Delusions of Man regarding God and religion

[Immanuel Can]

Fascinating. I see what you're saying.

Let me add this in support of your enthusiasm for the idea of probability: almost all the knowledge we have -- including all the knowledge from the "hard" sciences -- is probabilistic, not absolute knowledge. Absolute proof is possible in but one realm, pure mathematics. In every other realm, what we try to do is increase the probability of our being right and diminish the odds of our being in error. In some matters, perhaps, we get into the very high 90s in our level of certainty...but always we have a sliver of uncertainty we simply cannot, in fairness, say we've closed. Even for rudimentary science experiments, there is always the question of how many trials are necessary to justify a conclusion -- we cannot try *all* cases, so at some point we just quit testing and say, "The answer is very, very probably X, with very minimal chance we're wrong." But that's not *certain* knowledge, just highly probabilistic assumption on our part.

So there is much to be said for probability as an epistemological tool: it characterizes most of life.

I'm particularly fascinated by your introduction of a term that has not, until now, entered the discussion "purpose." You say, "consciousness has a purpose": but that's a bit ambiguous, because it could mean "Conscious people purpose things," or it could mean, "The very existence of a thing such as consciousness is indicative that there is a transcendent purpose behind our existence," or perhaps something else. Could I ask you to clarify? I wouldn't want to miss your point and ramble off discussing what wasn't really on your mind. I'm intrigued.

And certainly we can talk about the Supreme Being question: I shall leave when and whether we should move on to that to your preference.

[Ginkgo]

Fascinating. I see what you're saying.

Let me add this in support of your enthusiasm for the idea of probability: almost all the knowledge we have -- including all the knowledge from the "hard" sciences -- is probabilistic, not absolute knowledge. Absolute proof is possible in but one realm, pure mathematics. In every other realm, what we try to do is increase the probability of our being right and diminish the odds of our being in error. In some matters, perhaps, we get into the very high 90s in our level of certainty...but always we have a sliver of uncertainty we simply cannot, in fairness, say we've closed. Even for rudimentary science experiments, there is always the question of how many trials are necessary to justify a conclusion -- we cannot try *all* cases, so at some point we just quit testing and say, "The answer is very, very probably X, with very minimal chance we're wrong." But that's not *certain* knowledge, just highly probabilistic assumption on our part.

So there is much to be said for probability as an epistemological tool: it characterizes most of life.

I'm particularly fascinated by your introduction of a term that has not, until now, entered the discussion "purpose." You say, "consciousness has a purpose": but that's a bit ambiguous, because it could mean "Conscious people purpose things," or it could mean, "The very existence of a thing such as consciousness is indicative that there is a transcendent purpose behind our existence," or perhaps something else. Could I ask you to clarify? I wouldn't want to miss your point and ramble off discussing what wasn't really on your mind. I'm intrigued.

And certainly we can talk about the Supreme Being question: I shall leave when and whether we should move on to that to your preference.

I think you have done a good job of summarizing my explanation. At the moment I would like to deal with the second part of your response as it seems seems the most interesting.

I think conscious people purpose things and there is a transcendent or transverse purpose for consciousness. So the answer is both at the same time. How is this possible? Firstly, I move to the default position when it comes to consciousness. That is to say, that quantum mechanics shows physicalism to be false. Another way of saying this would be that quantum mechanics shows that physicalism only provides half an explanation for consciousness. So where does the other half come from?

The physicalist would tell us that the brain operates like a computer.Consciousness arises through the binary action. Again, it is claimed that consciousness is matter in motion. This is the full explanation, there is no other half missing. I would suggest that is explanation is true for computers we have at the moment, but this would not be strictly true of computers that are quantized.In this explanation I will borrow some ideas from Stewart Hameroff. My apologies to Hameroff if I mess up his ideas. Better also thank Immanuel and mystic for their input to date.

Computer analogies we use at the moment account for localized action, this is true, but the brain that carries out quantum functions finds it impossible to keep the information localized. Basically, I am saying that what happens in one 'realm' has an effect in a different 'realm'. Probably want I am trying to do is demonstrate that consciousness resides both inside and outside of the brain at the same time. This is done through the computations of the quantum brain.

In summary the binary model of the brain explains the how conscious people purpose things in terms of classical science. Perhaps we could call this aspect "the definite outcome". The quantum model explains how consciousness transverses from the classical to the quantum. Perhaps we can call this the,"yet to be determined outcome".

I also think this is where the beauty of the time dependent Schrodinger equation comes into play as an explanation. The Schrodinger equation attempts to unite classical physics with quantum physics. In fact I would argue as far as the actual equation is concerned there is little difference between the classical scientific explanation of physical world and the quantum world. The actual difference being that within the quantum equation probability does not suddenly jump to 100 or to zero. This only happens when a certain outcome is known by the observer. Within the Schrodinger equation probability always isolates between 100 and zero but never jumping to one or the other. In other words,the only bit missing from the Schrodinger equation is the bit that explains why knowledge has suddenly changed and forced a "jump". That "jump" to certainty can only be caused by an observer. It cannot be explained adequately just using the physicalists knowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

Very interesting.

I think your idea of the intersection of "ghost" and "machine," to borrow terms from Gilbert Ryle, is most interesting.

I too have always found physicalist ideas unconvincing. They look quite reductional to me, and very simple-minded as well. They partake of a very basic error in logic: namely the mistake that coincidence is causality. You can see this mistake in statements like, "Every time I drink tea, I spill some on my tie; therefore tea makes me spill on my tie." It might well be clumsiness, or earthquakes, or Parkinson's disease that is the real cause. Coincidence is not cause.

In a simliar way, brain states, even if they were ever shown to have a 1-1 correspondence with mental states, would not warrant the conclusion that all that was operating was the physical stuff. There might be additional forces at work that produce both mind and brain states, just like Parkinson's causes both teacups to wobble and ties to get stained.

Very interestingly, people who insist on believing that are not thoroughgoing materialists or physicalists as they imagine -- since they believe it *on faith.* What I mean is that they frankly admit that they *have not* mapped all such correspondences, yet they persist in the belief that they *could,* at least in principle -- yet this they could not possibly know on a scientific evidence basis, unless it had been done. So they just believe it anyway. How ironic.

How about the other half of your "both" answer: does "purpose" in life consist solely in the fact that human beings like to imagine or attribute purposes where there are none inherent, or is there what we might call a "real" purpose to life -- that is, one that exists outside of and independent of their efforts to generate it? It looks to me like you do, to some extent, believe "purpose" can be "made" by human effort; but can it be "found" as well -- does it already exist, waiting to be "found"?

And if they are "both" realities, then does the "made" purpose have to agree with the "found" one?

[abepat]

I've been having a peek now and then into the conversation going on. I hope to respond next week when i have a few days off since these days i'm up to the neck with work.

[Ginkgo]

Very interesting.

I think your idea of the intersection of "ghost" and "machine," to borrow terms from Gilbert Ryle, is most interesting.

I too have always found physicalist ideas unconvincing. They look quite reductional to me, and very simple-minded as well. They partake of a very basic error in logic: namely the mistake that coincidence is causality. You can see this mistake in statements like, "Every time I drink tea, I spill some on my tie; therefore tea makes me spill on my tie." It might well be clumsiness, or earthquakes, or Parkinson's disease that is the real cause. Coincidence is not cause.

In a simliar way, brain states, even if they were ever shown to have a 1-1 correspondence with mental states, would not warrant the conclusion that all that was operating was the physical stuff. There might be additional forces at work that produce both mind and brain states, just like Parkinson's causes both teacups to wobble and ties to get stained.

Very interestingly, people who insist on believing that are not thoroughgoing materialists or physicalists as they imagine -- since they believe it *on faith.* What I mean is that they frankly admit that they *have not* mapped all such correspondences, yet they persist in the belief that they *could,* at least in principle -- yet this they could not possibly know on a scientific evidence basis, unless it had been done. So they just believe it anyway. How ironic.

How about the other half of your "both" answer: does "purpose" in life consist solely in the fact that human beings like to imagine or attribute purposes where there are none inherent, or is there what we might call a "real" purpose to life -- that is, one that exists outside of and independent of their efforts to generate it? It looks to me like you do, to some extent, believe "purpose" can be "made" by human effort; but can it be "found" as well -- does it already exist, waiting to be "found"?

And if they are "both" realities, then does the "made" purpose have to agree with the "found" one?

I didn't actually think of Ryle, although I have read his book, "The Concept of Mind" is a book I haven't read for ages, so I went to the Wikipedia in relation to the "ghost in the machine", it says:

The "ghost in the machine" is Ryle's description of Descartes mind-body dualism.Ryle believes that the model represents the absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' when mental activity occurs parallel to physical action, but where the means of interaction are unknown, or at best speculative.

I don't think it will be long before so-called speculation turns into scientific fact. First of all I would like to say that the Wikipedia quote is accurate to a limited extent. Using the physicalists computer explanation for consciousness it is indeed difficult to see how a binary system could possibly parallel or interact with 'detached' mental activity. Binary systems just don't do this, so the obvious solution for the physicalists is to say that the physical is all there is and it is the complete explanation. There is no dualism.

Enter Steward Hameroff with his studies of microtubules; structures that carry out quantum computations inside the brain. Hameroff claims that all living cells (including brains) carry out quantum computation. This is not just another philosophical theory or idle speculation on the part of Hameroff. He has hard scientific data to back up his claims. If true, what implications does this have for the mind-body problem as a whole?

As I mentioned previously quantum non-locality means there is not just local computations just taking place in the brain as we might find with a binary model. It would mean that information is shared with the 'environment'. Not necessarily all information, but some information exchange. For example, information from all living cells (including brains) might be shared with gravity, or perhaps time.

This is basically what I meant when earlier I talked about what happens in one realm has an influence in another realm and the information process is characterized in terms of exchange of information. In other words, at the deepest level of the quantum micro world information is continually being processed and exchanged with all living cells through the microtubules.

In relation to both "realities" having a purpose that needs to be in agreement? My short answer would be that it does and it doesn't, but I will save that for next time.

[QMan]

...

Unless I am mistaken Stephen Hawking thinks along these lines as well although his understanding of God would be somewhat different. I tend to follow Hawking but I believe that once humans have a better understanding of quantum mechanics then we will know something about the mind of God.

Turns out that Stephen Hawking may be a good physicist but he does not have the skills of a professional philosopher. Enter John Lennox (whom I absolutely admire) Oxford mathematician and philosopher who brilliantly takes apart Hawking's proof that God does not have to exist (in his short paperback "God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?"). 
You really have to pay attention to both sides of the argument. As far as I can tell the theist scientist side, and there are actually many of them, is winning the argument hands down.  

A video lecture by John Lennox on this topic is available in the link below.

Topic:
The Margaret Harris Lecture on Religion
'A Matter of Gravity:
God, the Universe and Stephen Hawking'
Professor John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford

From <http://www.dundee.ac.uk/externalrelatio ... ligion.htm>

[Immanuel Can]

Unless I am mistaken Stephen Hawking thinks along these lines as well although his understanding of God would be somewhat different. I tend to follow Hawking but I believe that once humans have a better understanding of quantum mechanics then we will know something about the mind of God.

Your message somehow indicates that I said the above. Actually, this is a Ginko quotation. Jut to clear up the record, I don't follow Hawking on that point.

I share your appreciation for John Lennox. I saw him do a lecture series and I had a nice little chat with him two months ago. A lovely man: humble, sincere, kind and smart as a whip.

[Ginkgo]

Unless I am mistaken Stephen Hawking thinks along these lines as well although his understanding of God would be somewhat different. I tend to follow Hawking but I believe that once humans have a better understanding of quantum mechanics then we will know something about the mind of God.

Your message somehow indicates that I said the above. Actually, this is a Ginko quotation. Jut to clear up the record, I don't follow Hawking on that point.

I share your appreciation for John Lennox. I saw him do a lecture series and I had a nice little chat with him two months ago. A lovely man: humble, sincere, kind and smart as a whip.

To date I have managed to find time to look at half of the Lennox lecture. Lennox sums up Hawking's idea of "knowing the mind of God" pretty well. Hawking believes that science can provide the "why" explanation. On this basis Hawking is saying that God is actually the laws of physics. If we know the laws we can know the mind.

Lennox rightly points out that science cannot provide the "why" explanation it can only provide the "how" explanation. If you have seen the lecture Lennox uses the invention of the jet engine by Frank Whittle to illustrate his point. No amount of examination of a jet engine will tell us why Sir Frank decided to invent the jet engine, although we could speculate. Examining the jet engine will only ever tell us how it functions.

Now Lennox is right but unfortunately it leads us to a type of default position in terms of an alternative. That alternative being a intelligent designer. If I were to find a watch on the ground do I not assume that it was the creation of a watchmaker. Is it not reasonable to assume that it didn't just happen to put itself together over a long period of time.

Dawkins would also has problems with Lennox over this issue as well and Dawkins asks the the question in terms of evolutionary theory. " Did life on earth evolve with the use of a skyhook or a crane?" The skyhook/crane analogy being similar to the "how" and "why" question. Being an atheist the answer for Dawkins is obvious, evolution was built from the ground up through some type of natural selection process via mutations.This is usually where debates on evolution get out of hand and people tend to retreat to their favourite position and defend it vigorously. I may as well get in early and put my two cents worth in before everyone else does.

I feel as though both interpretations are correct, but the trick is to explain how seemingly at odds positions are really complementary. I think this is were Immanuel came in with his question,"And if they are both 'realities', then does the 'made' purpose have to agree with the 'found' one?"

In order to try and answer this question I think we need to get rid of the mistake Dawkins and Lennox tend to make in their discussions. That is to say, the both talk in terms of 'flows' of information, where as quantum explanations talks of packets or chunks of information. The advantage of a quantum interpretations is that there is no need to play the "how" and "why" explanations off against each other. Both types of information are contained in the quanta.

[QMan]

Very interesting.

In a simliar way, brain states, even if they were ever shown to have a 1-1 correspondence with mental states, would not warrant the conclusion that all that was operating was the physical stuff.
And if they are "both" realities, then does the "made" purpose have to agree with the "found" one?

Concerning brain states, here are mapped brain states from 5 seers from Medjugorje while they are seeing and are communicating with an apparition of the Blessed Mother, Mary. During the ecstasy, alpha waves cover their entire brain, posterior and anterior, which never happens. Alpha waves ordinarily only appear in the posterior region. The medical and scientific community has identified this as a supernatural event based on their extensive measurents and testing over the last 30 years that these appearances have gone on. Not really sure that quantum processes are at work here .

Quote from that site, also giving web link.

"The scientific tests conducted in 1984 by Professor H. Joyeux and his medical team from Montpellier (France) have defined the ecstasies state of 5 teenagers, 2 boys and 3 girls, from the village of Medjugorje (Bosnia Herzegovina). These young people say they see, hear (and sometimes touch) the Virgin Mary, Who appears to them daily since June 25, 1981 (a sixth girl didn’t have the apparition on such a regular basis since 1982).

The electroencephalograms, performed on three of them, have recorded alpha rhythm on the whole brain during the ecstasies, while their look is captured by the apparition.

These examinations capture, on the surface of the scalp, minimal electricity produced by the activity of brain cells. The alpha rhythm (between 8 and 13 Hertz) is a normal rhythm of wakefulness, mainly of rest. It occurs essentially in the posterior regions of the brain when the eyes are closed. Similar results are usually obtained when listening to soothing music or when one is in a state of contemplation, meditation or prayer, especially with eyes closed. It also corresponds to the intermediate state between wakefulness and the first stage of sleep: when one relaxes with the light off, but is not yet asleep.

Therefore, in Medjugorje, the results are remarkable since, especially with Marija, the alpha rhythm occurs preferentially at the moment of ecstasy with a tendency to spread to anterior regions of the brain, while the eyes remain open and oriented towards the apparition.

This data, which are a "world first", coupled with the ocular behavior (the look changes as soon as the ecstasy begins with a remarkable fixity, absence of blinking to the threat of light, with a certain convergence of the eyes) and synchronism when the young are together (kneeling, beginning of central prayer aloud, fixity - verified by simultaneous recordings - then raising of the eyes at the end) discard any possibility of deception, as well as sleep, dreams, epilepsy, or mental confusion.

The ecstatic are, therefore, in a very specific, but non-pathological state of disconnection with the surrounding world and extraordinary receptivity of the brain, where the sight and hearing of a presence from beyond doesn’t transit through neurological usual senses. The return to the ordinary state takes place without any transition."

http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/sc ... -2010.html

[Immanuel Can]

In order to try and answer this question I think we need to get rid of the mistake Dawkins and Lennox tend to make in their discussions. That is to say, the both talk in terms of 'flows' of information, where as quantum explanations talks of packets or chunks of information. The advantage of a quantum interpretations is that there is no need to play the "how" and "why" explanations off against each other. Both types of information are contained in the quanta.

I can't make heads or tails of this explanation, I'm afraid. It may be that "How" and "Why" come bundled in the data, but it seems to me quite clear that whatever the "Why" is, it's got to be harmonious with the "How." If it's not, there is surely nothing that is knowable about either. And surely needs to be an explanation for the supposed dissonance.

It seems to me that the view you're espousing ends up being anti-rational and unconfirmable. What I mean is that it denies the foundations of Aristotelean logic, and therefore makes it impossible to use logical means to investigate your claim. So before I agree with you, I would want to see "How" and "Why" explained; but I don't think you're claiming to be convinced of only one "How", or to know the "Why." So how is it you're able to convince yourself that you *know* that "How" and "Why" are actually bundled? What would be your evidence of that?

How do you know that Dawkins and Lennox are making a mistake? What's your data for that? It's not enough to cite the fact of an existing paradigm called "Quantum Theory": I think you'd need to show that it has the epistemological implications you say it does. Sorry to seem contentious, but so far it looks to me like exotic speculation and no more.

[Ginkgo]

In order to try and answer this question I think we need to get rid of the mistake Dawkins and Lennox tend to make in their discussions. That is to say, the both talk in terms of 'flows' of information, where as quantum explanations talks of packets or chunks of information. The advantage of a quantum interpretations is that there is no need to play the "how" and "why" explanations off against each other. Both types of information are contained in the quanta.

I can't make heads or tails of this explanation, I'm afraid. It may be that "How" and "Why" come bundled in the data, but it seems to me quite clear that whatever the "Why" is, it's got to be harmonious with the "How." If it's not, there is surely nothing that is knowable about either. And surely needs to be an explanation for the supposed dissonance.

It seems to me that the view you're espousing ends up being anti-rational and unconfirmable. What I mean is that it denies the foundations of Aristotelean logic, and therefore makes it impossible to use logical means to investigate your claim. So before I agree with you, I would want to see "How" and "Why" explained; but I don't think you're claiming to be convinced of only one "How", or to know the "Why." So how is it you're able to convince yourself that you *know* that "How" and "Why" are actually bundled? What would be your evidence of that?

How do you know that Dawkins and Lennox are making a mistake? What's your data for that? It's not enough to cite the fact of an existing paradigm called "Quantum Theory": I think you'd need to show that it has the epistemological implications you say it does. Sorry to seem contentious, but so far it looks to me like exotic speculation and no more.

No, don't be sorry. You rightly should be skeptical. You are very perceptive and as a result you have hit the nail on the head.

Basically I have reached a dead end. This is because I haven't worked out the details as yet, and the chances are I never will. By isolating my quote you rightly point out that I don't have an adequate explanation as to the possibility that the "how" and the "why' are contained within a probability wave. So yes, this bit is just speculation on my part.

[Ginkgo]

In order to try and answer this question I think we need to get rid of the mistake Dawkins and Lennox tend to make in their discussions. That is to say, the both talk in terms of 'flows' of information, where as quantum explanations talks of packets or chunks of information. The advantage of a quantum interpretations is that there is no need to play the "how" and "why" explanations off against each other. Both types of information are contained in the quanta.

I can't make heads or tails of this explanation, I'm afraid. It may be that "How" and "Why" come bundled in the data, but it seems to me quite clear that whatever the "Why" is, it's got to be harmonious with the "How." If it's not, there is surely nothing that is knowable about either. And surely needs to be an explanation for the supposed dissonance.

It seems to me that the view you're espousing ends up being anti-rational and unconfirmable. What I mean is that it denies the foundations of Aristotelean logic, and therefore makes it impossible to use logical means to investigate your claim. So before I agree with you, I would want to see "How" and "Why" explained; but I don't think you're claiming to be convinced of only one "How", or to know the "Why." So how is it you're able to convince yourself that you *know* that "How" and "Why" are actually bundled? What would be your evidence of that?

How do you know that Dawkins and Lennox are making a mistake? What's your data for that? It's not enough to cite the fact of an existing paradigm called "Quantum Theory": I think you'd need to show that it has the epistemological implications you say it does. Sorry to seem contentious, but so far it looks to me like exotic speculation and no more.

No, don't be sorry. You rightly should be skeptical. You are very perceptive and as a result you have hit the nail on the head.

Basically I have reached a dead end. This is because I haven't worked out the details as yet, and the chances are I never will. By isolating my quote you rightly point out that I don't have an adequate explanation as to the possibility that the "how" and the "why' are contained within a probability wave. So yes,this bit is just speculation on my part.


Sorry double post

[QMan]

To date I have managed to find time to look at half of the Lennox lecture. Lennox sums up Hawking's idea of "knowing the mind of God" pretty well. Hawking believes that science can provide the "why" explanation. On this basis Hawking is saying that God is actually the laws of physics. If we know the laws we can know the mind.

Lennox rightly points out that science cannot provide the "why" explanation it can only provide the "how" explanation.

Actually, from what I recall from Lennox's book "God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?", Stephen Hawking believed that he had shown that God was not needed for the creation of our universe and hence one can assume that God does not exist. That was the main point that Lennox debunked. Hawking based his conclusion on his contribution to the multiverse theory (which was around before his involvement) wherein our and an infinite other universes are spontaneously created and absorbed by quantum processes from the quantized vacuum energy state in space. According to his thinking this process is endless without beginning and end. Hence, a first cause is not needed. The why and how concerning our universe therefore does not even enter the picture although it was brought up by Lennox in some of his arguments to contradict Hawking. Lennox used a very basic but powerful tool from his Philosopher's toolbag to catch Hawking's glaring mistakes. Namely, that the multiverse idea is theory that has not and can never be proven. Therefore, the basic ground rule of philosophy applies that you cannot prove something else with an unproven or unprovable. Hence, Hawking is not entitled to claim that God is not needed, which is now mere speculation. Lennox brilliantly shows that Hawking, not being skilled in the philosophical argument, made this type of mistake many times over in his physics arguments, sometimes as often as three times in the same sentence. Thus, Hawking delivered up his theories and then immediately nullified them in the same train of thought. Not being a philosopher myself, I have nevertheless started to work with Lennox's tool and find that in the discussions in the fora in this magazine Hawking's type of mistake is repeated very often. It can change the nature of a discussion if the tool is applied consistently.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you, QMan: your thoughts on this are very relevant.

On the subject of the multiverse hypothesis, I posted a response to Joel Marks' piece on that subject under the current "Articles in Philosophy Now" section, header "Nonsense On Stilts". Last time I looked, no one had commented on my criticism of this particular theory, but I sure would be interested to hear what you think of that post. Unless I miss my guess, I suspect you'll find it harmonious with what you are suggesting about Hawking's ideas.

[QMan]

Thank you, QMan: your thoughts on this are very relevant.

On the subject of the multiverse hypothesis, I posted a response to Joel Marks' piece on that subject under the current "Articles in Philosophy Now" section, header "Nonsense On Stilts". Last time I looked, no one had commented on my criticism of this particular theory, but I sure would be interested to hear what you think of that post. Unless I miss my guess, I suspect you'll find it harmonious with what you are suggesting about Hawking's ideas.

Immanuel, I did look at your append concerning the multiverse theory and to some extend see and agree with your analysis. There could be a caveat however
(see below). What you seem to be implying is that if you are willing to play the infinity game it can get away from you. Thus, you have an infinity of infinities of infinities, ad infinitum. E.g. there must be a universe where everything is the same as ours except for a slight difference in the angular position of one of the atoms in one of my hairs. And, of course, a nearly infinite number of angular positions of the atom are possible (within the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?). Now we are talking real infinity since it applies to every atom in the infinite number of universes. Isn't there a natural law someplace against absurdity?

Caveat: For all I know, however, physicists may have addressed this problem? One possibility being that we are talking about spontaneous creation AND absorption (destruction) of universes and I am not familiar with how that would change the infinity game. Nevertheless, Lennox's argument would still apply if you can't prove any of this. I also seem to recall that he addressed this infinity issue using this "natural law", which is based on probability theory. Namely, that it is far more probable that a directed, intelligent act created the universe rather than the absurd act of the infinity game. Note that the probabilities are in his favor because of much greater historical probabilities (changing water into wine, etc.) compared to the probabilities associated with the unprovable assertions of the infinity game.