> Randy: A process which could produce any one of a thousand outcomes only
> produces one. That outcome does in fact occur but to specify it in
> advance would be very difficult. It seems to me that this is the
> sense in which Joseph's critique is valid.
>
> Indeed, but why presume that the outcome had to be specified in advance.
Randy: It seems to me that it's the nature of probability to deal with
prediction of future events and not the observation of already occurred
events. No one is interested in hearing weathermen discuss the probability
of today's weather occuring, they know that probability is one. They're
interested in the probability of tomorrow's weather being a certain way.
Which is very small if not close to zero.
Pim:Let's assume that by chance the universe arose with physical
constants allowing oxygen breathing carbon life forms to evolve. We are now here and marvel at how well our life form "fits" in the range of physical constants found in nature. A miracle ? Or an inescapable results ?
Randy: A miracle? Not given the parameters of your question. Miracles, as
defined in Scripture, have a definite purpose and therefore a "chance"
event could not be a miracle.
Why limit yourself to a biblical interpretation when talking about chance then ?
Randy: An inescapable result? My suspicion is that the answer would also be no
in this case. To say that an event happened by chance seems to imply that
the result could have been other than it in fact was. But this does raise
an interesting question. Could the physical constants of our universe have
been other than they are? What factors determine these constants?
That is a good question. Perhaps the quantum fluctuations dictate certain constants. That would be interesting.
Does science have answers to these questions?( I really don't know)
Join the club. I will be doing some more reading here.