From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:31:29 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <20DEC199214091069@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
}>>seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
}>>probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption

}>This seems like a bad argument, to me.  Suppose I'm put in front of a firing
}>squad of fifteen men.  They all fire, but I don't die.  I continue to
}>exist.  By an argument analogous to what you've given, I shouldn't marvel
}>at my own continued existence or wonder how it happened--the probability
}>was one.  But if, in fact, all fifteen men *missed* me, there is an unusual
}>fact there that requires some sort of explanation.  The fact that if they
}>hadn't missed me, then I wouldn't be there to puzzle over my existence, does
}>*not* explain what is curious in this situation.  Likewise, the fact of
}>life's existence requires some sort of explanation other than the supposed
}>"explanation" offered by the anthropic principle.

  Yet Mr. Isaac's observation was made in the context of discussing the
"Tunian" claim that, in effect, the probability of life existing in the
universe is so remarkably low that we must infer a supernatural agency to
have brought it all about.  In your firing squad example, you might feel
that only divine protection could have prevented your death (thus far,
anyway), but the members of the firing squad would be more interested in why
their aim was off.  A winner of the lottery who wonders how (against all
probability) s/he managed to win, would be making a mistake in inferring a
supernatural agency at work, although s/he would be justified in being 
surprised.  The probability of having won the lottery GIVEN that one has
already done so, is, indeed, 1.  But the antecedent probability of winning
the lottery given only that one has bought a ticket (not, of course, qua
winning ticket) is 1 in 14 million (or something like that).  The
explanation for winning the lottery is going to be that (as it would happen)
certain numbered ping-pong balls got selected which yielded a number
corresponding to the winning ticket.  If the winner says that there must
have been divine intervention because it was so improbable that the winning
number would correspond to his/her ticket, s/he is making a kind of mistake
in judgment.  Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.