NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15874

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!cs.widener.edu!dsinc!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!troi.cc.rochester.edu!esot
From: [e-mail] (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:42:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: troi.cc.rochester.edu

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lionel Tun) writes:

>[e-mail] (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
>>so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.

>I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
>mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
>something that is impossible becomes possible.

  This strikes me as a sort of knee-jerk response on Mr. Tun's part.  So I'd
like to offer him the opportunity to state whether he REALLY thinks that the
probabibility of life having come into existence without supernatural
intervention is 0 (not even almost 0).  If so, what licenses this conviction
that a natural explanation for life is, literally, impossible?  Have you an
argument that we might consider?

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
[e-mail]    |  One chance.