Talk:Argument from Improbability

I think that there must be better "arguments from improbability". Possible contenders are the nearly identical subtended angles of the sun and earth's moon (.52 and .54 degrees), Euler's identity (<math>e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0, \,\!</math>), etc. (I copied the math from wikipedia, so I'm guessing it doesn't work here.) The first is sheer coincidence (unless there are significant, undiscovered constraints on star, planet, moon relationships) whereas the second is merely beautiful and somewhat surprising.

Ultimately, none of these are very compelling (to me), but unfortunately people are too stupid to realize that even if there is a god and it did create the universe, that doesn't mean that it intercedes in the universe. Viewing the world scientifically, I cannot prove the theory that god does not exist and I do not see disproof of the theory that god does exist, but I see sufficient evidence to convince me that the world's major religions are wrong. My conclusion is that any god that interacts with the world must be very, very weak or else has some serious flaws -- neither of which jibes with major world religions.

In any case, it might be worth noting that there are other arguments and even if you buy them, you shouldn't immediately jump to accepting divine scripture that trumps your ability to reason.--ransage 03:55, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

The unusual aspect of the human eyes design is that the light passes through the blood vessels that supply the cornea thus reducing the image quality; some other creatures (eagles?) do this properly and supply the blood from behind. That the image is projected upside down is a result of the eyes simple structure and is neither unexpected nor an example of poor design. Also, the structure of the brain is malleable enough that the image could be projected sideways and it would make no difference whatsoever to our vision.

Another absurdity in the argument from improbability

Somebody should add this to the article.

If the existence of a life-sustaining universe is unlikely, imagine how unlikely the existence of a God (which would have to be infinitely more complex) would have to be. Richard Dawkins calls this rebuttal the "Ultimate 747", alluding to creationists' analogy with the random creation of a Boeing 747.

something else

What about that fact that if humans are complex enough that they are improbable enough to need God, then God (who must therefore be more complex than humans, in order to have made them) must be even more improbable? This probably comes back to the argument by design principle, but is another dismissal of the improbability argument.

Something against this part: Argument from Improbability‏

Just using the brain, as you like.

You are right, natural selection explore all the ways, evenmore, chance does not exist in the nature (managed by rules w/o exceptions). Probability Theory in fact use to be, just a comfortable model for the reality.

=> Conclusion 1 : Earth was, it self, from the beginning (around 4.54 billion years ) the perfect machine to make life and intelligence in an inevitable way . So that, finally the storm did not built the boeing but even the factory.

=> Conclusion 2 : Shifting the argument to physical laws, the big-bang was in fact an explosion of intelligence, because all the rules (and constants) bore the causal existence of an universe self-conscious.

In the other hand, to conclude that something is so complex that someone else has put it there, does not need to answer anything about the origin for the complexity of the actor.