In my opinion, absolutely yes—if we assume that the scenario occurred only once. However, the answer changes if we posit that the same scenario has happened trillions upon trillions of times with wildly different outcomes.
If I were a poker player and won 10,000 times in a row—an event with virtually impossible odds—what would you think?
Would you say, “Well, it happened, so there’s no point in questioning how”, or would you suspect that something unusual was going on? Would you really attribute 10,000 consecutive victories to mere chance?
1 Like
But that is exactly, precisely, where we are today. If you really watch the video, you would understand that the likelihood of us being exactly where we are is very close to zero. How’s that for a chance?
1 Like
Yep. That was my point.
Which, again, is exactly my point lol.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Anyone have another explanation? If so I would be interested in hearing it.
Not really another explanation, but a clarification …
The problem here is a matter how how statistical inference works compared to the intuitive argument you are using. IF we have a probability for the existence of our universe, which we don’t (but I’ll carry on), THEN the statistical approach is to compare it to the probability of our universe WITH a Creator, and we don’t have that either. If we have those probabilities this become a ratio of two probabilities called a Bayes Factor. What tends to happen it that people will substitute their “Prior Belief” that the probability of God equals one (p_{God}=1.0).
Note: I do not mean to criticize that belief, I’m just trying to show how the math would work.
So the (presumed) probability of our universe “by chance” is very small (p_{chance}), and as the product of many assumed probabilities it can only be very small, gets compared to the prior belief in God (p_{God}=1.0), which is as large as a probability can be. So of course the conclusion here would be to see God as the creator, but really it’s just a restatement of the prior belief, repeating an intuition that was already there.
Again, I am not objecting to the belief, only to the abuse of math.
1 Like
I liken it to trying to fit a curve or extrapolate with only one data point.
2 Likes
Or trying to derive a probability from a unique event.
1 Like
I don’t quite understand your math application on the possibility of a creator. I guess I am applying something similar to Occam’s razor. Since the probability of a materialistically created universe is so low and complex, the simpler answer of a conscious creator becomes the more plausible answer. This also provides a plausible explanation for the “cause” of the big bang. A materialistic worldview has no plausible cause.
2 Likes
To take it to the most extreme, take the probability of a coin flip; the probability of heads is 0.5, the probability of tails. is also 0.5. Both are less than 1.0. Using the same argument we would conclude the outcome of the coin flip, heads OR tails, is impossible. It’s a bad argument.
Since the probability of a materialistically created universe is so low and complex, the simpler answer of a conscious creator becomes the more plausible answer.
As a statistician, I find those estimates for the probability of the universe to be problematic. You can only attempt such a calculations by making some mighty big assumptions, and then you get the probability of any given initial state. That is taken to mean “The Probability We Are Here”, but there will be many equivalent states also leading to “We Are Here”, and there is no way to sum over all these initial states, or even to know what they are. I have yet to see where anyone has attempted to write down the math involved - mostly it is all just talk.
And again, if we could do that math and find a valid probability for “We are Here”, to make a valid comparison we need an equivalent calculation for “the probability of God” which isn’t just P[God]=1.0, and that just cannot be done. You probably heard this argument as a form of apologetic, something to the effect that mathematics proves the existence of God. As someone who knows the math, the math does not work like that. If it did, someone would have produced a solid proof long ago and no one would bother with such claims.
The argument is simply a restatement of the prior belief (P[God]=1.0). which is fine as a belief. There is no issue with having faith in God, my only objection is the bad math.
This also provides a plausible explanation for the “cause” of the big bang. A materialistic worldview has no plausible cause.
For that you will need to ask a physicist. 
1 Like
Let’s use the example of our own birth. Indeed the odds that we as individual beings were formed from the multitude of other beings is very low. But we know that there are multiple sperm and egg scenarios and this is true. We don’t know if there are multiple universes. But assuming only one big bang and one universe, the odds for accidental creation versus design for the former are low and the latter are high.
But some argue that there must have been multiple universes.
1 Like
Which is why the multiverse idea is so attractive to many.
We have many sources that demonstrate that the resistance to Big Bang cosmology was rarely purely scientific.
In at least some cases, the idea of a universe with a beginning was resisted precisely because it seemed to lean too close to creation language. Arthur Eddington said it bluntly: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole.” That is not a technical objection but a philosophical aversion to a cosmic beginning. Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World (From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics),” The Mathematical Gazette 15, no. 212 (1931), p. 319; also summarized in Nature 127 (1931).
Fred Hoyle was even more explicit about why the Big Bang was objectionable. In The Intelligent Universe he wrote: “The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.” Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 237. That is about as clear as it gets: the model was troubling, in part, because it seemed hospitable to creation.
Historians of cosmology have also noted that the controversy had an ideological and religious dimension. Helge Kragh summarized it this way: “The steady state theory was, especially in England, often associated with atheism, and the Big Bang theory with Christian theism.” In other words, the debate was never perceived as religiously neutral. Kragh quoted in “The Steady State: When Astronomers Tried to Overthrow the Big Bang” (2020).
The model has a been a thorn in the flesh from the beginning, for many.
The multiverse, in the eyes of many, would address two problems:
- The problem of the “beginning”.
- The even greater problem of the fine-tuning.
Obviously it wouldn’t disprove the cosmological argument, but in the eyes of many who don’t care about metaphysics it would look like a formidable anti-theistic answer.
P.s: the word “repugnant” used by Addington says a lot, in my opinion, about the real reasons that move so many otherwise strictly empiricist people to embrace the multiverse with open arms. The very idea that a creation might not be a ridiculous thesis, the very idea that someone could legitimately believe in a creation and being “assisted” by scientific discovery while doing so, is repugnant to some people.
2 Likes
I agree that the calculations for the probability of the universe are problematic. AFAIK, the calculations are largely based on an underlying (hidden) assumption that all the alternative states are as probable. This is a problematic assumption because it seems more probable that the beginning started from one point or area, or as a small ‘bubble’, rather than as a large ‘buble’, which would mean that the whole large unverse (as we see it) suddenly emerged as it is.
Although we perhaps cannot calculate the exact probability, the notion that our life is very dependent on exact parameter values, in a ‘fine-tuned’ way, is remarkable and amazing.
We do not know how everything started but we have two possibilities: (1) there is a Creator, or (2) there is no Creator. We do not know what the true probabilities of these two claims are. My understanding of Bayesian mathematics is limited but I assume that in such a situation, the ‘normal’ choice would be to set the Bayesian prior estimate as 0.5 rather than 1.0.
1 Like
I’m not arguing against a Creator, I’m arguing against bad math.
2 Likes
No, we can’t calculate probability for our existence, and even if we could we still can’t calculate a probability of fine tuning to compare it to.
[ETA: That doesn’t make anything less remarkable or amazing.]
You are on the right track. For that Bayesian calculation we need to evaluate the probability of the data under two hypotheses and compare them. For the first we determine there are a great many ways the universe might have been, and therefore the probability of the universe we observe is small. For the second we need to evaluate the probability of the same data under a hypothesis of God.
That last bit is the trouble, because it requires a falsifiable hypothesis for God, which is a non-starter.
[ETA: IF we could do that, then the resulting probability of God would also be “small”, but then we could meaningfully compare the two probabilities to determine which is larger based on the same data. A new problem creeps in if BOTH hypotheses are wrong, but it’s not worth thinking about. ]
And what happens is that people tend to swap out the impossible hypothesis for their prior belief in God.
… but I assume that in such a situation, the ‘normal’ choice would be to set the Bayesian prior estimate as 0.5 rather than 1.0.
If that probability is 1.0, it puts all the weight on the presumed hypothesis (in this case the one that can’t be done), ignores all the data, and concludes the assumption. Is it a circular argument in mathematical form, and my only objection here.
A prior probability that doesn’t bias too strongly one way or the other is what we like to use when there are two hypotheses we can actually evaluate.
1 Like
What does it look like? ;)))
Emphasis added is fine, but changing what I wrote inside of a quote is rude. Please do not do that again.
2 Likes
Yeah I apologize, it was just to show how easily the same argument could be made for other subjects. I didn’t mean to be rude.
My objective was to show that the same argument could well be made for hypothesis that, unlike God, are treated as respectable and worthy of consideration in the modern scientific world.
P.s: the multiverse is used by many to enforce their idea that the apparent fine-tuning of the constants of this universe is nothing more than the result of chance. Again; I apologize for sounding rude but it really wasn’t my intent.
1 Like