Probability argument.

[ratgibson]

Would it be fallacious to use the probability argument? The argument of the probability of our universe arising from natural processes?

It almost pre supposes the God hypothesis doesnt it? Theres no way to predict before the fact how these processes could get us where we are and certainly to calculate afterwards would be almost useless eh? The simplest logic would say you cant say that what happened shouldnt have happened when it did.

It did and thats all that matters. Probability doesnt have enough force in the argument. Thoughts?

Whats worse is there seems to be rarely an atheist, at least in formal debates ive seen, who brings this up. For some reason they only attack God and use the problem of evil. I think Dacy touched on this with Craig and there was an austrailian fellow who did this with Craig as well.

The problem of evil and Gods characteristics will always be the theists best argument but atheists at large seem to attack these very things. Do they really think they can win? It would make alot more sense to attack the fallacies such as in the probability argument if it does indeed contain fallacy. Rather most atheists in debate go for the emotional appeal. The theist would seem to try and impress people with large numbers of probability. These both are faulty it seems.

But im not saying Im right, Im trying to understand the probability argument. Can anyone give me their thoughts?

And based on this would the First Cause argument be the only decent argument there is sans of course the moral argument and whatnot?

[Human]

Would it be fallacious to use the probability argument? The argument of the probability of our universe arising from natural processes?

Not when the probability is zero. Something does not emerge from nothing. Ignoring that and assuming we already have a universe here somehow and it's left to form atoms and cells and whatnot, then the probability is low, some argue too low to be possible. The probability argument isn't fallacious as long as you don't use that as the main pillar of your case; it cannot stand alone, but it makes a nice supplement.

Rather most atheists in debate go for the emotional appeal. The theist would seem to try and impress people with large numbers of probability. These both are faulty it seems.

Emotions aren't good at logic....quite the opposite in fact. When something beyond one's control, one cannot will it with emotion to be true or untrue. All emotional arguments in logical debates are logical fallacies to begin with. And, of course, fighting fallacy with fallacy gets nobody anywhere.

But im not saying Im right, Im trying to understand the probability argument. Can anyone give me their thoughts?

Given a singularity and something to set it off, the odds of our universe forming are ridiculously slim. Odds of a planet to support complex life is under 1 in 10^100. I'm being rather nice to the opposition with that figure, too(mostly because I don't feel like finding the page on the main website right now ) With this in mind, it is rather absurd to think everything happened and requires ridiculous faith *in pure chance* to believe. You would not expect a tornado to perfectly assemble a Mars rover so it follows you wouldn't expect this universe to just happen.
I don't think this argument holds up too well under heavy evaluation, but it doesn't hurt to put the atheist in a faith-based position and it does make their position much more incredible.

And based on this would the First Cause argument be the only decent argument there is sans of course the moral argument and whatnot?

First, I must ask, what is the moral argument?
Second, no, not at all. First Cause and probability arguments only prove there is some sort of supernatural being. With only that, one could easily draw the conclusion of Deism. We have fullfilled prophecies and Jesus rising from the dead(honestly, that's what holds me when I doubt; people do not rise from the dead naturally)

[ratgibson]

"Not when the probability is zero. Something does not emerge from nothing."

Ah, i see. I let it slip my thinking. But isnt the Singularity theory still theory? There are those who would argue for not so much infinite regress but the elements involved in our creation having always been here thanks to the law of conservation of energy about energy in a closed system not being created or destroyed within an isolated system....yet i always ask what makes that system isolated....so what constitutes a singularity against the law of conservation of energy?

Barrow and Tipler did wonderful calculations of the process of evolution and how the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star by now but is that for one set of an evolutionary series or all possible series of evolutionary series?

The moral argument is the argument for objective moral values. The line is as follows:

1. Objective moral values can only exist if God exists.
2. Objective moral values do exists
3. Therefore God exists.

However there are those who would argue that objective moral values dont exist. Some are even blunt about it which is nice. A wonderful Nietzsche take on it. The historicity of Jesus is another great argument. I havent ever heard a convincing argument against it. Hitchens and Stenger came close with comparisons or things like that against Craig but still I think Craig took the win in that realm.

Ive been thinking entirely waaaaay too much recently.

I just woke up from a nap and immediately jumped on the idea of not only objective right and wrong and the problem of evil but how the same logic can be applied to consciousness. How does "not consciousness" produce consciousness? Love. Hate. Not hate. White. Black. Not white.

That which rocks dream about. Im spent. I need to do something that doesnt involve thinking right now.

[Human]

Ah, i see. I let it slip my thinking. But isnt the Singularity theory still theory? There are those who would argue for not so much infinite regress but the elements involved in our creation having always been here thanks to the law of conservation of energy about energy in a closed system not being created or destroyed within an isolated system....yet i always ask what makes that system isolated....so what constitutes a singularity against the law of conservation of energy?

Singularity Theory meaning the universe was originally a singularity? Yes, it's a theory, but it's been proven pretty well. Gravity is also a well-proven theory. And all the mass and energy of the universe(excluding that which was supernaturally added later, if any) was contained in said singularity. Conservation of energy is still in play here.

The moral argument falls apart at contention 2. Objective morals are proven by God's existance. Or do you care to share another way to prove OM?

That which rocks dream about. Im spent. I need to do something that doesnt involve thinking right now.

Hmm....try some relaxing calculus?

[gralan]

I find that most people I talk with, in church and in the community, pagan and Christian, are not really interested in weighty discussions with any form of formal logic involved.

We are called to give an answer for the hope that is within us, however I do not find that discussions of seemingly endless probable possibilities, odds and educated guesswork in formulating proper theoretical premises is something that answers to a direct and simple answer that removes barriers to faith in the inquiring person.

Perhaps it is also true that many folks aren't getting asked about the hope that is within them, for they have done their best to starve it to death being absorbed in their own versions of worldly mindsets.

If no one is asking, we cannot provide answers. What we do then is offer slogans and Christian propaganda which are versions of manipulation that have not served our cultures well in the past 200 years or so... in case anyone is interested in those kinds of observations.

Peace to all who seek to walk by the rule of new creation, and mercy from God upon the Israel of God.

By the way, I relax by examining physics theories and theology.