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?

[Jagella]

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.

All these creationist arguments made by Christians are arguments made for the Bible god.

Based on the evidence, I can conclusively say that the existence of God is absolutely, positively necessary.

I've looked at the same evidence and have concluded that gods only exist in the minds of those who want to believe in them. Since assessing the available evidence can lead to belief or doubt, then assessing the available evidence is not a reliable means to know if any gods exist.

I don't recall doing any math.

We finally agree! But seriously, to make a good case for your beliefs based on mathematics, then learn mathematics. You're displaying a lot of ignorance about math. I'd recommend studying books on intermediate algebra and probability. Then get back to me.

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

No, it would mean that a sloppy, bungler of a Jesus exists. Do you believe in a sloppy, bungler of a Jesus? If you buy the fine-tuning argument, then that's the Jesus you must believe in.

...if you were an all-mighty god, how would you create the cosmos. Go ahead, tell me.

I'd make a universe much better than this one! There would be no suffering, for one thing.

I don't follow.

You sure don't follow! Learn your math, then get back to me.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 93 by marco]

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.

No, I did, because the same objective test applies

objectively identifying intelligent agency from an unknown source by it's creative output alone,

^ am I talking about aliens or God here? I don't know either,

Of course I am not saying that we can make no deductions about Jupiter: I am talking entirely about hypotheses that extend to God. Your analogy has no application in questions of existence and creation. It has limited application to a human context.

So even though we agree, we could objectively identify ID from it's creative output alone within the universe. The most creative event of all, somehow inherently forbids applying that same objective test of creative phenomena?

While using that same human experience, to infer materialistic phenomena 'based on how things work in our experience' to answer those very same questions.. beyond our human experience... is NOT flawed, but gets a waiver on this rule?

So in other words; the conclusion of the test... determines whether or not that test is permitted in the first place

aka heads I win, tails doesn't count


why not just apply our human experience as best we can, and see where that leads, regardless of the implications of any particular conclusion?

why is one objective outcome more permissible than the other?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

1. Supernatural (order, agenda, purpose)
2. Natural (disorder, no agenda, purposeless)

Please give me a viable third option, so I can add it to the list.

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."

So, the days leading up to today wasn't a countdown from past days to the present day? Hmm.

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.

That's the point; of course it is incoherent, because it is analogous to an incoherent concept (a past eternal universe).

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

One step at a time.

So you can reach infinity, taking one step at a time? Hmmm.

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.

But you can't count down ALL of the finite integers in the set and successfully arrive at zero.

We've been though this before, remember? These aren't any harder to answer than the first time round.

We did? Ohhh, I remember you; Bust Nak..you are the guy that I owned at least three different times on this very subject.

Welcome back to the house of pain. Your room is the third one of the left.

Enjoy your stay.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

But these various natural possibilities are still under the umbrella of...#1....NATURAL. And my point is; all natural possibilities fail.

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.

Yeah but the point is; the 52 cards falling and formulating a "card house" is no where NEAR the possibility of the universe becoming life permitting by random chance.

So if "no one is arguing" against the card thing, no one should argue against the universe thing.

Yet, you and others are arguing against the universe thing...why? I reckon because, as I said before; the card thing doesn't have the "G" word attached to it like the universe does.

This is rather apparent.

No one has removed your right to invent a God and give him whatever qualities you want.

You are doing the same thing..you give nature all kinds of causal power; apparently, nature has the power to create life from nonlife...and also, out of the blue, generate consciousness somehow...and can even defy astronomical probability odds.

Everything that us theists claim that God "did"..naturalists claim that nature "did". So I will tell you the same thing you just told me...feel free to give Mother Nature whatever qualities you want.

It just seems a rather simplistic way of dealing with complexity.

Well, since science can't/won't explain everything, we have to appeal to whatever we need to appeal for the explanatory power needed to explain the effect.

And the best explanation, in our opinion, is yes; God did it.

Coincidentally it is the way cavemen saw things so the formula has a long life-line, if that brings comfort.

So basically, even cavemen were intellectually brighter than the average naturalist today? Hmm.

The sufficiency related to an infinite amount of time BEFORE anything fell into some order.

Infinite regression is logically impossible...and there you go again with your time of the gaps argumentation.

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.

Pure unscientific speculation.

I say "MAY" because I don't know- it is a possible explanation.

It isn't a possible explanation because again; infinite regression is impossible. If an nature had an infinite amount of "tries" to get it right, then it couldn't have gotten it right in any finite proper time.

Am I getting too deep for you, marco? (no homo).

Inventing God carries the problem regarding God's origin for which there's no solution. So the God explanation is inferior.

An Uncaused Cause is necessary, for previously mentioned reasons.

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.

Please enlighten me on what is the difference.

...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?

Instead of going back and forth about what faith is...I will just say you are relying on the UNPROVEN.

Is that better?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

All these creationist arguments made by Christians are arguments made for the Bible god.

Yeah but the arguments in-of-themselves won't get you to the Bible God...But the argument based on the Historicity of Jesus; that one does.

Based on the evidence, I can conclusively say that the existence of God is absolutely, positively necessary.

I've looked at the same evidence and have concluded that gods only exist in the minds of those who want to believe in them. Since assessing the available evidence can lead to belief or doubt, then assessing the available evidence is not a reliable means to know if any gods exist.

Good point, Jag...as simple and obvious of a point it is; it is the truth, isn't it. We are looking at the same evidence, but drawing different conclusions..

Why? A topic for another day

I don't recall doing any math.

We finally agree! But seriously, to make a good case for your beliefs based on mathematics, then learn mathematics. You're displaying a lot of ignorance about math. I'd recommend studying books on intermediate algebra and probability. Then get back to me.

LOL. That is why nothing is being based on my math, rather, it is based on Roger Penrose's math...and Roger Penrose is a mathematician.

10^10^123. Do the math on that one, then get back with ME.

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

No, it would mean that a sloppy, bungler of a Jesus exists. Do you believe in a sloppy, bungler of a Jesus? If you buy the fine-tuning argument, then that's the Jesus you must believe in.

LOL. I disagree with the premise that the design is sloppy. Enough said.

...if you were an all-mighty god, how would you create the cosmos. Go ahead, tell me.

I'd make a universe much better than this one! There would be no suffering, for one thing.

And I will argue that free will without suffering is incompatible. So, if you wanted to create mankind with free will, you can't negate the suffering as a result of free creatures doing bad things.

I don't follow.

You sure don't follow! Learn your math, then get back to me.

10^10^123.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 102 by For_The_Kingdom]

For clarification, you believe that although we are a product of a universe that had a beginning but expect that you will live on into infinity?

[marco]

But these various natural possibilities are still under the umbrella

I am not in the position to offer an explanation of HOW the universe came to be. We were arguing about probabilities and you wrongly took an example from a finite situation with playing cards and pretended this simplistic model applies to the origins of the universe. I have attempted to explain that in cosmic terms we have what is close to unlimited time for the near impossible to occur. Once it does, we have the requirements of order. I am not saying this is THE explanation; I am simply using probability theory to indicate that chance cannot be ruled out in cosmic terms.


There may be other explanations of existence. We may be in a situation of apparent reality. I don't know if that falls into what you call your natural umbrella; existence may be a consequence of thought - I don't see this is natural either; a big giant might have put molecules together and said it was good (the caveman theory); we may be in a circular band where beginning and end meet in a constantly recurring set of situations. You are asking people to think as nuclear physicists and present a plausible paper while you offer God, the pudding maker.

As for your infinite regression, I think you've probably misunderstood the Aquinas argument that settles for God as solving the problem of an infinite regression. You simply declare we can't have one: I suppose that means for the purposes of this argument we're not allowed to have an infinite regression because we need God to have started things somewhere (as seen primitively).


Your argument fails when we ask about God's beginning and so you happily declare: "God had no beginning!" The argument FOR God gets sillier the more we examine it, and yet it is the possibility of any alternative that is seen as risible. If we admit the impossible about God (he had no beginning) we are back to the start with a problem we cannot solve.


Put it this way: I don't know how the universe started, if it did and if it exists; neither do you.
As for:

Pure unscientific speculation.

ALL ideas about beginnings are speculation. The unscientific one is the theory that a big intelligent being made it all, and we don't know who made him. He always was. This is the "build your own god" theory, favoured by our primitive ancestors who heard thunder as the voice of God.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 102 by For_The_Kingdom]

1. Supernatural (order, agenda, purpose)
2. Natural (disorder, no agenda, purposeless)

1. Supernatural (non-existent, imaginary, woo)
2. Natural (all that exists in reality)
There. Fixed it for you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 103 by For_The_Kingdom]

You are doing the same thing..you give nature all kinds of causal power; apparently, nature has the power to create life from nonlife...and also, out of the blue, generate consciousness somehow...and can even defy astronomical probability odds.

We have no way of truly knowing the probabilities involved. Humans are the most intelligent animals on the planet, but that does not mean that they are very intelligent. We are limited in our ability to understand the workings of the universe. Life is governed by principles of electrochemistry. All living things are made from atoms which on their own can be regarded as non-living matter. But when organised in such a way that molecules are able to reproduce we regard that matter as living. The processes involved are based on the properties inherent in matter. It may be that the formation of living things is an inevitability where the conditions are conducive to the chemistry involved. We can't say that this is in defiance of astronomical odds because we don't have all of the necessary information to reach that conclusion.

Everything that us theists claim that God "did"..naturalists claim that nature "did". So I will tell you the same thing you just told me...feel free to give Mother Nature whatever qualities you want.

We can study the natural and see how it works. Over the centuries we have replaced countless attributions of unusual phenomena to gods with natural explanations. It has never been the other way around. With gods, there is nothing to study. You can make up anything you like and hide it behind the supernatural curtain.

Well, since science can't/won't explain everything, we have to appeal to whatever we need to appeal for the explanatory power needed to explain the effect.
And the best explanation, in our opinion, is yes; God did it.

People use the scientific method to distinguish between the imaginary and the real. There is far too much to know to naively expect that we can gain that knowledge all at once. Look at the progress we have made in the last couple of centuries and ask why we didn't manage that all two hundred years ago. To say that it can't/won't explain everything is rather a dismissive way of trying to squeeze magic into the current gaps. God did it is not an explanation of anything. It is no more than an invented answer. If you invent a God that can do anything, every question that we do not have an answer for yet can be answered with absolutely no explanatory power. If you simply attributed everything to the Great Pumpkin, that works just as well as any other god. That is because the process is useless.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 106 by marco]

I have attempted to explain that in cosmic terms we have what is close to unlimited time for the near impossible to occur.

And once more, just like the rocks on the beach or the royal flushes..

Whatever time is needed for the near impossible (accidental creation) to eventually occur... is more than enough time for the not-so-impossible (non-accidental creation) to occur far sooner and far more often.

Given enough time, a (extremely long lived) blind chimp can accidentally type War and Peace..

how long did it take Tolstoy?

Once it does, we have the requirements of order

yes we do..