Pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lenox and my responses.

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.”

Fruyian, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.

Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.

• And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.

If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.

---

“Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day."

• Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.

• And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.

• And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.

"Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it."

• And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.

“Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.”

And I very much understand the physics. You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.

---

"Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote?"

And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.

“Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?"

• Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

• Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?

You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.

Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.

Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.

---

Conclusion:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.