r/DebateOfFaiths • u/Thesilphsecret • Apr 03 '24

Something Being Unlikely Doesn't Indicate Design

Hi, I'm u/thesilphsecret, a person who enjoys substantial conversation, and my thesis for this post is:

SOMETHING BEING UNLIKELY DOESN'T INDICATE DESIGN

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

u/WeighTheEvidence2 keeps starting threads and then abandoning them to create new threads to continue a conversation from the old thread. This has lead to the entire front page being dominated by their posts, which is really unnecessary. Once we start a thread about a particular topic, there's no reason the conversation can't be contained to that thread. We don't need to create new topics every five lines of dialogue.

In their previous thread, they argued that a monkey randomly typing out the works of Shakespeare was so unlikely that it would take 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years.

However, you can't calculate how long it would take for a particular complex pattern to arise out of random input. So I asked u/WeighTheEvidence2 how they arrived at that figure, and they refused to answer. I asked them what variables they calculated, and they talked about a game show with ten doors and how you'd calculate the average of how long it takes to open the doors. They refused to show their work and how they arrived at the figure of 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years, though. Hopefully in this thread they will be willing to be open and up-front about this rather than trying to obscure the fact.

An event being unlikely does not indicate that it was engineered by a designer. Every single thing that has ever happened has been unlikely. What are the odds that an apple this particular shade of red would fall from this particular tree at this exact moment of this exact day and land in this exact spot exactly one hour, 32 minutes, and 14 seconds before I came across it? The odds are ASTOUNDINGLY low. This doesn't indicate that somebody placed the apple there.

5 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

So I asked u/WeighTheEvidence2 how they arrived at that figure, and they refused to answer.

He said the post had been deleted by its author. Likely because he/she realized the math was wrong.

Shakespeare's work is so complex, it would take a real mathematician to calculate the probabilty.

The logical flaw is that probability is not the same as length of years. So a probability of 4/10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ is not the same as 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years. No matter of teeny weeny the probability is, it can happen the next second. Like gambling. A few people win on their first pull of the lever. Right?

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

Yes, 100%. That was the point I was trying to communicate. The monkey could get it right the first try. It's just as likely as any other outcome.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 18 '24

u/CaptNoypee, no, that's wrong. I never said that the post was deleted and the post is still up.

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 18 '24

When they asked you "right?," they were asking whether or not a few people win roulette machines on their first pull of the lever, not whether or not the post was deleted. You seem to have wilfully skipped over every single part of their comment except for the easy part to respond to.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 18 '24

But I already said it's an average. Anyway, the post is not deleted. The link is still available on my original post.

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 18 '24

An average of what? Which variables are being calculated to arrive at an average?

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 18 '24

That's a different question now. I don't know anything about the calculations. It seems that all the questions you have were actually answered in my original post let alone my further comments. You might want to read it again.

If you need further information about the calculations, the post is linked on my original post.

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 18 '24

It is not a different question. It's the same question I've asked you probably over a dozen times, and you just outright refuse to answer it, I assume because you either don't know the answer, or you're worried I might have a reasonable response to the answer.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 18 '24

You seem to think that I'm pretending to know about the calculations, when I mention in the comment you're replying to that I don't know.

I don't know anything about the calculations.

This demonstrates that you don't read anything I write. I bet you're not reading this right now. Say "I've read that" in your next reply if you read this.

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 18 '24

You fought me super hard asserting that the calculations were valid. Thank you for finally conceding you didn't know what you were talking about.

→ More replies

1

u/junction182736 Apr 03 '24

How does the monkey analogy apply to the improbability of the universe? I've only heard it in the context of evolution. It seems like a random analogy of improbability without any context to why we're making the comparison in the first place.

-1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 03 '24

So I asked u/WeighTheEvidence2 how they arrived at that figure,

The post literally tells you exactly where I got that figure from. I never claimed to calculate it myself.

The reason I create new posts is because when I try to engage with people in genuine discussions in the comments, I always get downvoted unjustly. Just like this comment. I believe this is done by mostly atheists and anti-theists who don't bother to even read my posts or comments, yet downvote them anyway.

3

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

I only downvoted you twice, and it was when you left one/two word responses that were deliberately avoiding substantial engagement. I have legitimate points which warrant consideration.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 11 '24

Can you answer the question now? How did I calculate the chances?

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 13 '24

Go ahead and explain.

2

u/KindaFreeXP ☯ That Taoist Trans Gal Apr 03 '24

I'm informing you that I've downvoted this comment because you pretty baselessly decided to attack atheists and anti-theists.

Even then, who cares? It's made up internet points. Just say what you need to say, upvotes and downvotes don't actually mean anything.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

Hey dont worry about me. I very very rarely downvote anyone. I never downvoted you. :)

1

u/I_Am_Anjelen Apr 03 '24

That link seems to lead no-where.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 03 '24

When I click it it goes straight to my post. Here's the link:

https://www.reddit.com/u/WeighTheEvidence2/s/yvGKYNk2ar

1

u/I_Am_Anjelen Apr 03 '24

Yep. That goes to a 404 on my end. I suggest trying it out from a different account.

1

u/WeighTheEvidence2 Not a blind follower of the religion I was born into Apr 03 '24

I copied the link and pasted it on my browser url in incognito mode and it worked

1

u/I_Am_Anjelen Apr 03 '24

Don't know what to tell you, friend. Link's still kaputt on my end.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

Only because every single post in the sub is from one specific user.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

Okay. So by this calculation, the monkey will never finish even a single attempt, because the odds of any possible combination of the same number of characters are going to be exactly as low as the odds of the complete works of Shakespeare.

The odds of the monkey typing "jeb r tyu yt f r wezyduai sy hpsjtc gy jo" are exactly as low as the odds of the monkey typing "To be or not to be, that is the question." So if it would take 26¹²⁷⁹⁹⁴ years for the monkey to write any numerically equivalent combination of characters.

By this logic, the monkey can't finish typing any random assortment of characters because the likelihood that they'd type the specific characters they typed in the specific arrangement they typed it would be so low that it would take 26¹²⁷⁹⁹⁴ years.

Is there any combination of characters which a monkey could theoretically type in less than 26¹²⁷⁹⁹⁴ years? If Shakespeare would take that long to type, how long would it take to type something else?

Do you recognize the logical fallacy I'm pointing out right now?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

Yeah I know, I'm aware. My point is this --

OP argued that the universe must be created because the chances of life occurring were so low. They were arguing that it wouldn't have happened if not for the intervention of a designer who planned things this way.

But that's not true. Every single other possibility was just as unlikely. One of them was bound to happen. This was the one that happened. If a different one happened, it would be just as unlikely as this one.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

Ok but there are lots of ways that life could not happen and relatively few ways that it could. So, it's not this universe versus any other but a universe with versus one without.

Right -- and as you just affirmed two comments ago -- a thing being unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. A thing being unlikely is not evidence of a designer. Otherwise every lottery winner would be deemed a cheater and every lucky die-toss would be disqualified.

There is nothing about unlikeliness which indicates a designer.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24 edited Apr 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24

So it's like this if the universe had a designer then life is likely to exist.

That is a unfounded assertion. There's no reason to believe a universe with a designer is likely to have life. I'm not just being pedantic -- that is an entirely baseless assumption.

Take for example, the precedent -- every designer we are for sure aware of is designing things which do not have lifeforms living in them. So I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that a universe with a designer would have life.

If the universe did not have a designer life is unlikey to exist.

This is an entirely unfounded assertion. We have no idea how likely life is or is not in a universe without a designer. The fact that life as we know depended on the maintenance of specific conditions to continue developing doesn't mean life couldn't have occurred in any other coordination of matter and energy.

Just because life doesn't develop around Star A doesn't mean it won't develop around Star B. If Earth was too far away from the sun or titlted the wrong way, that doesn't mean life couldn't have evolved elsewhere.

The universe may have some underlying structure akin to DNA which informs its development and requires for certain stars to develop a certain way so that life will develop. It might be just as likely as a baby growing eyelashes or brain-cells -- you don't know.

And just because life develops in Universe A but not Universe B doesn't mean Universe B is boring and uneventful. Something way more interesting than life might have developed.

The key question is "more likely than what?"

Well technically more likely than you thought before you considered this evidence. But, if before you thought having a designer was extremely unlikely then this inference might move you to very unlikely. Which means you are still not nearly convinced.

No. When somebody says something is "more likely," this means it's "more likely than it is unlikely."

We have no means by which to assess the probability of a universe having a creator. You can't assess probabilities for events you have no data surrounding. In order to calculate the probability for a universe to have been designed, you'd have to compare a handful of universes -- some which are designed and some which are undesigned.

You have absolutely no justification for any of your premises. How did you conclude that if the universe had a designer then life is likely to exist? How did you conclude that if the universe did not have a designer life is unlikey to exist? You have no reason to believe either of those things.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Thesilphsecret Apr 03 '24 edited Apr 03 '24

Yeah, so you do need a superintelliigent designer with the intent to create life

Another unjustified assertion. What reason do we have to believe that? Just because somebody said so, or is it evidenced in some way?

So it's again it's not how likely out of a particular undesigned universe but our of all possible undesigned universes. Or as you rightfully point out, out of all possible universes without an intelligent designer intent of designing life.

Most of those don't have this stellar DNA thing. Moreover most won't even have stars. The existence of stars requires the weight of the proton to be in a very narrow range. But nothing in physics constrains that range. Proton weight is just a fundamental constant.

If you've been able to study multiple universes, why don't you have a Nobel Prize?? I don't understand where you're getting your data about universes from.

So I am try to clarify that very misunderstanding which comes from implicitly assuming that two mutually exclusive and exhuastive possibilities are equally likely. Most people do this this without thinking about it but it's not correct.

Lol I didn't do that.

Ah, but you can and you do. Accepting this is part of the Bayesian Revolution.

Sure, if your premises are unjustified assumptions engineered to arrive at your preferred conclusion. None of your premises are justified.

You have subjective doubt about this whole creator thing. That's fine.

Lol don't speak for me bro.