Michel wrote: the chances for the universe to be in such a way that life can exist, is one in a number so big that it would require 55 digits to write it down. Hence, it can't be the result of a coincidence.
1) In spite of the attempts to make it legitimate, this is an arbitrarily derived number.
2) It’s ultimately nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
That's not quite true. I am not sure where Michel's number is coming from, but the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant (which lpetrich mentioned earlier) is one part in 10^120. If we deviate from that even a little bit, the universe would look completely different (it would curl up on itself).[/quote]
Which has no relevance to the chances of our existing. It merely means that our existence as it is in this universe
is dependent upon certain conditions obtaining; not that those conditions cannot obtain or that our existence (in a different form) cannot obtain under different conditions. Which is why it’s ultimately an argument from incredulity.
What IDiots are essentially saying is that if these ten things did not happen in this particular sequence then the result of those ten things happening in that particular sequence would not obtain. Well, no shit.
Further, they assert (and this is out their ass) that the chances of those ten things happening in that particular sequence are really slim, therefore
the sequence (and the things happening) were designed
to produce that outcome. What’s out their ass—and arbitrarily derived—is the chance of something occurring that was not “designed” (i.e., not purposeful) to occur that way nevertheless occurring that way. It’s a variation on post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I know you’re not arguing in favor of that, but it’s non sequitur.
It’s like saying while walking on your roof, “If my roof were just one foot to the left, I would fall to my death.” Well, yeah, of course, but the roof isn’t one foot to your left and if it had been then you would have been walking one foot to your left. For IDiots to then respond with something like, “The chances of my roof being exactly in my path as I walked so as not to fall to my death are so slim as to be proof that my house was placed exactly where it was to prevent my death” is too stupid for words.
Iow, the chances of something that has already obtained obtaining is 1:1. That something may be highly unlikely to obtain has no bearing on whether or not it can (or did) obtain.