(no subject)
Dec. 2nd, 2011 10:57 amDear stupid person who is bad at statistics:
An ontological argument predicated on the unlikelyhood of the existence of a universe that supports life, and the subsequent unlikelyness of humans?
Fails at it's most basic level, because it neglects to consider that if the universe did not support life, we couldn't tell.
(In fact, based on all data available to us, 100% of all universes support life *and* eventually produce not just human life, but eventually produce me personally. How awesome is that? But that's not the point.)
You fail statistics forever because, when presented with the Two Puppies problem, you have realised that the odds of the second puppy being female are not 50/50 and concluded that God must be involved, rather than the correct realisation: That you're only examining a selected subset of all possibilities.
Put another way: it doesn't matter if the odds of a life-supporting universe are a googol to one, because no matter how many there are that don't support life? We're definitely in one that does.
Put yet another way: your argument can be correctly, fully, and without loss of meaning be summarised as "Duh, I eat poop."
An ontological argument predicated on the unlikelyhood of the existence of a universe that supports life, and the subsequent unlikelyness of humans?
Fails at it's most basic level, because it neglects to consider that if the universe did not support life, we couldn't tell.
(In fact, based on all data available to us, 100% of all universes support life *and* eventually produce not just human life, but eventually produce me personally. How awesome is that? But that's not the point.)
You fail statistics forever because, when presented with the Two Puppies problem, you have realised that the odds of the second puppy being female are not 50/50 and concluded that God must be involved, rather than the correct realisation: That you're only examining a selected subset of all possibilities.
Put another way: it doesn't matter if the odds of a life-supporting universe are a googol to one, because no matter how many there are that don't support life? We're definitely in one that does.
Put yet another way: your argument can be correctly, fully, and without loss of meaning be summarised as "Duh, I eat poop."