Flipping a coin has a 50/50 chance of heads vs tails. How many times do you think you could flip heads in a row with a 50/50 chance? You would be pretty lucky to get 5 heads in a row, which only has a 3% chance of happening. Getting 10 heads in a row is even more daunting, with only a 0.09% chance of happening (that's less than 10% of 1%).
What about getting struck by lightning?
What are the chances of getting struck by lightning in terms of coin flips? Getting struck by lightning in your lifetime is about 19 heads in a row, which means you would have to try flipping your coin over 526,000 times before getting 19 heads in a row. Your chances of being struck by lightning is about 1 out of 600,000.
What about winning the lottery?
It depends on the lottery you are attempting, but generally about 1 in 23,000,000 are your chances (which is 1 in 23 million). This is equivalent to getting 24 heads in a row.
You are actually more likely to get struck by lightning than to win the lottery, and most people will not be struck by lightning in their lifetime, and even more people will not win the lottery.
What about 50 heads in a row?
The probability of getting 50 heads in a row is 0.0000000000000009 which is a ridiculously tiny chance.
What about 100 heads in a row?
Your chances of getting 100 heads in a row are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – meaning it is impossible for you to ever obtain 100 heads in a row. Even if every person on Earth tried to obtain 100 heads in a row, at the same time, for their entire lifetime at a rate of 100 tries per day, no one would ever achieve it.
The chances of the world's population collectively trying to obtain 100 heads in a row over the course of a lifetime is 1 in about 100,000,000,000,000.
I realize that these
numbers are beginning to not make sense for most people. After all,
how can any of us even fathom just how impossible it is to achieve
100 heads in a row with a 50/50 chance per coin flip? It is
essentially impossible, but stay with me.
What about 1,000 heads in a row?
It's a 9 with 301 zeros before it. Definitely impossible, considering the impossibility of even obtaining 100 heads in a row just one time.
What about 1 million heads in a row?
Most calculators cannot even calculate this tiny
number. Now, let's explore the possibility of the universe existing in terms of coin flips.
Now let's consider the probability of the universe existing. How many heads in a row would be needed to equal this probability?
Remember, at 100 heads in a row, we are already entering into the realm of virtual impossibility, because the probability of achieving 100 heads in a row is so tiny that the human population could not achieve this feat, even working together. If any person ever somehow managed to achieve 100 heads in a row, it would undoubtedly be a miracle.
So, is the probability of the universe equal to 1,000 coin flips of heads?
Is the probability of the universe 1 million coin flips of heads?
Is the probability of the universe 1 billion coin flips of heads?
Not Even Close.
The probability of the universe existing with life is more than:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 heads in a row, or getting heads 10 quintillion times.
The probability of getting 1,000 heads in a row is basically zero, and most calculators cannot even calculate the probability of getting 100,000 heads in a row.
So then what does it mean to get 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 heads in a row?
It means it's impossible. It means that the universe itself should not even exist with life. Yet here we are, against all impossibilities.
Imagine taking the roughly 220 tiny
parts of a Swiss-made watch (non-assembled), then throwing them up in the air and having them land on the ground assembled, working, and keeping perfect time.
That's because it is impossible, yet this is more possible than the existence of the universe with life. Scientists who propose that Intelligent Design is the only logical conclusion to these facts are arguing that, if it requires "conscious thought" to put together something so detailed like a Swiss watch, then how much more for the universe? A Swiss watch cannot be made by random forces, yet the universe is significantly larger and significantly more fine-tuned than a Swiss watch.
Christopher Hitches, renowned Atheist, admitted that, "Without question the fine-tuning [Intelligent Design] argument is the most powerful argument of the other side."
Fred Hoyle, an Astronomer, said, "My atheism was greatly shaken by these developments."
Paul Davies, Theoretical Physicist, said, "The appearance of design is overwhelming."
Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, said, "The more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here."
Given the overwhelming impossibility of
the universe, why doesn't science finally admit that there HAS
to be a Creator? This is the only logical conclusion, and it goes against common sense to deny these facts.
At what point do we finally admit that random chance could not have produced the universe, let alone life?
Well, actually science is not the problem. People are. Have you every been around a group of people (maybe at work) who voted for the "other" presidential candidate? Or have you ever been in any situation where you disagreed on a subject that everyone else agreed on?
Why were you afraid to share your view? What happened if you did share your view?
You were ostracized. You were an outcast. People didn't talk to you, or they didn't eat with you. The stronger the view on a subject, the more hostile people are when you oppose that view.
During presidential elections, it is not uncommon to hear people say, "If you vote for the other candidate, then I can't even look at you the same anymore."
And, in fact, this is exactly what happens in the scientific community for those who decide that the only logical conclusion is that there must be a Creator. For a long time, it has been widely accepted that being a real scientist equates to believing there is no God. This has been the norm for a very long time, and anyone who challenges this norm is shunned.
If someone believes in Intelligent Design, then other scientists immediately scoff, saying, "Then you aren't a real scientist. No real scientist would believe in God."
Socially-speaking, the validity of a scientist is largely based on this crucial point of whether or not they believe in something, rather than on their education and research.
The case against God is not one of science, but rather a case of norms and customs, especially since science increasingly proves there is a God.
"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." (Romans 1:20 WEB)