The design argument

Originally posted by DeepThought

Likelihood is the probability of an outcome in a statistical system based on the parameter space. It is the likelihood of the universe being as it is that we are discussing. On naturalness grounds there is a problem with a theory if it predicts that the likelihood of the world as we know it is ten to the power of an astronomically big number to one against.

When you say "On naturalness grounds" I think you mean to a problem to Naturalism. "Naruralness grounds" is your euphemism for "a philosophy of Naturalism". And that is an Atheistic Naturalism.

There may be a problem to a philosophy of Naturalism when the evidence points to a finely calibrated universe to support life.

That only reveals that Naturalism cannot be taken but so far. And Carl Sagan's Naturalist manifesto sentence - " The cosmos is all that is and that ever was and ever will be " [paraphrased] may in fact not be true.

"Well this finely tuned universe is a problem for Narturalism".

Perish the thought, but you may have to give way on your consumate total Naturalism. Don't sweat. You can still do Science.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Likelihood is the probability of an outcome in a statistical system based on the parameter space. It is the likelihood of the universe being as it is that we are discussing. On naturalness grounds there is a problem with a theory if it predicts that the likelihood of the world as we know it is ten to the power of an astronomically big number to one a ...[text shortened]... may have to give way on your consumate total Naturalism. Don't sweat. You can still do Science.

A theory that requires almost infinite tuning to generate the physics we see is contrived. In this sense it is unnatural. A fine tuning argument is a way of assessing a theory. The problem with trying to use it to draw any other conclusion is that you are relying on a potentially incorrect theory and a general heuristic, so any other conclusion is necessarily weaker. We could also try to draw the conclusion that there are a large number of universes, and explain the problem that way.

The Standard Model of Particle physics is not expected to be valid in the first 10^-36 of a second of the universe's history, it is a low energy theory. Theories beyond the standard model, such as String Theory are speculative. There is no evidence for them other than consistency with the low energy regime. If a speculative theory requires ultra-fine tuning to generate our universe then there is a problem with the speculative theory. Attempting to go from a speculative theory with initial condition problems to a conclusion of many universes or a necessary God is just a wild leap.

If String Theory or some other high energy theory could produce the universe naturally would you stop believing in God? Really I don't think it would rule out the possibility. If God exists then one could reasonably expect his creation to be robust. Arguments for the existence of God based on holes in physics are just weak. More so when they are based on holes in speculative theories.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A theory that requires almost infinite tuning to generate the physics we see is contrived. In this sense it is unnatural. A fine tuning argument is a way of assessing a theory. The problem with trying to use it to draw any other conclusion is that you are relying on a potentially incorrect theory and a general heuristic, so any other conclusion is nec ...[text shortened]... n holes in physics are just weak. More so when they are based on holes in speculative theories.

What you seem to be saying that if a physical theory lead to a conclusion that the universe is fine tuned, you will reject it out of hand even if it accurately describes all other aspects of reality. How is that a reasonable position? As mortal humans all we can do is take the evidence we can obtain and evaluate that evidence to reach conclusions as to the ultimate questions such as the nature of the universe. Saying that no matter what the evidence says I will not accept Result A and will instead insist that Result B will eventually be proven seems to be a rejection of Reason itself.

Originally posted by DeepThought

A theory that requires almost infinite tuning to generate the physics we see is contrived.

No it isn't "contrived" unless someone is making up statistics. If they are not it is what it is.

In this sense it is unnatural. A fine tuning argument is a way of assessing a theory.

Scientists collected for years these calibrations and collectively noticed the fine-tuning. I don't think all this exploration into what the chances were for a life permitting cosmos was done by people hunting for a theory of fine tuning.

Aren't scientists suppose to explore?

Astrophysicists George Ellis -

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

I don't see Eliis jumping at the word miracle. I see him somewhat reluctantly admitting to what this data looks like to the objective observer.

I do think this comment from the same man is helpful which you may agree with, but I wonder, all around agree with.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

The problem with trying to use it to draw any other conclusion is that you are relying on a potentially incorrect theory and a general heuristic, so any other conclusion is necessarily weaker. We could also try to draw the conclusion that there are a large number of universes, and explain the problem that way.

I think the key phrase is "potentially incorrect". There is a "potential" possibility in being incorrect probably at all times.

You can be just as potentially incorrect with a large number of universes as well. Especially so because no other universe has yet been detected.

The Standard Model of Particle physics is not expected to be valid in the first 10^-36 of a second of the universe's history, it is a low energy theory. Theories beyond the standard model, such as String Theory are speculative. There is no evidence for them other than consistency with the low energy regime. If a speculative theory requires ultra-fine tuning to generate our universe then there is a problem with the speculative theory.

It would help to first FIND at least one of these other universes.
You're speculating a theory on there being many universes in the first place. So the available known universe with its characteristics, for now, has to be taken seriously.

Searching for a possible "potentially" incorrect interpretation is expected. But the weight of the characteristics of the known universe, I think, outweigh the imagined theoretical characteristics of 22 or 1,000,022 completely as of yet unknown and undetected other universes.

Is that unreasonable?

Attempting to go from a speculative theory with initial condition problems to a conclusion of many universes or a necessary God is just a wild leap.

Could a "wild leap" sometimes put one in a safe place ? Ever ?
Maybe the leap is not that wild.

For the scientist as a working in the realm of the scientific method perhaps it is a leap. Wild or not is arguable. To come to a conclusion of possible Intelligent Design is, I think, within the game. Forensic science in crime detection, Insurance Fraud detection, SETI are all still within the discipline of good science.

The rest of us have the right to look at the evidence and see what it does to our world view philsophically or spiritually. And professional scientists are people and people usually have a worldview which they choose to hold.

Einstein introduced a cosmological constant into his theory of Relativity. He had a certain worldview which he preferred. That is that the universe always was and eternal. Latter he said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

Some creationists may one day say a certain assumption was also the biggest mistake in his science career too. On a case by case this could happen to anyone - they have to admit that something of a philosophical bias caused them to err.

Let's just say that this can go around on either side of the matter.
The scientists has to stay within the game of doing the scientific methods.

If String Theory or some other high energy theory could produce the universe naturally would you stop believing in God?

Fair question. I do often ask myself - "Sonship, suppose tomorrow they find out THIS or THAT? What will that do to your faith?"

Not as a professional scientist, but as a Christian with a layman's interest in new discovery, I would say this -

The Apostle Paul said that the eternal power of God, His divine characteristics were manifest in the world created.

"For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the foundation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they are without excuse;" (Romans 1:20)

My genuine belief is that this was true in the early generations of mankind, it was true at the time of the Apostle Paul, it was true 1,000 years latter, it is true today. And if the Lord Jesus delays His return more and scientist increase their knowledge 10 fold in the next 100 years, it will still be true.

I do not think the increase of understanding about the mechanics of life and the universe over time in any way nullify this.

Did you ever think that God may be kind of chuckling to Himself knowing that you can do science for the next 10,000 years and never rid man of the conviction that there is a Creator God? I use my imagination. Actually it is no joke in Romans that the existence of God is manifested to mankind through the creation - period[/b].

As a scientist, he or she still can pursue many satisfying hours of a lifetime trying to figure out how all these things work. I don't see Isaac Newton getting lazy just because he believed in intelligent design himself.

Really I don't think it would rule out the possibility. If God exists then one could reasonably expect his creation to be robust.

So robust, in fact, that we may not appreciate it yet. We may as of yet may not be able to appreciate it. Time will make this appreciation grow, with some.

Arguments for the existence of God based on holes in physics are just weak. More so when they are based on holes in speculative theories.

When Michael Behe came to speak at a local college, I went to hear him and ask him specifically about a certain charge concerning him. I asked him what he would say about those who criticize Intelligent Design as an argument based on what is unknown. His reply was telling to me. He said his decision to adopt and pursue Intelligent Design was not based on what he did [i]not know. Rather it was based on what he did know.

I don't think the Christian has to be ashamed that at least some thinkers are going to change their extra-science worldview based on the results of their science.

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Originally posted by JS357
There is a parallel here with reincarnation, a subject which always puzzles me for one reason. The idea that an individual (or now, a universe) is "reincarnated" implies that there is some sort of continuity of identity, wherein the individual or the universe is the "same" in some sense, through the change. What remains the same?

We can think of the univers ...[text shortened]... y sequenced, and is it in fact temporally sequenced? What does time mean, for a cyclic universe?

If a reincarnated person or universe had all the same memories, knowledge and attributes, how could it tell it if was or wasn't the same one?

We can think of either this universe as being part of a multiverse or a particular instance of a cyclic one and, at first appearance, it would be impossible to determine which. However, we do have evidence that supports the idea of a cyclical universe in that the present understanding of the universe seems to envision an eventual return to a "pre" Big Bang state (if pre in this case means anything as time wouldn't exist at that point). We have AFAIK no actual evidence a multiverse exists (perhaps that is an overstatement but in any event there seems to be more evidence for a cyclical universe).

Originally posted by C Hess
That's exactly the problem I'm presenting for premise 1. I've never been told what makes an object appear to be designed. But thinking about the problem, I can only conclude that for something to appear designed such that it must have a designer, there should be properties about the object that cannot be produced through a mindless, mechanical process. What t ...[text shortened]... ed YEC to be a failed position, but I'm curious about creationism that accepts observed reality.

Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.

- Richard Dawkins

Originally posted by DeepThought
The Lottery fallacy fallacy fallacy
The problem with fine tuning arguments is that the conclusion is on its head. If a theory predicts that the world we see around us is ludicrously improbable then the correct conclusion is that there is something wrong with the theory.

I totally disagree. And in fact, I would argue that you yourself disagree, you just won't admit it so you deliberately smudge the the definition of 'what we see around us'.

The standard in physics is to look for natural theories where the probability of getting a universe like ours is not ridiculously small.
Why? Who made such a ridiculous standard? It doesn't follow from logic, which is what the Lottery analogy is all about.

Why do you talk of "a universe like ours" and how would you even measure how alike given individual universes are? Why don't you just talk of "our exact universe"? The reason, is you know perfectly well that our exact universe is incredibly unlikely - and necessarily so, unless you either:
1. believe in brute facts at the start of the universe and strict determinism since then, but even so, you must somehow claim the brute facts are not random, (which is incoherent).
or
2. believe all possible universes exist.

Either you must apply your same argument to the existence of yourself, with every single atom exactly where it is in your body, or you must reject your argument when trying to apply it to the universe as a whole. You can't go half way without a really good explanation as to why you are doing so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I totally disagree. And in fact, I would argue that you yourself disagree, you just won't admit it so you deliberately smudge the the definition of 'what we see around us'.

[b]The standard in physics is to look for natural theories where the probability of getting a universe like ours is not ridiculously small.
Why? Who made such a ridiculous stan ...[text shortened]... as a whole. You can't go half way without a really good explanation as to why you are doing so.[/b]

According to you, every single thing is incredibly unlikely so apparently we can make no valid conclusions about anything whatsoever.

This is sophistry not a serious position.

And telling other people what their "real" position is isn't a very serious way to argue either.

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to you, every single thing is incredibly unlikely ...

Correct.

....so apparently we can make no valid conclusions about anything whatsoever.
Wrong.
How on earth do you make that conclusion? And what do you mean by 'no valid conclusions' anyway?

This is sophistry not a serious position.
The sophistry is coming from you. I notice you still won't admit that throwing a die 5 times will result in an extremely unlikely outcome.

And telling other people what their "real" position is isn't a very serious way to argue either.
Neither is calling someone else s position 'sophistry' immediately after totally misrepresenting it.

Be honest now, go and throw a die 5 times, tell us the result, (the 5 numbers you got, and the sequence in which they occurred) and tell us how likely that result was.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct.

[b]....so apparently we can make no valid conclusions about anything whatsoever.
Wrong.
How on earth do you make that conclusion? And what do you mean by 'no valid conclusions' anyway?

This is sophistry not a serious position.
The sophistry is coming from you. I notice you still won't admit that throwing a die 5 times will res ...[text shortened]... umbers you got, and the sequence in which they occurred) and tell us how likely that result was.[/b]

Some results of a six sided dice thrown five times will be far more probable than others. We can calculate precisely the probability of each result.

If we put enough sides on a dice to get a result 10 to the 400th power less likely than another result on X number of passes, we'd wonder if the best explanation is "s**t happens" or whether it was more likely that someone or something made the result occur. The fact that there is a remote chance something could occur randomly does not justify the conclusion that it did.

EDIT: Obviously if everything is improbable, then no explanation for anything can meet your test.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Likelihood is the probability of an outcome in a statistical system based on the parameter space. It is the likelihood of the universe being as it is that we are discussing. On naturalness grounds there is a problem with a theory if it predicts that the likelihood of the world as we know it is ten to the power of an astronomically big number to one a ...[text shortened]... may have to give way on your consumate total Naturalism. Don't sweat. You can still do Science.

The expanded quote is "“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us -- there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.” "

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/178439-the-cosmos-is-all-that-is-or-was-or-ever

I think Sagan preferred the mystery over the alleged answer to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It proves that every possible outcome in that experiment is improbable, and that improbable events have to happen.

[b]Everything that happens can't be "improbable" according to standard definitions so all you've proven is that you can use terms in a non-standard manner.
Please give your 'standard definitions'. Because the definitions I know, requi ...[text shortened]... ou haven't properly explained?
If it is so basic, then try and say it in more sensible English.[/b]

In your previous post, you described the universe as "winning" this "lottery" presumably because it wound up to be life habitable. Incredibly in this post you are claiming you can't possibly understand what I would mean by describing a "lottery" where the universe wound up life impossible as a "loser"!

Can you address that point NOW?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If a reincarnated person or universe had all the same memories, knowledge and attributes, how could it tell it if was or wasn't the same one?

We can think of either this universe as being part of a multiverse or a particular instance of a cyclic one and, at first appearance, it would be impossible to determine which. However, we do have evidence that ...[text shortened]... t is an overstatement but in any event there seems to be more evidence for a cyclical universe).

The only way I can at present imagine that a universe could be distinguished as being cyclical as opposed to de novo is if information developed in a particular instance were knowably present from the git go in the "next" instance of the cycle. The analogy to reincarnation would be reliable memory of a past life, example, remembering where your previous incarnation buried the loot.

In the case of universes, I think that current theory has it that there is no information content that survives the BC/BR. Of course if each universe had a designer there would be information content provided by that designer, in the design.

In any case, your questioning the meaningfulness of a "pre" BB state suggests to me that dwelling on the cyclical versus de novo aspect of universe-existence can be considered a matter of aesthetic preference.

Originally posted by JS357
The only way I can at present imagine that a universe could be distinguished as being cyclical as opposed to de novo is if information developed in a particular instance were knowably present from the git go in the "next" instance of the cycle. The analogy to reincarnation would be reliable memory of a past life, example, remembering where your previous inca ...[text shortened]... versus de novo aspect of universe-existence can be considered a matter of aesthetic preference.

I'm not proposing a designer outside of the design.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not proposing a designer outside of the design.

Right, you're not. Would it be meaningful and accurate to say that there is some aspect of particular instance of a cyclic universe that survives from one to the next? Or does the BC/BR completely annihilate all that exists including temporality?