Oolon Colluphid

Just to say that I doubt I'll be able to get to this for a couple of days. So if anyone else wants a go, feel free!

Cheers, Oolon

LHP Adept

When you consider the billions of star systems in our own galaxy, and the billions of galaxies in the universe, you should be able to see a flaw in this argument. If you hired a billion crews to perform this experiment a billion times each, the odds are good that a few of the outcomes would produce a somewhat house-shaped arrangement sturdy enough to withstand wind and rain and usable as rudimentary shelter.
If the existence of this shelter led to the production of other shelters slightly different from it (as the existence of fertile biological lifeforms leads to more lifeforms), you would eventually see something that looked very much like the White House.

yguy

Really? What ARE the odds? You have no idea, of course - any more than you have any idea how many attempts it would take to produce one structure remotely resembing anything more sophisticated than a lean-to produced by the occasional sheet of plywood.

I, OTOH, DO have an idea. There is no probability whatsoever of it happening. Not with a billion crews in a billion tries, or a googolplex of crews in a googolplex of tries.

Are you out of your mind? Why on earth would the existence of one shelter lead to the production of any other shelters?

Doubting Didymus

Evolution is based on the condition that there are replicating entities. Mr Adept is using the house example as an analogy for abiogenesis: the random arrangements of bricks, is it is allowed to replicate itself, is capable of evolving into many forms. Replication is invoked because it is a vital component of the theory we are advancing: that randomness need only produce a replicator, and the natural processes of natural selection and mutation can increase the complexity of those populations.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55:

The universe had to have an architect. Its irrational to say there isn't one. Matter exploding from a singular point to end up creating a design so incredibly complex as the human body, where humans don't even understand it fully is like putting a giant pile of wood and bricks on the ground, detonating the pile with TNT and having it form the White House.

"God had to have an architect. It is irrational to say he didn't have one. God is by necessity more complex than the universe he supposedly created. Mere chance generating such a complex being is like putting a giant pile of wood and bricks on the ground, detonating the pile with TNT and having it form Washington, DC."

LHP Adept's argument is not necessary. Magus' argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance, and a bit of a strawman to boot. It is by no means irrational to say there is no external architect to the universe. Indeed, it is up to Magus et al to demonstrate the existence, or necessity, of such an architect; this feeble attempt doesn't even come close.

The main problem with Magus' argument is that it implies that the complexity that is life arising in the universe without an architect is the equivalent to the White House resulting from an explosion. This is not even near what the various hypotheses proposed for abiogenesis claim. Life did not originate in any such totally random event as an explosion, and no one claims it does. There was no need for billions or trillions of attempts to by chance produce life on earth. There indeed was an "architect" of sorts - e.g. biochemical interactions and self-organizing principles. No one I know of claims the first life originated in some sort of random explosion. Under the right conditions, the appearance of life on a planet may indeed be inevitable.

I, OTOH, DO have an idea. There is no probability whatsoever of it happening. Not with a billion crews in a billion tries, or a googolplex of crews in a googolplex of tries.

While you're at it, why don't you do a similar calculation for the "probability" that the supposed god, by necessity more complex than the universe he supposedly created, came about by mere chance?

You could not be more wrong in your probability calculations. Life exists on earth. This is obvious. Therefore, the probability that life arose on earth (whether by abiogenesis, special creation, or some as yet unknown method) is 1.0.

Now, the real question is what is the probability that god exists and created life (that's two separate probabilites), or that abiogenesis "created" life? AFAIK, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that god exists or that he created life (the only "evidence" of this is a 2000+ year old mythical story). Arguing that life appears designed is insufficient, because life would appear this way whether designed by an external architect or "designed" by abiogenesis and evolution. True, the actual mechanism of abiogenesis is not yet known, but like I said life did not result by chance from an "explosion".

Also note that even if it can be established that God exists (lotsa luck), it's possible that he allowed or used abiogenesis to create life.

So, before you can successfully unseat abiogenesis as the best hypothesis for how life arose on earth, and establish special creation as a better hypothesis, you first have to establish that an architect (god) exists. Arguing that the artifact is evidence of the creator is not sufficient; as I said, abiogenesis and evolution are sufficient to account for the artifact.

caravelair

on the issue of complexity, from what we know about various natural processes, like the way in which stars and galaxies form, it would seem that given the fundamental forces of the universe, complexity is a natural result. since the fundamental forces are quite simple, it is clear that no creator is necessary to explain them, and thus no creator is necessary to explain the complexity of the universe.

caravelair

let me correct myself: not just the fundamental forces, but also the properties of matter and energy, etc. nevertheless, my point remains the same.

Mageth

caravelair: exactly. Well put.

yguy

Complexity in and of itself isn't nearly good enough. What were looking for, at the very least, is intelligence.

This, surely, is spoken with a degree of enlightenment comparable to the person who thinks he makes a light bulb glow by turning on a switch, oblivious to the power plant and transmission lines that energize the bulb.

Go manufacture some gravity, EMF, or matter and get back to me.

yguy

My post didn't address any of that. It addressed LHP's claim that blowing up enough piles of materials would eventually produce a house.

It's a meaningless question. Either an uncreated God created everything or He didn't. Probability is meaningless, because we have no way of knowing what all the rules are/were, or what the components were.