BINGOrikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 77 by Guy Threepwood]
Without going into the details you gave in your analogy in post 77, let me say this. The point of my question ("by mere fiat?") was to have you think for a moment, to get you to realise that the only way your analogy even begins to work is if you declare, flat out, that there ARE no people around to arrange stones so as to spell help.
However, in the real world...you cannot know this for sure. Even the details you give in post 77 don't rule it out. Even an island guarded can have someone sneak onto it and rearrange stones (since no security is perfect).
It is impossible to rule out ID on the beach to the extent required to conclude chance, no matter how stringent the security measures are, you are still going to conclude that somehow, somebody managed to get onto that beach right?( or flew a drone in?!) but we know that ID was involved beyond reasonable doubt by the existence of it's output
Again this is even though you are granted the random generator (waves) 100%
Same goes for the gambler playing 4 royal flushes in a row, if your security measures make the probability of successfully cheating 1 in a trillion, that ain't nearly good enough, the gambler cheated beyond any reasonable doubt.
Even though once again, you are granted a random mechanism that could technically create that sequence just as easily as any other.
i.e. it's not that chance creation of the universe is impossible, just that it sets an extremely low bar for other explanations -given even the slightest mathematical probability- to jump over