Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting

I agree there was a time when a god (pick one) was thrown in when people had to explain things we had no idea why. For me, it is looking like that has been reversed; now, the more we know, the more it looks like God is required.

@TruthMuse  Some say yes, others no.  And the ongoing philosophical debate continues round and round....

Introducing a creator-being into the mix serves only to make what are already complex questions to answer, even more complex.

The probability of a certain outcome of some chance event is extremely small say. But if the chance event is repeated a sufficient number of times, then what can we say about the probabilty of that particular outcome?

If the probability is zero, then we pretty much know what the outcome is at the end of near infinite tries

The argument, though, is that it's not zero.  It is extremely small but still positive, non-zero probability.

True, and mathematically sound.  But at the same time we must guard against the intellectually lazy use of this to "bail-us-out" of unsolved problems (and then pretend like we've solved them). 

The origin of life comes to mind: "If the universe is sufficiently large and there's enough time then any arrangement of matter will eventually happen. Life exists, so the universe must be sufficiently large and there must have been enough time for life to originate this way by chance."  

Mathematicians (at least some) seem to find this line of reasoning convincing, but to me it explains nothing and is little different than saying "life exists, so God must."

If we're talking about the hypothesis that life on earth originated on earth from random chemical processes, then such reasoning can offer us no hope.  The reaction space was not large enough, and the "window of opportunity" far too short for life to arise by chance events.  

YECs often point out such improbabilities.  Scientists used to counter.  Now there seems agreement.  "Solving" the origin of life on earth by random chance is not a solution, but tantamount to invoking miracles.  Origin of life research today operates on the premise that life is not the result of random ("shake-the-dice") chance, but the result of a rare, improbable (possibly one-time occurence) set of unique contingencies (i.e., reaction conditions), and the goal is to discover what those specific reaction conditions were and/or would have to be.

   Then I reject the premise.  In my mind this is a futile argument, akin to “what if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object” scenario. We are arguing about the probable outcome to an impossible scenario.

But there's no basis for doing so.  Even YEC probability arguments still have a positive, non-zero value.  Every possible arrangement of matter will occur if there is sufficient time and space.  So, you can't argue against that. 

*But saying that doesn't prove that there was enough space and time to accomplish this in our universe! (that's what you can reject, and it would seem the burden of proof is on those who would say otherwise to demonstrate that our universe meets such conditions)

Lol, what "side" is "my side"?  Regardless, you'll be happy to hear that you're mistaken on a couple of points: (1) "Evolutionists" do not change the time scale willy-nilly or add time to solve problems, and, in fact, about half a century ago believed the universe was up to 100 billion years old, but based on scientific evidence now believe it is only about 13.7 billion years old. (2) No need to keep pressing the improbability argument.  Now there's pretty much a consensus on this (and rare agreement between YECs and many scientists): "Solving" the origin of life on earth by random chance is not a solution, but tantamount to invoking miracles.  You must have missed my discussion on this in post #86.

@Kjvav  See both #86 and #88 (both paragraphs)

Simple doesn't mean you've achieved a correct view about anything; if the problem is complex or simple, the answer requires all the variables it requires regardless if it causes the complexity to grow.

In reply to both you & tbwp10, I was merely pointing out that given the finite possibility of some event or outcome occurring, it's only a matter of time before such an event/outcome becomes probabilistically likely.

As much as anything, it was intended to remind our religious members (especially the Creationists) that's it's not safe to come to a settled conclusion about the 'inevitable' existence of some creator-deity on the basis of the improbability of our exquisitely balanced Cosmos or the intractible problem of abiogenesis.

On the issue of abiogenesis, I like to remind Creationists in particular that our solar system & star are remarkably ordinary in Cosmic terms & for all we know the necessary condtions for life may well have existed on billions of similar planets during the life of our Universe but life only began on this one.

If this planet had not been suitable for the kick-starting of life, we wouldn't be here to discuss the subject.

   Many people will learn on Judgement Day just how dangerous the opposite position was.

There's a certain tyranny of thought that underscores comments (or do I mean threats?) like that.

It's a little like saying, suppress the natural instinct of your mind to seek the most reasonable explanations for the as yet unexplained phemonena in the Universe & instead wrap yourself in my dogma, else suffer the consequences when the time arrives!

But the religious usually fail to see the fault in their thinking because if all 'Gods' are no more than myth, our skepticism is warranted.

By contrast, if some 'God' does in fact exist & created Man, we were created with the sense of curiosity and doubt that we're displaying here & not merely accepting of someone else's dogma like an evolved automaton.

This is why the warning to accept what many find too incredible to believe sounds utterly hollow. It may well be that 'God' looks more favourably upon those that question & doubt what they're told, than those who merely accept it blindly?

   And we are back to my oft repeated statement that ones position on this subject is a spiritual decision. Are you ready to admit that yet?

"spiritual decision"? That seems like the rather lazy alternative to investing some serious thinking time & effort into reaching a balanced decision on the likelyhood of there being a creator-deity.

I prefer the latter & I don't begin to know how someone who has serious & substantial doubts about such a message, simply sets those doubts aside.

   Let me tell you something, Stephen, I’ve put more serious and substantial thought into my life with Christ and my knowledge and faith in the Scriptures than I imagine you have into your unbelief or you study into Theoretical Biology or the myriad of non-creative explanations of the Universe. I read it every day. I spend my money on books about it and then actually read them . I’ve studied it for most of my life. This post is a temporary diversion from my studies as we speak. I’ve sat and listened to it’s precepts being taught for 4 hours a week, every week for decades. I’ve taught it to all age groups from kindergarteners to retirement centers and nursing homes and Sunday School and Sunday morning and evening services and brought messages and Wednesday prayer meetings.

   Please dispense with the “I’m a believer in Scientists and so I’m a big thinker” nonsense. You're not the only one who’s put a little effort into what you believe.