From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-05 11:47 a.m., sticks wrote:   
   [snip]   
      
   >   
   > The fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the   
   > implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.   
   > They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.  When   
   > you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine   
   > tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the way   
   > they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible from   
   > purely materialistic means.  Next they spend time on the Multiverse.  It   
   > is currently the best and really only alternative the naturalist has to   
   > counter the conclusions of the evidence the book presents as current   
   > scientific consensus.  I see why they did the chapter, especially since   
   > I personally think it is a batshit crazy idea, but it was not necessary   
   > to include it in the book.  It's a purely theoretical idea, and simply   
   > is not scientific.  To the materialist it just gives an example of   
   > something that might have happened since we know the supernatural   
   > doesn't.  It gives them more time.   
   >   
   > They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: The   
   > Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."  Again, the numbers are   
   > not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown   
   > by research to be effectively impossible.  As with the first two, the   
   > Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this   
   > mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.  An example is   
   > the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex   
   > molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the   
   > cosmic origins of life."  I would EXPECT findings like this and suggest   
   > it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really does   
   > nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.  It just gives them   
   > more time.   
   > [snip]   
   The problem I have with the 'fine tuning' argument is that it is based   
   on a sample of one and requires some unfounded assumptions to calculate   
   probabilities. Without making some assumptions we cannot get probabilities.   
      
   If I give you a bag of coloured marbles and you reach in and pull one   
   out and it is black, what is the prior probability that you would pick a   
   black marble? Well, you did pick one, so the probability was not zero.   
   And that is all you know without some assumptions.   
   Without knowing how many marbles and how may are black, then the   
   probability is somewhere between >0 and 1.   
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)