Statistical impossibility??

Firstly, the phrase "...it would be statistically impossible" doesn't make sense. If something is impossible, it doesn't happen, and no statistics are involved. If something is possible (no matter how improbable), it has a greater than zero statistical chance of happening. These are really just the definitions of impossible and possible. I don't think i am just nit-picking here. A great many arguments presented on this forums topics make the statement that some probability is so small that it is essentially zero. Of all the numbers, and there are a whole bunch of them, only one gets to be essentially zero. (and no, its not the square root of pi.)I think the previous posts have addressed what you were most likely referring to, but before the current hubbub about the likelihood of our universe existing arose, there was equally heated discussion about the Drake Equation , which is also described here: Wiki Article on Drake Eq. .This equation, put forward in 1961, tries to estimate how many planets in our galaxy are currently occupied by technologically advanced civilizations. The real value of studying the discussion that evolved around this equation is to see just how easy it is to come up with something that seams to be scientifically or mathematically valid but is really just nonsense because of the lack of knowledge surrounding its key aspects. It has been shown that even very small changes in the values of fundamental constants or laws will radically change the nature of our universe, but there is no way to determine whether there might be other combinations, or even an infinite number of combinations, that could lead to complex structures of 'stuff'.

I loved the logic shown in your linked article. What his argument boils down to is that for something to exist, it must have a set of traits and specific values of at least some of those traits, since its existence is defined by its traits and their values. Since many of these traits will have an infinite range of possible values and the 'something' will only have one or at best a very limited finite range of these values, the probability of anything having that specific set of values and thus existing is zero.But god has a very specific set of traits and a limited set of values of those traits - e. g., he/she/it is merciful and all loving, etc. Thus, the author of that tract has nicely proven that god cannot exist. Of course, the author himself/herself/itself also cannot exist, so we are left with the question: If the existence of god is disproved by a nonexistent entity, does that mean that god can still exist?

Actually, one of the major hallmarks of intelligent design is DESIGN MARGIN! Only a very stupid design has so little margin that even the slightest changes in the design parameters totally disrupts the function of the 'product'. Remember the problem that Ford SUVs had with Bridgestone tires? If the tire pressure was not exactly correct, the vehicles became unstable and had a tendency to flip. The annals of industrial design are littered with such stories of defunct products and companies that were too tightly designed and suffered from inadequate design margin. So its ironic that some try to use the precarious semi-stability of the laws and constants of nature to argue for intelligent design in the universe.

Ya, 'n dem Ford SUVs drove real sweet 'til you took a corner a tad too fast. Not sure what the universal counterpart to fast cornering is, but there is some indication that some of those constants are slowly changing. How long until the get into the kaboom range? I just know I'm keeping my life insurance paid up. My real point in previous post is that when designers get their annual performance review, its based more on results than intentions. It appears that the so called intelligent designer didn't graduate from MIT with Summa Cum Laude. I would think that ID proponents would be trying to refute the improbable universe theories rather than embrace them.It appears that the majority of people strongly believe the multiple universe concept with other universes having quite different physics. At least one of these universes (they believe) can support intelligent life that is disease free and immortal (disease and decease free).-------------------
The downside of immortallity is that the second trillion years can drag on a bit.Reqards, AnInGeEdited by AnswersInGenitals, : edited to correct spelling and add really cute comment.