[goodusername]

Of course, the odds are the same for ANY particular order of 52 cards. So unless one sees that ONE particular configuration as special, there’s no reason to view getting that particular order after a shuffle as “lucky”.

[GourmetDan]

"Of course, the odds are the same for ANY particular order of 52 cards. So unless one sees that ONE particular configuration as special, there’s no reason to view getting that particular order after a shuffle as “lucky”."

You cannot calculate odds for 'ANY particular order' because that involves division by zero. In order to calculate odds, there must be the possibility of not obtaining 'ANY particular order' (chances against) and we know that there are zero chances of not obtaining an order. Division by zero is undefined.

Now, if you are talking probabilities, the probability of 'ANY particular order' is equal to 1 because any order will do. This again is of no use to your argument.

It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate 'ANY particular order' with a specified order. I'm sorry but you fell into logical fallacy in your defense of naturalism.

Can you defend naturalism without falling into logical fallacy?

[AndrewC]

Of course, the odds are the same for ANY particular order of 52 cards. So unless one sees that ONE particular configuration as special, there’s no reason to view getting that particular order after a shuffle as “lucky”.

Using that argument implies that there is nothing special about DNA sequences that produce life versus those that don't. Ridiculous argument.