That seems a pretty safe assumption. I also assume that logic will work.
But why assume that these ideas work, and yet not simply believe a supreme intelligence is behind it all? You can neither see probabilities as you can't see supreme intelligence
But neither do I entirely reject a supreme being.
To me then, in the all inclusive definition of atheism etc, I would call you agnostic. You are too open to be atheist. Lift yourself up Willy, you're do'in fine!
This is one possible explanation. But it lacks evidence, explanatory power, & predictive value. So I pare it away as worth pursuing.
But a believer is evidence, living evidence. You are askign for a physical appearance of something which is not physical, so not a sound argument. It is always the failing of a purly materialistic mindset, like Dawkins.
The exceptional event of monkeys writing sonnets in a single universe isn't necessary for a strictly physical universe. So the OP proves nothing relevant to the intelligent creator issue.
It think it does. If monkeys cannot type a sonnet or book or whatever given enough time, why should we think that more complicated and bigger events should come about with time... the very thing which leads to the monkeys in the first place.
The mechanism varies with each system. If you study statistical mechanics (thermodynamics & quantum mechanics), you'll see how basic physical laws will cause gas molecules to behave in an orderly fashion. It's an inevitable emergent property of this system. Other systems will have other laws governing them, eg, economics.
It's like asking.... Why does statistical mechanics make the prediction of Boyle's Law? Tis because the gas molecules have the properties they have, & the physical laws are what they are, & the result is what it must be.
But that explains nothing. You are merely accepting what you see and leaving it at that. It's like someone leaves a dinner on your doorstep and you don't consider where it comes from, but just eat it. Surely mankind is more inquisitive than that?
I only observe what happens, & see that there are physical relationships. To ask why things are as they are, is to ask about something unobservable....so far. People are considering predictions of the multi-verse perspective, & designing experiments to verify them. But to ask the question of "why", & to find no satisfying material answer, does not mean we should leap to the conclusion that "God did it.".
But if not supreme-intelligence, then what? Luck? You see the problem. All these processes that are mentioned, some by you, all have to come about some way from something which is completely random. This is not realistic. Chaos is chaos is chaos. Why should it organise?
Meaning that a probability argument proves nothing if there are no good quantitative assumptions from which to calculate probability.
These are clever men than I that have worked these odds out.
Many modern & accepted ideas are old, & have non-science origins. Ideas are like a broken clock....at times, one will be considered right. Where Darwin made history is that for the first time, he offered a useful explanation (theory) for evolution.
But he only gave a physical mechanism for it. There is no reason as to ''why'' these processes would even exist or work in the first place. Explaining to me how a wall is built does nothing except that, it does not mean no one built it.
For things neither provable nor disprovable, everyone will have a personal perspective. Mine is the non-spiritual non-supernatural one.
so luck.... and that to me is the problem. Intelligence is the more obvious answer. You don't agree?
Again, one cannot say the odds are ridiculous if it's not even possible to calculate (or even estimate) them. Probability is such a difficult discipline because people so often get their premises wrong. And as they say, "garbage in...garbage out".
Then what of these two quotes from the same original source:
~~
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
~~
