The second law of thermodynamic

[Bread_of_Life]

You must only apply Occam's razor when you have exhausted other means of differentiating between competing theories.

Of course, I never insisted otherwise. It would be silly to do anything else. If one theory cannot full explain the evidence, or even the evidence is against it, then why would we need to use Occam's razor?

1. That violates what we know of matter and energy. Our laws of conservation say that if I have energy then it came from somewhere and if I have matter then it came from somewhere.

*long outtake of breath*. Not sure how many times I'm going to have to say this, the reason I'm certain that something must have existed uncaused, whether than be matter, energy, or a big spiritual God isn't because of experimental data. The reason I'm sure is because of deducative reasoning. Why then do you continue to bring up empirical evidence, where we have deductive proof that our empirically derived laws of causality, at one point, must have broken down?

2. This violates what we know of singularities. That is that the escape velocity must be infinite if you have mass.

It means that it wasn't a singularity as we know it, certainly, I agree here. I didn't say big bang theory was perfect - I said that whatever happened back then with the physical matter, whatever caused the "big bang" was the first cause.

1. God creating matter and energy violates our laws of mass and energy conservation, but that is explained by his being supernatural. Not subject to physical laws.

This doesn't look like an explanation to me, it looks like "special pleading".

Now is there any evidence that would suggest that a big bang would create (if you'll pardon the term) DNA. How many extremely low probabilities would you have to multiply for that to be the case?

It did didn't it? I mean, is that not evidence enough?

For example you must say that out of this apparently very uniform big bang (examine the cosmic background radiation) that matter and energy became very anisotropic or un-uniform. What is the probability for that to occur without external interference? Near zero. Lets examine the likelihood of a planet, in just the right place in the galaxy, at just the right distance from just the right "power" of star, just a appearing at random? Near zero. Know suppose you have just the right chemical composition, with just the right electrical activity, in just the ideal spot on this planet, so that you can produce amino acids? Probability for this happening randomly? Near Zero.

Who says my theory stipulates all of this specificity? To be honest, I think we've now had our cosmological argument, and we're moving onto teleological. Perhaps now that we've agreed there was a first cause, and that without extra evidence we should rule out God by Occam's Razor, we can start another thread discussing this "extra evidence". I'm happy to engage you on the design argument if you wish.

Here you have said that Occam's Razor favors the state that has the least number of objects. I took this definition at first because in my training Occam's razor was said to postulate that if you have competing explanations that describe things well, then its the simplest theory that works that is the "truth".

Sorry if I misled you in this, although I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was trying to say by that quote, which I stick by. Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough, probably so.

What I meant is that positing a God or whatever before the Big Bang is positing one extra object. Since Occam's Razor allows for cancellation, we can cancel all other objects after this one object - because BOTH theories will contain them. The reason we are able to do this cancellation is that both theories will contain the exact same objects all the way up to the big bang, therefore allowing for cancellation.

All things being equal, and without any other evidence either way, Occam's Razor would then strongly favour my theory over yours.

I hope that this stirs within SA some doubt about what he's been taught and then he investigates God. He seems to be a bright individual and I know that God could use this to release him from the awful traps that his professors had placed him in. God loves him and Jesus died for him.

I was never taught any of this I'm afraid, in philosophy I am self taught. I do have a scientific background though.

By the way, talking about science, I'm sure it's you who I argued about the Big Crunch vs Heat Death theories with. You said it was definetely the second, and I was ignorant for thinking otherwise. I assured you I wasn't.

Bad news for ya bud, read the new issue of New Scientist magazine, which came in my letterbox the other day. You'll see in fact that there is and has been for some time contraversy.

SA is just an example of what these people, who inhabit the world's so called institutions of higher learning, have been and are continuing to do to entire generations of young men and women. They are indeed brainwashing them and indoctrinating them with the atheistic point of view or what I like to call the "mankind as god" point of view

Actually, most of my Uni tutors believed in God, from what I know. Never really got to talk to most about it, but many wore religious symbols of some kind, and I know one personally who is a Catholic. Anyway, this is irrelevant, my degree is in Physics, not philosophy or theology.

Right, so we agree on what Occam's Razor is, we agree that we should only really use it where two theories are impossible to seperate evidentially. Excellent, we've come a long long way. Now, hows about we start a post on the design/teleological argument now? What do you think - discussing the evidence either way?

[JLW001]

*long outtake of breath*. Not sure how many times I'm going to have to say this, the reason I'm certain that something must have existed uncaused, whether than be matter, energy, or a big spiritual God isn't because of experimental data. The reason I'm sure is because of deducative reasoning. Why then do you continue to bring up empirical evidence, where we have deductive proof that our empirically derived laws of causality, at one point, must have broken down?

Its you I'm afraid who has not understood? I'm saying that thinking the Big Bang came from nothing IS the same as saying God came from nothing! Its a belief, NOT a hard empirical fact.

This doesn't look like an explanation to me, it looks like "special pleading".

Its the same as you believing that everything came from the big bang. I could say that what you beleive is a special kind of "para-scientific crackbox".

Now the key thing you must consider is that you can NOT say that everything has equal probability no matter the beginning. How can you say that the probability for DNA forming without a designer is the same probability if there was a designer.

You see the probability of life forming accidentally is not the same probability for life being created.

It did didn't it? I mean, is that not evidence enough?

Saying "well its here so it must be probable as being formed from a big bang" is pre-supposing your argument as true. This is a huge volation of logic and critical thinking.

You CAN NOT pre-suppose that all the other probabilities will be the same for the God creation versus the big bang creation. You say you can and I say you can't.

Here's a short little thought experiment to see what we come up with.

1.)Suppose the big bang was the first cause. Now, that means that the probability that DNA was created without any design is extremely low and very near zero. Understand.

2.) Now, suppose that God created the Universe. The probability that DNA was created with an intelligent designer is very high. In fact, its very close to one. Understand.

The only the way that your explanation or use of Occam's razor works is if yocan prove statement 1 and 2 false. Now, the burden of proof is upon you.

So, you see we have not exhausted cosmoslogy as our tool. Cosmology is what I like to call the "Theory of it all". Is there anything else that you can look at?

Right, so we agree on what Occam's Razor is, we agree that we should only really use it where two theories are impossible to seperate evidentially. Excellent, we've come a long long way. Now, hows about we start a post on the design/teleological argument now? What do you think - discussing the evidence either way?

Yes, now we agree about Occam's razor. If you had stated your argument correctly with all of its assumptions we would have we would have reached this point much more quickly. When you made the initial Occam's razor comment, you made no mention that you considered all the probablities the same for every object (assumption, unknown) no matter if it occurred in a created or a random universe.

Remember, I have stated that we know the probability for DNA formation in a random universe as incredibly small. And, that the probability for the creation of DNA as very high. This is what you must prove wrong unless you want our conversation to turn into an "Is not......Is to" discussion.

Edited February 13, 2005 by JLW001

[JLW001]

Bad news for ya bud, read the new issue of New Scientist magazine, which came in my letterbox the other day. You'll see in fact that there is and has been for some time contraversy

New Scientist? Never heard of it. Does it publish actual journal articles or is it more of a news magazine like "Science" is here in the states.

[Bread_of_Life]

New Scientist is more on a par with Scientific American - it's not any sort of specialist journal, and does not publish research directly (as Nature does, for example).

It is, as you say, more of a "news" magazine for a general science readership. I use it to keep track of the news across the sciences, and also tech news.

I'm saying that thinking the Big Bang came from nothing IS the same as saying God came from nothing! Its a belief, NOT a hard empirical fact.

These beliefs are similar beliefs, and they are not based on empirical fact, that is for certain. However, they are clearly not the same belief - they can be differentiated, although I'm sure this isn't what you mean.

How can you say that the probability for DNA forming without a designer is the same probability if there was a designer.

It isn't, but then I don't argue that DNA was a necessary constituent of our universe. However, to further expound this argument, I do suggest we try a fresh start on a different post, I say again that we have come as far as the cosmological argument and Occam's razor will take us.

Saying "well its here so it must be probable as being formed from a big bang" is pre-supposing your argument as true.

Fortunately I didn't say this. You asked if there was any evidence that a Big Bang could create DNA - and of course there is. DNA's existence is evidence that DNA *can* be formed from the Big Bang. I didn't comment on the probability of it forming.

1.)Suppose the big bang was the first cause. Now, that means that the probability that DNA was created without any design is extremely low and very near zero. Understand.

I disagree, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the laws of conditional probability. Again, I would like to discuss this further in a fresh start post, call it psychological, I'm getting tired of this one, and it's getting hard to find stuff in.

So, you see we have not exhausted cosmoslogy as our tool. Cosmology is what I like to call the "Theory of it all". Is there anything else that you can look at?

I was not referring to cosmology as a scientific discipline, but rather specifically to the cosmological argument as a specific instance of a religious argument. We have now moved on, lock stock and two smoking barrels to teleological arguments.

Yes, now we agree about Occam's razor. If you had stated your argument correctly with all of its assumptions we would have we would have reached this point much more quickly.

Lol, blame the atheist why don't you Perhaps you were asking the wrong questions

However, I think there may be some misapprehensions of my argument still to iron out, and they most certainly will be ironed out by the teleological argument, which is why I'm pushing for a teleological argument post.

[JLW001]

It isn't, but then I don't argue that DNA was a necessary constituent of our universe. However, to further expound this argument, I do suggest we try a fresh start on a different post, I say again that we have come as far as the cosmological argument and Occam's razor will take us.

DNA not a necessary constituent of our universe? What? I'm not talking about some abstract universe...I'm talking about the universe in which we live. If there were no DNA in our universe then we would not be having this conversation.

You see, to apply Occam's razor to a theory you must use the probabilities for all of the objects (or components, assumptions, etc) within the theory. You can not say that the big bang began the universe without saying "My theory is that the big bang created the universe and this theory explains all that has happened since".

Fortunately I didn't say this. You asked if there was any evidence that a Big Bang could create DNA - and of course there is. DNA's existence is evidence that DNA *can* be formed from the Big Bang. I didn't comment on the probability of it forming.

?????. OK, the existence of DNA says that whatever created the universe caused DNA to form. Saying that DNA existence is evidence that it can be formed from a big bang created universe is "begging" your argument.

I disagree, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the laws of conditional probability. Again, I would like to discuss this further in a fresh start post, call it psychological, I'm getting tired of this one, and it's getting hard to find stuff in.

I'm not talking about some off the top of my head estimate of the probability, I'm talking about calculation of the probability based upon information theory. I don't remember the details of it, but I can try to dig up

Tired of the thread? I'm not sure what you mean. We can start a new thread or stay in this one. What is the difference? I do like having the history of the discussion recorded so that people can see the development.

Btw, can you explain to me the laws of conditional probability and how they relate to the probability of whether DNA could form randomly or whether there was intelligent design in DNA's construction.

I was not referring to cosmology as a scientific discipline, but rather specifically to the cosmological argument as a specific instance of a religious argument. We have now moved on, lock stock and two smoking barrels to teleological arguments.

First, I have no idea what "teleological" arguments are. Secondly, I consider any cosmological argument about God to be intimately related to the development of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and life.

Lol, blame the atheist why don't you

Edited February 15, 2005 by JLW001

[Bread_of_Life]

Oh fine, you've won me over, we'll continue here. Let me give you some stories I've thought of today, that'll help me make my point:

The lottery

Imagine I have a ball in my hand - a small polystyrene affair, coloured blue and marked with a long number along it. The ball I hold is very special, for it has just been drawn in the intergalactic lottery - a massive and Milky-Way-Wide gambling competition. There were 1 billion balls (10^9) in the intergalactic lottery, and this is the one that's been picked. I saw it drawn. I saw the machine start up, shuffle all the balls, twirl around and do an little internal dance as lottery machines tend to do, but on a massive scale. After several hours of mixing, this one ball popped out, number 345,460,098.

I ponder for a moment, imagine in the hours of mixing the number of coincidences that had to happen for this ball to be picked out of all the other balls. The number of collisions it must have happened just right, the initial position of the ball, the rotational speed of the machine. All, if adjusted only a tiny ammount, would have yielded a different ball - with a different colour and number. And I speculate, was it really random - or was it some act of divine providence that this ball was picked. Of course, I saw the machine pick the ball - and the answer therefore is that it probably was random. Sure, it was a 1 in a billion shot for this particular ball, but hey, it had to be one ball right, why not this one?

I the think of the lucky winners - perhaps they really do believe that this was divine providence, because that ball was important to them - perhaps they see the coincidences that went into that ball being picked as a design in the universe to have that ball picked. Maybe they see a teleology - a plan, a purpose - perhaps they see their luck as evidence that the world was designed for their new found wealth to happen. But they're wrong. It just had to be a ball, and it just happened to be that one, and Zorg and Zorgetta of the planet Omicron Persei 8 are just the lucky benefactors of a chance occurence.

The life and times of Nikolai

Another story, this time from real life. My father recently passed away at the age of 57. During his lifetime, he produced millions of sperm every hour. During his whole lifetime, he probably produced about 3x10^12 sperm. In laymans terms, about one million million, or one thousand billion if you prefer, sperm. My mother is still alive. During her foetal development, she produced millions of ova. Most of these have died during her lifetime, and she will probably only ever have released 400.

Out of all these sperm and eggs, my conception was but the joining of one sperm and one egg. And so I ponder the chances of this occuring, prior to my conception. Of the thousand billion sperm my father would produce, I was one, and of the 10 million ova my mother would produce, i was just one. Even if we don't count all the life coincidences my mother and father had to go through in life to meet and fall in love, the chances of my conception, rather than any other baby, are about 3 in 10^19.

If I extrapolate back, it only takes 1 more generation for the chances to be mathematically impossible by chance (less than 1 in 10^50). Is this divine providence? Was the universe designed such that I would be born, rather than any other baby? Probably not. After all, why should I think it was that important that I was born, rather than anyone else? Why should I lift myself to the object of the universe, and assume that everything was designed around me? Sure, within the last 2 generations there have been over 1 in 10^50 possible babies, and I am one of a very few to be actualised - but then it had to be one sperm, and it had to be one egg, why not mine? I am just the lucky benefactor of a reproductive lottery, I do not deify myself to the object around which the universe just must have been designed.

The OJ Simpson Trial

A final story, to put this all in its statistical context. I watched with shock and amusement as the OJ Simpson trial went from court based justice to media circus. It was a dark dark time for law in America. However, one thing I heard in court struck me above all others.

The lawyer in OJ Simpson's defense asked a criminologist what the chances were of a wife being murdered by her husband. The criminologist rightly answered that only 1 in a million (or whatever) wives were killed by their husbands. The lawyer then declared that the chances that OJ had killed his wife were 1 in a million.

Of course, this wasn't the case. The lawyer had tricked the jury, because they didn't understand conditional probability. What the jury probably didn't know was that the probability of a women getting killed by her husband was different from the probability of a women having been murdered by her husband given that she had been murdered.

Sure, if you're currently a housewife somewhere in America, the chances that you're husband will murder you may well be one in a million, so don't worry too much. But if you're already murdered, the chances that it was your husband or significant other than murdered you rise to about 30% - and your husband or spouse becomes the prime suspect. This is called conditional probability - in mathematical language:

P(Husband murdering wife) = 0.000001

P(Huband murdering wife given wife has been murdered) = 0.3

This is a classic mistake. In fact, if the jury had known this, they would have doubted OJ's innocence even more than they probably already did.

Conditional Probability

So how does this all relate? Well, in each story, conditional probability is important. In the first, we showed that the probability of ball 345,460,098 being picked by random chance was 1 in a billion. However, that statistic was irrelevant in asking the question "was ball 345460098 really picked randomly?" - because this is the unconditional probability - it's the probability of the ball being picked by chance prior to it being picked.

In my second story, the chances of my birth and existence were astronomical if calculated 100 years ago. But then that was the unconditional probability - there's no reason now that I'm here to think that anything else but random chance sperm lottery put me here.

In the third story, it turns out that the really relevant statistic is not the unconditional probability of a wife being murdered by here husband, but the conditional probability of a wife having been murdered by her husband given that she has been murdered.

The universe

I believe you are making the same mistake with your assessment of Big Bang theory. If you and I had been sitting here prior to the Big bang, then you'd be right, the chances of this particular universe appearing randomly would have been infinitessimally small.

Think about it. Why is the electron's charge 1.6x10^-19? It could have been anything, as far as we know, on a continuous scale! The chances of it being 1.6x10^19 by chance are literally infinitessimal. But then, like the lottery ball, it had to be some number, and it was this one. And why only 4 fundamental forces, why not 9, or 25, or 32 million? Well, it had to be some number, why not 4? Unless we make the assumption that 1.6x10^-19 is somehow massively important in some sort of objective way compared to any other number, why should we think it important that this number came up, rather than any other.

But what about life, you ask? What about DNA? Take all the coincidences that had to happen for it to come about! Surely it can't just be by chance? But I ask, why is DNA as a phenomenon so important? If I picked a universe out of a bag of randomly created universes, each would no doubt contain phenomena (perhaps not life) but phenomena that were unique to that universe, or a small subset of similar universes. Would we then infer that there was some sort of teleology, some sort of purpose and design behind the creation of this phenomenon? No, they are just the odd quirks of that particular universe, with that particular set of physical constants. Those phenomena are the lucky beneficiaries or my random pick out of a bag of random universes, and we are the lucky beneficiaries of our universe's random creation.

Also, as a side point, you say with a great deal of certainty that DNA or life or whatever was extremely unlikely, but how do you know? We only know a little about one type of cosmology, with one set of fundamental forces, with one set of fundamental particles, with one set of physical laws. How do you know what lifeforms, or other oddities, exist in other sorts of universes, most of which we havn't even imagined - most of which we don't have the science or maths to understand?

[Old Timer]

SA, I promised myself a while back I wasn

[JLW001]

Oh fine, you've won me over, we'll continue here. Let me give you some stories I've thought of today, that'll help me make my point:

The lottery

Imagine I have a ball in my hand - a small polystyrene affair, coloured blue and marked with a long number along it. The ball I hold is very special, for it has just been drawn in the intergalactic lottery - a massive and Milky-Way-Wide gambling competition. There were 1 billion balls (10^9) in the intergalactic lottery, and this is the one that's been picked. I saw it drawn. I saw the machine start up, shuffle all the balls, twirl around and do an little internal dance as lottery machines tend to do, but on a massive scale. After several hours of mixing, this one ball popped out, number 345,460,098.

I ponder for a moment, imagine in the hours of mixing the number of coincidences that had to happen for this ball to be picked out of all the other balls. The number of collisions it must have happened just right, the initial position of the ball, the rotational speed of the machine. All, if adjusted only a tiny ammount, would have yielded a different ball - with a different colour and number. And I speculate, was it really random - or was it some act of divine providence that this ball was picked. Of course, I saw the machine pick the ball - and the answer therefore is that it probably was random. Sure, it was a 1 in a billion shot for this particular ball, but hey, it had to be one ball right, why not this one?

I the think of the lucky winners - perhaps they really do believe that this was divine providence, because that ball was important to them - perhaps they see the coincidences that went into that ball being picked as a design in the universe to have that ball picked. Maybe they see a teleology - a plan, a purpose - perhaps they see their luck as evidence that the world was designed for their new found wealth to happen. But they're wrong. It just had to be a ball, and it just happened to be that one, and Zorg and Zorgetta of the planet Omicron Persei 8 are just the lucky benefactors of a chance occurence.

The life and times of Nikolai

Another story, this time from real life. My father recently passed away at the age of 57. During his lifetime, he produced millions of sperm every hour. During his whole lifetime, he probably produced about 3x10^12 sperm. In laymans terms, about one million million, or one thousand billion if you prefer, sperm. My mother is still alive. During her foetal development, she produced millions of ova. Most of these have died during her lifetime, and she will probably only ever have released 400.

Out of all these sperm and eggs, my conception was but the joining of one sperm and one egg. And so I ponder the chances of this occuring, prior to my conception. Of the thousand billion sperm my father would produce, I was one, and of the 10 million ova my mother would produce, i was just one. Even if we don't count all the life coincidences my mother and father had to go through in life to meet and fall in love, the chances of my conception, rather than any other baby, are about 3 in 10^19.

If I extrapolate back, it only takes 1 more generation for the chances to be mathematically impossible by chance (less than 1 in 10^50). Is this divine providence? Was the universe designed such that I would be born, rather than any other baby? Probably not. After all, why should I think it was that important that I was born, rather than anyone else? Why should I lift myself to the object of the universe, and assume that everything was designed around me? Sure, within the last 2 generations there have been over 1 in 10^50 possible babies, and I am one of a very few to be actualised - but then it had to be one sperm, and it had to be one egg, why not mine? I am just the lucky benefactor of a reproductive lottery, I do not deify myself to the object around which the universe just must have been designed.

The OJ Simpson Trial

A final story, to put this all in its statistical context. I watched with shock and amusement as the OJ Simpson trial went from court based justice to media circus. It was a dark dark time for law in America. However, one thing I heard in court struck me above all others.

The lawyer in OJ Simpson's defense asked a criminologist what the chances were of a wife being murdered by her husband. The criminologist rightly answered that only 1 in a million (or whatever) wives were killed by their husbands. The lawyer then declared that the chances that OJ had killed his wife were 1 in a million.

Of course, this wasn't the case. The lawyer had tricked the jury, because they didn't understand conditional probability. What the jury probably didn't know was that the probability of a women getting killed by her husband was different from the probability of a women having been murdered by her husband given that she had been murdered.

Sure, if you're currently a housewife somewhere in America, the chances that you're husband will murder you may well be one in a million, so don't worry too much. But if you're already murdered, the chances that it was your husband or significant other than murdered you rise to about 30% - and your husband or spouse becomes the prime suspect. This is called conditional probability - in mathematical language:

P(Husband murdering wife) = 0.000001

P(Huband murdering wife given wife has been murdered) = 0.3

This is a classic mistake. In fact, if the jury had known this, they would have doubted OJ's innocence even more than they probably already did.

Conditional Probability

So how does this all relate? Well, in each story, conditional probability is important. In the first, we showed that the probability of ball 345,460,098 being picked by random chance was 1 in a billion. However, that statistic was irrelevant in asking the question "was ball 345460098 really picked randomly?" - because this is the unconditional probability - it's the probability of the ball being picked by chance prior to it being picked.

In my second story, the chances of my birth and existence were astronomical if calculated 100 years ago. But then that was the unconditional probability - there's no reason now that I'm here to think that anything else but random chance sperm lottery put me here.

In the third story, it turns out that the really relevant statistic is not the unconditional probability of a wife being murdered by here husband, but the conditional probability of a wife having been murdered by her husband given that she has been murdered.

The universe

I believe you are making the same mistake with your assessment of Big Bang theory. If you and I had been sitting here prior to the Big bang, then you'd be right, the chances of this particular universe appearing randomly would have been infinitessimally small.

Think about it. Why is the electron's charge 1.6x10^-19? It could have been anything, as far as we know, on a continuous scale! The chances of it being 1.6x10^19 by chance are literally infinitessimal. But then, like the lottery ball, it had to be some number, and it was this one. And why only 4 fundamental forces, why not 9, or 25, or 32 million? Well, it had to be some number, why not 4? Unless we make the assumption that 1.6x10^-19 is somehow massively important in some sort of objective way compared to any other number, why should we think it important that this number came up, rather than any other.

But what about life, you ask? What about DNA? Take all the coincidences that had to happen for it to come about! Surely it can't just be by chance? But I ask, why is DNA as a phenomenon so important? If I picked a universe out of a bag of randomly created universes, each would no doubt contain phenomena (perhaps not life) but phenomena that were unique to that universe, or a small subset of similar universes. Would we then infer that there was some sort of teleology, some sort of purpose and design behind the creation of this phenomenon? No, they are just the odd quirks of that particular universe, with that particular set of physical constants. Those phenomena are the lucky beneficiaries or my random pick out of a bag of random universes, and we are the lucky beneficiaries of our universe's random creation.

Also, as a side point, you say with a great deal of certainty that DNA or life or whatever was extremely unlikely, but how do you know? We only know a little about one type of cosmology, with one set of fundamental forces, with one set of fundamental particles, with one set of physical laws. How do you know what lifeforms, or other oddities, exist in other sorts of universes, most of which we havn't even imagined - most of which we don't have the science or maths to understand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SA, it seems again that you did not understand what I said about the probability of DNA being generated in a completely random universe. You can NOT beg the question of whether our universe is random or not, but only make a calculation of the chance for the existence of DNA in a random universe. Why? Because that is the appropriate probability to use in the Occam's razor equation for the theory of a random universe. After all, we are comparing two theories about OUR particular universe. We need only define probabilities for all the assumptions we know about in our theories.

Now as far as the OJ question....The "good" attorney stated his question in such a way to mislead the jury. He did not ask, "For every case in which a woman has been murdered, how often is the husband convicted?". He slyly asked, "Out of all the women in America, how many women are killed by their husband?". I understand very well that there is a select group of human beings, called defense lawyers, who use anys half truth possible to gain the "not guilty" verdict. I also, understand that there is a small portion of of those defense lawyers who do not use half truths and are honest as most humans.

Now your lottery story seems strange. Are we considering a huge number of universes and out of all of them we hit the jackpot because DNA formed in ours? We aren't considering a huge pool of universes! We are considering the liklihood of the chemical makeup of DNA and the dense information storage structure developing in one universe.

My one question to you is...HOW, in the world, does this shed any light upon the probability of DNA forming in a random universe!? I'm not considering a pool of amino acids and asking what's the probability of oranges existing! I'm saying, that applying good mathematics and information theory, that I can tell you a probability associated with the spontaneous generation of DNA in a random universe. And I'm not even a lawyer!

Why didn't you answer a single point that I had made above. It seems that you want to cloud the argument with these interesting, yet, irrelevant ideas.

Does Occam's razor disprove the existence of God? Or does it prove His existence?

[Bread_of_Life]

My dear man, my ideas are not irrelevant at all. I'm questioning one of your basic assumptions about DNA. You've made a assumption that it is so important that you should assume it as the focal point of the universe, and that it was somehow necessary for a random universe to have DNA. It wasn't necessary for this to happen, it's just lucky for us that it did.

Similarly, my being born was important to me, and if I assume that it was somehow necessary to the universe, I can calculate that the chances against it happening were wildly unlikely. Does this prove that my conception wasn't really random chance - or does it show that I was wrong in assuming my necessity for this universe, I was wrong in making myself the focal point that "had" to happen, and calculating the odds against it happening? I'm just the beneficiary of a sexual lottery - a very very very very very lucky beneficiary - but that doesn't make it design that I'm alive, it makes me lucky.

In the same way, the random universe that resulted in our creation did not have to have us in it, and did not have to have DNA in it - it's just lucky for us that it did.

[JLW001]

My dear man, my ideas are not irrelevant at all. I'm questioning one of your basic assumptions about DNA. You've made a assumption that it is so important that you should assume it as the focal point of the universe, and that it was somehow necessary for a random universe to have DNA. It wasn't necessary for this to happen, it's just lucky for us that it did.

Similarly, my being born was important to me, and if I assume that it was somehow necessary to the universe, I can calculate that the chances against it happening were wildly unlikely. Does this prove that my conception wasn't really random chance - or does it show that I was wrong in assuming my necessity for this universe, I was wrong in making myself the focal point that "had" to happen, and calculating the odds against it happening? I'm just the beneficiary of a sexual lottery - a very very very very very lucky beneficiary - but that doesn't make it design that I'm alive, it makes me lucky.

In the same way, the random universe that resulted in our creation did not have to have us in it, and did not have to have DNA in it - it's just lucky for us that it did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I'm saying to you is that your presumption that this universe is random is begging your argument.

Do you remember way back when we were talking in terms of a God created universe and a randomly created universe? You said that Occam's razor proved our universe was random by means of distinguishing between the God created universe theory and the randomly created universe THEORY. Get it. Theory!

Now your presumption of proof relied upon the notion that all of the occurrences within each theory had the same probability. Remember the cancelation process that allowed you to state that God was an additional unnecessary object and as such Occam's razor disproved His existence.

We have now arrived to the point where I say...WHOOOA. All of the probabilities associated with each "theory" were, in fact, NOT equal. Thus, your cancellation process was indeed NOT allowed.

I arbitrarily choose DNA to show that the probability of its appearance in a random universe was very very small. However, DNA was very likley created by an outside intelligent and its probability in a created universe was near 1. This fact is supported by statistical methods and information theory.

Now, if you don't like DNA, we can examine the development of anisotropic structures from an isotropic universe just after the big bang. Or we could examine the nuclear cycle of stars and see that the development of the elements necessary for life could only occur in the exact distribution (with respect to size)and number of stars that are estimated to exist in our universe.

There are many things that we don't know for certain that have different probabilities of occurrance in a random universe than in a created universe.

So, you see, I've not made any focus upon DNA as being necessary in a random universe. As a matter of fact I have implied that DNA would NOT exist in a random universe. However, we are not discussing the development of random, abstract universes. We are talking about "theories" that describe the formation of our universe. Your choice was that this universe just is and it is all the result of the big bang. Its all just a function of the random nature of quantum mechanics or what have you. I have said that God created this universe and that it is as we see it now by His design.

There is nothing left to chance by God. The whole universe and all its contents serve His will.

You see you have to stack so many "lucky", low probability events to have our universe be a random universe that you end up with a zero probability for our existence in a random universe.

Edited February 16, 2005 by JLW001