The mathematical probability of spontaneous order (no designer/creator) (page 2)

Fernando

The math seems clear and correct to me.

If anyone could provide a straightforward and understandable explanation of what they feel is wrong with the math that would be great.

Like I said, you are ignoring the laws of chemistry while trying to figure out what chemistry can do. That's the problem with your computation, it does not actually model any aspect of the real world.

Fernando

For me the building blocks and laws of chemistry give evidence of substantial order.

This order too could not have arisen by chance without a designer and law maker - using exactly the same math as before.

bohm

Fernando: But we can agree your calculation does not reflect what could or could not happen in the real world because it assumes the world is not governed by natural law?

Fernando

I'm sorry, I don't follow - could you unpack that for me bohm?

bohm

Okay so which of these statements do you disagree with

(1) your calculations do not account for natural laws such as those governing chemistry

(2) in order to say which chemical processes will happen or not one has to take into account chemistry

prologos

so. if the probability becomes greater because of the natural laws, then our existence is a question of laws. Have you ever see a law make itself.? Even if ''the law is an ass," it is still a law, albeit with an asinine framer.

If 10^37 universes came into existence just to have the possibility of this one planet? sharpen your O razors.

truthseeker100

Fernando I don't think most physicists would agree that the universe is 30 billion years old. That kind of throws a monkey wrench into your math right from the start.

bohm

prologos: Have you ever see a law make itself.?

Have you ever seen a god make itself?

have you ever seen a strawman make itself?

maksutov

The universe must have laws - it could not exist without them. There is no other way for the universe to be (than to have natural laws). The laws themselves could be different to the ones we have, and if they were, we would not exist (but something else would). This does not require an intelligence to create the laws, the laws just are. 2+2=4 regardless of whether any intelligence exists to realise it. Nobody had to 'invent' the fact that 2+2=4, it just is. The laws of physics just are. Natural laws do not require a law maker - using man-made laws to claim that they do is a false analogy (a logical fallacy).

As such, to postulate that either life arose by 'chance' or was 'designed' is a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy). Natural laws influence what happens, making some outcomes more likely than others. It is not random, neither need it be intelligently controlled. For all we know, the probability that life would arise spontaneously given the laws of physics in our universe could be 100%. Or it could be 0.00001%. We don't know, because we don't know exactly what happened or how it happened. Either is fine, and neither requires an intelligent agent. Occam's razor should indeed be applied, but the existence of a supernatural intelligence greatly complicates things, since you then have to account for its existence - and the only way to do that is with special pleading (another logical fallacy).

The universe is reckoned to be about 13.82 billion years old btw.

The mathematical probability of spontaneous order (no designer/creator)

Share this