The design argument

Originally posted by no1marauder
Some results of a six sided dice thrown five times will be far more probable than others. We can calculate precisely the probability of each result.

Wow. I didn't know that. Please calculate the probability of two of these results showing that one is more probable than the other.

If we put enough sides on a dice to get a result 10 to the 400th power less likely than another result on X number of passes, we'd wonder if the best explanation is "s**t happens" or whether it was more likely that someone or something made the result occur.
Exactly. So the question is, why do you suspect the many sided die, but not the 6 sided die?

The fact that there is a remote chance something could occur randomly does not justify the conclusion that it did.
I have never claimed it did. Equally true is the fact that just because something is improbable, it doesn't justify the conclusion that it was not random.

EDIT: Obviously if everything is improbable, then no explanation for anything can meet your test.
Not true at all. How do you come to that conclusion?

Originally posted by no1marauder
In your previous post, you described the universe as "winning" this "lottery" presumably because it wound up to be life habitable.

No, you presume wrong. The universe 'won the lottery' because it exists.

Incredibly in this post you are claiming you can't possibly understand what I would mean by describing a "lottery" where the universe wound up life impossible as a "loser"!

Can you address that point NOW?
You did not describe a universe with life impossible as a loser, you said the universe as it is now should have been picked as a loser. Not the same thing at all.

If you didn't win in a lottery, you would not have said you were drawn as a looser would you?

If someone won the lottery, would you say he 'should have been randomly drawn as a "loser".'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wow. I didn't know that. Please calculate the probability of two of these results showing that one is more probable than the other.

[b]If we put enough sides on a dice to get a result 10 to the 400th power less likely than another result on X number of passes, we'd wonder if the best explanation is "s**t happens" or whether it was more likely that som ...[text shortened]... ation for anything can meet your test.
Not true at all. How do you come to that conclusion?[/b]

Here you go:

http://anydice.com/

If the graph was a bit more precise, it would show that the chance of getting a 17 or 18 in 5 throws of a six sided die are about 800 times the chance of getting a 5 or 30.

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to you, every single thing is incredibly unlikely so apparently we can make no valid conclusions about anything whatsoever.

Technically the probability that the temperature in a room can ever be precisely 70.000000… degrees is zero, but, if the room is measured to be 68 degrees at one time, and 72 degrees at a later time, we might suspect that the temperature was precisely 70.000000... at some time in between.

But this is just what happens when a discrete system is approximated by a continuous model. The continuous model is easier to work with but does not always precisely correspond to reality (especially in a quantized universe). There are always workarounds, but they come at a cost. Or at least that's how I remember it when I last took a probability course some time ago.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Wow. I didn't know that. Please calculate the probability of two of these results showing that one is more probable than the other.

[b]If we put enough sides on a dice to get a result 10 to the 400th power less likely than another result on X number of passes, we'd wonder if the best explanation is "s**t happens" or whether it was more likely that som ...[text shortened]... ation for anything can meet your test.
Not true at all. How do you come to that conclusion?[/b]

Because the chances of the universe having the properties it does in the ranges it does is far smaller than any results you could obtain from rolling a 6 sided dice unless you roll them more times than the universe has atoms.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you presume wrong. The universe 'won the lottery' because it exists.

[b]Incredibly in this post you are claiming you can't possibly understand what I would mean by describing a "lottery" where the universe wound up life impossible as a "loser"!

Can you address that point NOW?
You did not describe a universe with life impossible as a loser, ...[text shortened]...

If someone won the lottery, would you say he 'should have been randomly drawn as a "loser".'?[/b]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Since you insist on sticking to the lottery analogy, how could the universe existing be considered to have "won" the lottery? What "lottery" would have produced a result that the universe doesn't exist?

The rest has already been dealt with several times.

EDIT: From p. 5:

It may well be the case that the probability of some universe coming into being was fairly high. But if there are millions upon millions of possible universes that would either fail or not sustain life, and almost none that would succeed and sustain life, then the probability of a successful and life-permitting universe coming into being is not at all the same as any other universe coming into existence. It is astronomically lower

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here you go:

http://anydice.com/

If the graph was a bit more precise, it would show that the chance of getting a 17 or 18 in 5 throws of a six sided die are about 800 times the chance of getting a 5 or 30.

That may be true but I didn't see it specified that the sum of the 5 throws was the data of interest. Another approach would be the exact sequence of the 5 throws. A sequence of 22222 and a sequence of 23315 are equally (un)likely.

Originally posted by JS357
That may be true but I didn't see it specified that the sum of the 5 throws was the data of interest. Another approach would be the exact sequence of the 5 throws. A sequence of 22222 and a sequence of 23315 are equally likely.

If that's all TW meant, then his point is trivial.

In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:

A) The universe was designed;

B) The universe was a result of random forces.

Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A is enormously more probable unless one can submit evidence that there were more "throws". No such evidence has been submitted so essentially what TW is insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here you go:

http://anydice.com/

If the graph was a bit more precise, it would show that the chance of getting a 17 or 18 in 5 throws of a six sided die are about 800 times the chance of getting a 5 or 30.

You clearly didn't read what you were asked to do. I never once told you to add up the numbers. I want to know what the probability is of getting a specific sequence of numbers, say 6,4,5,2,3 vs 1,3,2,5,4. I want to know the probability of specific events happening.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because the chances of the universe having the properties it does in the ranges it does is far smaller than any results you could obtain from rolling a 6 sided dice unless you roll them more times than the universe has atoms.

So why does your conclusion change when the probability gets lower?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why does your conclusion change when the probability gets lower?

Why does my conclusion as to the probability of A v. B change when the probability of B gets lower?

Is that a serious question?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you insist on sticking to the lottery analogy, how could the universe existing be considered to have "won" the lottery? What "lottery" would have produced a result that the universe doesn't exist?

The lottery of existing vs not existing. What did you think the analogy was all about?

It may well be the case that the probability of some universe coming into being was fairly high. But if there are millions upon millions of possible universes that would either fail or not sustain life, and almost none that would succeed and sustain life, then the probability of a successful and life-permitting universe coming into being is not at all the same as any other universe coming into existence. It is astronomically lower
I really don't understand why you are so focused on universes that sustain life. Who cares whether universes sustain life? They don't exist just like all the ones that don't sustain life. The only universe that exists, is this one. You might as well make the same argument about universes that have red flowers in, or universe that contain chairs.
The issue is simple. We are in a universe that exists. The question is whether or not our universe existing in its current form is likely or unlikely given all the possible universes that could exist. If it is unlikely then does that imply some special reason why it exists rather than some other universe existing, or is it merely a matter of chance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why does my conclusion as to the probability of A v. B change when the probability of B gets lower?

Is that a serious question?

All my questions in this thread are serious questions. It is notable that you fail to answer most of them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All my questions in this thread are serious questions. It is notable that you fail to answer most of them.

If that is a serious question, it's a remarkably stupid one.

BUT: IF the discussion is whether A or B is more probable (with no other possibilities), IF the probability of B is less than the probability of A must necessarily be increased.