Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The Real Problem with the Fine-Tuning

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:32:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not that it is based upon incomplete, missing, or bad math. It's the fact that fine-tuning supporters do not take it to it's logical conclusion.

Consider:

1. The probability of an event which is neither impossible nor certain is necessarily greater than 0, but less than 1.
2. The total probability of more than one event happening is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event. Thus, the probability that A and B happen is equal to the probability that A happens times the probability that B happens.

Given the above, the probability of multiple events happening is always necessarily less than the probability of any single one of those events happening alone.

The fine-tuning argument is based upon the notion that the probability of a universe capable of supporting life arose by chance is so low, it is more reasonable to believe that such a universe was specifically designed to support life.

YET

On top of all of the cited conditions for the universe being capable of supporting life, there are also a host of conditions that were necessary for you specifically for being born. Most of these involve the details regarding how and when your parents copulated. How fast, what position, stuff we probably don't want to think about. Then compound that with the fact that it also depends on your parents even deciding to have sex that day, having met in the first place, and being born themselves, which depends on their parents, your grandparents, etc.

So, if we give the probability of the universe capable of supporting life in general arising by chance the value U, and the probability of a specific person arising by chance within said universe the value P, the total probability of a specific person arising by chance is U*P which, as per above, is necessarily less than U.

This means that if U is sufficiently low as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the universe did not arise by chance, but rather was designed, then U*P, which is significantly less than U, should result in the same decision, and with more force.

In short, if the fine-tuning argument for the universe is to hold any water, then it must be accepted that it isn't that the universe was specifically designed for life, but that it was specifically designed to produce the exact life that it did, down to each individual person.

I have never seen a proponent of fine-tuning accept this necessary consequence of the fine-tuning argument. So I present it here. If you believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce life, do you also believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce you, specifically?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:35:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 2:32:05 PM, drafterman wrote:
It's not that it is based upon incomplete, missing, or bad math. It's the fact that fine-tuning supporters do not take it to it's logical conclusion.

Consider:

1. The probability of an event which is neither impossible nor certain is necessarily greater than 0, but less than 1.
2. The total probability of more than one event happening is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event. Thus, the probability that A and B happen is equal to the probability that A happens times the probability that B happens.

Given the above, the probability of multiple events happening is always necessarily less than the probability of any single one of those events happening alone.

The fine-tuning argument is based upon the notion that the probability of a universe capable of supporting life arose by chance is so low, it is more reasonable to believe that such a universe was specifically designed to support life.

YET

On top of all of the cited conditions for the universe being capable of supporting life, there are also a host of conditions that were necessary for you specifically for being born. Most of these involve the details regarding how and when your parents copulated. How fast, what position, stuff we probably don't want to think about. Then compound that with the fact that it also depends on your parents even deciding to have sex that day, having met in the first place, and being born themselves, which depends on their parents, your grandparents, etc.

So, if we give the probability of the universe capable of supporting life in general arising by chance the value U, and the probability of a specific person arising by chance within said universe the value P, the total probability of a specific person arising by chance is U*P which, as per above, is necessarily less than U.

This means that if U is sufficiently low as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the universe did not arise by chance, but rather was designed, then U*P, which is significantly less than U, should result in the same decision, and with more force.

In short, if the fine-tuning argument for the universe is to hold any water, then it must be accepted that it isn't that the universe was specifically designed for life, but that it was specifically designed to produce the exact life that it did, down to each individual person.

I have never seen a proponent of fine-tuning accept this necessary consequence of the fine-tuning argument. So I present it here. If you believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce life, do you also believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce you, specifically?

The fine tuning argument has to huge flaws, one the blatant assumption that this type of life is a special outcome. If it actually predicted life it would be one thing, but to go back and say it afterwards is ridiculous. Anything that occured would have had equally bad odds, most likely. Secondly do we really know the odds, as craig exists we must hold the laws to know that changing the constants would not create life. We don't know what happens when we change the laws.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 7:33:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Don't forget that the logic of the fine tuning argument would require the tunuts (tunies? tunerites?) to believe that god couldn't just accidentally be like he is unless a proto-god had made the proto-universe just exactly such as to cause god to occur in it in order to be able to create our universe.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:38:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lol. The fine tuning argument and the design (teleological) argument attempts to show that life without a creator is IMPROBABLE not impossible.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:41:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:38:15 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
Lol. The fine tuning argument and the design (teleological) argument attempts to show that life without a creator is IMPROBABLE not impossible.

Nothing I wrote necessitated this comment. Are you on the right thread?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 11:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 2:32:05 PM, drafterman wrote:
It's not that it is based upon incomplete, missing, or bad math.
I am excited we have come to this agreement.

It's the fact that fine-tuning supporters do not take it to it's logical conclusion.

Consider:
Let's consider.


1. The probability of an event which is neither impossible nor certain is necessarily greater than 0, but less than 1.
2. The total probability of more than one event happening is equal to the product of the individual probabilities of each event. Thus, the probability that A and B happen is equal to the probability that A happens times the probability that B happens.

Given the above, the probability of multiple events happening is always necessarily less than the probability of any single one of those events happening alone.

The fine-tuning argument is based upon the notion that the probability of a universe capable of supporting life arose by chance is so low, it is more reasonable to believe that such a universe was specifically designed to support life.

YET

On top of all of the cited conditions for the universe being capable of supporting life, there are also a host of conditions that were necessary for you specifically for being born. Most of these involve the details regarding how and when your parents copulated. How fast, what position, stuff we probably don't want to think about. Then compound that with the fact that it also depends on your parents even deciding to have sex that day, having met in the first place, and being born themselves, which depends on their parents, your grandparents, etc.

So, if we give the probability of the universe capable of supporting life in general arising by chance the value U, and the probability of a specific person arising by chance within said universe the value P, the total probability of a specific person arising by chance is U*P which, as per above, is necessarily less than U.

This means that if U is sufficiently low as to cause a reasonable person to believe that the universe did not arise by chance, but rather was designed, then U*P, which is significantly less than U, should result in the same decision, and with more force.

In short, if the fine-tuning argument for the universe is to hold any water, then it must be accepted that it isn't that the universe was specifically designed for life, but that it was specifically designed to produce the exact life that it did, down to each individual person.

I have never seen a proponent of fine-tuning accept this necessary consequence of the fine-tuning argument. So I present it here. If you believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce life, do you also believe that the universe was fine-tuned to produce you, specifically?

Great post. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The reason we do not accept this "necessary consequence" ,IYO, is due to the following:

The generation of the "independent" constants and quantities that themselves have no physically necessary agent pushing them, from nothing, was itself a "pure chance" event.

Your personal existence is a physically necessary event compounded with intelligent design. The intelligent design that is obvious is the "freewill" choices of the metaphysical souls you share "existence" with. For example your parent's, grandparent's etc.. decision to copulate.

A physically necessary event interlaced with Intelligent Design and chance would be....

You choose to pick up your gun and spin it around the room(intelligent design/choice), to then randomly and arbitrarily stop spinning and pull the trigger(chance), to then have the bullet rip through the wall and embed itself in the kitchen counter the next room over(Everything after the decision to pull the trigger was governed by physical forces with absolute precision).

Your two stated examples of fine-tuning(pure chance alone) and your personal present existence has seperate causes and governances.

To restate the differences in Concept:
There is zero physical laws that made the generation of the constants and quantities of gravity to appear or generate by "physical necessity".

This is a pure chance event. No physical necessity/determinism was involved as no "physical" laws existed.

Everything after the generation of those constants and quantities was governed by at least physical necessity/determinism until the advent (assuming you do not agree ID was already in play) of intelligent metaphysical souls inserting their "will" into the world.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.

In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.

I have my own objections to this argument but won't go into detail for now.

William Craig on Fine Tuning starting at 6:30
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

Ridicule is the response for those that lack undertanding and lack an ability to properly reply.
I would avoid it if I were you as it is an obvious sign of inability.


Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.

The birth of a person is clearly open to more than chance. Once the sperm is fired off physical determinism is in play as to wether the sperm hits home.

Human Will is in play as the choice to copulate with or without the intention of procreation is in play.

Chance is in play merely in the respect is that outside observers of the event have no way of knowning the choices of the other players or the physical calculations necessary to know if the sperm will strike.

We record and explain these interactions with governed chance.

This is different than pure chance with no will or physical determination behind it.


In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.

Correct.
In the same concept of a coin toss.
Though a person is flipping the coin, his personal Will is unable to choose which side of the coin will land by each choice.
So chance alone does not confer design or intent.

However, when you land on a living or optimal deck five times in a row by a dealer(consider the discussion and forum post by Tarzan), you clearly must infer design.
The astronomical improbability and the pattern confer design.

Craig points out as much in his license plate analogy.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

Ridicule is the response for those that lack undertanding and lack an ability to properly reply.
I would avoid it if I were you as it is an obvious sign of inability.


Sure, if some one just says improbability = design then this opens them to the charge that anything that is improbable is designed such as one own birth/existence and to deny this both refutes there central premise and/or opens them up to the charge of special pleading.

The birth of a person is clearly open to more than chance. Once the sperm is fired off physical determinism is in play as to wether the sperm hits home.

Human Will is in play as the choice to copulate with or without the intention of procreation is in play.

Chance is in play merely in the respect is that outside observers of the event have no way of knowning the choices of the other players or the physical calculations necessary to know if the sperm will strike.

We record and explain these interactions with governed chance.

This is different than pure chance with no will or physical determination behind it.


In a William Craig version of the fine tuning argument, I think he acknowledges that low probability in of its self is insufficient to support a design inference, but he argues its a combination of high improbability + independent pattern = design inference.

Correct.
In the same concept of a coin toss.
Though a person is flipping the coin, his personal Will is unable to choose which side of the coin will land by each choice.
So chance alone does not confer design or intent.

However, when you land on a living or optimal deck five times in a row by a dealer(consider the discussion and forum post by Tarzan), you clearly must infer design.
The astronomical improbability and the pattern confer design.

Craig points out as much in his license plate analogy.

That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 2:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.

"The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."

The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.

This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 3:23:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 2:37:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.

"The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."

The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.

This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?

Again, though, this doesn't really address the point. Even conceding that life permitting universes are less likely than others, you still have to smuggle the notion of purpose or design through the back door. Given the improbability of LPU, all we have is an improbable event, but that does little to conclude that design was the purpose of FT, which begs the question. But even if this objection where countered, there are still objections which run to the very notion of FT. Doesn't the scale and age of the universe point to the indifference to the universe towards life? What about the dreadful track record of life on earth surviving. Doesn't this suggest a less than optimal circumstance for life to survive and flourish? Also, if the improbability is the deciding factor in assuming design, why not assume that the universe was designed to create music, or Ipads, given these are more improbable than even humans (as they are contingent upon particular human development)? Lastly, if Lee smolin is right, and the universe is optimally "designed" to produce black holes, then why not conclude that the purpose of the universe is to produce blackholes?

Again, these are all the same sort of criticisms of FT, based on inferring design from the various constants.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 3:59:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 3:23:55 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 2:37:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.

"The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."

The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.

This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?

Again, though, this doesn't really address the point. Even conceding that life permitting universes are less likely than others, you still have to smuggle the notion of purpose or design through the back door. Given the improbability of LPU, all we have is an improbable event, but that does little to conclude that design was the purpose of FT, which begs the question. But even if this objection where countered, there are still objections which run to the very notion of FT. Doesn't the scale and age of the universe point to the indifference to the universe towards life? What about the dreadful track record of life on earth surviving. Doesn't this suggest a less than optimal circumstance for life to survive and flourish? Also, if the improbability is the deciding factor in assuming design, why not assume that the universe was designed to create music, or Ipads, given these are more improbable than even humans (as they are contingent upon particular human development)? Lastly, if Lee smolin is right, and the universe is optimally "designed" to produce black holes, then why not conclude that the purpose of the universe is to produce blackholes?

Again, these are all the same sort of criticisms of FT, based on inferring design from the various constants.

Remember I am just going off the william craig version of fine tuning here. It's all ready established that low probability in of its self is not enough to infer design.

You asked the question whats make LPU "special", remember you asked special not designed. LPU is alot less likely than a NLPU, but that isn't what gets you the design inference.

The craig argument is high improbability + independent pattern = Design Inference

Craig... "Its the combination of the pattern of the variables necessary for intelligent life plus the incomprehensible probability that all these variables happen by chance that tips us of to design."
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 4:08:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 3:59:09 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/11/2011 3:23:55 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 2:37:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:43:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/11/2011 10:37:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 12:04:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
For starters, I am sorry if you had to read what Gil has to say :)

That's the point though Gil. You are inferring design from the optimal conditions for life. Such an inference PRESUPPOSES design. To keep with the card analogy, optimal hands presuppose an objective to the game, which is THEN explained by design (i.e. someone repeatedly dealing themselves a winning hand). But the whole question is whether there is an objective at all to the universe. While it may be easy to spot "optimal hands" in a game of bridge, this is because there is a conscious objective to the game. The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are.

"The whole question of FT can't presuppose that life permitting universes are special without (at least) justifying why they are."

The argument goes along the lines because the constants need to be within a small range to be a life permitting universe, and the constants could of been different and thus are much more likely to fall outside of this range, therefore non life permitting universes are much more likely than life permitting universes.

This is what makes life permitting universes "special" eh ?

Again, though, this doesn't really address the point. Even conceding that life permitting universes are less likely than others, you still have to smuggle the notion of purpose or design through the back door. Given the improbability of LPU, all we have is an improbable event, but that does little to conclude that design was the purpose of FT, which begs the question. But even if this objection where countered, there are still objections which run to the very notion of FT. Doesn't the scale and age of the universe point to the indifference to the universe towards life? What about the dreadful track record of life on earth surviving. Doesn't this suggest a less than optimal circumstance for life to survive and flourish? Also, if the improbability is the deciding factor in assuming design, why not assume that the universe was designed to create music, or Ipads, given these are more improbable than even humans (as they are contingent upon particular human development)? Lastly, if Lee smolin is right, and the universe is optimally "designed" to produce black holes, then why not conclude that the purpose of the universe is to produce blackholes?

Again, these are all the same sort of criticisms of FT, based on inferring design from the various constants.

Remember I am just going off the william craig version of fine tuning here. It's all ready established that low probability in of its self is not enough to infer design.

You asked the question whats make LPU "special", remember you asked special not designed. LPU is alot less likely than a NLPU, but that isn't what gets you the design inference.

The craig argument is high improbability + independent pattern = Design Inference

Craig... "Its the combination of the pattern of the variables necessary for intelligent life plus the incomprehensible probability that all these variables happen by chance that tips us of to design."

Yeah, but the independent pattern is essentially just high improbability multiplied by high improbability numerous times. It still doesn't really seem that the independent pattern establishes anything other than a vastly higher improbability. Also, the independent pattern seems to be sneaking an inference of design into FT. But even if it did work as neutralising my initial point, the Ipad objection would be even more relevant, because it would add to the independent pattern and the improbability. Also, the other criticisms that I gave regarding scale, age, and so forth seem to be just as relevant than they did before.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 4:23:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
One mans independent pattern is another mans improbability added to improbability eh ?

I guess the question is, how do you tell the difference between an independent pattern and improbability upon improbability ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 11:54:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 4:23:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
One mans independent pattern is another mans improbability added to improbability eh ?

I guess the question is, how do you tell the difference between an independent pattern and improbability upon improbability ?

Very good question.
I would state the implications and results of the pattern.

If you have an entire family that wins the scratch off lottery over a two year period they clearly cracked the scratch off code.

Winning once does not mean you cheated. Winning 3, 4 or 5 times....

The claim of God in history, having met God shows me that there can be no doubt about the "improbable" result.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 2:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 11:54:30 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 4:23:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
One mans independent pattern is another mans improbability added to improbability eh ?

I guess the question is, how do you tell the difference between an independent pattern and improbability upon improbability ?

Very good question.
I would state the implications and results of the pattern.

If you have an entire family that wins the scratch off lottery over a two year period they clearly cracked the scratch off code.

That's the problem though. The implications (as you put it) are sort of the thing in question. No atheist is going to accept the assumption that life is the raison d'etre of the fine-tuned values without some sort of argument. Saying that the huge improbability of FT constants + implications (life)= design can't be right. We know for example, that statistically, any number of lottery numbers is as equally improbable as 1,2,3,4,5,6. While a "pattern" could perhaps solve the problem, at best, the argument would probably only give a weak case for a designed universe (and things like the scale/age of the universe and vulnerability of life would seem to tip the balance back towards agnosticism on this point).

Winning once does not mean you cheated. Winning 3, 4 or 5 times....

The claim of God in history, having met God shows me that there can be no doubt about the "improbable" result.

While I do agree that for the theist, this does solidify their own worldview internally, the idea of arguments like FT is that they provide justification not just to the theist, but to those who would adopt theism, and I don't think FT is as persuasive on this score as Kalam say, or the problem of evil.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 3:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Isn't this 'fine tuning' argument a red herring?

If evolution is a fact, then there were no 'choices', things simply evolved as they did.

Just as there are no choices in the future, evolution will evolve however it evolves. There is no possible 'other' way. Unless there are multiple universes, which may be likely. And each would evolve in only one way. There is no 'fine-tuning', is there? The religionists have invented it because it becomes an argument that requires a chooser, and that requires a deity they suggest, when choices exist.

If this world hadn't evolved as it did, it would have evolved another way and we likely wouldn't be here to discuss it. Seems that it has nothing to do with a deity..
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 4:25:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 2:03:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 11/12/2011 11:54:30 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 4:23:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
One mans independent pattern is another mans improbability added to improbability eh ?

I guess the question is, how do you tell the difference between an independent pattern and improbability upon improbability ?

Very good question.
I would state the implications and results of the pattern.

If you have an entire family that wins the scratch off lottery over a two year period they clearly cracked the scratch off code.

That's the problem though. The implications (as you put it) are sort of the thing in question. No atheist is going to accept the assumption that life is the raison d'etre of the fine-tuned values without some sort of argument. Saying that the huge improbability of FT constants + implications (life)= design can't be right. We know for example, that statistically, any number of lottery numbers is as equally improbable as 1,2,3,4,5,6. While a "pattern" could perhaps solve the problem, at best, the argument would probably only give a weak case for a designed universe (and things like the scale/age of the universe and vulnerability of life would seem to tip the balance back towards agnosticism on this point).

Well I have said this near a thousand times in the last week.
The Teleological argument is not FT constants + implications = design.

The Teleological is better explained in that there are three reasons for the implications of the improbable constants.

1. The Fine-Tuning of the universe was due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2. It was not by physical necessity or chance.
3. Thus it was by design.

The Fine-tuning is obviously a fact in that it clearly exists. The question the Teleological is trying to determine is the soure of the pattern of the Fine-Tuning.

1. It could not have been Physical Necessity. The first physical cause of the universe could not have had a physical cause.

2. Chance by itself generates nothing.

3. This leaves Design as the only othe option.

When you consider that we have zero evidence that chance alone generates anything.
We can also conclude that indeed logic dictactes physical necessity is not the cause.

This leaves a non physical cause of the Fine-Tuning.
Given the evidence of God's claim throughout History, which I myself validate,
I have interacted with a Metaphysical God and I have met Jesus, we can easily conclude design.


Winning once does not mean you cheated. Winning 3, 4 or 5 times....

The claim of God in history, having met God shows me that there can be no doubt about the "improbable" result.

While I do agree that for the theist, this does solidify their own worldview internally, the idea of arguments like FT is that they provide justification not just to the theist, but to those who would adopt theism, and I don't think FT is as persuasive on this score as Kalam say, or the problem of evil.

I do disagree with the above as a Mathematician. I find that taking just five of the fine-tuning factors and calculating the probability "tuned" to life at 1 : 10 to the 500,000,000 millionth is a powerful argument against any arbitrary mechanism for the creation of the physical universe.

Combined with the overwhelming non personal evidence theism should be a top pursuit for an individual.

Nothing technically "conclude" theism at the outset of pursuit as conclusions come with knowledge and facts people are not born with, but clearly this type of argument places you squarely into the realm of agnosticism.

If it does not, then you have a dog in the fight and are predisposed towards atheism.
CarlosMarti123
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:41:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is a common mistake to think that the design argument relies on sneaking in the concept of "value" in order to be successful. First of all, the expression "fine-tuning" does not denote intentional design, or else the argument would be circular. It simply means that the constants and initial conditions for a life-permitting universe fall within an inconceivably narrow range of values. Second, the argument does not "depend" in any way on whether a life-permitting is more "valuable" than one that is not. Rather, the argument shows that the conjunction of high improbability with an independently given pattern provides reasonable evidence for intentional design. The entire argument can be formulated in terms of Bayesian mathematical probability, without even having to invoke the notion of "value."

From http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Letting "FT" represent the fine-tuning of the universe, "T" the theistic hypothesis, and "A" the atheistic hypothesis, fine-tuning is significantly more probable on the theistic hypothesis than the atheistic hypothesis: Pr (FT/T) >> Pr (FT/ASU). Therefore, fine-tuning probablistically confirms the theistic hypothesis.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:38:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Greetings Gileandos,

You said:

"Given the evidence of God's claim throughout History, which I myself validate,
I have interacted with a Metaphysical God and I have met Jesus, we can easily conclude design."

Hmmmm........Pretty heavy stuff......so you are a man who knows God, how interesting. Would you be kind enough to answer a few questions? Such as: 'What is God's (or Jesus') Being'? We humans are flesh and blood, but what could be the essence of a supernatural deity?

And how exactly have you "interacted with a Metaphysical God"? I would think that a 'god or goddess' who created this universe could, and should, at least Show Up, and make Itself known to all the creatures that It created. Are you saying that you have in fact witnessed, or 'validated', both a God who has shown up, and Jesus too?

In the Bible I read that Jesus talked about returning, such as at Matt 10:23: "....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.", and at Rev 1:1: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place....... because the time is near."

So, after all these years I'm head to head with someone who knows God, and Jesus. I guess once, in my early youth, I too believed in their reality, that they must be real, how could it be possible they weren't real? Then it occurred to me that there wasn't any real evidence, evidence that could be corroborated or measured, for the existence of any god or goddess, it was all, well, sort of circumstantial.

So perhaps you could dispel these notions of mine, and confide to me the real nature of God.

charley
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:34:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:38:09 PM, corynski wrote:
Greetings Gileandos,

You said:

"Given the evidence of God's claim throughout History, which I myself validate,
I have interacted with a Metaphysical God and I have met Jesus, we can easily conclude design."

Hmmmm........Pretty heavy stuff......so you are a man who knows God, how interesting. Would you be kind enough to answer a few questions? Such as: 'What is God's (or Jesus') Being'? We humans are flesh and blood, but what could be the essence of a supernatural deity?

And how exactly have you "interacted with a Metaphysical God"? I would think that a 'god or goddess' who created this universe could, and should, at least Show Up, and make Itself known to all the creatures that It created. Are you saying that you have in fact witnessed, or 'validated', both a God who has shown up, and Jesus too?

In the Bible I read that Jesus talked about returning, such as at Matt 10:23: "....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.", and at Rev 1:1: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place....... because the time is near."

So, after all these years I'm head to head with someone who knows God, and Jesus. I guess once, in my early youth, I too believed in their reality, that they must be real, how could it be possible they weren't real? Then it occurred to me that there wasn't any real evidence, evidence that could be corroborated or measured, for the existence of any god or goddess, it was all, well, sort of circumstantial.

So perhaps you could dispel these notions of mine, and confide to me the real nature of God.

charley

I would love to discuss. I will start another post to discuss this so as not to be accused of hijacking this one.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:32:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks Gileandos

Agreed, I'm confusing things by changing the subject in the middle of another discussion........

The notion of 'fine tuning', which obviously requires a 'Fine Tuner', immediately reminds me of William Paley, and the watch and watchmaker argument. And it certainly 'seems' that way....... except in the light of evolution. It is immediately accepted by those that believe in supernatural beings that everything must have been 'created' by a god or goddess, including our own planet. And what shall be said of the rest of the universe? That whatever exists was created by an Existence Creator? In effect, a 'God of the Gaps', it seems.

This way of thinking requires a god to create every snowflake and every sand dune....... when in fact natural forces such as wind and cold are responsible.

And what created the Fine Tuner?

Looking forward to hearing from you, although at age 74 rest assured I won't be troubling you with rigorous logic.

"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." — Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

charley
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:33:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 10:32:18 PM, corynski wrote:
Thanks Gileandos

Agreed, I'm confusing things by changing the subject in the middle of another discussion........

NP, The forum is The Nature of the Christian God.

The notion of 'fine tuning', which obviously requires a 'Fine Tuner', immediately reminds me of William Paley, and the watch and watchmaker argument.

Willaim lane Craig uses a modern form of Fine-tuning that is discussed by scientists the world over. This fine-tuning scientific formula includes Intelligent Design scientists to even Stephen Hawking.

And it certainly 'seems' that way....... except in the light of evolution.

Nothing about Fine-tuning denies evolution. In fact, Theism is wholly compatible with evolution. The more complex evolution becomes the more it points to a designer.

I also believe in Ancient Earth.

I agree with micro-evolution also called natural selection. I do not agree with Macro-evolution on scientific grounds. Though its a nice story we do not see quantitative evidence of it.
Answers in Genesis have too much contrary evidence that is undealt with by Macro-Evolution proponents.

It is immediately accepted by those that believe in supernatural beings that everything must have been 'created' by a god or goddess, including our own planet. And what shall be said of the rest of the universe? That whatever exists was created by an Existence Creator? In effect, a 'God of the Gaps', it seems.

I never found "God of the Gaps" to be a legitimate consequence. It appears to be a false dilemma strawman put upon the supernaturalist view by the naturalists.
As a supernaturalist any "Gap" can be filled in the future by either source. A naturalist is reduced to only one option to the ignorance of the naturalist position.

This way of thinking requires a god to create every snowflake and every sand dune....... when in fact natural forces such as wind and cold are responsible.

Same with the argument that we have only ever found scientific physical laws that control the "universe", which you summarize above.
The supernaturalist only points to correllation and not causation.
We as humans manipulate the world around us "using" those natural laws. The existence of natural laws in no way precludes the manipulation of the world around us, by supernatural beings, the same as we do.

That is at least the Christian Claim. Angels are "over" each of the natural aspects that govern the world. They do not form every storm but are able to cause destructive storms by manipulating the natural laws. We see this for example in the book of Job.
The fact they are able to do this does not mean they control every storm or every raindrop.
Additionally, God easily is posed to create the natural laws that are able to be manipulated/managed with knowledge of the system.



And what created the Fine Tuner?

The creator is a metaphysical being and is causeless like number values. Infinite regression does not apply to Him.


Looking forward to hearing from you, although at age 74 rest assured I won't be troubling you with rigorous logic.

I do not know what that means.


"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." — Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Einstein 1952


charley