Philosophy Now Forum

wisdomlover wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:06 pm Premise #1: Life was created from a completely random process.
Premise #2: No finite being can create anything that is completely random.
Therefore: Life was created by an infinite being.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:05 pm

wisdomlover wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:06 pm Premise #1: Life was created from a completely random process.
Premise #2: No finite being can create anything that is completely random.
Therefore: Life was created by an infinite being.

Your argument takes the form of A or B (or an unstated C); not A, therefore B. Both premises can be true without the conclusion being true because you haven't considered life not being created by any singular being at all. So we can skip the question of whether the premises are true (because the 'completely random' bit is weak too) because the argument as it stands isn't valid.

you could make it valid with an additional premise I suppose. but It has to be either:
Premise #3: Life was created by a being (which makes the argument viciously circular) or...
Premise #3: All completely random processes are beings (which isn't very realistic)

wisdomlover wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:08 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:05 pm

wisdomlover wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:06 pm Premise #1: Life was created from a completely random process.
Premise #2: No finite being can create anything that is completely random.
Therefore: Life was created by an infinite being.

Your argument takes the form of A or B (or an unstated C); not A, therefore B. Both premises can be true without the conclusion being true because you haven't considered life not being created by any singular being at all. So we can skip the question of whether the premises are true (because the 'completely random' bit is weak too) because the argument as it stands isn't valid.

you could make it valid with an additional premise I suppose. but It has to be either:
Premise #3: Life was created by a being (which makes the argument viciously circular) or...
Premise #3: All completely random processes are beings (which isn't very realistic)

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:05 pm So we can skip the question of whether the premises are true (because the 'completely random' bit is weak too) because the argument as it stands isn't valid.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:19 pm He works in mysterious ways right? Maybe that's the only way he knows how to go.

wisdomlover wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:06 pm All the classic proofs of the existence of god are old and worn out -- the first cause argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, etc. They have been refuted so many times, it's like beating a dead horse to think about them.

Sitting there on his throne, dismayed that fewer and fewer people believe I him, god thinks it's time for people to ponder a fresh new proof. Why he chose to reveal it to me, I don't know. He works in mysterious ways. Here it is:

Premise #1: Life was created from a completely random process.
Premise #2: No finite being can create anything that is completely random.
Therefore: Life was created by an infinite being.

Both premises call for some discussion, but rather than anticipate what people might need more information about, I'll just leave it simple for now and see if there's a response.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:30 pm The probability that we exist due to the desires of an all-powerful God has to be less than the probability we exist solely through natural processes. This is because the probability for something is the number of ways for a successful outcome, divided by the number of all possible outcomes. So, let's assume the probability of us existing is 1 divided by some large number, N, where N are all of the natural possible outcomes, from the one where we exist as we do now, to those in which we do not exist at all. Now, no matter how small that probability is, it still is larger than the probability we came into existence through an all-powerful God. This is because the denominator in such an event would have to be infinite. This is because an all-powerful God can presumably do an infinite variety of things, where creating us is simply one possibility among an infinite number of possibilities. This means the probability for us existing due to an all-powerful God is 0. The limit of 1/N as N approaches infinity is 0, and that's what we have for anyone claiming we exist due to the decision of an all-powerful God.

The math tells us it is more rational to believe we exist due to solely natural causes as opposed to supernatural ones involving an all-powerful God.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:25 pm Atto: In such a case, God is wiped out of existence and replaced with nature itself, so nothing about the math would change. The math specifically referenced those who claim a God exists that is all-powerful and can do anything. The probability of our existence being due to such a God is 0.

I just get tired of people claiming that our existence must be dependent on some all-powerful God, when the math tells us that this simply isn't so. If people learned how to think more like mathematicians, we could rid the world of such childish claims and move on from there to something more important.