14 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not an idiot, Bbarr, I understand the point of your analogy. I'But I see little point in arguing an analogy rather than the main point.
I 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.
You are completely misunderstanding the role of probabilistic considerations in the fine-tuning argume ...[text shortened]... ng that lotteries are rigged in favor of whomever actually wins.
Bbarr: The fine-tuning argument assumes that the physical constants could have possibly had any number of other values
I am assuming that, yes. My understanding of physics and science leads me to conclude that is probably true. If you have evidence or even an argument to the contrary, please present it.
Besides the obvious point that I'm not a "creationist" like dj2becker, most of the rest of your post is logical. The logical flaw I see in your "lottery" analogy is that there were no other possible drawings; the universe wound up as it did. It pretty much boils down to your assertion that the most likely answer to why it wound up that way is coincidence. If I flip a coin a billion times and it always comes up heads it is possible that it is coincidence; but it is far more likely that there is something in the coin that makes it more likely to come up heads.
Lastly, an analogy is a tool to use in argument; it should not be used to obscure the central point. At this point your insistence to keep coming back to the analogy rather than answering the question I've posed is counterproductive.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAs he disdains his own father's like actions, I would be careful making such callous reactions
Elaborate or do you believe your pronouncements should be treated like Moses dropping by at Mount Sinai?
within earshot of RBHILL.
What has happened to the RHP Forums? Everybody is trying to start a fight!
Nemesio
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is unfortunate that you seek explanations for the occurence of unlikely events in something external to the very process that dictates their likelihood. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of likelihood, a misunderstanding that cripples one's ability to perform sound analysis under uncertainty.
Elaborate or do you believe your pronouncements should be treated like Moses dropping by at Mount Sinai?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI know you are not an idiot, but apparently you don't understand the point of the analogy.
I'm not an idiot, Bbarr, I understand the point of your analogy. I'But I see little point in arguing an analogy rather than the main point.
Bbarr: The fine-tuning argument assumes that the physical constants could have possibly had any number of other values
I am assuming that, yes. My understanding of physics and science ...[text shortened]... ing back to the analogy rather than answering the question I've posed is counterproductive.
Please read this closely, please.
The creationist assumes that it was possible the universe could have had other physical constants. Let us grant this assumption. Analogously, it was possible that the lottery could have had other outcomes (i.e., that person W might have lost).
The creationist argues that given the vast range of possible constants, it is very unlikely that the universe would have ended up with constants that support life like ours. I will grant this as well. Analogously, I argue that given the vast range of possible outcomes of the lottery drawing, it is very unlikely that the drawing would have ended up with person W winning.
The creationist then infers from the fact that it was extremely unlikely that the universe would have had these particular constants, to the conclusion that the best explanation for there being these constants is that the universe was geared towards supporting life like ours. Analogously, I can employ a similar inference from the fact that it was extremely unlikely that the lottery would have had this particular outcome to the conclusion that the best explanation for this outcome is that the lottery was geared towards bringing it about that person W won (i.e., that it was actually not a random drawing).
However, the inference that I employ in the lottery case is unjustified, because it could be employed for any possible winner of the lottery (e.g., for person X if he had won, or person Z, if she had won). So, by parity of reasoning, the same inference type the creationist uses in the universe case is also unjustified. It could be employed for any possible set of constants (e.g., the set of constants that allow for radically different forms of life, or the set of constants that allow for large crystalline structures).
This is an argument by analogy. If the reasoning in the lottery case is flawed, then the creationist's reasoning is simiilarly flawed because the forms of reasoning are precisely the same.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by chinking58As stated, premise (2) is false. The universe contains within it any number of elements that do not foster the existence of mankind. For instance, war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc., do not foster the existence of mankind. Presumably you want to exlude such elements from consideration in your argument. So, how would you like to modify premise (2)?
Premise 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.
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.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrpremise (2) the universe is geared toward tormenting man. i.e. Hell
As stated, premise (2) is false. The universe contains within it any number of elements that do not foster the existence of mankind. For instance, war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc., do not foster the existence of mankind. Presumably you want to exlude such elements from consideration in your argument. So, how would you like to modify premise (2)?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOutside of demonstrating that you own a thesaurus, your post adds nothing to the debate. The whole question of whether something "external" to the universe defined its characteristics is the debate. Acting like you know something you obviously don't puts you in Darfius' league but in the low minors.
It is unfortunate that you seek explanations for the occurence of unlikely events in something external to the very process that dictates their likelihood. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of likelihood, a misunderstanding that cripples one's ability to perform sound analysis under uncertainty.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
This was posted by No1Marauder, in response to my last post to him, and subsequently modded for some bizarre and probably completely bogus reason:
"I will not endlessly dance with you about the validity of your analogy. I will ask this (again) and hope that you will at some point give an answer:
IF (remember this word when you quote me)
1) The universe's characteristics are friendly to life;
2) It was unlikely that a universe friendly to life could be formed by random chance;
3) There is only one universe.
Please explain to me why mere coincidience is more likely than ID or refute the premises. Please do not respout with the same analogy and suggest that I'm a "creationist" and/or that I believe Satan put 5 billion years of fossils around just to fool us."
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, the analogy is an argument. It is an instance of a form of argument called 'argument by analogy'.
I will not endlessly dance with you about the validity of your analogy. I will ask this (again) and hope that you will at some point give an answer:
IF (remember this word when you quote me)
1) The universe's characteristics are friendly to life;
2) It was unlikely that a universe friendly to life could be formed by random chance;
3) There ...[text shortened]... ationist" and/or that I believe Satan put 5 billion years of fossils around just to fool us.
Second, even if 1, 2 and 3 are all true, nothing follows about ID being a better explanation than coincidence. The point of my argument is (again) that the fine-tuning argument is fallacious (it employs an unsound inference). It may well be that there are other reasons for thinking that the ID hypothesis is correct, but the fine-tuning argument fails. In other words, the mistake you keep making is your assumption that if all the premises are true, then the ID hypothesis is supported thereby. This assumption is false, false, false. This is what the argument by analogy shows. The inference from the premises is fallacious, 'cause it doesn't work in the perfectly analogous cases.
Capisce?
14 Apr 05
1 edit
The whole question of whether something "external" to the universe defined its characteristics is the debate.
You are right about this; however I am suspicious of claims concerning the likelihood of things "external" to the universe because it supposes that things "outside" this universe behave to some significant degree like things inside this universe behave. Now we have considered differences in cosmological constants, but I think we likely overstep severly when we extend concepts of likelihood to events that are defined to be independent of the foundation upon which likelihood has meaning (i.e. our existence or our universe).
If we suppose a spiritual god, then we have made incredibly severe assumptions by discussing its likelihood. How can we take a concept which, as yet, only has meaning within the natural and then extend it to the indescribable supernatural with any confidence?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrIt completely boggles my mind that this post was modded. Is mention of S**** a violation of the TOS?
This was posted by No1Marauder, in response to my last post to him, and subsequently modded for some bizarre and probably completely bogus reason:
"I will not endlessly dance with you about the validity of your analogy. I will ask this (again) and hope that you will at some point give an answer:
IF (remember this word when you quote me)
1) The univ ...[text shortened]... ionist" and/or that I believe Satan put 5 billion years of fossils around just to fool us."
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI put "external" in quotes because I'm not sure that an ID would have to be outside the universe; it has been postulated that the universe could have in some sense defined itself (i.e. that it is self-aware). I have also not supposed a spiritual god, so I have made no "severe" assumptions. I am only interested in discussing the fact that the universe has certain characteristics which make it life hospitable, that apparently the chance of that occurring is small and that there is apparently only one universe. Being a country bumpkin and not accepting that mere analogies are sufficient to explain away rather serious speculations on these apparent facts, I have considered the possibility that these facts at least increase the likelihood that the universe was in some sense "designed". Of course, this is not provable by science and can't be supposed with any degree of confidence by a rational man. But it is a rather intriguing subject to muse on.
[b]The whole question of whether something "external" to the universe defined its characteristics is the debate.
You are right about this; however I am suspicious of claims concerning the likelihood of things "external" to the u ...[text shortened]... tend it to the indescribable supernatural with any confidence? [/b]