# Is there an equation or a numeric way to express the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved)?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Atheism, Education\
**Created:** [October 16, 2024, 11:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824 "2024-10-16T23:50:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 11:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/1 "2024-10-16T23:50:52Z")

</div>

Basically what I’m asking is if there is an equation, a mathematical way to represent the likelihood probability of everythingoccurring by chance. Which is the position that scientists have that everything is just a random occurrence of chance, correct?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 12:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/2 "2024-10-17T00:35:31Z")

</div>

Sorry, but that wasn’t coherent enough to respond to. Who in the world thinks that everything happens by chance? What do you mean by “chance”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![misterme987](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/misterme987/32/15207_2.png) [@misterme987](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/misterme987)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 12:45am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/3 "2024-10-17T00:45:02Z")

</div>

That’s not possible because we don’t know everything about the natural world. Furthermore, it seems like that would be very susceptible to the fallacy of thinking that this is the only way things could be. The chance that a shuffled deck of cards has its exact configuration is 1.24 \* 10^-68, but that doesn’t mean someone must have guided it to that configuration. Likewise, the chance that this exact configuration of things is as it exists is undoubtedly miniscule, but we have no idea how else things might have turned out, or how life may exist under a totally different set of circumstances.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 3:29am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/4 "2024-10-17T03:29:08Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Basically what I’m asking is if there is an equation, a mathematical way to represent the likelihood probability of everythingoccurring by chance.

There are, within the field of Statistics, probably thousands of equations, which are _each_ mathematical ways “to represent the likelihood probability of” _something_ happening. Examples include:

the binomial distribution:

![aaaa](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/a/9/a901c726b38afdaaed399a837631ce3fb087dd31.jpeg)

and the normal distribution:

![aaaa](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/8/0/8043f309123beefbc70637babd770315fdc871ff.jpeg)

Knowing which formula to use requires having sufficient information about the chance event in question – there is no ‘one formula to rule them all’. And there are many situations for which we have insufficient information to estimate the probability with any real reliability.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Which is the position that scientists have that everything is just a random occurrence of chance, correct?

I would be speaking as someone who has a background in statistics, rather than as a scientist, and would probably agree with this statement – _but probably not for the reasons you think_.

“Chance” includes _everything_ that doesn’t have a probability of _exactly_ one or _exactly_ zero.

I may ‘know’ that the Sun will rise tomorrow – but there is still a tiny, but non-zero, probability that (for example) the Sun may explode tonight.

A scientist may ‘know’ how an experiment will proceed, but there will always be a non-zero probability that something will happen (e.g. a power surge) that ruins the experiment.

I’m not sure that this includes “everything” – but (i) it’d come very close, and (ii) I’d want to look very carefully at any exceptions before admitting to them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 12:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/5 "2024-10-17T12:05:49Z")

</div>

Is there an equation or a numeric way to express the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved)?

> The reader of the essay entitled [_Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?)_](https://www.godevidence.com/2012/02/what-is-the-chance-that-our-world-is-the-result-of-chance/) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:  
> “Try to imagine phase space… of the _entire_ universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”  
> Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:  
> “His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”  
> As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

> **[OK...I want numbers. What is the probability the universe is the result of...](https://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/)**
>
> This website is a culmination of articles and user comments that discuss evidence of God based on Science, Philosophy, and Experience.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 3:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/6 "2024-10-17T15:37:02Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Is there an equation or a numeric way to express the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved)?

No. There would appear to be insufficient information or clarity as to the earliest states of the universe for that question to have even the glimmer of hope of being meaningful. As I said above:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> And there are many situations for which we have insufficient information to estimate the probability with any real reliability.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> “His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

Those numbers are meaningless without the assumptions underlying them. I could as easily state:

> The probability of making a good cup of tea is one in a million billion trillion gazzilion.

It also should noted that:

1. John Lennox is an apologist, not a cosmologist. Therefore his aim is not to understand the universe, but to win arguments.
2. He appears to be quoting from Penrose’s book _The Emperor’s New Mind_ – which is the starting point of Penrose’s transformation from renowned physicist into purveryor of fringe Quantum Consciousness claims. Its claims therefore need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> The reader of the essay entitled [_Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?)_](https://www.godevidence.com/2012/02/what-is-the-chance-that-our-world-is-the-result-of-chance/) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved).

And so the claim that these are “hard numbers” also needs to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. The number lacks any corroborating evidence, is made by somebody who has gained a reputation for making claims that are outside the scientific mainstream, and has been filtered through two apologists – first Lennox and then Scott Youngren.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 4:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/7 "2024-10-17T16:10:00Z")

</div>

I find Lennox interesting—sometimes I listen to interviews/lectures/debates at the gym—but I remain constantly aware of a fact that I regularly reiterate here (no doubt to the boredom of all): **Philosophical discussions which happen to deal with science topics are still philosophy and do not involve the rigor and methodology of the scientific method.** That’s not necessarily a criticism of Lennox. It is a simply a reminder of the field of inquiry.

Philosophy has great value, especially as it is the very foundation and source of the historical development of science. But especially when I hear or read mathematical arguments from apologists, I keep a salt shaker and its many grains within reach.

Hmmm. I kinda like that last paragraph. I may put that one on my tombstone. Of course, considering the charge per letter, I may not want to reduce the value of my estate all that much. What the heck. Here goes:

> HERE HE BE DEAD  
> THIS IS WHAT HE SAID  
> OF THE LIFE HE LED  
> AND WHAT LIES AHEAD.
> 
> “𝕻𝖍𝖎𝖑𝖔𝖘𝖔𝖕𝖍𝖞 𝖍𝖆𝖘 𝖌𝖗𝖊𝖆𝖙 𝖛𝖆𝖑𝖚𝖊, 𝖊𝖘𝖕𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖞 𝖆𝖘 𝖎𝖙 𝖎𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖛𝖊𝖗𝖞 𝖋𝖔𝖚𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖘𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖈𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖍𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖑 𝖉𝖊𝖛𝖊𝖑𝖔𝖕𝖒𝖊𝖓𝖙 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖈𝖎𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖊. 𝕭𝖚𝖙 𝖊𝖘𝖕𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖞 𝖜𝖍𝖊𝖓 𝕴 𝖍𝖊𝖆𝖗 𝖔𝖗 𝖗𝖊𝖆𝖉 𝖒𝖆𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖒𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖑 𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖚𝖒𝖊𝖓𝖙𝖘 𝖋𝖗𝖔𝖒 𝖆𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖔𝖌𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖘, 𝕴 𝖐𝖊𝖊𝖕 𝖆 𝖘𝖆𝖑𝖙 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖐𝖊𝖗 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖎𝖙𝖘 𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖞 𝖌𝖗𝖆𝖎𝖓𝖘 𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓 𝖗𝖊𝖆𝖈𝖍.”

Yeah, I guess the fancy font didn’t help all that much. (I had hoped it would make it sound more profound.)

It will probably need a “(Continued on back of this tombstone)” to make room for all that text.

* * *

POSTSCRIPT: The monorhyme quatrain at the top of my toomstone probably deserves a fifth line just below it: “Burma Shave.”

@Puck_Mendelssohn and others of my generation will get it.

Hmmm, perhaps I just found a sponsor for my tombstone lettering.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/8 "2024-10-17T16:35:05Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> The reader of the essay entitled [_Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?)_](https://www.godevidence.com/2012/02/what-is-the-chance-that-our-world-is-the-result-of-chance/) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved).

That is not what Penrose was calculating. Lennox is being disingenuous, as is usual for anyone connected with the Discovery Institute. Anyone interested can read the full context of what Penrose wrote here:

[Spacetime, Relativity, Quantum Physics, and Quantum Gravity (ws5.com)](https://www.ws5.com/Penrose/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/9 "2024-10-17T16:35:11Z")

</div>

Thank you for reaponding. So 1. There is insufficient information and that would mean the exclusion of the possibility of “hard numbers” or any reliably accurate data. 2. Philosophical inquiries are not necessarily scientific nor do they adhere to the scientific method.

As far as the number itself is concerned would it be an astronomically high number if we were able to ascertain it? Perhaps even higher than the apologist Lennoxs’ claim? Although the exact number may not be obtainable currently, could there may arise new data or new data collection methodologies that may bring us closer to the possibility of a “hard number”?

Until such time would it be safe to assume that the number(whatever it may be) is a very large number?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 7:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/10 "2024-10-17T19:06:56Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Until such time would it be safe to assume that the number(whatever it may be) is a very large number?

No, it would not be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LogosOfLogic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/logosoflogic/32/13093_2.png) [@LogosOfLogic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/LogosOfLogic)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 7:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/11 "2024-10-17T19:27:55Z")

</div>

So then by your rationale it’s safe to assume that it’s a very small number that doesn’t make sense at all?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2024, 1:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/12 "2024-10-18T01:08:52Z")

</div>

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> As far as the number itself is concerned would it be an astronomically high number if we were able to ascertain it? Perhaps even higher than the apologist Lennoxs’ claim?

It could be. It could also be far lower. _We have no way of knowing_.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Although the exact number may not be obtainable currently, could there may arise new data or new data collection methodologies that may bring us closer to the possibility of a “hard number”?

_Any_ number, _even an approximation_, is currently unobtainable – and may well remain so indefinitely.

Lennox’s conclusion based upon Penrose’s line of argument rests upon an unsubstantiateable implicit assumption: that all points in his “phase space” are equiprobable.

To have any idea of the probability of any of these points (and even whether they are all _even possible_), we would first have to know the state of the system immediately prior – i.e. the state of the universe immediately before the Big Bang. This is currently impossible.

Therefore this conclusion is nothing but _wild speculation_.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> Until such time would it be safe to assume that the number(whatever it may be) is a very large number?

No – that assumption is **grossly unsafe** , for the reason I gave above.

This is the problem with this line of Apologetics argument. Apologists find or confect a large number/small probability and then sit back and expect people to be impressed. But _inevitably_ the number falls apart on closer examination.

> [@LogosOfLogic](#):
>
> So then by your rationale it’s safe to assume that it’s a very small number that doesn’t make sense at all?

No. It’s not safe _to make any assumption at all._ The only reasonable response is that we have no idea how big the number is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2024, 1:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-equation-or-a-numeric-way-to-express-the-probability-that-the-universe-occurred-randomly-i-e-no-conscious-creator-involved/16824/13 "2024-10-25T01:09:51Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.