Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

I would also assume then that the rational position to take would be to have no position, that is the agnostic position.

Then, being rational, we are both agnostic towards alien life forms. OK

Actually, the new field of astrobiology reveals that the probability of life elsewhere is quite remote, if not impossible.

Remote I'll accept. Impossible, no. It happened once, at least. Therefore it is not impossible.

If the only life in the entire Universe was on Earth, would you say it has any implications on the existence of a god?

No. Humans are the only known life form with language. Therefore god?

As with the features found in the room specifically tailored for a baby girl, we find parameters in our universe specifically set for life to exist. One compilation of parameters is from Hugh Ross:

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

Yes, life is adapted to the universe that it has found itself in. Not the other way around.

Lisewise then, multiverse is unknowable and thus cannot exist.

The multiverse is unknowable. I have not claimed that something unknowable cannot exist, have I. Just that one can only make as few positive claims about an unknowable entity as is required, including its very existence.

[otseng]

I would also assume then that the rational position to take would be to have no position, that is the agnostic position.

Then, being rational, we are both agnostic towards alien life forms. OK

I'm not actually agnostic towards alien life forms because I can also present evidence that they would be highly improbable. Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of any aliens existing, the position that no such aliens actually exist is more defensible than aliens actually existing.

Actually, the new field of astrobiology reveals that the probability of life elsewhere is quite remote, if not impossible.

Remote I'll accept. Impossible, no. It happened once, at least. Therefore it is not impossible.

Simply because something happened once does not mean it can happen twice. For example, just because I exist, that doesn't mean there is a copy of myself somewhere else in the Universe.

If the only life in the entire Universe was on Earth, would you say it has any implications on the existence of a god?

No. Humans are the only known life form with language. Therefore god?

Well, I'm not sure that humans is the only life with language, but I'll let it pass.

OK, I'll expound on why I believe that if life is limited on Earth, then it would have implications on the existence of God.

If the only life in the entire Universe is found on Earth, then it would disprove the Mediocrity Principle.

Wikipedia's statement of the mediocrity principle:
"The assumptions of mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth."

"The Mediocrity Principle implies by extension that there is no “cosmic destiny� or significance associated with the Earth, the human race, or any particular individual. This is at odds with the teachings of most religions – indeed it is offensive to the innate human desire to know some higher purpose.

Theistic religions generally posit a God who takes a special interest in mankind, and for whom the Earth is a stage for events of cosmic importance."
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Th ... _Principle

Earth and humans would be quite special if we are it in the entire Universe. And as skeptic wiki acknowledges, if we are special, then it would be most compatible with the concept of a god.

Further, it would seriously challenge the notion that life can come about and evolve in a naturalistic process if life is not found anywhere else outside of Earth. This would also be evidence that life is a result of an intelligent entity that created life.

Yes, life is adapted to the universe that it has found itself in. Not the other way around.

It is the physical constants that comes first and would be a prerequisite for life. If the conditions were not at the proper parameters, life would not be possible at all. So, the order is not as you suggest.

I have not claimed that something unknowable cannot exist, have I.

Then I misunderstood. I then agree that just because something is unknowable that doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Just that one can only make as few positive claims about an unknowable entity as is required, including its very existence.

The only things I claim about God is that it can create and is intelligent (and of course it exists).

[McCulloch]

I would agree that if no evidence is presented for the existence or nonexistence of something, stating that such an entity exists or not exists would be presumptuous.

I would also assume then that the rational position to take would be to have no position, that is the agnostic position.

Then, being rational, we are both agnostic towards alien life forms. OK

I'm not actually agnostic towards alien life forms because I can also present evidence that they would be highly improbable. Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of any aliens existing, the position that no such aliens actually exist is more defensible than aliens actually existing.

There has been no evidence presented for the existence or nonexistence of extraterrestrial life forms. We both agree that life forms in the universe are highly improbable. We also both agree that life, in a fair degree of variety, exists in at least one place in the universe.
A highly improbable event has therefore occurred at least once. Given the vast size of the universe, it should be presumptuous to assert that such an event could not possibly have occurred once more, unless you make the unwarranted a priori assumption that this event occurred by the deliberate intervention of a supernatural being.

Actually, the new field of astrobiology reveals that the probability of life elsewhere is quite remote, if not impossible.

Remote I'll accept. Impossible, no. It happened once, at least. Therefore it is not impossible.

Simply because something happened once does not mean it can happen twice. For example, just because I exist, that doesn't mean there is a copy of myself somewhere else in the Universe.

Nor does it mean that there is not. Just because the development of life is highly improbable, does not mean that it could have only happened once.

If the only life in the entire Universe was on Earth, would you say it has any implications on the existence of a god?

No. Humans are the only known life form with language. Therefore god?

Well, I'm not sure that humans is the only life with language, but I'll let it pass.

I define language as a form of communication using words, each with a particular meaning and structured with system of rules and principles known as grammar or syntax. A key property of language is that the meaning (semantics) of the symbols are arbitrary. Many other species have forms of communication, but they are not syntactically or semantically complex enough to be called a true language.

However, my objection is that you seem to be jumping to a conclusion. What if the only life in the entire universe was on Earth? Yes, so what? The uniqueness of a feature does not indicate that it was deliberately designed.

OK, I'll expound on why I believe that if life is limited on Earth, then it would have implications on the existence of God.

If the only life in the entire Universe is found on Earth, then it would disprove the Mediocrity Principle.

Wikipedia's statement of the mediocrity principle:
"The assumptions of mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth."

"The Mediocrity Principle implies by extension that there is no “cosmic destiny� or significance associated with the Earth, the human race, or any particular individual. This is at odds with the teachings of most religions – indeed it is offensive to the innate human desire to know some higher purpose.

Theistic religions generally posit a God who takes a special interest in mankind, and for whom the Earth is a stage for events of cosmic importance."
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Th ... _Principle

Earth and humans would be quite special if we are it in the entire Universe. And as skeptic wiki acknowledges, if we are special, then it would be most compatible with the concept of a god.

Yes, I see. It seems as though, for your deity hypothesis it is necessary that life and humanity on Earth be unique in the universe. So you must establish that this uniqueness exists or at least is highly probable. On the other hand, the various non-theistic hypotheses are agnostic towards humanity's uniqueness. If life on earth is unique in the universe, that has as much implication to non-theistic cosmology as the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk.

Further, it would seriously challenge the notion that life can come about and evolve in a naturalistic process if life is not found anywhere else outside of Earth. This would also be evidence that life is a result of an intelligent entity that created life.

The fact that we have not found evidence of life is consistent with all cosmological options being discussed. Given that we both admit that life is improbable and that the scope of our investigation is quite narrow (we can only detect earth like planets within a certain range and many life forms would escape our detection), it is not surprising that we have not found any evidence.

Yes, life is adapted to the universe that it has found itself in. Not the other way around.

It is the physical constants that comes first and would be a prerequisite for life. If the conditions were not at the proper parameters, life would not be possible at all. So, the order is not as you suggest.

You mean that if things were different, then we would not be here? We're back to the fine-tuned universe argument.

Just that one can only make as few positive claims about an unknowable entity as is required, including its very existence.

The only things I claim about God is that it can create and is intelligent (and of course it exists).

That is a few more than is required. If we were to accept a teleological arguments, we are still left with the unwarranted assumption on the part of the theists that this god is an intelligent and intentional anthropomorphized designer

[otseng]

There has been no evidence presented for the existence or nonexistence of extraterrestrial life forms. We both agree that life forms in the universe are highly improbable. We also both agree that life, in a fair degree of variety, exists in at least one place in the universe.

If we are not able to say if life is probable or improbable, then one can remain agnostic towards alien life. If life is highly probable, then one can rationally lean towards the position of extraterrestrial life possibly existing. Since that is not the case, and that life is highly improbable, it would be more rational to take the position that extraterrestrial life do not exist.

A highly improbable event has therefore occurred at least once.

But what is to explain the occurrence of a highly improbable event? We already have a sequence of highly improbable events (life originating, precise value of critical density and 92 other fine-tuning parameters). We start to reach the realm of being so remotely improbable that it would be practically impossible even with the scale of the Universe in time and size.

Given the vast size of the universe, it should be presumptuous to assert that such an event could not possibly have occurred once more, unless you make the unwarranted a priori assumption that this event occurred by the deliberate intervention of a supernatural being.

No, it's not an a priori assumption that God exists. Is is simply one of the explanations on the table. And as far as I know, the only other one is random chance.

Nor does it mean that there is not. Just because the development of life is highly improbable, does not mean that it could have only happened once.

The odds of life arising by naturalistic processes once is highly improbable. The odds do not remain the same for it to occur by chance more than once. Rather, it would be even more improbable that it occurred more than once.

Yes, I see. It seems as though, for your deity hypothesis it is necessary that life and humanity on Earth be unique in the universe.

Rather, it is the other way around. The lack of ETs supports the position of a supernatural creator. It is not because I posit a god that I also need to posit that no aliens exist. It is the evidence (and lack of evidence) that supports the position that no alien life exists. And that this further supports the position of a deity.

On the other hand, the various non-theistic hypotheses are agnostic towards humanity's uniqueness.

Not so, one of the assumptions of modern cosmology is based upon a variation of the mediocrity principle - the Copernican principle.

"In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

The Copernican principle specifically states that human are not privileged observers in the Universe. If there are no alien life that exists, the Copernican principle would also be falsified, since we would be the only observers in the Universe.

If life on earth is unique in the universe, that has as much implication to non-theistic cosmology as the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk.

As I've shown, it would undermine a foundational assumption of modern cosmology.

Given that we both admit that life is improbable and that the scope of our investigation is quite narrow (we can only detect earth like planets within a certain range and many life forms would escape our detection), it is not surprising that we have not found any evidence.

Before mankind embarked on finding extraterrestrial life, it was commonly assumed that life would exist elsewhere.

"Many astronomers and other secular thinkers, at least some religious thinkers, and much of the general public were largely satisfied that aliens were a reality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

But, as we've explored the planets in our solar system and studied the requirements for life, that expectation has been scaled down. So much so now that expectations is that we should not expect to detect or find anything.

Yes, life is adapted to the universe that it has found itself in. Not the other way around.

It is the physical constants that comes first and would be a prerequisite for life. If the conditions were not at the proper parameters, life would not be possible at all. So, the order is not as you suggest.

You mean that if things were different, then we would not be here? We're back to the fine-tuned universe argument.

Yes, that was what I was presenting - Ross' list of fine-tuning parameters in response to your request of my baby analogy.

[McCulloch]

There has been no evidence presented for the existence or nonexistence of extraterrestrial life forms. We both agree that life forms in the universe are highly improbable. We also both agree that life, in a fair degree of variety, exists in at least one place in the universe.

If we are not able to say if life is probable or improbable, then one can remain agnostic towards alien life. If life is highly probable, then one can rationally lean towards the position of extraterrestrial life possibly existing. Since that is not the case, and that life is highly improbable, it would be more rational to take the position that extraterrestrial life do not exist.

Here is how probability works. The probability that your birthday is February 23 somewhere about 1 in 365. Quite low. Get 400 people, randomly selected, and the probability that someone's birthday is February 23 is quite high. (Somewhere about 2 in 3.) The probability of life on any specific planet, we agree is very low. Since we don't know the process that brought about life, we cannot accurately define just how low, but suffice it to say, it is quite low, but not zero. It happened at least once. Now, the universe is vastly large. There are a lot of planets. So the probability that there is life somewhere out there is something like (1-(1-p)^n) where p is a very small number less than 1 and greater than zero and n is a very very large number. I don't know the value of p, or of n for that matter, so I don't know what the probability that there is life out there is.

A highly improbable event has therefore occurred at least once.

But what is to explain the occurrence of a highly improbable event? We already have a sequence of highly improbable events (life originating, precise value of critical density and 92 other fine-tuning parameters). We start to reach the realm of being so remotely improbable that it would be practically impossible even with the scale of the Universe in time and size.

I find the list of 92 fine tuning parameters somewhat deceiving.

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental. It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
Notes:
Livio, M., D. Hollowell, A. Weiss and J. Truran. 1989. The anthropic significance of the existence of an excited state of 12C. Nature 340: 281-284.
Nakamura, Takashi, H. Uehara, and T. Chiba. 1997. The minimum mass of the first stars and the anthropic principle. Progress of Theoretical Physics 97: 169-171. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9612113

The above from Talk Origins Archive.

The remoteness of the possibility is quite overstated.

No, it's not an a priori assumption that God exists. Is is simply one of the explanations on the table. And as far as I know, the only other one is random chance.

I guess that you have not been listening. We have three explanations on the table, and none of them is random chance.

The odds of life arising by naturalistic processes once is highly improbable.

Without knowing the process, it is quite difficult to determine just how improbable.

The odds do not remain the same for it to occur by chance more than once. Rather, it would be even more improbable that it occurred more than once.

I suggest that you review elementary statistics.

Yes, I see. It seems as though, for your deity hypothesis it is necessary that life and humanity on Earth be unique in the universe.

Rather, it is the other way around. The lack of ETs supports the position of a supernatural creator. It is not because I posit a god that I also need to posit that no aliens exist. It is the evidence (and lack of evidence) that supports the position that no alien life exists. And that this further supports the position of a deity.

The lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is consistent with both a divine and a naturalistic process for abiogenetics. The naturalistic hypothesis allows for ET and some forms of the theistic do not. That's all.

On the other hand, the various non-theistic hypotheses are agnostic towards humanity's uniqueness.

Not so, one of the assumptions of modern cosmology is based upon a variation of the mediocrity principle - the Copernican principle.

"In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

The Copernican principle specifically states that human are not privileged observers in the Universe. If there are no alien life that exists, the Copernican principle would also be falsified, since we would be the only observers in the Universe.

If life on earth is unique in the universe, that has as much implication to non-theistic cosmology as the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk.

As I've shown, it would undermine a foundational assumption of modern cosmology.

So you believe that the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk is evidence of the divine design? Anyway, this particular debate is moot, unless I win. If we find evidence of extraterrestrial life, then I win. If we don't, there still remains a possibility that there may be some, in a galaxy far away.

Given that we both admit that life is improbable and that the scope of our investigation is quite narrow (we can only detect earth like planets within a certain range and many life forms would escape our detection), it is not surprising that we have not found any evidence.

Before mankind embarked on finding extraterrestrial life, it was commonly assumed that life would exist elsewhere.

Yeah, I've seen Star Trek too.

But, as we've explored the planets in our solar system and studied the requirements for life, that expectation has been scaled down. So much so now that expectations is that we should not expect to detect or find anything.

Yes, that's how science works. Knock down the assumptions, tighten the parameters as we gain more data.

[otseng]

Here is how probability works. The probability that your birthday is February 23 somewhere about 1 in 365. Quite low. Get 400 people, randomly selected, and the probability that someone's birthday is February 23 is quite high. (Somewhere about 2 in 3.)

I don't see how that applies to the probability of alien life.

The probability of life on any specific planet, we agree is very low. Since we don't know the process that brought about life, we cannot accurately define just how low, but suffice it to say, it is quite low, but not zero.

Yes, I agree that it is very small finite number.

But let me give an illustration.

Suppose I am in an enclosed and barren room with no windows. There is nothing in the room except a TV and another person. The person asks me if it'll rain tomorrow. If I predict correctly, I will win $100. If I predict incorrectly, I will lose $100. Since I have no knowledge of the weather forecast, it would be a 50/50 chance. I would be agnostic of the weather tomorrow since I have no evidence either way. But, if I turn on the TV and hear from a weather forecaster that there is a 99% chance of rain tomorrow, then I will reply that it'll rain tomorrow. Sure, there is a finite chance that it will not rain, but it would be more rational to say that it will rain than it will not rain.

It happened at least once. Now, the universe is vastly large. There are a lot of planets.

There might be a lot of planets. Or there might not be. No one really know. But from what we know so far, there is not any evidence of any being hospitable for life.

so I don't know what the probability that there is life out there is.

Hugh Ross has given a ballpark guess at the necessary requirements for life to exist (not to mention the odds of life arising).

Galaxy type - .1
Star location - .2
Number of stars - .2
Star birth date - .2
Star age - .4
Star mass - .001
Star luminosity - .0001
Star color - .4
Supernova rates - .01
White dwarf rates - .05
Distance from star - .001
Inclination of orbit - .8
Axis tilt - .3
Rotation period - .1
Orbit eccentricity - .3
Surface gravity - .001
Tidal force - .1
Magnetic field - .01
Albedo - .1
Density - .1
Thickness of crust - .01
Oceans-to-continent ratio - .2
Asteroidal collision rate - .1
Atmospheric transparency - .01
Atmospheric pressure - .1
Atmospheric discharge rate - .1
Atmospheric temperature gradient - .01
Carbon dioxide level - .01
Oxygen quantity - .01
Ozone quantity - .01
Oxygen to nitrogen ratio - .1
Quantity of greenhouse gases - .01
Seismic activity - .1

Total probability: 10^-42

(Source: The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, pg 134)

These values are quite conservatives estimates.

Given a guess of 10²² planets in the universe, the odds of a single planet having all these is 10^-20. This number is quite small. The number of seconds the universe has existed is no more than 10¹⁸.

As for abiogenesis, the odds of this happening is unknown. But whatever the odds that turns out to be, it would make the odds of life occurring even more remote.

I find the list of 92 fine tuning parameters somewhat deceiving.

This is only one person's list. That there are a number of fine-tuning parameters that exist is without dispute. Some can come up with a smaller list or a larger list. The point is that there are a number of fine-tuning parameters. Sure, some might later be found to have some correlation (or even be irrelevant), but it doesn't change the argument a whole lot. Even if we reduce the number to just one parameter (the critical density value), it requires an accuracy of 1 in 10⁵⁹.

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental. It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. (Emphasis mine)

Sure, these assertions may be true, but it equally may not be true.

I guess that you have not been listening. We have three explanations on the table, and none of them is random chance.

The context was life on other planets. And that is what I'm referring to by random chance. Is there another naturalistic explanation other than random chance for life to originate on other planets?

I suggest that you review elementary statistics.

OK, let's review it.

What are the odds of heads showing up for a two-sided (head/tails) coin with one toss? 1/2.

What are the odds of two heads showing up with two tosses? 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.

Let's extend that to the odds of alien life occurring in the universe. Suppose it is 1/10⁵⁰ chance. The odds of it occurring once in the universe would be 1/10⁵⁰. The odds of it occurring twice would be 1/10⁵⁰ * 1/10⁵⁰ = 1/10¹⁰⁰.

So you believe that the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk is evidence of the divine design?

I do not see how an elephant's truck is apropos to the debate.

Anyway, this particular debate is moot, unless I win.

Debate is moot unless you win?

If we find evidence of extraterrestrial life, then I win. If we don't, there still remains a possibility that there may be some, in a galaxy far away.

My prediction is that nothing will be found. If one is found, sure, you win.

[McCulloch]

Here is how probability works. The probability that your birthday is February 23 somewhere about 1 in 365. Quite low. Get 400 people, randomly selected, and the probability that someone's birthday is February 23 is quite high. (Somewhere about 2 in 3.)

I don't see how that applies to the probability of alien life.

The more planets there are, the greater the probability that there will be life. So, lets assume that the probability that life could arise in a star system is one in 8 trillion.

That means that the probability that there would be life on star system in a galaxy the size of ours is about 4.8% and that there would be two at about 0.1%, with the total probability of life in the galaxy at about 4.9%.

There are probably 170 billion (1.7 × 10^11) galaxies in the observable universe. So the expected number of galaxies with life, based on these assumptions is 8.3 billion.

Now, lets assume the probability of life even smaller. If the probability of life in a star system were one in 800 trillion, then the expected number of galaxies in the universe with at least one planet with life would be almost 84 million.

You see, while the probability of life in any one specific place is infinitesimally small, the vastness of the universe can make it quite likely.

[McCulloch]

Hugh Ross has given a ballpark guess at the necessary requirements for life to exist (not to mention the odds of life arising).

Galaxy type - .1
Star location - .2
Number of stars - .2
Star birth date - .2
Star age - .4
Star mass - .001
Star luminosity - .0001
Star color - .4
Supernova rates - .01
White dwarf rates - .05
Distance from star - .001
Inclination of orbit - .8
Axis tilt - .3
Rotation period - .1
Orbit eccentricity - .3
Surface gravity - .001
Tidal force - .1
Magnetic field - .01
Albedo - .1
Density - .1
Thickness of crust - .01
Oceans-to-continent ratio - .2
Asteroidal collision rate - .1
Atmospheric transparency - .01
Atmospheric pressure - .1
Atmospheric discharge rate - .1
Atmospheric temperature gradient - .01
Carbon dioxide level - .01
Oxygen quantity - .01
Ozone quantity - .01
Oxygen to nitrogen ratio - .1
Quantity of greenhouse gases - .01
Seismic activity - .1

Total probability: 10^-42

(Source: The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, pg 134)

These values are quite conservatives estimates.

This creationist seems to be fudging his numbers to make his case, or does he not realize that under the current models of the origin of life, there was not sufficient free oxygen to support the current forms of life. The first life forms were anaerobic organisms. Eventually photosynthetic archaea and bacteria evolved, producing free oxygen first appeared in significant quantities during the Paleoproterozoic era driving most of the anaerobic organisms then living to extinction during the oxygen catastrophe about 2.4 billion years ago.

[McCulloch]

I find the list of 92 fine tuning parameters somewhat deceiving.

This is only one person's list. That there are a number of fine-tuning parameters that exist is without dispute. Some can come up with a smaller list or a larger list. The point is that there are a number of fine-tuning parameters. Sure, some might later be found to have some correlation (or even be irrelevant), but it doesn't change the argument a whole lot. Even if we reduce the number to just one parameter (the critical density value), it requires an accuracy of 1 in 10⁵⁹.

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

1. N = ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to that of gravity;
2. Epsilon = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
3. Omega = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe;
4. Lambda = cosmological constant;
5. Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
6. D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.

John Baez noted that the new Standard Model requires 25 fundamental dimensionless constants, whose numerical values are, to the best of present understanding, arbitrary.

However, the point is not about how many parameters there are, even though creationists deceptively try to multiply them, but how to explain them. We have three models that explain them on the table. Each of the models has difficulties. The God hypotheses explains this improbable event by positing an even more improbable entity. The multiple universe hypothesis explains this improbable event by positing that all possible universes exist in some kind of phase space. And the only possible universe hypothesis depends on as yet undiscovered fundamental principles.

I fail to see how emphasizing just how improbable the set of parameters is gets us any closer to determining an answer to how it occurred.

[McCulloch]

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental. It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. (Emphasis otseng)

Sure, these assertions may be true, but it equally may not be true.

Not equally. Probabilities of things such as these are seldom equal.

The context was life on other planets. And that is what I'm referring to by random chance. Is there another naturalistic explanation other than random chance for life to originate on other planets?

I don't know. However, random chance combined with natural selection and vast numbers could explain it. It could be that with a very very low probability of life in any star system and the vast number of stars and galaxies in the universe, that the expected number of life supporting planets in the observable universe is as low as one, or even less.

So you believe that the uniqueness of the elephant's trunk is evidence of the divine design?

I do not see how an elephant's truck is apropos to the debate.

It was in response to:

The Copernican principle specifically states that human are not privileged observers in the Universe. If there are no alien life that exists, the Copernican principle would also be falsified, since we would be the only observers in the Universe.

You seem to be twisting the Copernican principle. Our uniqueness is not necessarily indicative of our being in a privileged position.

Here is a set of random dots.

The fact that one fell near the central + does not change the fact that the dots were placed randomly. If the expected number of highly developed life forms in the universe is close to 1, it still does not mean that if we are the one that we necessarily inhabit a privileged spot.

Anyway, this particular debate is moot, unless I win.

Debate is moot unless you win?

Yes, limited only to the question of alien life forms. If we don't find any, neither of us can claim victory. If we do find one, I win.