God is the knowledgeable initiator of serial probabilities, according to a recent essay. In consideration of the contingency of existence and the corresponding probability of the existence of you as you, the explanation of your existence may be luck. However, the author of the essay, Msgr. Charles Pope, claims that the explanation of your existence is not probability per se and thus, luck. It is God’s always having known the result of the series of probabilities, the result of which extreme improbability is you.
In the essay, Msgr. Pope accepts the near-consensus view that the mathematics of probability is inferred from the properties of material reality as are the mathematical relationships of the physical sciences, such as mass, which is the constant of proportionality between force and acceleration. His objective is to show the compatibility of God’s providence with the apparent science of serial probability.
The Author’s Definition of Contingency
To say that someone or something is contingent is to say that the existence of same is not inevitable, but can only come about based on any number of previous things being true in a chain of being or causality. Hence I would not exist if my parents had not existed and met. Further, they would not exist if [their] parents had not existed and met, the chain going back many generations.
Notice that the definition of contingency refers not to form in general nor to the form of one’s genetic complement in particular. It refers to existence. Further, though it uses biological generation as an example of serial contingency, the definition of contingency refers not to efficient causality (motion) at the level of biological form, but rather to efficient causality at the level of existence.
The Author’s View of Probability
The author provides two lists of serial biological events and their mathematical probabilities. He accepts the calculation of mathematical probability as an accurate assessment of existential causality:
So the probability of that one sperm with half your name on it hitting that one egg with the other half of your name on it is … one in 400 quadrillion.
But because the existence of you here now on planet earth presupposes another supremely unlikely and utterly undeniable chain of events. Namely, that every one of your ancestors lived to reproductive age we must also go further presuming 150,000 generations going back to man’s origin.
The Author’s Reconciliation of Existential Causality and Probability
The author proposes the compatibility of serial existential contingency with the existence of God as creator, by identifying God as the knowledgeable initiator of the series.
The great mystery of our existence stretches back in time into the very heart and mind of God who has always known and loved us. …
Further, mathematical probability is a valid measure of existential causality:
You’re not just one in a million, you’re one in a 102,685,000.
A Critique of the Serial Causality of the Existence of Biological Entities
It is essential to the understanding of serial causality to distinguish between the imparting of material form to pre-existing matter in contrast to causing the existence of a new material being.
There is no such thing as the serial causality of existence. God is the immediate cause of the existence of every created entity. I have argued elsewhere that, if God were the First of a causal series of existence, then either (1) every agent in the series is God or (2) the First in the series, like all the other acts in the series, is not an act of God, but an act of a creature. Acts of God and acts of creatures are at two different levels of efficient causality. In contrast, to be a causal series every act must be at the same level of causality.
Aristotle recognized that material creation is not observed by man. It is not occurring. What we observe is not creation, but substantial change in what already exists. Aristotle’s elucidation of the occurrence of substantial change implies the principle of the conservation of matter. Matter is neither created nor annihilated. Matter continues to exist, but changes form. This principle is consonant with revelation, specifically with Genesis 2:1-2, where God ceases material creation once he has created man as the final stage of material creation.
In the higher plants and animals, there are two modes of imparting biological form to pre-existing matter. One is assimilation. The other is sexual reproduction.
In assimilation, pre-existing matter ceases to have its previous form and is informed by the substantial form of the living being, which assimilates it into its material self. In sexual reproduction, a half portion of the materially existing, genetic complement from each of the two sexes combines resulting in the substantial form of a new individual of the species. (In humans, God, who alone can create, does create at conception the immaterial substantial form, but not the matter, of a new human individual). Thus, animal parents, including humans, do not impart existence to their offspring. They impart material form.
Parents are not the cause of their own existence and thus cannot give what they do not have. What they have is a biological form. Through binary division and recombination, they do give biological form, and thereby new individuality, to pre-existing matter through the process of substantial change of what already exists.
Is Mathematical Probability the Explanation of Material Events?
Probability cannot explain anything at the level of material reality, particularly at the level of its existence, because the mathematics of probability is solely logical. This can be seen in two considerations. (1) The IDs of elements, subsets, and sets in mathematical probability are solely nominal. (2) Mathematical probability is a ratio lacking material units.
Of course, the starting point is the definition of mathematical probability. In normal parlance, probability typically is the expression of a subjective judgment, e.g. “I’ll probably go to the library today.” Thus, subjective probability, i.e. human conjecture, does refer to material events. It is not so with mathematical probability. Mathematical probability is the numerical ratio of a subset to a set.
Within the context of mathematical probability, the IDs of elements, subsets, and sets are solely nominal. This can be seen in the fact that the relationships of probability are identical for a set consisting of two elephants and four sparrows and a set consisting of two paper clips and four cucumbers. The mathematics of probability ignores material properties, consistently with its definition.
Also, it can be seen that probability is purely logical in that it is a complete abstraction from all material considerations by its lack of material units. It is solely a numerical ratio. The probability of an apple in a set of four apples and two oranges is 2/3. In contrast, the density of apples in that set is 2 apples/3 fruit.
Two of the eighteen essays concerning probability on my blog are particularly relevant. They are “The Definition of Probability” and “The Meaning of Random and Non-random”.
If Not an Explanation, Why Is Mathematical Probability Illustrated by Material Events?
The illustration of mathematical probability using material events or material objects requires our ignorance of the material properties and factors which are the definitive material explanation underlying the illustration.
Consider the set of sums defined by the addition of all possible combinations of two integers belonging to two sets of the integers 1 through 6. The probability of sum 7, in the set of 36 sums defined, is 6/36 = 1/6. By way of material illustration, we say that the rolling of two dice represents the random selection of a sum from the defined set. Specifically, the sum of 7 of the rolled dice illustrates a probability of 1/6.
Of course, the result of any roll of two dice is not a matter of probability. Our saying that it illustrates probability requires our ignorance of the forces to which the dice are subjected in rolling, which definitively determines the outcome of each roll. Purely logical probability has nothing to do with it. The illustration, however, does serve as a visual aid to our understanding of the pure logic of probability.
In science, mathematical probability can serve as a tool of ignorance of the underlying material causality, such that it gives us a clue to the underlying science. An example is the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel, who employed the mathematics of probability in studying the genetic inheritance of flower color in peas. He did not conclude that the genetic inheritance of flower color was random and consequently explained as probability. He concluded that it involved the binary division and recombination of two different factors resulting in either of two pure flower colors, red and white, or their mixture, pink.
Summary
God is not the knowledgeable initiator of serial probabilities for two reasons. (1) Every act of God is immediate. Therefore, God is not the First of any series. (2) Mathematical probability is solely logical, the mathematics of nominal sets. It explains nothing that exists. It applies to existing material things only by way of analogical illustration. This analogical application requires the human ignorance of those material properties and causal factors, which are the definitive explanation of material results. Material analogies serve as visual aids in understanding the mathematics of sets.
Msgr. Pope believes he has rescued serial probability from the scientific consensus of its extreme improbability by positing God, in His providence, as the knowledgeable initiator of the series. However, no such rescue is needed because a material illustration of mathematical probability requires ignorance of the material factors involved; i.e., ignorance of a scientific explanation.
4 thoughts on “Serial Probability, God, and Existence As Luck”
I think this article is great! Thank you. It’s not about needing Math to prove the existence of God, it’s about showing the inherent harmony that should exist among and across disciplines. I find the first comment baffling. I have never before heard anyone refer to scripture and tradition as “exact sciences.” Both are far more subject to interpretation than Mathematics.
I prefer to base my beliefs on Scripture and tradition rather than mathematics. Why? Because mathematics is not an exact science. In mathematics, mathematicians begin with the desired outcome (answer) and work back for proof. They then use that formula as proof.
since what may be known about God is plain to [the wicked], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Furthermore, the probability of Atheist are within the error of most surveys anyway. My suggestion is to ask an Atheist to prove the existence of Atheism and not waste your time trying to prove the self-evidence of God. Even the demons recognized Jesus.
When engaging in argument, one should, if possible, meet one’s opponent on his turf. I judge it to be fortuitous that several modern atheists have chosen to present mathematical arguments.
The topic of the present argument attributed each one’s identity to luck on the basis of a calculated probability. It is easier to show that this argument from probability is false, then to convince an avowed mathematician that St. Paul’s philosophical argument is philosophically valid.
An excellent example is Richard Dawkins’ mathematical argument, ‘Why there almost certainly is no God’ in “The God Delusion”. He demonstrates an increase in efficiency, but erroneously identifies it as an increase in probability. His ‘central’ argument for atheism is based on an error in mathematics.
I understand self-evident to be that which, if denied, eliminates all human knowledge and communication. The existence of God is not self-evident. In contrast, ‘what has been made’ is self-evident. There are only two self-evident judgments: Things exist. Things are inherently intelligible in their existence.