Are We Truly In The End Times?

[Adami]

The difference between the two is that the first premise is an observable and verifyable fact.

Is it not a verifiable fact that our universe is life-permitting?

It is not a verifiable fact that our universe is "finely tuned".

Of course it is. Not only have I dedicated an entire large post to support that assertion, but if our universe wasn't fine-tuned, then the universe would not have been life-permitting and therefore no life would have been able to have formed. Peeps, it's not like this is analytic modular logic here; this is simple elementary reasoning.

Have you ever written a college level paper? You have to source your ideas, you can't just reason it using your own reasoning, you're not quite up to that level yet. You coming up with your own arguments isn't proof, it's you arguing an opinion.

[XJDenton]

Of course it is. Not only have I dedicated an entire large post to support that assertion, but if our universe wasn't fine-tuned, then the universe would not have been life-permitting and therefore no life would have been able to have formed. Peeps, it's not like this is analytic modular logic here; this is simple elementary reasoning.

There's plenty of studies that suggest that the parameter space for a life supporting universe is comparatively quite large, and even if it wasn't, the above argument presupposes alot about the nature of life. For example there could be a huge amount of universal parameters that support non-carbon based life or other alternative biochemistries, and, at a more fundamental level, that the same kind of forces exist. The finely tuned universe argument in my opinion really stems from humanity's human centric viewpoint, and a lack of imagination/knowledge of alternative law sets.

[rumborak]

I agree. People used to say "place X is hostile to life!", and every time they actually looked they still found life. Take for example thermophilic bacteria.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

That argument only works (called the anthropic principle, I think) if there are multiple universes. Given a single universe, Sheavo, your argument doesn't show that the FT of the universe was not improbable.

And the argument that we are the universe is "fined tuned" for life only works if there is a God. If you had an alternative that wasn't' based upon something we cant' prove, I'd love for you to show it to me. But seeing as how we cant know anything regarding this matter, there really isn't any basis whatsoever to say that one theory that requires multiverses is any less valid than a theory that requires God.

All I have tried to do is show how it is possible, not how it is, that our universe could be "finely-tuned" for life, without there needing to be a God, or a will which made this universe finely-tuned. The arguments being made are that because we find ourselves in a universe that is life-permitting, that this is for a reason - when it's basically a statement of fact that the only reason we can say this is because we find ourselves in a universe that is life-permitting.

A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that the fine-tuning is not improbable because it might be logically necessary for the parameters of physics to have life-permitting values. That is, according to this claim, the parameters of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. Like the "more fundamental law" proposal above, however, this postulate simply transfers the improbability up one level: of all the laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.(3)

The video I pointed to already showed how faulty this logic is. If there are more than one possibilities, i.e. more than one universe, than even though it might be highly improbable for life-permitting features to be around, then it's simply a matter of having a large enough sample size. I mean, it's highly improbable that I myself exist, not just my parents meeting each other, or them being born, but for the exact sperm which fertilized the egg and led to me.

Simply put, if we find ourselves in a universe which is life-permitting, that doesn't mean much beyond the fact that we find ourselves in a universe which is life-permitting. If it wasn't life-permitting, we wouldn't be here, etc.

But that is essentially, circular reasoning.   It's that, "Why are we here? Because we're here."...and it doesn't really hold any water.

It's not circular at all. It's simply saying that since we are in a universe that is life-permitting, we evolved and so we can ask these questions. Just like the solar system; looking around teh solar system, we know that it's very possible for a solar system to exist that does not permit life (as we know it). If we try and ask why it is that  our solar system is set up so that we could evolve, we start asking a question we can't really ask. If you watch the video I linked to earlier, the astrophysicists references the historical problem of trying to determine why it is that the Earth is as far away from the Sun as it is, as if there were an actual physical necessity for this to be so. But the truth is, there is no necessity that Earth exists where it does, it was simply what resulted, and not for any predetermined reason.

I'll be honest, I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining this. The main point is simply that, with repetition, the "right" conditions for life can occur, and not for any special reason, or "fine-tuning." 

[MondayMorningLunatic]

Let me put

This reeks terribly of Dawkins' "central argument" in The God Delusion. It is not logically consistent to take a logic which may or may not be true of evolution and then apply it to the universe. Besides, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the self-evident fine-tuning of the universe in merely cosmological and probabilistic terms. By "fine-tuning," all one means is that small deviations from the constants and quantities in question would render the universe life-prohibiting, or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting vales is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison to the range of assumable values. We can cite a good number of examples of cosmic fine-tuning. The world is conditioned principally by the values of the fundamental constants such as the fine structure constant, or electromagnetic interaction, or gravitation, or the weak force or the strong force, or the ratio between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron, etc. When one assigns different values to these constants or forces, on discovers that the proportion of observable universes capable of supporting life is shockingly small. For example, according to the renowned physicist Paul Davies (whose lovely house in Phoenix I've had the pleasure of staying at a couple of times; no, I'm not kidding), changes in either the gravitational constant or the weak force constant of only one part in 10¹⁰⁰ would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Observations indicate that at 10^-43 second after the Big Bang, the universe was expanding at a fantastically special rate of speed with a total density close to the critical values on the bortderline between recollapse and everlasting expansion. Hawking estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million (1000000000000000000000000) one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universe's recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded galaxies' condensing out of the expanding matter. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322). Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10⁴⁰, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible (Davies, 1984, p. 242). If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 ). If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons (Leslie, 1988, p. 299).


There is no denying that our universe is finely-tuned to be life-permitting. Any person that attempts to deny that our universe is indeed fine-tuned to permit the formation of life is being incredibly intellectually disingenuous and demonstrably so.

Omega, you're running in circles and ignoring what people are actually telling you. Since there is no objective value to life, saying that the universe was fine tuned for life is arbitrary. You may as well say that the universe is fine tuned for planets, or stars, or galaxies, or hell, anything else it contains. Here's what you're basically doing: let's say you have a deck of cards and you hand them to someone in a particular order. You then calculate the probability that they were handed to them in that order, and find it to be some absurdly improbable number. Do you say "aha, there was a grand design to the way these cards were handed out?" No, you just say the cards fell a certain way. And all of your statistics are rendered invalid by the fact that you promote God as a means to explain them. You seek to rectify complexity with what is inherently the most complex being that could ever exist."Who fine tuned God?" is what I'm getting at. Of course, you'll resort to the typical theist cop outs of God existing outside of time and space and so forth, which are unfalsifiable and tautological. Another one of your flawed arguments is that evolutionary logic can't be applied to the cosmos. It can in the sense that, as I already mentioned, order is emergent. Things that are unstable will, by definition, go away, while the stable things will remain and coalesce into things that are more complicated. I'm not going to give you history of cosmology and evolution, but it speaks volumes as to the skill level of your creator that he would rely on such a convoluted process to generate life, where in one distant corner of the universe, it faces constant threats of annihiliation, 99.9% of its species having already gone extinct.

[Scheavo]

Eh, he's not making much sense at all. What the hell is "pure actuality," "pure being"? What is the "purest form" of reality, especially when reality doesn't yet exist? It's meaningless nonsense.

I was using Platonic, Aristotelian and (terms from) Aquinas (Aquinic?) terms and philosophical concepts. I thought you would be able to recognize them. Sorry?

If I ever came across them, then I labeled them as nonsense. There's so many problems with those terms, that I'm not sure where to really begin. The biggest problem I have, is that these terms try to smuggle in a hidden morality, that there is some how "unpure" reality, or "unpure" actuality, terms which don't really make sense either. All of this just begs the question, of how you can know this morality, how you know that "pure actuality" exists, that it is something, that it could exist, etc.

Perhaps you've given a valid hypothesis regarding God, but it is hardly proven, and I'm not sure how you could ever prove it. Basically, it's "armchair" philosophy, and it's the reason why Bacon came up with the scientific method. I can devise all sorts of sound, logical explanation for existence (as evidenced by the great variety of religions and belief systems out there - which I guess would make you disingenuous to deny?); the question is if any of those systems are true.

[Scheavo]

Here's what you're basically doing: let's say you have a deck of cards and you hand them to someone in a particular order. You then calculate the probability that they were handed to them in that order, and find it to be some absurdly improbable number. Do you say "aha, there was a grand design to the way these cards were handed out?" No, you just say the cards fell a certain way.

Okay, that's a good way of explaining this.

[Ħ]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

[Adami]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Missing the point. You're assigning special value to the arrangement of the cards (to continue the analogy) when there isn't really one unless you place it there.

[Ħ]

You can choose to disregard the Ace to King arrangement of the cards if you want.

[Adami]

You can choose to disregard the Ace to King arrangement of the cards if you want.

Well this analogy has clearly hit a wall.


H there is the scientific method of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, and then there's what a lot of other people here are doing of designing the evidence to support their already drawn conclusion.

[Ħ]

Look at it statistically:

[Adami]

Now I remember why I  hate debating people. I'm out of this thread too. Have fun.

[Ħ]

I wasn't joking around. That's a good way to look at it, scientifically.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

I'm rehashing what Adami said, but I'll flush it out a little more. We would only perceive that as significant because we're familiar with the game of cards and how it works. If you showed those cards to an alien, they'd be meaningless. Likewise, that ID advocate you cited said something like "if I saw rocks spelling out my name in the Grand Canyon, I'd know there was a designer." That would only be meaningful to him because of the societal construct of language.

I'm tired of debating too. I'm gonna stop posting in this forum and just stick to making music for a while.

[Scheavo]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

[theseoafs]

Have you ever written a college level paper?

Finally, someone said it.

Anyway, this post won and I want to make sure it doesn't go ignored.

Omega, you're running in circles and ignoring what people are actually telling you. Since there is no objective value to life, saying that the universe was fine tuned for life is arbitrary. You may as well say that the universe is fine tuned for planets, or stars, or galaxies, or hell, anything else it contains. Here's what you're basically doing: let's say you have a deck of cards and you hand them to someone in a particular order. You then calculate the probability that they were handed to them in that order, and find it to be some absurdly improbable number. Do you say "aha, there was a grand design to the way these cards were handed out?" No, you just say the cards fell a certain way.

We should also not confuse the persistence of evolution for the intervention of a divine force. When people say that "if X were different, there could be no life", they're talking about the conception of life as we understand it. If universes have a tendency to create increasingly complex and self-sustaining systems, who's to say that a universe with marginally different physical laws won't have caused there to be different units of life to circumvent the "inhospitable conditions"?

EDIT: Also,

You may as well say that the universe is fine tuned for planets, or stars, or galaxies, or hell, anything else it contains.

Mila Kunis. The universe is fine tuned for Mila Kunis.

[theseoafs]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

The probability of the cards' being arranged in that order is the same as the probability of the cards' being in any order whatsoever. I assume you freak out whenever you shuffle cards because you can't believe that they would have ended up in that order?

[jammindude]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

If it were as simple as a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in order...that might be worth an argument.   But that is a *GROSS* oversimplification.   

Did you know that there is a measurable threshold for when something is considered a "mathematical impossibility"...did you know that the probability of everything around us coming about by chance is far beyond that threshold?   I point you back to my detailed sculpture illustration.   Anyone on a archaeological expedition who even *suggested* that the sculpture was simply a fancy looking rock would be laughed off the team....not because it's completely impossible...but because it's such an infinite improbably that no sane or rational person would believe it. 

[theseoafs]

One more thing before I hit the hay (sorry for so many posts in such a short time frame): if we can assume the validity of any theory which allows for the cyclical creation and destruction of universes (Big Crunch, etc), all these "fine-tuned" arguments become completely irrelevant, because at that point it becomes a certainty that a universe will eventually be created that supports life (as we know it).

[Scheavo]

But those calculations regarding the possibility of seeing what we see around us use a variety of assumptions, assumptions that can be challenged and changed. I'll have to refer back to that video I linked to again, becuase if there are multiverses, this changes the entire math behind seeing what we see around us as being "impossible."

And remember, if. I'm not claiming anything strong, I'm simply pointing out how reality could be such that what we see around us is possible through chance and permutations. This is important, becuase the denial of this being possible is the foundation of some of your belief, as we can see in the fact that we're discussing this right now.

I mean, mathematically speaking, the probability that I would be born is probably impossible. The millions of sperm my dad produced, the thousands of eggs my mother produced, and their mothers, and their mothers, etc. Yet clearly, it is not impossible for me to be born, becuase I am here now.

[XJDenton]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

If it were as simple as a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in order...that might be worth an argument.   But that is a *GROSS* oversimplification.   

Did you know that there is a measurable threshold for when something is considered a "mathematical impossibility"

I'm sorry, but..... what?

[Sigz]

The point is that we do, obviously, observe that our universe is life permitting and we must arrive at a reason as to why it is life permitting, considering that the chances of it being non-life permitting would have been preposterously and infinitely more probable.

We have never observed another universe than our own, so we have no idea what the chances are. Saying something like "oh if the charge of an electron were different life could never exist", while possibly true, is meaningless because we have no idea whether it's even possible for there to be a universe in which that constant is different.

The following is relevant:

One criticism of the fine-tuning argument is that, as far as we know, there could be a more fundamental law under which the parameters of physics must have the values they do. Thus, given such a law, it is not improbable that the known parameters of physics fall within the life-permitting range.

Besides being entirely speculative, the problem with postulating such a law is that it simply moves the improbability of the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself. Under this hypothesis, what is improbable is that all the conceivable fundamental physical laws there could be, the universe just happens to have the one that constrains the parameters of physics in a life-permitting way. Thus, trying to explain the fine-tuning by postulating this sort of fundamental law is like trying to explain why the pattern of rocks below a cliff spell "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins" by postulating that an earthquake occurred and that all the rocks on the cliff face were arranged in just the right configuration to fall into the pattern in question. Clearly this explanation merely transfers the improbability up one level, since now it seems enormously improbable that of all the possible configurations the rocks could be in on the cliff face, they are in the one which results in the pattern "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins."

A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that the fine-tuning is not improbable because it might be logically necessary for the parameters of physics to have life-permitting values. That is, according to this claim, the parameters of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. Like the "more fundamental law" proposal above, however, this postulate simply transfers the improbability up one level: of all the laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.(3)

Sorry, but that's not really relevant at all. Ignoring all the arguments about valuing life permitting conditions (whatever the hell that actually means) over not, my point has nothing to do these conditions being set in stone.

My point is that we have absolutely no idea what the mechanism that determines these constants is. To say that a life supporting universe is improbable makes numerous unsubstantiated assumptions.

[bosk1]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

[kári]

It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit.

You meant implausible right Pretty sure your have better chances at winning the lottery than at that.

[eric42434224]

It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit.

You meant implausible right Pretty sure your have better chances at winning the lottery than at that.

No, I think he is saying it is is clearly possible.  Both random chance, and fine-tuning, are possible.  He is making the point that if both are possible, we have no reason to say one is the only possible answer.

[GuineaPig]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

But that combination is no more likely than any of the other combinations.  One only accords special significance to specific iterations.

[eric42434224]

Very good point.

[bosk1]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

But that combination is no more likely than any of the other combinations.  One only accords special significance to specific iterations.

Yes, but that is largely irrelevant.  The point is that we are talking about the probability of a specific sequencing of 52 cards.  Whatever sequence we choose, the odds are the same.  No matter what the sequence is, if we are trying to predict a specific, unique sequence coming about by random chance, the odds of that happening are astronomically low (if the math I have seen is correct, 1 in 10^68), such that if it does in fact occur, the most likely explanation is that the process was guided. 

[kári]

It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit.

You meant implausible right Pretty sure your have better chances at winning the lottery than at that.

No, I think he is saying it is is clearly possible.  Both random chance, and fine-tuning, are possible.  He is making the point that if both are possible, we have no reason to say one is the only possible answer.

Of course it is possible. But it is not at all plausible that when you shuffle a deck of cards, that they will be arranged from ace to king by suit. That has probably never even happened in the history of cards, ever.

[eric42434224]

The most likely explanation is not that it was guided if you have 6 septillion attempts.

[kári]

Yes, but that is largely irrelevant.  The point is that we are talking about the probability of a specific sequencing of 52 cards.  Whatever sequence we choose, the odds are the same.  No matter what the sequence is, if we are trying to predict a specific, unique sequence coming about by random chance, the odds of that happening are astronomically low (if the math I have seen is correct, 1 in 10^68), such that if it does in fact occur, the most likely explanation is that the process was guided. 

I don't see at all how or even why you make the leap to "the process was guided"... Granted, if someone came to me on the street and asked me to write down a sequence of the 52 cards, then shuffled a deck and showed them in that sequence I would of course assume it was some kind of trick. But I don't see what that had to do with the existence of life.

[the Catfishman]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

But that combination is no more likely than any of the other combinations.  One only accords special significance to specific iterations.

Yes, but that is largely irrelevant.  The point is that we are talking about the probability of a specific sequencing of 52 cards.  Whatever sequence we choose, the odds are the same.  No matter what the sequence is, if we are trying to predict a specific, unique sequence coming about by random chance, the odds of that happening are astronomically low (if the math I have seen is correct, 1 in 10^68), such that if it does in fact occur, the most likely explanation is that the process was guided.

Would we know (would we exist) if the sequence was different?

(or in other words, the fact that we exist prove that the right sequence occurred).

[eric42434224]

Another point.  Are there 52 different requirements, that have to happen in a specific order, to have the possibility of life occur?
I believe that there were some attempts to construct an equation to guess at that probability.  I think it is far more probable for the conditions to allow for life (as we understand it) than it is to randomly shuffle to get a specific order of 52 cards.
If you have enough cracks at it, the probabilities start to get better. 

[eric42434224]

Similar analogy. Suppose you are handed a deck of cards and the cards are arranged from Ace to King, by suit. Would you conclude:

1) They randomly fell into that order, or
2) Someone put them in that order?

Just becuase something is rare and unlikely, does not mean that when that thing occurs, that it was done by design. It is very plausible for me to shuffle a deck of cards, and for that deck of cards to be arranged from Ace to King, by suit. What are the chances of me personally winning the lottery? Very, very, very low. But obviously it's possible to win the lottery, as evidence by all the lottery winners through out history.

Basically, either 1 or 2 is possible. You can't conclude that it's 2, simply becuase it's unlikely. Coincidence and happenstance can explain all sorts of odd events, and it is nothing special.

I'm pretty sure there's a specific logical fallacy you're employing, but I can't remember the name of it right now.

There is no fallacy unless he is saying that the conclusion he is drawing from the unlikely outcome is the only possible conclusion, which he is not (Omega is, but that's a different story).  He is simply saying (I think) that is is the most likely conclusion, which is perfectly valid.  With the cards analogy, you are right that random chance and coincidence are possible explanations for a deck being arranged ace to king.  But it is unlikely.  Whether anyone fesses up to arranging the cards in order or not, the assumption that somebody did is the most likely explanation.

But that combination is no more likely than any of the other combinations.  One only accords special significance to specific iterations.

Yes, but that is largely irrelevant.  The point is that we are talking about the probability of a specific sequencing of 52 cards.  Whatever sequence we choose, the odds are the same.  No matter what the sequence is, if we are trying to predict a specific, unique sequence coming about by random chance, the odds of that happening are astronomically low (if the math I have seen is correct, 1 in 10^68), such that if it does in fact occur, the most likely explanation is that the process was guided.

Would we know (would we exist) if the sequence was different?

(or in other words, the fact that we exist prove that the right sequence occurred).

Dont we actually see different sequences occurring that allow for life happening on our very own planet?
I think it shows that conditions need not be exactly as they occured on Earth, or in the same sequence.
That increases probability, yes?