The design argument

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lottery of existing vs not existing. What did you think the analogy was all about?

[b]It may well be the case that the probability of some universe coming into being was fairly high. But if there are millions upon millions of possible universes that would either fail or not sustain life, and almost none that would succeed and sustain life, then the ...[text shortened]... ason why it exists rather than some other universe existing, or is it merely a matter of chance.

The answer is that A necessarily means that some type of life made the universe what it is. A design requires a designer. So if A is true, then it wouldn't be much of a surprise that the designer would design a life habitable universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly didn't read what you were asked to do. I never once told you to add up the numbers. I want to know what the probability is of getting a specific sequence of numbers, say 6,4,5,2,3 vs 1,3,2,5,4. I want to know the probability of specific events happening.

Then your point is trivial. The probability of any specific event depends on how probable it is. Duh.

I fail to see what is added to your "point" by specifying 5 dice rolls rather than just one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:
A) The universe was designed;
B) The universe was a result of random forces.

Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A is enormously more probable unless one can submit evidence that there were more "throws".

That does not follow in my mind. If one "throw" (i.e. universe) is possible, then it is reasonable to infer that other "throws" are possible, and indeed an infinite number of "throws" are possible. It is not so reasonable to theorize that there exists a designer, for not even one designer has been empirically verified to exist. That is a leap of logic. Moreover, once you invoke the existence of a designer, you merely "kick the can down the road" and must reckon with the origins of the designer. A designer, itself appearing designed by dint of its organized, conscious intelligence, must in turn (by your logic) have been designed. And on it goes...

Originally posted by Soothfast
That does not follow in my mind. If one "throw" (i.e. universe) is possible, then it is reasonable to infer that other "throws" are possible, and indeed an infinite number of "throws" are possible. It is not so reasonable to theorize that there exists a designer, for not even one designer has been empirically verified to exist. That is a leap of logic. ...[text shortened]... igner, you merely "kick the can down the road" and must reckon with the origins of the designer.

That things are "possible" doesn't imply they are likely or probable. We know our universe exists but we have no evidence then any other one does. Therefore, it would be a considerable leap of logic to say one more does and an extreme leap of logic to say an infinite number do.

Given that the physical properties of a universe necessary to sustain life are staggeringly improbable to have arisen randomly and there is only one other possibility i.e. a non-random result, I do not see where any leap of logic is required to come to the conclusion that A is more probable than B.

If there is nothing more than the universe as the evidence so far implies, than the logical conclusion is that it's present configuration is self-designed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That things are "possible" doesn't imply they are likely or probable. We know our universe exists but we have no evidence then any other one does. Therefore, it would be a considerable leap of logic to say one more does and an extreme leap of logic to say an infinite number do.

Given that the physical properties of a universe necessary to sustain life ...[text shortened]... so far implies, than the logical conclusion is that it's present configuration is self-designed.

Then you merely invoke magic, for quite conveniently your hypothesized designer is entirely excused from accounting for its own origins. How is that more reasonable than imagining there exists other physical universes that arose by the same natural process that gave rise to our own universe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If that's all TW meant, then his point is trivial.

In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:

A) The universe was designed;

B) The universe was a result of random forces.

Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A is enormously more p ...[text shortened]... improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).

"If that's all TW meant, then his point is trivial. "

It depends on which situation is the proper analogy for the ways in which the physical constants of the universe are distributed. If they are come to be and operate independently, the sequence model is a better analogy than the summation model.

But it should be remembered that these are both analogical models. Reality is not to be fit to the model, the model must be fit to reality.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Then you merely invoke magic, for quite conveniently your hypothesized designer is entirely excused from accounting for its own origins. How is that more reasonable than imagining there exists other physical universes that arose by the same natural process that gave rise to our own universe?

Not at all. I'm going by what the evidence says and not going beyond it. I have no way to acquire any knowledge further than how the universe is and don't wish to speculate on the supernatural. I thought that approach was called "scientific".

Originally posted by no1marauder
That things are "possible" doesn't imply they are likely or probable. We know our universe exists but we have no evidence then any other one does. Therefore, it would be a considerable leap of logic to say one more does and an extreme leap of logic to say an infinite number do.

If a single god from, say, the Old Norse pantheon -- such as Odin -- could be empirically verified to exist, I would say it becomes entirely reasonable to conjecture that other gods exist. Suddenly Quetzalcoatl's prospects become hugely more promising. But we know of the existence of no god whatsoever, while time and time again we have learned that what once appeared magical had a wholly natural explanation. Assuming the universe is a natural phenomenon, I frankly would find it bizarre in the extreme if nature never managed to make another universe. Nearly as bizarre would be the existence of some upper bound on the number of universes allowed to come into being, either in parallel or in series. Given in addition that many of the latest theories seem to insist on the existence of other universes -- indeed an infinite number of them -- and not one seems to require a god (or "designer" ), I know where I'm placing my bet.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought that approach was called "scientific".

Well, you have a theory, to be sure. It can even be called scientific, if there's any chance it can be corroborated by experiment within the next millennium. A prerequisite for that would be that your theory makes a prediction. What prediction does it make? Some theories about the existence of other universes do make some predictions, from what I understand.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, you have a theory, to be sure. It can even be called scientific, if there's any chance it can be corroborated by experiment within the next millennium. A prerequisite for that would be that your theory makes a prediction. What prediction does it make? Some theories about the existence of other universes do make some predictions, from what I understand.

Obviously it is impossible to disprove that other universes exist.

In looking at what properties a conscious universe would probably possess, we might consider the possibility that events far from each other in the universe could affect each other. That seems impossible under standard models of physics but it is now commonly accepted and proven by experiment. See Bell's Theorem. Another model already mentioned suggests that the initial state of the universe determines the action of every particle in the universe for as long as the universe exists.

I also know that Hawking and others have proposed possible ways to detect other universes. The questions seem still open.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That things are "possible" doesn't imply they are likely or probable. We know our universe exists but we have no evidence then any other one does. Therefore, it would be a considerable leap of logic to say one more does and an extreme leap of logic to say an infinite number do.

Given that the physical properties of a universe necessary to sustain life ...[text shortened]... so far implies, than the logical conclusion is that it's present configuration is self-designed.

Has it been shown that "non-random result" implies "designed result?"

Originally posted by JS357
Has it been shown that "non-random result" implies "designed result?"

As already mentioned, I'm willing to accept the possibility of MetaRules.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because we are not children, and we prefer to base our conclusions on something more solid than childish delusions.

Every sincere and honest person can observe design from the macro (galaxies and solar systems and universes) and to the micro ( a leaf from a tree and the delicate construction of a butterfly and even the workings of cells within living things.

These simple things are all solid evidence for design, and if you would just hold up to the light ..........a bumble bee and a butterfly and even a small kitten or puppy you would immediately conclude intelligent deign has been to work..

You must understand this twhithead........ that only dishonest persons would ever argue against the design found in galaxies and planets and birds and horses and living cells.

Originally posted by Dasa
Every sincere and honest person can observe design from the macro (galaxies and solar systems and universes) and to the micro ( a leaf from a tree and the delicate construction of a butterfly and even the workings of cells within living things.

These simple things are all solid evidence for design, and if you would just hold up to the light ..........a bumbl ...[text shortened]... er argue against the design found in galaxies and planets and birds and horses and living cells.

If the water in an exquisite crystal goblet could think, it would marvel at just how well the goblet was designed, to conform to the water's beautiful shape.

Originally posted by Dasa
Every sincere and honest person can observe design from the macro (galaxies and solar systems and universes) and to the micro ( a leaf from a tree and the delicate construction of a butterfly and even the workings of cells within living things.

These simple things are all solid evidence for design, and if you would just hold up to the light ..........a bumbl ...[text shortened]... er argue against the design found in galaxies and planets and birds and horses and living cells.

I frankly would find it depressing to find that all things are being directed by a central intelligence, and that the wonders of the universe did not come about simply of their own accord as a natural reflection of a necessary, mathematical harmony. A truly eternal harmony.

So there.