13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are missing the point of the analogy. The creationist argues that it is very improbable that the universe would be hospitable to life. This commits the creationist to the claim that the universe could have been structured differently. If the creationist denies that the universe could have been structured differently, then the probablity that the universe would be hospitable to life would be P=1. So, the creationist is committed to the claim that were any number of ways the universe could have possibly been, and that the probability of the universe being the way it actually is was exceedingly low. Analogously, the lottery argument assumes that it was very improbable that person W would have won (one in a billion). This means that there any number of other people that could have possibly won the lottery. Yet, someone had to win the lottery (just as the universe had to be some way or another). So, the analogy fits perfectly. If you think that there doesn't have to be an explanation other than coincidence for why person W won the lottery, then you should not think that there has to be an explanation for why the universe is the way it actually is.
According to general relativity as I understand it, mass itself is only a pronounced curvature in space time. At any rate, whether it is looked at in the Newtonian sense or the Einsteinian sense gravity still must have some physical characteristics which can, and have been, computed. A small difference in the "strength of the force" or "amount ...[text shortened]... speculation based on the available evidence seems at least reasonable in my view.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by pcaspianGood riddance to bad rubbish. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Cosmological arguments can't go in the spirituality forum? O.K., pmyshkin, it's time to take your medicine. It's in the bottle labelled 'anti-psychotic'.
Straight form the horses ... mouth ..
LOL
😉
all the best dude, gonna miss those witty retorts ![/b]
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrPremise 2) The universe (the one we all know and love) seems to function as an extreme collection of positive, unlikely to occur under only random influence, simbiotic elements that all foster the existence of mankind.
Good. I see no reason to deny your first premise. How could I, given that it is a tautology? So, premise 1 is as follows:
1) Unlikely things are unlikely.
Now, what is premise 2?
gotta run bud. I hope you don't mind helping me through this process. I have been out of the loop for a long time, and don't want to fail in the process. I admire the way you (most of you) guys take your thinking seriously.
13 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThere doesn't "have" to be an explanation other than coincidence for the universe to have been formed with its physical characteristics hospitable to life that is true. However, if it is true that the chances that it would be so are small and that there is only one universe, I fail to see why those facts don't at least increase the possibility that it was designed in some manner. I bow to your knowledge of formal logic, but as far as making reasoned judgments from evidence I do not see why you are unwilling to concede this point. I am only talking about an increased possibility if the premises I have outlined are true, not a rigorous "proof" (which I believe is impossible in such matters).
You are missing the point of the analogy. The creationist argues that it is very improbable that the universe would be hospitable to life. This commits the creationist to the claim that the universe could have been structured differently. ...[text shortened]... e an explanation for why the universe is the way it actually is.
13 Apr 05
Premise 2) The universe seems to function as an extreme collection of positive, unlikely to occur under only random influence, simbiotic elements that all foster the existence of mankind.What do you mean by positive?
As for unlikely to occur under only random influence, I must belabor my point about the sample space once more. We have no idea what the probability of these things occuring under only random influence is.
For instance, what is the probability of flipping a coin 200,000 times and getting 200,000 heads? If it's a fair coin, then the probability is a very tiny number indeed. Now what if both sides are heads? Well then probability is 1. If we have a heads and tails side, but the coin is unfairly weighted than we can have any sort of probability.
Basically, all we have is one observation. We have the universe that is, and no knowledge of what the other possible outcomes are. Thus the chance of our universe being as it is under the influence of randomness may be nearly impossible, unlikely, likely, or even certain. All we can say is that it isn't impossible.
simbiotic
I'm not so sure that elements are symbiotic. What do you mean by this? How does each element benefit from the others? It seems to me that as far as elements go, their relationship can best be described as neutral.
all foster the existence of mankind
But they don't! We live in an unfathomably tiny portion of the universe. As far as we know, this is the only place in the entire universe that is habitable for humans (temporary artificial residences in space not included). The inhospitableness to humans of nearly the entire universe is made even more mind boggling when you consider that for the vast majority of its history our planet has been an inhospitable place for humans as well! So for almost 14 billion years almost every region of gargatuan universe has been inhospitable to humankind.
.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe issue about what sort of argument the fine-tuning argument is (abductive) is not germane to the objection I'm pressing with the lottery analogy. I am not asking of the creationist that the creationist deductively prove that the universe was designed to be hospitable to life.
There doesn't "have" to be an explanation other than coincidence for the universe to have been formed with its physical characteristics hospitable to life that is true. However, if it is true that the chances that it would be so are small and that there is only one universe, I fail to see why those facts don't at least increase the possibil ...[text shortened]... ave outlined are true, not a rigorous "proof" (which I believe is impossible in such matters).
You say "it is true that the chances that it would be so are small and that there is only one universe, I fail to see why those facts don't at least increase the possibility that it was designed in some manner."
Now, do you think that the following claim is true?:
The chances that person W would win the lottery are so small that the fact that person W did win the lottery increases the probability that the lottery was rigged in favor of his winning.
If so, then absurdity quickly follows. Given that some person had to win the lottery it would be justified for us, if the above claim is correct, to infer from any winner that the lottery was rigged. If not, then why don't you apply the same reasoning to the fine-tuning argument?
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen my dad and mom 'made' me, there were over 25 million
There doesn't "have" to be an explanation other than coincidence for the universe to have been formed with its physical characteristics hospitable to life that is true. However, if it is true that the chances that it would be so are small and that there is only one universe, I fail to see why those facts don't at least increase the possibil ...[text shortened]... ave outlined are true, not a rigorous "proof" (which I believe is impossible in such matters).
sperm involved. If the one that made it had not done so, I wouldn't
have been.
If the universe formed in such a way that we didn't come into being,
this discussion wouldn't be happening and, not existing, 'we' would be
none the wiser.
Even if the way in which life formed in this universe is, in fact, the
product of fantastical luck (and, my understanding is that this is not
the case in some scientists' minds), it's immaterial: we're here.
Nemesio
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrI really wish you would simply answer my question rather than prattling on and on about an analogy, Bbarr. And if you're going to quote me, please don't play games like others do here and leave out a critical word, in this case "If ........."
The issue about what sort of argument the fine-tuning argument is (abductive) is not germane to the objection I'm pressing with the lottery analogy. I am not asking of the creationist that the creationist deductively prove that the universe was designed to be hospitable to life.
You say "it is true that the chances that it would be so are small and tha ...[text shortened]... s rigged. If not, then why don't you apply the same reasoning to the fine-tuning argument?
If there was one, and only one person, with a one in a billion chance of winning a lottery and they won it, yes I would think that it was a fair possibility it was rigged. Your point is taken but I don't think it answers my question. The fact is we see only one universe and it is hospitable to life. If that was unlikely, then why would it be so? Coincidence is a possible answer, but all I'm saying is that the facts stated make the possibility of Design or some other mechanism so that the universe was geared for life more likely.
13 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat an unfortunate misunderstanding of likelihood and uncertainty.
If there was one, and only one person, with a one in a billion chance of winning a lottery and they won it, yes I would think that it was a fair possibility it was rigged.
The fact is we see only one universe and it is hospitable to life. If that was unlikely, then why would it be so?
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt does sound like you're moving toward Deism, which is probably the most rational of the Theism.
Of course, the argument is never really resolvable; there's always the "who designed the designer" dilemma. But I see no reason to reject out of hand the possibility of an Intelligent Design of the universe if the evidence ...[text shortened]... burden of proof on someone that is known to be impossible to meet.
It becomes a 4-term fallacy in the hands of people that believe in the biblical god.
One possible creation (first cause) explaination could be argued like this :
The universe consisted of an unbounded neutral space. (call that the U-brane) :
The U-brane split into 3 branes :*
two of the branes have mutually attractive charges, one remains neutral . Plus brane , Minus brane and Neutral brane.
U=P,M,N
the P-brane and the M-brane are shielded by the N-brane preventing "annilhilation" (losing their charges)
The interaction of the two charges instantiates particles.
collisions of the 2 chaged branes inside the N-brane causes N-brane excitation ( releasing of energy)
*branes are simplification of a collection of dimensions
The first cause is whatever caused the split
How's that for a non-math explaination?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't mean to leave out 'if' in the quote above. I do not assume that you agree with the conclusion of the fine-tuning argument.
I really wish you would simply answer my question rather than prattling on and on about an analogy, Bbarr. And if you're going to quote me, please don't play games like others do here and leave out a critical word, in this case "If ........."
If there was one, and only one person, with a one in a billion chance of winning a lot ...[text shortened]... bility of Design or some other mechanism so that the universe was geared for life more likely.
You are completely misunderstanding the role of probabilistic considerations in the fine-tuning argument, and hence you are failing to grasp the point of the analogy. So, I'm going to run through this one more time:
The fine-tuning argument assumes that the physical constants could have possibly had any number of other values. It has to do this, else it could not claim that the probability of the physical constants being as they are is low. In fact, if it denied this, it would have to claim that the probability of the physical constants being as they are is equal to 1.
The fine-tuning argument then points out that the values the physical constants do have are such that biological life forms like ours are possible.
The fine-tuning argument then points out that were the values different, biological life forms like ours could not exist.
The fine-tuning argument then asserts that the preceding considerations are sufficient to show that the creation hypothesis is better than the coincidence hypothesis.
Now, the point of the lottery analogy is just that the low probability of some state of affairs S obtaining does not suffice to show that the best explanation for S's obtaining is other than coincidental. Someone had to win the lottery, after all, just as the universe had to be some way or another.
Here's another way of looking at it: Suppose the universe had physical constants with values that precluded biological life like ours but were ideal for life of some radically different nature. Now, would that suffice to make it likely that the universe was geared towards life of this radically different sort? Suppose the universe had physical constants that precluded any life at all, but were ideal for the formation of large crystalline structures. Would this make it likely that the universe was geared towards crystal formation? When you start inferring from low probability to creation or design, you can't non-arbitrarily refrain from inferring that lotteries are rigged in favor of whomever actually wins.