The Atheist Confusion About a Universe Made for Us
An atheist’s attempt at trying to explain anything ultimately explains nothing
One of the best lines in the LEGO Batman movie was from LEGO Joker who, while trying to justify his existence to LEGO Batman, said, “It’s only a matter of time before I take over Gotham City.”
That line got me to think about God, His act of Creation at the Big Bang and the Laws of Probability.
We call our universe “anthropic” because it fits us like a hand-stitched glove. Everything from the structure of the atom to our galaxy points to God’s existence as this incredible fine-tuning couldn’t have happened by chance.
But, atheists, eager to pretend they know what they’re talking about, insist that the universe would have popped into existence exactly as it had “sooner or later” ― just like the criminally insane but hilarious LEGO Joker thinks he inevitably will take over Gotham.
The atheist’s error in this regard is called the Gambler’s Fallacy―also known as the “Monte Carlo Fallacy.” If you don’t examine it too closely, it resembles intelligent discourse but it fails the moment when it’s seriously explored―if it’s taken seriously, it would mean the end of science. For example, as to the question of why gravity seems to be correct in any and all experiments in the past 400 years, the answer is simple―we are currently in a period of time in which all experiments concerning gravity seem to work out. This is horrible science and even worse logic.
The prevailing theory among biologists in the 1960s, was that life on Earth was a freak phenomenon—the result of a sequence of chemical accidents so impossibly rare as to be effectively impossible to happen a second time someplace in the observable universe. As biologist Jacques Monod wrote, “Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance.” The contemporary theory, spearheaded by such atheists as Richard Dawkins, is that life will inevitably arise in Earthlike conditions. However, this is merely a rehashing of the Gambler’s Fallacy rather than an improved understanding of the origin of life.
In a Nov. 19, 2013, article in the New York Times, Paul Davies explained that the problem that scientists and scientismists are failing to recognize is the amazing complexity of life. A bacterium, the simplest form of life, is breathtakingly complex — there’s a great deal going on inside a single paramecium than atheist sci-fi fans are willingly to admit. For anyone to say that such an amazing structure could spontaneously generate from a chaotic mix of chemicals should have more than just a “hunch” or a “preference” to back up their opinions. No such process which could create the basic building blocks of life has ever been witnessed either in Nature or in our laboratories and vociferously insisting otherwise isn’t going to change historical and scientific reality.
Paul Davies, the director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University and the author of The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence, responded to Marcy’s overestimation of the Milky Way Galaxy’s containing 40 billion habitable planets in his own New York Times op-ed piece. Davies suggests that the chances of life spontaneously generating is once in a trillion trillion habitable planets. 40 billion habitable planets is nothing compared to one in a trillion trillion (i.e., 1 septillion) (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1024) Simply put, if atheists are correct and we are a result of a cosmic accident, we cannot conclude that Earth is typical as no statistical evidence can be drawn from a single example. The matter would be settled definitely if we could locate a single sample of life here on Earth that arose from scratch independent of known life. However, as of the writing of this article, Terran scientists know of the existence of almost 7,000 planets none of which harbor life―other than our own. If life does pop up readily in Earthlike conditions, then it should have started many times right here on our own planet. The discovery of just a single “alien” microbe under our very noses would be enough to conclude that the universe was indeed teeming with life. Alas, no such search has produced such an “alternative” creature. Atheists will simply have to content themselves with assisting their fellow human beings as we are, for the foreseeable lifetime of the universe, the only sentient creatures on the cosmic block.
Logicians also refer to the Gambler's Fallacy as the “Monte Carlo Fallacy” because of an extraordinary phenomenon which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino on Aug. 18, 1913. Apparently, during a game of roulette at the Casino, the ball, also known as a pill, fell on black 26 times in a row. The chances of this highly improbable outcome are nearly 1 in 137 million. It’s a common notion for gamblers to believe that after a few times of falling on black, the table is “due” to have the ball fall on red. Though this is common understanding, it’s absolutely wrong. Each spin of the roulette wheel is independent of all others―no spin of the roulette wheel affects any other spins. Thus, it cannot be said that the landing on red―or black for that matter―was inevitable. Similarly, the chance of the Big Bang ever happening isn’t inevitable and absolutely nothing that came of that extremely unlikely event―like the formation of our planet, the development of life and the generation of our species―is inevitable.
The incorrect way to think about probability is to presume if something happens more frequently than normal, or what is perceived as normal, during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future. This is nonsense and has nothing to do with science, math or logic. Indeed, it is the opposite of rational thought―it’s the result of the “feelings” atheists struggle with.
Let’s use the example of the tossing of a fair coin. The probability of getting heads on a single toss is ½ (one in two) or 0.5 percent.
The probability of getting two heads in a row in two back-to-back tosses is ¼ (one in four) or 0.25 percent.
The probability of getting three heads in a row in three back-to-back tosses is ⅛ (one in eight) or 0.125 percent.
The probability of getting four heads in a row in four back-to-back tosses is ⅟16 (one in 16) or 0.0625 percent.
The probability of getting five heads in a row in five back-to-back tosses is ⅟32 (one in 32) or 0.03125 percent.
As can be easily seen, probability is a matter of mathematical progression and absolutely not one of, “Well…we’re due for a reversal of fortunes now.” This is a failed atheist version of the Manichean worldview that teaches everything in the universe is balanced by something else in a universe which is, somehow, magically “aware” of all of our actions and, indeed, of all coin tosses as well.
But, back to the above example, an atheist observer who believes in the Gambler’s Fallacy would insist that the coin is “due” to fall on tails now that the five “heads” have been “used up.” However, each coin toss is independent of all others―both this particular coin and, indeed, all other coins in the universe. Thus, the chances of heads appearing on the sixth coin toss is still 50/50. However, if we’re taking the coin tosses as a series, the chances of the next toss also coming up heads is 0.015625 percent.
Six heads turning up in a row has a ⅟64 (one in 64) percent of a chance happening. A person might believe that the next flip would be more likely to come up tails but this is incorrect, illogical and unrealistic thinking. Why? Because the phenomena/event of 5-heads-in-a-row and the event 4-heads-and-then-a-tail are equally unlikely, each having the probability of ⅟32 or 0.03125 percent chance of occurring. They are both equally as unlikely.
Belief in luck or the Gambler’s Fallacy is a form of atheistic supernaturalism―a pagan animism in which atheists believe intelligent spirits inhabit the features of nature―such as “luck.” Apparently, G.K. Chesterton was correct when he wrote, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
Atheist reliance upon the Gambler’s Fallacy to explain away why our universe fits us like a hand-stitched glove is misguided and ignorant. It’s derived from the presumption of the existence of a “law of small numbers” and that our “sentient” universe will somehow “correct itself.” Those who subscribe to this fallacy insist they possess a mystical knowledge of a cosmic equilibrium to which only atheists, but not scientists, are privy.
Is LEGO Joker “due” to take over Gotham City? Of course not. Gotham City is as it is and Batman always wins. No matter how many times atheists pretend there are alternative universes out there, and the rules of logic and probability “magically” don’t apply to science and out anthropic universe, they simply aren’t’ thinking straight.
In other words, an atheist’s attempt at trying to explain anything ultimately explains nothing.