Make the computer program as complex as you like, remove deleterious mutations altogether, give it the benefit of billions of generations an hour for a trillion years, the result will be the same. time and complexity do not = sentient life,
You have not demonstrated this to be the case beyond simply claiming it, though. We don't know what the probability of the development of human-level intelligence is in a 3.5-billion year history of life because we do not have enough data to work with. We have exactly one biosphere to work with and a data set of one is not enough to draw conclusions from. It might be very likely or it might not be likely at all. Go back far enough in time and there would be only one multicellular species among countless unicellular species. Could that one multicellular species consider itself special because it was the only one? It wouldn't know that it would eventually give rise to millions of other multicellular species and it would therefore no longer be so special. It wouldn't have had enough data to work with to make that determination. Same thing for the first organism with a brain or the first vertebrate or the first land animal, etc. Likewise, how can we know whether or not we will give rise to thousands of intelligent species in the future? We don't know. If we manage to colonize other planets and solar systems, it's all but guaranteed to happen, though (speciation through isolation).
because there are an infinite number of ways to fail to do this given these parameters.
There are an infinite number of ways that
anything can fail. That's like arguing that I can never get a math question right because there are an infinite number of answers that are wrong or that we can never build cars or buildings because an infinite number of things could go wrong there too.
But we have arrived at an agreement in that evolution cannot operate under simple laws alone, as is often suggested and perceived by some- that given enough time, random mutation and natural selection will create a diverse thriving array of species. No more than liquid plastic will just form itself into a useful item. The design of the mold determines that.
That's a straw-man. Likening evolution to liquid plastic accidentally becoming a useful item is in no way similar to the way that evolution works. The processes are completely different between these two things.
so if a guy rolls a di a thoudsand times and it always comes up 6. Your rationale applies, no reason to suspect it is loaded because a thousand sixes is no less likely than any other result!
The difference being that we have normal die with which we can compare it to. We do not have other Universes to compare our own to. We don't know what's "normal" for a universe. Plus, if enough people rolled enough dice throughout history, you would expect someone out there to eventually roll a thousand sixes in a row without the die being loaded.
You are right, it is not, yet we know it's not chance. Why? Because it aint about the improbability of fluke, we all agree on that. it's the superior probability of design.
But you haven't demonstrated that design is more probable. Where is the math to show that it is? How can you even begin to calculate the probability of the beginning state of existence being an omnipotent being? You can't calculate it and therefore cannot say whether it is more likely or not.
So it's not about the improbability of a randomly composed singularity accidentally developing it's own sentience to experience itself with by chance, we all agree that is mind bogglingly improbable.
Not necessarily. It could have been improbable or it could have been likely or inevitable given enough time. We don't know because we only have one Universe to observe. As I said before, you cannot derive patterns from a data set of one. The probability of humans
in particular developing would have been extremely unlikely, but we don't know that intelligent life
itself is unlikely. We also don't know that the laws of physics could have been any different than they are or not.
It's that almost any other explanation is superior. Unless we can utterly rule out the possibility of cheating to an almost impossible degree, we can assume the di is loaded.
Show the math.
Can we be that sure to rule out the possibility of a designed universe? Many prominent scientists consider it quite feasible.
No, nor did I say that we can rule it out. What I'm arguing against is the idea that we
know it is more likely to be designed than not when we don't have enough information to make that determination.
which in itself is consistent with our intelligence having a purpose, but it is the byproduct of far more than just our intelligence;
It's also consistent with out intelligence not having a purpose, so that doesn't tell us anything.
Many scientists have remarked on how curiously the universe lends itself to our exploration.
Seriously? The Universe is billions of light-years across and we can only attain a tiny fraction of the speed of light. That does not lend us well to its exploration at all.
Without the 'bizarre' coincidence of the moon's disc perfectly masking that of the sun, revealing it's corona, we would not have been able to ascertain it's composition, and hence that of other stars and the entire universe as we have. Without millions of years of stored energy thanks to many further 'lucky' coincidences, we would not be able to power a technological civilization capable of launching spacecraft and orbiting telescopes. the list is practically endless. We have a di that keeps rolling sixes and paying out prizes.
What metric are you using to determine what counts as "rolling a six"? If something about our Universe is helpful or desirable by human standards, do you consider that to be a "six"? What about all of the other things about the Universe that are not helpful or desirable? You'd have to count those too (and there are
quite a few of those). When you add those in, we roll all kinds of different numbers, not just "sixes".
Hawking puts the probability of our universe being fluked at about infinity to one, that being the number of multiverses required to achieve such a thing accidentally.-
Krauss argues that if your theory requires an infinite probability machine- i's not entirely clear you even have a theory.
(1) They don't know whether or not there is a multiverse.
(2) They don't know whether or not the laws of physics could have been different or not.
(3) They don't know whether or not life or conscious awareness can exist with other laws of physics or not.
You can't calculate the odds when you don't have all the necessary information to do the calculations. Infinity-to-one is a guess at best. If the laws of physics could not have been any different, then the odds would be 100%.
While Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers the possibility that we ourselves might one day design our own universe as 'feasible'
Even if we could, why would that mean that our Universe in particular was designed?
The kicker with the mythical infinite random universe generator- is that it must be capable of generating something as fantastically well engineered as our universe - including life support systems you argue are too unfathomably complex to even simulate- but must be restricted somehow from ever creating anything that might be called God- which would defeat the whole purpose of an atheistic automated universe machine (never mind how THAT got here!)
Given that it's
not my argument that God could not exist, I'm not sure why you brought that up. I'm not against the idea of God existing, but I am against "God-of-the-gaps" arguments because it is a fallacy.
Yet even in this one little supposedly randomly generated universe, of a supposed vast multitude, we have ID, creative intelligence, love, purpose, will, who's holy grail of creation would be other worlds, other beings..
creative intelligence is a powerful phenomena, it can achieve what nature alone never can.. it is difficult to suppress in order to allow chance to reign.
Possible, yes. Probable? That has not yet been made clear.
