the cross post) take just the exact, precise value needed to actually generate a universe where life can develop.
So please do check out the post, I’ve linked to it above in a couple places. It’s an unfortunate drawback of this site’s cross-post feature that so little detail makes it through to here.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design
What's the chance of it randomly deciding to operate on logic? It could be 100% for all you know.
How does a mindless (Godless) universe “decide” anything?
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.