The odds for God (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, May 21, 2011, 00:15 (4914 days ago) @ David Turell

A different tact: Actuarial analysis (I'm a programmer at an insurance company, mind you!) is in the business of computing the odds of some pretty far-out events; but these statistics are only computed upon actual data. Seriously. I'm not making this up. You take Lennox's argument to an actuary and he'll laugh you out of the room! 
> > 
> > As a side note, I recently saw a stab that discusses the "fine-tuning" for life in the universe. Looking at identical data, when you consider that life as we know it only exists on a fraction of the 4% of "normal" matter in the universe, you get a sudden picture that the universe is actually inherently hostile to life. NOT fine-tuned for life. 
> > 
> > If you can draw two disparate conclusions from the same data, in math we call that an unsolved problem.
> 
> We are 'finally' not 'circling the drain'! I understand your math point of view. I felt the article by Prof. Lennox, a college math prof, might remove you from your point of view, but you have explained yourself so I understood. Actuaries deal with real history. You are not willing to even attempt a math conjecture unless you have real history, which we will never have. Fair enough. But obviously, other mathematicians are willing.
> -It's not just a math point of view--you've referred to this a couple times in similar cycles. If I characterize you properly, you refer to the "math point of view" as that closed system that deals only in proofs, cold, stark, and pure logic? -My point is deeper than that. If you want to be able to compute the odds of any event, you need to have more information than "it's happened once." In terms of abiogenesis, we don't know if it only happened once, and it all "rolled downhill" from there--or "uphill" in your case , or if it happened many many times, and through various combinations of those results, it rolled into something completely different. There is a complete gap in our knowledge here--worse, I would say, than the gaps you've referred to in the fossil records. Shapiro's book, and his comments since have simply reinforced to me that there's a big, black curtain here. Because of this, I simply don't find it intellectually honest to assert any odds whatsoever here. -> As for your fine tuning comment; great way to look at it. But I take a reverse view of your point. Yes, the universe is a very hostile place, but its parameters do provide for a chance for life, and every Earth-like planet will probably have it at some point in its existence. This makes 'Earths' or only one Earth very unique, and perhaps planned for by the UI.-You didn't address my main thrust however--that two equally logical claims coming from the same evidence simply points to the lack of a solution. (Here's where the more traditional "math side" enters...)-And I apologize about the 'fluff' comment... I just get tired when I see the same arguments repeated while ignoring what the real problem actually is...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"