The Argument from Improbability DEBUNKED

Wow this was some sick editing, great job!

If Black comes up 26 times in a row, chances are that the wheel is rigged.

I've never seen something ordered come from randomness

I thought you would add that the odds that you rolled 1-2-6-1-4 are 1 because it happened.

if you don't think solutions derived from intelligence are more probable to come up with working solutions, you should stop doing math and just roll dice

If black comes up 25 times in a row, I'd begin to suspect that the wheel is rigged, and the most likely colour to come up next would be the one that most people were betting on.

Question: christian apologists claim that jesus resurrected, because the tomb was empty and some people have seen him including the apostles. Their reason to conclude, he ressurected is that, nobody couldve stolen the body, nobody could've lied, nobody could've halucinated and so on, given that they conclude the most extraordinary explanation as we most probable since all others are unlikely. Given all that is that argument could be considered as the argument of improbability?

So first let’s address why life only has two options for origins.
If we assume the definition of life is material biological chemistry, then any explanation for that material biological chemistry Has to either be Immaterial,
Or random chance, because any material biological chemistry that could form material biological chemistry has no origin. And scientifically we know the material biological chemistry at least did not exist when the universe was formed after the great expansion. To assert that this is not a black-and-white option is scientifically in accurate and a example of circular reasoning…ie life began with life.

There for randomness-unconscious emergence from natural systems(the systems of witch are immaterial Forces)organized material biological Chemical processes to form life(scientifically sound yet extremely improbable to the point of being absurd) or an Immaterial Intelligence organized material biological and chemical processes willfully(we as humans can create the building block in a lab- we are conscious therefor the only premise currently in need of explanation is a Immaterial Intelligence).

As for the immaterial intelligence, there are historical records written of encounters with such beings. If you wish to write these offers pure superstition that’s fine but then you’re going to be conducting an argument from ignorance.

Quotation:” if we assume the rule that improbable things are either the result of random chance or intelligent design”

It only follows if you can demonstrate that a immaterial consciousness is improbable. This commits an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Claiming a special pleading fallacy offer of an argument from ignorance is not very convincing.

Great video. Don’t like the volume of the background music. It is distracting, in my humble opinion.

1. This is simply a ridiculous objection to this argument. If life was not created by random chance, then it must have been created by something on purpose, which requires a mind. Since life didn't exist, only an immaterial mind could have purposefully created life. If the creation was not purposeful, it was random. Hence, only two possibilities.

2. We know life began to exist, and God by definition does not. We are not assuming that life had a cause because it exists, but because we know that it began to exist.

3. There are at least 10 events which happened over the course of evolutionary history which are so unlikely, that each is not statistically likely to have ever happened on its own until the sun devours the earth. If evolution happened, it was a miracle. That's the point. Not that evoluton didn't happen

Did you just make up the premises to refute them?

if god never came into existence, he wouldnt be a result of random chance or agency

When stephen meets God, hey i debunked you, dont you know that.

Really liking the fancy editing and intro music. Keep it up man!

There are a couple of things that you don't mention (although you might be implying them). One is that evolution by natural selection involves random chance but it is not random chance. It has a strong mechanism (natural selection) to select and accumulate random events (mutations) that point in one direction and discard the others. Another one is the strong difference between probability and possibility. Things with probability zero may still happen, it fact they may necessarily happen. Say that I throw a dart and let's say that it is guaranteed to land on the board and equally likely to land at any point on the board. The chance that it will land on any specific point of the board is zero (not very small, absolute zero). And still we are 100% certain that it WILL land on one of those points where it is 0% likely to land. In less extremely examples, very unlikely things are very likely to happen. Like wining the lottery. For one given person, it is extremely unlikely to win the lottery. Yet, the lottery will be won by someone. Like with your dice, any specific sequence is extremely unlikely, yet it is guaranteed that one of these highly unlikely sequence will be obtained when you rol the dice. And finally, the number of opportunities, given by the billions of years that life has been evolving and the immense number of individual organisms involved in this process. While it is unthinkable that a 747 will come out of a Tornado running over a junk yard, if you have the tornado going over the yard thousands of times per day during billions of years, and every time that the result is remotely closer to being a 747 it is conserved to keep building upon in future tornadoes and every time that the result is remotely farther from a 747 it is brought to its previous state before the next tornado, I would not be surprised if you ended up with a 747.

Time
Highly unlikely is meaningless in a billion years time.

How have you not debunked systemic racism yet? lol

I think it’s funny that all the “critical thinking, facts and logic” Youtube channels have become paralyzed with fear in 2020. lol

I'm sorry but your argument is IMPROBABLE. 👍

Halfway through I know that I will have to watch again to fully absorb all this.

On a different matter. After watching this I know I would love to read or watch or hear 10 examples for each logical fallacy that is known.

Like all teleological arguments, this one commits the fallacy of ignoring the anthropic principle. Regardless of its origin, you are guaranteed to observe life and guaranteed not to observe absence of life (by virtue of you being an example of life, by definition).
The Argument from Improbability assumes that life exists with probability 1 and infers that probability of life being created by god is a complement to probability of life coming about by random chance. Here's the thing, even if life is improbable to come by random chance, that tells you jack shit about how probable it is through design. The two probabilities may add up to significantly less than 1. In fact, they are guaranteed to, because god may have simply chosen to not create life.

In Hoyle's novel, The Black Cloud, someone looks at a statistically unlikely pattern of missile strikes and asserts that they were aimed. But another character (Russian) says, “Invent bloody argument, like this. Golfer hits ball. Ball lands on tuft of grass — so. Probability ball landed on tuft very small, very very small. Million others tufts for ball to land on. Probability very small, very very very small. So golfer did not hit ball, ball deliberately guided on tuft. Is bloody argument. Yes?" And another character clarifies, “What Alexis means I think,” explained Kingsley, “is that we are not justified in supposing that there were any particular targets. The fallacy in the argument about the golfer lies in choosing a particular tuft of grass as a target, when obviously the golfer didn’t think of it in those terms before he made his shot.”
The Russian nodded.
“Must say what dam’ target is before shoot, not after shoot. Put shirt on before, not after event.”

Why does your 747 have Propellers?

Amazing video. I like this style of edition.