chance

[spinoza99]

They had intelligence, but they didn't need intelligence. Unintelligent animals do it all the time. And, my parents didn't actually "design" anything. My dad's and mom's inner workings operated entirely without any reference to intelligence. They operated automatically. Penis erect - insert into vagina - thrust - repeat as needed - ejaculate - load enters vagina - fastest sperm wins.

They didn't design in the sense of build, but they designed in the sense of intend. You're father needed intelligence in order to locate your mother's vagina. It's true that natural processes did the great majority of the word, but your father's intelligence was needed. Also your mother needed the intelligence in order to take off her clothes, among other things. It take intelligence to take off clothes.

The odds of me existing are so small it's impossible to calculate. And, I came about through entirely natural processes - sperms develop - eggs develop - they meet and physics and chemistry take over. No magic, or gods are needed.

You're confusing odds with hindsight, with odds with foresight. Richard Dawkins makes this distinction in the Blind Watchmaker:


To borrow an analogy from an eminent astronomer, [Fred Hoyle] if you take the parts of an airliner and jumble them up at random, the likelihood that you would happen to assemble a working Boeing is vanishingly small. There are billions of possible ways of putting together the bits of an airliner, and only one, or very few, of them would actually be an airliner. ... There are billions of ways of throwing together the bits of Mont Blanc, it might be said, and only one of them is Mont Blanc. So what is it that makes the airliner and the human complicated, if Mont Blanc is simple? Any old jumbled collection of parts is unique and, with hindsight, is as improbable as any other. The scrap-heap at an aircraft breaker’s yard is unique. No two scrap-heaps are the same. If you start throwing fragments of aeroplanes into heaps, the odds of your happening to hit upon exactly the same arrangement of junk twice are just about as low as the odds of your throwing together a working airliner. So, why don’t we say that a rubbish dump, or Mont Blanc, or the moon, is just as complex as an aeroplane or a dog, because in all these cases the arrangement of atoms is ‘improbable’? ... It is specified in advance. Of all the millions of unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, arrangements of a heap of junk, only one (or very few) will fly. ... Now, if you consider all possible ways in which the rocks of Mont Blanc could have been thrown together, it is true that only one of them would make Mont Blanc as we know it. But Mont Blanc as we know it is defined with hindsight. Any one of a very large number of ways of throwing rocks together would be labelled a mountain, and might have been named Mont Blanc. There is nothing special about the particular Mont Blanc that we know, nothing specified in advance. ... The minimum requirement for us to recognize an object as an animal or plant is that it should succeed in making a living of some sort (more precisely that it, or at least some members of its kind, should live long enough to reproduce). ... However many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive.

[Coito ergo sum]

I take issue with your statement "not chance = intention." That's not correct. Not chance might be intention, or chance might be intentional (because a being that can create universes can certainly create them by chance - perhaps the being rolled 1,000,000 20 sided Dungeons & Dragons dice and the combination that came up represented the kind of universe that was created).

Rolling a dice and deciding to be ruled by what the dice turns up is an intentional act. Moreover, assigning results to each sides of the dice requires intention.

The dice roll, however, is random, as long as the dice aren't loaded.

Or, creator intelligence could have created the universe to appear one way, but really it was manufactured in a completely different way.

This would be due to incomplete knowledge of the properties of material.

Or, the purposeful intent of the creator.

If you're assigning properties to objects in the first place, I don't see how that's possible.

What's not possible for the intelligent creator?

Here's an analogy. Say you want to build a language. You assign meaning to the sounds. Whatever you decide is what is.

That's true, but if you're a creator of universes you can make whatever you want, presumably.

Or, maybe it was gag, or a joke, played on a fellow deity. Who knows?

We can use the argument from analogy here. Creating a universe requires a remarkable degree of fine-tuning.

You don't know that. Maybe it doesn't require any fine tuning. Universes don't have to be like ours, or have life in them. Universes could be created tuneless. What gives you the right to specify that only fine-tuned universes can exist?

Gags or jokes never create anything of remarkable fine-tuning.

Says who? You know what the intelligent creator wants and does now? He's a practical joker, maybe.

And as I have already stated, you cannot build a philosophy on something for which there is no evidence.

That's what I've been saying, and that's what you're doing. There is no evidence for an intelligent creator, so for you to build a philosophy around is really just your own imagination running wild.

However, a universe forming naturally may well operate according to non-chance-based rules.

If a universe arose through natural laws, then you have to answer where the natural laws came from: chance or design?

Non chance based natural processes. Or, at least not completely chance based processes. Quantum physics injects "dice" into the universe, as Einstein lamented.

I have no problem with chance, per se. Quantum physics is fascinating, and says nothing about whether gods or intelligences exist or don't exist. The randomness infused into the universe adds to its beauty and wonder. There may be a god or inteliigence after all - who knows - we have no evidence for them, but lots of things we once had no evidence for have ultimately been proved - like black holes.

[spinoza99]

I think some atheists can conceivably believe the Big Bang was a result of intention, as long as that intention is not "god." ... What I expect we will find out, however, is that the Big Bang, whatever it was, operated according to natural processes and according to knowable natural laws

This is a mistake that many atheists make unfortunately. God by definition is the name we ascribe to whatever was responsible for the creation of the universe. If anything was responsible for the creation of the universe, it was God. If nothing was responsible for the existence of the universe, then the universe is the result of chance.

If natural law causes the universe, then you have to ask if natural laws were created by a mind, or if the natural laws just popped into existence by chance.

Is it POSSIBLE that a deity or intelligent agent created the universe this way? Sure. It's POSSIBLE. But, I don't find it likely in the least. I find it unlikely enough that I call myself an atheist.

If you don't find it likely, then what is your evidence that the Big Bang was due to chance?

[Coito ergo sum]

They had intelligence, but they didn't need intelligence. Unintelligent animals do it all the time. And, my parents didn't actually "design" anything. My dad's and mom's inner workings operated entirely without any reference to intelligence. They operated automatically. Penis erect - insert into vagina - thrust - repeat as needed - ejaculate - load enters vagina - fastest sperm wins.

They didn't design in the sense of build, but they designed in the sense of intend. You're father needed intelligence in order to locate your mother's vagina.

Only because humans work that way. Plants reproduce without intelligence, and some of them sexually - via spores and whatnot blown into the air that reach other plants. No intelligence necessary.

It's true that natural processes did the great majority of the word, but your father's intelligence was needed. Also your mother needed the intelligence in order to take off her clothes, among other things. It take intelligence to take off clothes.

And, you consider that proof that the universe had to be created by an intelligence? This is one of those areas where I think that there must be two kinds of brains. Your argument would not have been persuasive to me as a 12 year old. I can't imagine anyone drawing the conclusions you do. I search and search and bend my mind to these creation/ID arguments - not because they're hard to understand logically or conceptually - but because I'm trying very hard to figure out how in the world anyone can conclude they are valid.

The odds of me existing are so small it's impossible to calculate. And, I came about through entirely natural processes - sperms develop - eggs develop - they meet and physics and chemistry take over. No magic, or gods are needed.

You're confusing odds with hindsight, with odds with foresight. Richard Dawkins makes this distinction in the Blind Watchmaker:

I know. That's the point I was making. It's the mistake almost all ID folks make. It's their hurricane causing a 747 argument.

There is no reason the universe needs a designer, and the fallaciousness of the 747 argument is one of the reasons why it's fairly obvious.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think some atheists can conceivably believe the Big Bang was a result of intention, as long as that intention is not "god." ... What I expect we will find out, however, is that the Big Bang, whatever it was, operated according to natural processes and according to knowable natural laws

This is a mistake that many atheists make unfortunately.

It's not a mistake at all.

God by definition is the name we ascribe to whatever was responsible for the creation of the universe.

No. Your god, maybe, but not all gods. The mistake theists almost invariably make is pretending that their god is the only god out there.

Moreover, you use the term "intelligence" might not mean "god" - some atheists believe that the universe is intelligent or that there is intelligent "energy" out there. Not many of them exist, but they're out there.

Me? I don't believe your god exists.

If anything was responsible for the creation of the universe, it was God. If nothing was responsible for the existence of the universe, then the universe is the result of chance.

Or, undirected natural processes.

If natural law causes the universe, then you have to ask if natural laws were created by a mind, or if the natural laws just popped into existence by chance.

Or, undirected natural processes. You assume chance must be at the bottom of it all, and maybe it is. But, it may not be.

Is it POSSIBLE that a deity or intelligent agent created the universe this way? Sure. It's POSSIBLE. But, I don't find it likely in the least. I find it unlikely enough that I call myself an atheist.

If you don't find it likely, then what is your evidence that the Big Bang was due to chance?

[/quote]

I don't claim it was due to chance, as I've said. That's your false dilemma.

Nor do I need to have evidence for how the big bang happened to be an atheist. I don't even have to believe that the Big Bang happened at all to be an atheist.

I have no idea how the big bang happened or why. I see no evidence, however, that it was because of a god, so until I see that evidence, I don't "believe" it. I also see no evidence it happened because of the collision of 11 dimensional branes, as in M theory. It's interesting theoretical physics, but I don't "believe" that either. I don't know.

And, I'm comfortable with not knowing, nor does my not knowing need to result in the conclusion that there is a god at the bottom of the well. A garden is beautiful enough that we don't need to imagine that there are faeries a the bottom of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

actually not, or the universe would be limited to earth, or be teeming with life rather than an immense void with relatively few islets with the adequate conditions.

You need to have the stars separated far from each other, otherwise the supernovas will release too many gamma rays which will destroy life.

But I admit, I do find it a bit odd that there are so many failed stars out there.

Hey, if the natural laws were designed with us in mind, maybe the physics of gravity and nuclear fusion would be such that there would be more suns, and that they could lie closer together to have more life sustaining planets rather than the actual, life poor set we have?

If the universe was designed for us, why wouldn't it just be a really gigantic, stable place for us to live in, without plate tectonics, a cooling mantle, asteroids and comets looming, a star that will go supernova, deadly volcanoes, fierce storms and tsunamis and quadrillions of parsecs of space surrounding us that is deathly cold, or deathly hot, filled with deadly radiation. Why create galaxies for us by the billions, that are bigger than our galaxy but we can only see as pinholes of light in the sky, and most of them we can't see at all?

Why wouldn't a universe created for us have the right temperature all over, and if the god thought the sky needed decoration, why wouldn't he just build little lights up there for us. Why create this strange multibillion year machine that operates for the most part without out us and with evidently no regard for us at all. The universe existed in its mish-mash state for billions of years before we ever came along and will likely do so for billions of years after we're gone - most of it is utterly devoid of life, and most of it, it seems, will never be visited by us or even seen by us.

Nobody would imagine a creator creating the universe like this. That's why back in the day, the universe was envisaged as much smaller than it really is - Babylonians viewed the world as flat and covered by a dome. That's how they thought the gods created the universe. And, that makes more sense. If you told a Babylonian that the gods really created Earth as a little blip of tiny planet, on the edge of big group of stars that is mostly lifeless for so far that humans can't even imagine the distances and if we went anywhere but this little tiny blip we would die a quick death....they'd think we were crazy. What sort of an "intelligent creator" would create this place?

It makes no sense - it's like if humans created cars, but for some reason all cars had skyscraper sized attachments that served no purpose in relation to us, and we couldn't enter or interact with in any way. Humans wouldn't be stupid enough to create such a monumental waste of a creation - I wonder why theists think their gods are that stupid.

[roter-kaiser]

Someone else made a point, and I refuted that with the first cause. My argument remains:

There is no evidence that the Big Bang was the result of chance.
There is evidence that the Big Bang was fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is the result of mind, not chance.

If you think the evidence for the Big Bang is 'fine-tuning', however ludicrous this is, and therefore there has to be a creator because this cannot exist from chance (or unintentionally), how come you believe the creator was created by chance? Surely, something so intelligent to design the universe and everything in it, fine-tuned to the power of 120 (or whatever the fine-tuning argument is), needs to be designed and cannot be the result of chance?!

If you can explain this paradox, dear spinoza, I might start believing

[spinoza99]

If the universe was designed for us, why wouldn't it just be a really gigantic, stable place for us to live in, without plate tectonics, a cooling mantle, asteroids and comets looming, a star that will go supernova, deadly volcanoes, fierce storms and tsunamis and quadrillions of parsecs of space surrounding us that is deathly cold, or deathly hot, filled with deadly radiation. Why create galaxies for us by the billions, that are bigger than our galaxy but we can only see as pinholes of light in the sky, and most of them we can't see at all?

Why wouldn't a universe created for us have the right temperature all over, and if the god thought the sky needed decoration, why wouldn't he just build little lights up there for us. Why create this strange multibillion year machine that operates for the most part without out us and with evidently no regard for us at all. The universe existed in its mish-mash state for billions of years before we ever came along and will likely do so for billions of years after we're gone - most of it is utterly devoid of life, and most of it, it seems, will never be visited by us or even seen by us.

Nobody would imagine a creator creating the universe like this. That's why back in the day, the universe was envisaged as much smaller than it really is - Babylonians viewed the world as flat and covered by a dome. That's how they thought the gods created the universe. And, that makes more sense. If you told a Babylonian that the gods really created Earth as a little blip of tiny planet, on the edge of big group of stars that is mostly lifeless for so far that humans can't even imagine the distances and if we went anywhere but this little tiny blip we would die a quick death....they'd think we were crazy. What sort of an "intelligent creator" would create this place?

It makes no sense - it's like if humans created cars, but for some reason all cars had skyscraper sized attachments that served no purpose in relation to us, and we couldn't enter or interact with in any way. Humans wouldn't be stupid enough to create such a monumental waste of a creation - I wonder why theists think their gods are that stupid.

First, these are reasonable questions. And I do admit that the shape of the universe appears a little strange. What you're doing is called selected attention. You're focusing on the chaos of the universe and ignoring all of the order.

Let me ask you this, you're presenting me with evidence of astonishing chaos. Is there any evidence of astonishing order that I can present to you that will falsify your claim that the universe is more orderly than it is chaotic? Is there any number or any fact that will make you say: you're right, the evidence of order outweighs the evidence of chaos?

You have said that fine-tuning does not necessarily imply design. But you have to admit, that fine-tuning is more likely to be the result of design then the result of chance, right? No one believes that fine-tuning is never the result of intelligence, otherwise SETI would not exist, nor would patent fraud, nor detective work. So, is there any amount of fine-tuning that would cause you to change your mind? You simply cannot be immune to evidence. There has be to some evidence that will cause you to change your mind. For example, I have already pointed out that Lambda has to be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude. What if there were a much larger number out there. Is there any number so large that it will cause you to change your mind?

[spinoza99]

If you think the evidence for the Big Bang is 'fine-tuning', however ludicrous this is, and therefore there has to be a creator because this cannot exist from chance (or unintentionally), how come you believe the creator was created by chance? Surely, something so intelligent to design the universe and everything in it, fine-tuned to the power of 120 (or whatever the fine-tuning argument is), needs to be designed and cannot be the result of chance?!

No one has a good answer for how something came out of nothing. However, we do know that order cannot arise often in a universe where chance is all there is. You need mind in order for order to arise as often as it does.

It is easier for the immaterial to arise from nothing (after all it's made of nothing) then it is for ORDERED material to arise from nothing.

[roter-kaiser]

It is easier for the immaterial to arise from nothing (after all it's made of nothing) then it is for ORDERED material to arise from nothing.

What's your evidence that your god is unordered or immaterial? What's the proof for your claim? It's just an assumption that fits your believe.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If the universe was designed for us, why wouldn't it just be a really gigantic, stable place for us to live in, without plate tectonics, a cooling mantle, asteroids and comets looming, a star that will go supernova, deadly volcanoes, fierce storms and tsunamis and quadrillions of parsecs of space surrounding us that is deathly cold, or deathly hot, filled with deadly radiation. Why create galaxies for us by the billions, that are bigger than our galaxy but we can only see as pinholes of light in the sky, and most of them we can't see at all?

Why wouldn't a universe created for us have the right temperature all over, and if the god thought the sky needed decoration, why wouldn't he just build little lights up there for us. Why create this strange multibillion year machine that operates for the most part without out us and with evidently no regard for us at all. The universe existed in its mish-mash state for billions of years before we ever came along and will likely do so for billions of years after we're gone - most of it is utterly devoid of life, and most of it, it seems, will never be visited by us or even seen by us.

Nobody would imagine a creator creating the universe like this. That's why back in the day, the universe was envisaged as much smaller than it really is - Babylonians viewed the world as flat and covered by a dome. That's how they thought the gods created the universe. And, that makes more sense. If you told a Babylonian that the gods really created Earth as a little blip of tiny planet, on the edge of big group of stars that is mostly lifeless for so far that humans can't even imagine the distances and if we went anywhere but this little tiny blip we would die a quick death....they'd think we were crazy. What sort of an "intelligent creator" would create this place?

It makes no sense - it's like if humans created cars, but for some reason all cars had skyscraper sized attachments that served no purpose in relation to us, and we couldn't enter or interact with in any way. Humans wouldn't be stupid enough to create such a monumental waste of a creation - I wonder why theists think their gods are that stupid.

First, these are reasonable questions. And I do admit that the shape of the universe appears a little strange. What you're doing is called selected attention. You're focusing on the chaos of the universe and ignoring all of the order.

Let me ask you this, you're presenting me with evidence of astonishing chaos. Is there any evidence of astonishing order that I can present to you that will falsify your claim that the universe is more orderly than it is chaotic? Is there any number or any fact that will make you say: you're right, the evidence of order outweighs the evidence of chaos?

You have said that fine-tuning does not necessarily imply design. But you have to admit, that fine-tuning is more likely to be the result of design then the result of chance, right? No one believes that fine-tuning is never the result of intelligence, otherwise SETI would not exist, nor would patent fraud, nor detective work. So, is there any amount of fine-tuning that would cause you to change your mind? You simply cannot be immune to evidence. There has be to some evidence that will cause you to change your mind. For example, I have already pointed out that Lambda has to be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude. What if there were a much larger number out there. Is there any number so large that it will cause you to change your mind?

You're asking the wrong question. There is no such evidence that would convince anyone, no matter how large or small the numbers. All you are saying is that the universe is exactly the kind of a universe in which we can live - well no shit, Sherlock - we already know that because it happens to be exactly the kind of universe in which we DO live!

We KNOW that our tiny, tiny portion of the universe is ideal for human life to evolve and thrive because human life DID evolve and thrive. You might as well throw up an argument for the Earth's atmosphere being designed with birds wings in mind because it is exactly the right consistency for birds with exactly the kind of wings that birds have to fly in.

Once again, you are mixing up cause and effect. We live here because we can live here, not because we were meant to.

[spinoza99]

No. Your god, maybe, but not all gods.

Everyone agrees that THE God is what created the universe. Others try to add on properties to this one fact, but they're wrong.

The mistake theists almost invariably make is pretending that their god is the only god out there.

True, many theists make that mistake, but that does not mean that the Big Bang occurred by chance.

Moreover, you use the term "intelligence" might not mean "god" - some atheists believe that the universe is intelligent or that there is intelligent "energy" out there. Not many of them exist, but they're out there.

Yea, and some slaves thought they deserved to be enslaved. Atheists who believe there is some intelligence or energy out there are being inconsistent.

Or, undirected natural processes.

You keep insisting that undirected natural processes can come into existence through neither chance, nor God. That's a fallacy and it amazes me how stubbornly you keep making this mistake. I'm going to ask you for the last time if there is another alternative for the origin of natural laws other than chance or intention.

You assume chance must be at the bottom of it all, and maybe it is. But, it may not be.

If you can think of another way let me know

I don't claim it [Big Bang] was due to chance, as I've said. That's your false dilemma.

You can't just call something a false dilemma, you have to provide a plausible third way.

Nor do I need to have evidence for how the big bang happened to be an atheist. I don't even have to believe that the Big Bang happened at all to be an atheist.

If you won't build your worldview on evidence, then we can't debate. When we debate I use evidence to present the plausibility of my world view, not some irrational faith in a holy book. If you won't accept evidence, then there is nothing I can say to you that will change your mind, and therefore there is no reason for us to dialogue.

I have no idea how the big bang happened or why. I see no evidence, however, that it was because of a god, so until I see that evidence, I don't "believe" it.

The evidence lies in the fine-tuning. The only counter evidence you have provided against fine-tuning is a mere, yes, fine-tuning implies design but it doesn't prove design. Based on that logic you can assume that Stonehenge was the result of chance. After all, Stonehenge could be the result of chance but what is more likely.

And, I'm comfortable with not knowing, nor does my not knowing need to result in the conclusion that there is a god at the bottom of the well. A garden is beautiful enough that we don't need to imagine that there are faeries a the bottom of it.

As for the Doug Adams quote, that's a category error. No one is suggesting a garden arose due to fairies. What theists are suggesting is that it arose by laws that were created by a Deity. The Doug Adams quote falls under the Flying Spaghetti Monster fallacy, which I have already discussed and which falsely posits that there is as much evidence for the FSM or fairies as there are for the fact that natural laws were designed by intelligence.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If you think the evidence for the Big Bang is 'fine-tuning', however ludicrous this is, and therefore there has to be a creator because this cannot exist from chance (or unintentionally), how come you believe the creator was created by chance? Surely, something so intelligent to design the universe and everything in it, fine-tuned to the power of 120 (or whatever the fine-tuning argument is), needs to be designed and cannot be the result of chance?!

No one has a good answer for how something came out of nothing. However, we do know that order cannot arise often in a universe where chance is all there is. You need mind in order for order to arise as often as it does.

How do we know any of that? Blind assertions without evidence! Exactly how much order would be possible out of pure chance, please?

It is easier for the immaterial to arise from nothing (after all it's made of nothing) then it is for ORDERED material to arise from nothing.

So god is nothing. I agree with this. Although I very much doubt in the same context as you intended.

And where the fuck does your assertion (yet another one) that god is 'immaterial' come from? And exactly what the fuck does that even mean? Apart from the fact that god doesn't exist, which many of us have been saying for some time now...

[Feck]

If you think the evidence for the Big Bang is 'fine-tuning', however ludicrous this is, and therefore there has to be a creator because this cannot exist from chance (or unintentionally), how come you believe the creator was created by chance? Surely, something so intelligent to design the universe and everything in it, fine-tuned to the power of 120 (or whatever the fine-tuning argument is), needs to be designed and cannot be the result of chance?!

No one has a good answer for how something came out of nothing. However, we do know that order cannot arise often in a universe where chance is all there is. You need mind in order for order to arise as often as it does.

It is easier for the immaterial to arise from nothing (after all it's made of nothing) then it is for ORDERED material to arise from nothing.

You seem to think lots of levels of the argument from ignorance makes it more true ?

Listen to yourself FFS the fact we cannot prove the non existence of God so that's a proof of god ? And the first cause shit you spout just gets deeper and deeper it is truly elephants all the way down .The probability of there being life in this universe is 1 Since we don't have any knowledge of any other universes you cannot say anything about the numerical values of physical laws in them if there are an infinite number of universes then it's also a probability of 1that one of them has values for constants that lead to our universe ,all of your arguments about chance are arse about face .

Now we have to accept layers of immaterial going on for ever without a beginning because it's outside time and ALL of this metal trickery is to deny what every single experiment mankind has ever done shows .

[spinoza99]

You're asking the wrong question. There is no such evidence that would convince anyone, no matter how large or small the numbers. All you are saying is that the universe is exactly the kind of a universe in which we can live - well no shit, Sherlock - we already know that because it happens to be exactly the kind of universe in which we DO live!

We KNOW that our tiny, tiny portion of the universe is ideal for human life to evolve and thrive because human life DID evolve and thrive. You might as well throw up an argument for the Earth's atmosphere being designed with birds wings in mind because it is exactly the right consistency for birds with exactly the kind of wings that birds have to fly in.

Once again, you are mixing up cause and effect. We live here because we can live here, not because we were meant to.

Imagine you build a key that can think but only if it fits into a keyhole. If it thinks then the odds of it fitting that key hole are 100%. But you have to ask yourself, what are the odds of that keyhole arising at random? Easily higher than 1 in 10^5000.

So here's what you're doing:

1. If the key fits into a key hole it will think
2. If it thinks then the odds of it being in the keyhole are 100%
3. Therefore the odds of a thinking key being fit to the keyhole are 100%

What you're doing wrong is the forgetting factor zero

0. the odds of a keyhole arising at random at 1 in 10^5000
1. If the key fits into a key hole it will think
2. If it thinks then the odds of it being in the keyhole are 100%
3. Therefore the odds of a thinking key being fit to the keyhole are 1 in 5^1000


It's the same with life in the universe
0. the odds of a universe arising at random wherein life can exist are easily over 1 in 10^5000
1. if life arises then the odds of that universe being fit for life is 100%
2. life exists
3. therefore the odds of life existing are 100%
(that's wrong, the odds of life existing are well over 1 in 10^5000)