Bad Math Used in Apologetics

[Jagella]

Recently I've noticed that some apologists like William Lane Craig are using mathematics-based arguments to assure us that the Christian god exists. I would like to explain why those arguments use poor logic.

A very broad argument is that mathematics in general seems to explain the cosmos in a way that seems to work unreasonably well. An intelligent designer like Yahweh is then required to explain this apparent mathematical basis for the universe. He is "the great mathematician in the sky."

Not really. The reason math works so well to explain the world--in at least some cases--is because we humans created math to describe the cosmos. There is no mystery here. We are the mathematicians describing the universe.

Also, many apologists like to wow us with enormously improbable events that they say cannot be attributed to chance. Since chance is ruled out, "God musta done it."

Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero. Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Also, to state how improbable a natural event might be doesn't say much if you don't know the probability of an alternate event. So if apologists wish to argue that an event like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe by chance is only one out a a gazillion, they must compare that probability to the probability that "God musta done it." If they cannot say that the probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance, then they haven't proved anything.

Finally, a really laughable argument is that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was infinitely we could never have reached the present! Such apologists must have slept through their high-school algebra. Consider the number line with numbers increasing infinitely with positive numbers to the right and negative numbers to the left. All you need to do is have any point on that line represent a moment in time with zero being the present, points on the positive direction are the future, and points on the negative direction are the past. See that? You're at 0 (the present), but the past is infinite. You can go back as far as you want to with no limit.

I can go on, but for now let me ask the...

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 90 by rikuoamero]

Same with the arrowhead, same with potential SETI signals. We are already familiar with other arrowheads, and radio signals, from intelligent agents.

okay, so we can identify ID in an alien radio signal, even if they are not human, we have no idea who they are or what the message says

So this is not about mere intuition or familiarity- we receive natural radio signals aka interference all the time

the measure of ID here is purely objective, the appearance of information- specified information, - beyond mere the noise that you would expect from random generation - information which appears to specify something beyond itself whether or not we can even decipher what it is specifying- right?

DNA for example is not nearly this ambiguous, we can determine quite precisely what certain sequences of information are specifying- in this case as part of hierarchical digital information system.

And we know now that this information is the key to life, the question of it's origin is the key to the origin of life itself

So to answer your question:

Excuse me, but when was the last time we had a verified case of an intelligence forming life where previously there was no life before?

I agree, we have no cases of this happening by any verifiable means, but life exists and operates via information systems- and we only have one means by which such information systems - particularly digital ones, are ever created

I have never argued that, nor do I think I ever would.

so correct me if I am wrong:

you accept the principle of objectively identifying unknown, non human ID though it's creative output.. in the case of SETI for example

and that intelligence is not an inherently supernatural phenomena

hmm, so what is it we do disagree on here?

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by rikuoamero]

That's what I'm seeing, what I'm parsing what you say as. And to me, that looks ridiculous. That conversation you and I would be having, as to the origin of life, would be me on one side saying he doesn't know...and you on the other side saying essentially the same thing, but not in as clear a way as I am.
If we don't know, then we don't know. I at least am upfront about it.

You appear to be comparing your position with mine and deducing from that - that I am not saying 'I don't know' when what I am really saying is that I am interested in seeing if I can find out.
So far my observations have concluded that we are all GOD, because we are the ones with the language.

We might not yet know the origin of what we refer to as 'life' but we do know that we are experiencing being a part of that 'life'.

At least we know that the origin of 'life' has something intimately to do with the actual planet.

Where we differ is not that we 'don't know' but that what we do know is simply interpreted differently.

I see the Earth as a living entity. A creative self-aware entity which is the direct origin of 'life'. You see what? Perhaps a cold stone which just happens to have 'consciousness' experiencing being on it, a pale blue dot of a speck of dust which requires no special consideration?

I see my self as an aspect of that greater consciousness and marvel at it and my being part of it.

I marvel that I can marvel.

The thing being, consciousness is not going to rest until it discovers who it truly is, given the circumstances, 'agnostics' and 'theists' are understandable for that.

Yes - 'we don't know' and yes 'we potentially could know'
That this sounds ridiculous to you does not mean that it actually is. You don't know that the answer I have is incorrect. It appears that what you might be doing here is not accepting my definition of GOD, 'tis all...

...on the grounds that 'you don't know'. *shrugs*

I myself have to consider my own subjective data of experience on such matters.

That much I do know. Can't *shrug* that off....

[marco]

Scientists are understandably assessing the possibility of alien life.

it is NOT reasonable to assume that human experience covers areas outside of human experience - as you are doing

just trying to reconcile these two statements, is SETI only looking for human intelligence then? because it would be impossible to recognize any other kind?

I did not introduce SETI. People are scientifically exploring the cosmos. We are arguing probabilities, not listening for radio signals. I said that to form a hypothesis about God, the creator of the universe (not aliens) based on how things work in our experience is flawed. Of course I am not saying that we can make no deductions about Jupiter: I am talking entirely about hypotheses that extend to God.

enter the multiverse to help out with those odds- that's fine but we come full circle- the point of the analogies was that intelligent agency cannot be discarded purely by the existence of a random generator- even if generously granted.

Your analogy has no application in questions of existence and creation. It has limited application to a human context.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, when you tell me what the other one is I will add it to the list.

Do you suppose that declaring there are only two possibilities makes for a truth?
(a) What we see is illusion (b) We are in a repetitive process (c) Order is a freak occurrence in chaos. And there will be others the ingenuity of which is as yet beyond the boundaries of Marco's brainpower.

You just made my point for me; no matter what alternative you give, it will fall under the category of..

1. Natural
2. Supernatural

And your (a), (b), and (c) all fall under #1...Natural processes.

Randomness will only get you more randomness

Is this Schrodinger's Law? Random trials can bring solutions. Mathematics students know this.

Ok, so get a deck of 52 cards and toss them into the air, and see as to whether the cards will fall to the floor, formulating a small "card house". Do you think that will happen? No.

If you see a card house anywhere on earth, will you ever postulate the houses formulating by the blind randomness of nature? No.

Entropy is one of the best understood aspects of observation and science. It never fails; EXCEPT in the case where naturalists would like to negate theories involving that of intelligent design...then all of a sudden, it is ok to reject science, observation, and intuition.

Now, I don't know whether you are a naturalist or not, but hey...if it looks like a duck...

Taxi cab fallacy.

Wait a minute, you are a human, right? Well, didn't you just explain the "inexplicable" with nature?? Hmm.

I think perhaps you missed the point being made. In any event I haven't "explained" the inexplicable. God is a simplistic explanation of what we see. I have no idea how events combined to give what we've got.

Cool. I will keep sticking to the "simplistic" explanation. Don't mind me.

Sure, the rare event of me winning the lottery makes it more probable for me to buy a mansion with my lottery winnings.

So what? How does that negate what I said?

I see no connection between this and anything that has been said. The point I was putting across is that given a sufficiency of possible trials, we can expect a rare event to happen.

And my point is; there was no "sufficiency of possibly trials", and I base that on the knowledge that we have on the environmental conditions of the early universe/Earth, and the obvious high entropy conditions that would result as it relates to a mindless/blind force (nature) that is said to be at the reigns of a mindless/blind process.

What applies in the limitations of, say, a lottery draw with a fixed set of numbers, differs from what happens in the vast aeons of time in an emerging universe.

No one is denying that. The point was; the parameters that was set in my great lottery analogy is meant to parallel the parameters that would have NEEDED to be met in order for us to have a life permitting universe.

Both had parameters that were set HIGH, and the lottery example STILL didn't even come CLOSE to the high probability of our universe becoming life permitting.

But there wasn't an infinite amount of possibilities. The big bang event was just a one time event...

That was the successful outcome. Do you know how many failed events there were?

No, I don't. What I do know is that the scientific evidence supports at least one big bang, so that is all I (or you) have to go on. If you believe there were more "bangs" than the one in the standard big bang model, fine...but then you are relying on unseen...which is what we would call FAITH.

If we are talking of combinations and results with minuscule probabilities, then for these events to occur we would need a sufficiency of time. For me it seems we have close to an infinite amount of that resource, before success took place. This view negates the proposition that minute probabilities can be discarded as impossibly unlikely.

?

is like standing on Mars and randomly throwing a dart towards the rotating Earth and hitting the bullseye on a target somewhere in Montana.

Do you think you will hit the mark with just one try?

No. But this bears no resemblance to anything I've said. I have never argued about ONE trial producing a rare event. I am saying that in a copious quantity of time, events will conspire to produce a rarity.

Time won't help you here, amigo. "Given enough time, anything can happen".

A.K.A: Time of the Gaps.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Oh, so I guess 2+2 didn't = 4 prior to the times of Archimedes, Pythagoras, Euler, and Newton.

I don't know about that, but Archimedes and Newton get a lot of credit for the development of calculus. They didn't find calculus growing on a tree.

And as far as "2 + 2 = 4" is concerned, we have symbols created by people (Arabs): namely; 2, +, =, and 4. We have a sentence here in the human language known as "mathematics." Translated into the human language we call "English," the sentence is written: "Two plus two equals four." These symbols are being manipulated according to a rule invented by people known as "addition." The rule of addition is every bit as much a human contrivance as the "check-mate" rule in chess.

So there was no "2 + 2 = 4" before human beings made up the symbols and the rule. To say that rules like these are evidence for a mathematician in the sky is simply wrong.

"Nature events can and do result from physical necessity" <-- #1 has already taken care of this one.

Uh, no. Your "game" 1 states: "Nature created the event by random chance." Physical necessity is the opposite of chance. So you are failing to consider the possibility that nature operates according to laws that are not random.

...once you've admitted the possibility of God (a necessary being) existing, then you are simultaneously concluding that God actually exists (see Modal Ontological Argument).

I'm not sure how you are reaching this conclusion. How must the Bible god exist if its existence is possible? Why do you insist he's necessary?

...what is the probability of a god creating the universe?

We don't need to know the probability of something that has actually occurred.

In that case you are assuming what you're trying to prove.

Well, the fact that the universe exists would mean that the probability of God creating the universe is high.

I'd say that the probability of any god creating the universe is zero. Gods cannot create anything because they are fictional characters created by people.

And since the physical world cannot be past-eternal, that would make the probability of the universe existing without God impossible.

I think that some day scientists will fully explain the existence of the cosmos without recourse to belief in any gods.

The point is; the more parameters you add to the mix, the more improbable the task will become...

My point is that you're getting your math wrong. If you want to argue probabilities in your apologetics, then make sure you know what you're talking about.

...and that is a parallel to the physical constants which govern our universe, with each constant being so mathematically precise that if the value of each one was either decreased or increased, life would have never have began to exist.

Many scientists don't buy this argument. Laurence Krauss, for example, points out that at least one of these constants would make life much more probable if that constant's value was different. Besides, the vast majority of the cosmos is deadly. If Jesus fine-tuned the universe, then he did a sloppy job of it.

And why would an all-mighty god need to fine-tune the cosmos?

Do you see that? The probability is 1/10^10^123. Do the math on that one.

Assuming Penrose is right that the chance of fine-tuning equaling that number, we still need to compare it to the probability of Jesus fine-tuning the universe to see which possibility is more probable. You have failed to post that probability, and until you do, you have not made your case.

...we are talking about the probability of life occurring in the first place with no intelligence at all.

Does science help us here? No.

Actually, science is making progress in explaining the origin of life. Apologists need to get ready to come up with arguments to deny that evidence.

That is the point; it is all conceptual...but when you apply the "concept" to reality, you wind up with absurdities...which is precisely why, in the real world, you can't count "down" from infinity to zero.

And if you can't count down from infinity to zero, then how can you traverse an infinite number of past days to arrive at today? You can't do it.

You're getting your math wrong again. I'm not saying we need to "count down from infinity to zero." It's obviously impossible to do that. Again, you just start at zero, and then go back as far as you like into the negative integers. Just place the present at zero and all past times at some negative integer. Since there are an infinite number of negative integers, there is potentially an infinite number of past times.

Easy. Simple. Assuming you are willing to give up your religious predispositions.

So why can't you get to the number zero by counting (one by one) all of the negative numbers down to zero?

Just start at zero, and go back as far as you like!

Oh, so yesterday wasn't traversed to arrive at today?

LOL--of course it was, but you don't need to traverse the infinite past to get to zero. You're already at zero.

If the past cannot be infinite, then of course there is a limit to how far back we can go. What is that limit? Why is it a limit? Apologists neglect to tell us what this limit is.

Well, I am an apologist, and I will tell you what the limit is...the limit is; the beginning of time.

The beginning of time is the furthest you can go back in time.

You're again assuming what you're trying to prove. I'm asking you to demonstrate that there must be a beginning of time not to just assert it.

Let's assume that X is the number of years it is possible to go back into time. What makes X + 1 years into the past logically impossible?

[Don McIntosh]

it may be that you, Marco, have not actually said anything here. That's because, given the sheer number of login and keystroke errors committed by billions of sleepy, exhausted, drunk, drugged, and otherwise mentally impaired human beings over decades of online activity, someone was bound to eventually, and by sheer accident, log in to your account and type the message attributed to Marco above. But of course that's really nonsense and would literally be an insult to your remarkable intelligence.

Well of course unfortunate events do happen by chance. The difference between arguing about human possibilities and those that relate to cosmic origins is that in human terms we can and do statistically reject events with small probabilities. Statistical testing depends on this.

That does seem to make some sense intuitively: at the human level we can measure probabilities that cannot be measured at the cosmic level. But I think such an appeal is ultimately self-defeating.

Let's say that you're right, and with enough time "the improbable becomes probable" at the level of cosmic origins, so much so that by a wild stroke of luck our life-containing universe came into being. That being the case, statistical testing at the human level may well be subsumed by the cosmic improbability. In other words, it may be that by a wild stroke of luck a universe came into being not only in which life was able to flourish, but in which a drunk logged into your account by sheer accident and posted the message attributed to Marco above. Once we lend credibility to the generation of all possible worlds, we have to lend credibility to all the possibilities they express.

[marco]

You just made my point for me; no matter what alternative you give, it will fall under the category of..

1. Natural
2. Supernatural

You are describing the nature of the various possibilities, of which there could be many.

And your (a), (b), and (c) all fall under #1...Natural processes.

This observation, even if true, is completely irrelevant to the number of possible explanations. Saying something is "natural" is NOT an explanation.

Ok, so get a deck of 52 cards and toss them into the air, and see as to whether the cards will fall to the floor, formulating a small "card house". Do you think that will happen? No.

This is correct and nobody is arguing against it.

Cool. I will keep sticking to the "simplistic" explanation. Don't mind me.

No one has removed your right to invent a God and give him whatever qualities you want. It just seems a rather simplistic way of dealing with complexity. Coincidentally it is the way cavemen saw things so the formula has a long life-line, if that brings comfort.

And my point is; there was no "sufficiency of possibly trials", and I base that on the knowledge that we have on the environmental conditions of the early universe/Earth,

The sufficiency related to an infinite amount of time BEFORE anything fell into some order. It has nothing to do with the life of the Earth or "environmental conditions" or last Sunday's sermon. For all we know there were millions of near misses, resulting in further chaos. We can describe the Big Bang as a favourable outcome. There may have been several, but they have vanished or been replaced by new universes. I say "MAY" because I don't know- it is a possible explanation. Inventing God carries the problem regarding God's origin for which there's no solution. So the God explanation is inferior.

The point was; the parameters that was set in my great lottery analogy is meant to parallel the parameters that would have NEEDED to be met in order for us to have a life permitting universe.

Well they don't. They relate to completely different concepts.

...but then you are relying on unseen...which is what we would call FAITH.

Now you are confusing terms. Faith is a belief that something is true; it is an acceptance that something is true. It is NOT a hypothesis, which the believer is waiting to see proved or disproved. Suggesting possible causes for the generation of order is NOT faith but a proposal. Nobody is stating the proposal is certainly true.
If people say there MIGHT have been a God to start things then this too is a proposal, and we can examine its weaknesses and strengths. As I said, it's the explanation favoured by our primitive ancestors, so that should alert us to its defects, though of course primitives may have been miraculously right. Who knows?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't know about that, but Archimedes and Newton get a lot of credit for the development of calculus. They didn't find calculus growing on a tree.

And as far as "2 + 2 = 4" is concerned, we have symbols created by people (Arabs): namely; 2, +, =, and 4. We have a sentence here in the human language known as "mathematics." Translated into the human language we call "English," the sentence is written: "Two plus two equals four." These symbols are being manipulated according to a rule invented by people known as "addition." The rule of addition is every bit as much a human contrivance as the "check-mate" rule in chess.

So there was no "2 + 2 = 4" before human beings made up the symbols and the rule. To say that rules like these are evidence for a mathematician in the sky is simply wrong.

So, again...did 2+2=4 prior to this fact being discovered by humans? Yes, or no. Just because it took humans x amount of years to come to this knowledge does not negate the truth value of 2+2=4 regardless of who is around to figure it out.

Uh, no. Your "game" 1 states: "Nature created the event by random chance." Physical necessity is the opposite of chance. So you are failing to consider the possibility that nature operates according to laws that are not random.

Let me put it to you this way, Jag: if God exists, then natural law (the laws that govern our universe) are laws which were edicted by a cosmic engineer...so sure, this is the opposite of chance. If God does NOT exist, then the mathematical precision needed for the universe to become life permitting would have had to come by mere chance.

You are not getting a "card house" by tossing a deck of cards in the air and watching them fall to the floor in disordered fashion...and you are not getting a life permitting universe if you start off with a big bang at which all STEM (space, time, energy, matter) originated from.

It just aint happening. Now of course, you don't believe in the high probability of the "card house" thing, so it is puzzling why you would believe in the "universe house" thing...but then again, the "card house" thing doesn't have the G word (God) attached to it...and we all know we must avoid the G word at all costs, no matter how absurd the notion is.

I'm not sure how you are reaching this conclusion. How must the Bible god exist if its existence is possible? Why do you insist he's necessary?

Who said anything about the Bible god? The argument is based upon the necessity of a necessary being. Who the being is, is another story.

...what is the probability of a god creating the universe?

We don't need to know the probability of something that has actually occurred.

In that case you are assuming what you're trying to prove.

No assumption here; my position is even stronger than that. Based on the evidence, I can conclusively say that the existence of God is absolutely, positively necessary.

I'd say that the probability of any god creating the universe is zero.

Based on what?

Gods cannot create anything because they are fictional characters created by people.

I feel the same way about certain scientific theories (evolution, abiogenesis).

I think that some day scientists will fully explain the existence of the cosmos without recourse to belief in any gods.

In other words; Science of the Gaps.

The point is; the more parameters you add to the mix, the more improbable the task will become...

My point is that you're getting your math wrong. If you want to argue probabilities in your apologetics, then make sure you know what you're talking about.

I don't recall doing any math. What I do recall is turning your attention to Roger Penrose and his work in this particular area. Now, if you'd like to debunk Roger Penrose's math here, go right ahead. But until then..

10^10^123. Deal with it.

...and that is a parallel to the physical constants which govern our universe, with each constant being so mathematically precise that if the value of each one was either decreased or increased, life would have never have began to exist.

Many scientists don't buy this argument. Laurence Krauss, for example, points out that at least one of these constants would make life much more probable if that constant's value was different.

"One of Michael Jordan's teammates on the Chicago Bulls 96-97 championship team would make the probability of MJ winning the championship in 1997 much more probable if the players were different"

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Besides, the vast majority of the cosmos is deadly. If Jesus fine-tuned the universe, then he did a sloppy job of it.

If Jesus did a sloppy job of fine-tuning the universe, that would still mean that Jesus existed, right?

And why would an all-mighty god need to fine-tune the cosmos?

It is called; standards, and boundaries. Ok, if you were an all-mighty god, how would you create the cosmos. Go ahead, tell me.

Assuming Penrose is right that the chance of fine-tuning equaling that number, we still need to compare it to the probability of Jesus fine-tuning the universe to see which possibility is more probable. You have failed to post that probability, and until you do, you have not made your case.

Are we talking about the probability of Jesus actually fine-tuning the universe, or the probability of Jesus WANTING to fine-tune the universe. If Jesus is omnipotent, then probability of him fine-tuning the universe (if he wanted to) is small potatoes.

The fact that the universe is here would obviously mean that the probability is/was high. Compare that to the probability of 1 chance in 10^10^123.

Wheww. Can you count that high?

...we are talking about the probability of life occurring in the first place with no intelligence at all.

Does science help us here? No.

Actually, science is making progress in explaining the origin of life. Apologists need to get ready to come up with arguments to deny that evidence.

Bro, I don't normally refer folks to videos on here...but I think this video is very helpful and informative...to put in perspective exactly that high probability of life coming from nonlife.

This video demonstrates the probability of just ONE single protein forming by mere chance..check it out..

That is the point; it is all conceptual...but when you apply the "concept" to reality, you wind up with absurdities...which is precisely why, in the real world, you can't count "down" from infinity to zero.

And if you can't count down from infinity to zero, then how can you traverse an infinite number of past days to arrive at today? You can't do it.

You're getting your math wrong again. I'm not saying we need to "count down from infinity to zero." It's obviously impossible to do that.

Bro, you are obviously missing my point. I am challenging you to count down from infinity to zero to reflect the REALITY of a past-eternal universe, which is the reality of the situation should there be no beginning to time.

The point is; if the past is eternal, to arrive at "today" on an infinite chain of "todays" would be the same as you counting DOWN from infinity to zero...with zero (or any other arbitrary number on the timeline) representing "today".

It is a parallel. Now, you just admitting that this can't be done, so you shouldn't have a problem admitting that "today" could not be reached if there was an infinite amount of past days to traverse in order to arrive at today.

It is literally the same concept...and if you grant one but not the other, then you obvious don't understand what is going on here.

Again, you just start at zero, and then go back as far as you like into the negative integers. Just place the present at zero and all past times at some negative integer. Since there are an infinite number of negative integers, there is potentially an infinite number of past times.

Ok, so tell me; since zero is the present, how far back in time must you go to reach equal distance into the past, relative to the distance traveled to get to the present?

If we've successfully traversed an infinite amount of days to get to zero, then using our imagination, we should be able to travel equal distance back towards the past, and arriving at a single, discrete day.

So, what day would we arrive at? Tell me.

Easy. Simple. Assuming you are willing to give up your religious predispositions.

You will demonstrate how easy and simple it is once you've adequately explained how you can reach equal distance of infinity..which is the task above.

So why can't you get to the number zero by counting (one by one) all of the negative numbers down to zero?

Just start at zero, and go back as far as you like!

Wait a minute, if the past is eternal, then there was no starting day!!!

Oh, so yesterday wasn't traversed to arrive at today?

LOL--of course it was, but you don't need to traverse the infinite past to get to zero. You're already at zero.

And how did you get to zero in the first place, Jag?

If the past cannot be infinite, then of course there is a limit to how far back we can go. What is that limit? Why is it a limit? Apologists neglect to tell us what this limit is.

Well, I am an apologist, and I will tell you what the limit is...the limit is; the beginning of time.

The beginning of time is the furthest you can go back in time.

You're again assuming what you're trying to prove. I'm asking you to demonstrate that there must be a beginning of time not to just assert it.

If there is no beginning of time, then in order to arrive at today, infinite was successfully traversed. But you already admitted that infinity cant be traverse...thus the whole "I can't count down from all of the negative numbers to arrive at zero" thing.

So, either admit that there had to have been a beginning of time, or count down from -infinity to zero.

Let's assume that X is the number of years it is possible to go back into time. What makes X + 1 years into the past logically impossible?

I don't follow.

[marco]

Let's say that you're right, and with enough time "the improbable becomes probable" at the level of cosmic origins, so much so that by a wild stroke of luck our life-containing universe came into being. That being the case, statistical testing at the human level may well be subsumed by the cosmic improbability. In other words, it may be that by a wild stroke of luck a universe came into being not only in which life was able to flourish, but in which a drunk logged into your account by sheer accident and posted the message attributed to Marco above. Once we lend credibility to the generation of all possible worlds, we have to lend credibility to all the possibilities they express.

Hello Don, there isn't a question about being right. The rare event IS expected to happen, given enough trials. If something has a one in a million chance of happening, then given 10 million attempts we would expect around ten successes.
Wild stroke of luck isn't involved, just enough time.


When we talk of rare events, such as your unfortunate drunk, in finite situations then we can discount absurdly rare events. Since I am involved, we have a finite situation; my deification papers haven't arrived yet.

[Bust Nak]

If God does NOT exist, then the mathematical precision needed for the universe to become life permitting would have had to come by mere chance.

That does not follow.

I am challenging you to count down from infinity to zero to reflect the REALITY of a past-eternal universe...

Counting down from infinity does not reflect what you called "the REALITY of a past-eternal universe."

Wait a minute, if the past is eternal, then there was no starting day!!!

Which is exactly why your earlier quesiton re: "equal distance into the past" is incoherient.

And how did you get to zero in the first place?

One step at a time.

So, either admit that there had to have been a beginning of time, or count down from -infinity to zero.

There is a third alternative: count down from any of the infinitely many finite integers. We've been though this before, remember? These aren't any harder to answer than the first time round.