Does anyone else see flaws in the probability argument?

Question

Why do theists justify life with creation because of the small probability of the conditions necessary to life? How can you say that just because our planet is in the perfect conditions, that this must all have been created? This is hard to explain in text, but I'll try my best.... People who argue creation seem to be thinking deductively. Think of it inductively....Yes, the probabilty is small, but that's exactly why we haven't found life elsewhere. Perhaps that's exactly why we are the only living things we've found - because our habitat is just that, a small probability. It's like having a bag of many marbles. If one were to pull out an unfavorable marble, one couldn't claim that it was pre-planned. No matter how small the probability of pulling that one marble, all the outcomes have the same probability, right? No matter how small the chance of life happening, all the possible conditions for a hunk of rock floating in space are the same.

Answer 1

I put ten trillion trillon marbles in a bag. One of them is blue, the rest are red.

Before I reach in, I have a 1 in 10, 000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 chance of pulling out the blue.

If I reach in, and pull out the blue one, then the chances I pulled out the blue one are 100%.

Creationists don't get the difference.

Answer 2

Where would you draw the line between the probable and the absurd? It has been said that scientists dismiss any probability of something to occur when it amounts to 1 chance in 10^50(a 1 with 50 zeroes). Actually, life occurring spontaneously from what evolution describes is even greater than that number!

One among a thousand other reasons GOD exists.

GOD bless

Answer 3

The fact is the probability of life from nothing is Zero. And, with the exception of the earth, God created a universe of Zero life as proof. You can explore, theorize or wish for life outside the earth all you want.

Zip - Nada - Nothing

Just like the earth was before God created life on it.

Answer 4

Myself, I enjoy inductive reasoning much better. After all, the premises are only *assumed* to be true and the conclusions from inductive arguments always go beyond the information stated in the premises, and themselves often become the premises of yet another argument. The process could be, theoretically, a never ending one, so I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket.

Inductively speaking, of course.

Answer 5

Christians forget to multiply the probability of life happening by the approximately 10^22 stars that are known in the universe. Regardless of which planet developed life, we would still be asking where we came from and probabilities.

Answer 6

The problem I always see with that argument is that, given that we know there are conditions under which life can exist, given the size of the universe and the number of planets in it, it would be highly unlikely for life to not exist somewhere. Now, if life existed everywhere, that would be more solid proof of god existing.

Answer 7

I do not see how theists can use any thought of probability to disprove the natural creation of the universe, when the probability of a God creating it is even less.
Good question, a simple answer depending on your rational thinking.
:)

Answer 8

You pseudo-intellectuals slay me. You can apply whatever reason you want to the origin of life, reason is irrelevant. It is ALL faith-based. Creationists have faith that GOD created the heavens, the earth and all that is in it. You have faith that it came about on it's own. Reason, don't make me laugh! It's all faith based, genius.

Answer 9

Not really. The other choice makes sense and is logical. I never really liked the theory of evolution. Peace