the fallacy of the arguement of ignorance........?

Question

let's start this off saying I'm am a non believer in religion....... but my intellectual senses have been irratated by numerous questions and respones to the belief in god.....with the arguement of ignorance, arguement........

there have been many notable scholars (goerge price for one) who have flat out said the improbality of existence without creation is like winning the lottery every day of your life while simaltaneously being struck by lighting.....(poetic license)......

but let's put this in more basic terms......

if you meet a street performer and they flipped a coin for you 100 times and it was heads 100  times .....you would argue that the performer had a fake coin....is this an arguement of ignorance........its not


100 heads in a row is less improbable (to a degree bordering on the infinite) than existence......but when someone sees such a small improbality  (on the grand scale of things) theyassume a design was n the works to make it happen....but the same people look at something far more improable.....and they claim a grand design theory is ignorance at its best...........

it appears to me that these arguement of ignorance supports are practicing the same blind faith bullhockey as their christian (god exist I will entertain no other notion) counterparts.......... 

if you believe in occums razor then. grand design is probabaly in the top three........

probably not any "god" man knows of........ but a designer..........a universe created by a greater being.........is possible and in the higher probablity bracket....

busterwasmycat · Accepted Answer

First, I am sure that you meant to put this over in R&S rather than wordplay.  Second, your conclusion is false, because it fails to take into account the nature of probability in an infinite system.  In an infinite system, there are infinite "tries", so any condition, however improbable, has a real possibility, has a likelihood of occurring.  

To say that because such a condition is extraordinarily impossible, it cannot be, is false.  The very fact that the thing exists despite all improbability demonstrates the falsehood of the premise.  The falsehood lies with the presumption that the observer would have to have the equivalent of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening daily and simultaneously (although not clear how that is meant).  Only the person that did, in fact, have those events occur would be around to observe that the event did occur.  You would not notice the absence of the rare event because you would not exist unless it were true.

Go look up anthropic principle.  basically, the concept is that we exist to observe simply because we did, in fact win the lottery daily while being struck by lightening.  Anyone else that did not, isn't around to point it out as being an extraordinary chance.

There is no necessity to presume a third-party "creator".  And if one so chooses to draw that conclusion, it is simply a displacement of the issue, which then becomes "what are the odds of the creator existing?"  Is not the existence of such a creator an equally or perhaps even more unlikely a probability?

Trending News

the fallacy of the arguement of ignorance........?

1 Answer