So, a friend on Facebook posted the following status today...

Chance of winning Powerball....1 in almost 300 million. Chance that we were created by accident....one in 10 to the 40,000 power. I like those odds
.
‪#‎gottabelieve‬.

The post got a bunch of likes. I don't get into FB debates so I simply "unfollowed" my friend and moved on...

Apologies if this topic was covered already (i searched the forum); but I am curious as to how, if one were to engage in FB debates, one would respond to said post...I have some responses of my own but I wanted to run them through a "peer review"...

Thanks!

Buckethead22

The problem is that it is a simple argument, and one that affirms a belief. Like a political motto, it is not meant to convince anyone, it is meant to re-assure them.

Good replies to such statements usually lie somewhere between rhetoric and thoughtful argument. They can't be of similar vein, as you'll just polarize the debate - and they can't be too long as they will be ignored and merely answered with similar simple statements. Also, the reply should contain a question - so it can't be as easily ignored or handwaved, to force your opponent to consider what you are saying (the unstated challenge being that "if you don't answer this, you don't really have answer"). Short statements with questions are tough to ignore.

If I wanted to answer (which isn't that likely) I'd say something ala: "If the problem is that a complex form can't stem from simple processes, where did the complex process that made it come from? Aren't you just moving the problem out of sight and ignoring it?"

Unless they justify their 10^40,000 number, they have assumed what they want to conclude.

Chance of winning Powerball....1 in almost 300 million. Chance that you comprehend large numbers.... 10^10^100

Complement them for getting above 0.

Got to give them some credit.

The best way is to bait them into innocently replying, then use the opening to redirect. Playing dumb but on their side is also fun. Some ideas to work with:
So about the same odds of you getting with Lisa? [girl they like]
So you're saying we live in a simulation?
My pastor said the chances were zero. I'm confused. Was he lying?
I think God has more than a 40,000 power level. Show some respect.
Looks like you've solved theology Matt.
Millennia of religious debate ended with a Facebook post. Congrats.
This is very impressive deconstruction.

If the odds for a universe being created by accident are that high i wonder what they are for a God who created the universe and impregnated a human with himslef/son.

You really can't estimate either probability without definitions for "god" and "by accident"

Just sayin'

Roughly 1 - 1/10^40,000.

It's pretty sick that we outdrew them with those odds.

Thanks for the replies, all!!

Am I missing something? Where did they arrive at that number?

Even if its "true", a low probability event doesn't imply something won't happen. Play enough poker and you'll get one-outered and see Royal Flushes often. If that probability was with respect to the Big Bang, for example, then there could be a repetitive process that eventually hits that 10^-40 outcome.

Also, I think the odds of life forming on an Earth-like planet are high. On this very planet we had life forming 500 million years into Earth's age, which is relatively early given its current 4.5 billion age. In fact, if you argue that the Great Bombardment prevented life from forming, then life arose simultaneously as the the Great Bombardment ended. We also have all sorts of extremophiles proving how versatile life really is.

But only in a universe where that 1/10^40,000 horse came in would you be here to observe that and understand those incredible sounding odds, and it would seem unlikely.

Your friend's post is just another form of the 'fine tuning' argument.

Awesome, thanks for the replies all!