Aparthib Zaman

In response to: 

Thanks to Dr. Mainul Ahsan for the clarification with example calculation. He is right, I did commit a "cardinal sin" by referring to "certainly" in a statistical context. I should have phrased it "most likely", "with high probability" etc. My choice of 6^10 throwers was also not appropriate for "most likey" qualifier, a choice of 6^12 would have been more appropriate as Dr. Ahsan so nicely illustrated. But at the end of all this the fact remains that whether the probability is 0.63212056 or 0.999999999999999780477860, either way it refutes the design argument for God (as long as the probability is not zero). The existence of God does not hinge on the probability being 0.63212056 versus 0.999999999999999780477860. The whole logic was to drive home the point that any event with a low probability can happen if the number of trials is increased to a large enough number. So the irate critic of my article will find little solace in this refinement of the statistical logic in my article. We understand truth can be hurtful. The fact that design argument has been proven to be flawed is a source of utter disappointment to the apologist, resulting in some cases to incoherent babble and personal attacks. The remark "Rolling N dice by M people at once are not correlate events", has nothing to do with the logic being discussed.



Published at Mukto-mona 

[Mukto-mona] [Articles] [Recent Debate] [Special Event ] [Moderators] [Forum]