The design argument

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Yahtzee argument is just a restatement of the Lottery Fallacy Fallacy which has been discussed to the point of exhaustion. Please just review my numerous posts showing why the Lottery Fallacy Fallacy is just that. Coming up with different analogies that simply repeat the same fallacious arguments doesn't make them less fallacious.

C'mon no1. The Yahtzee parody exposes your line of thought as absurd. Thus far instead of actually addressing it, you insist on making the same straw man argument. Though I think you're probably intelligent enough to understand it, I'll break it down for you.

The following is your line of thought:

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".No such evidence has been submitted so essentially what TW is insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).

The Yahtzee parody directly follows the same line of thought:

Not very many people know this, but TW's favorite number is 5. As it so happened on his first roll the first time he played Yahtzee he rolled all 5s.

At that point it was pointed out to him that there are only two possibilities:

A) His roll "was designed;"

B) His roll "was a result of random forces."

That "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 was enormously more probable." Nevertheless TW kept "insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable."

So please actually address the following:
Compare the emboldened areas of both quote boxes. Clearly the Yahtzee parody parallels your line of thought.

Under the scenario detailed in the Yahtzee parody, your line of thought calls for the conclusion that TW'S ROLL WAS DESIGNED just as your line of thought calls for the conclusion that the UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNED.

Do you believe that it is correct to conclude that TW's roll was designed? If not, why not?

Please spare me your usual nonsense and actually address the above.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Yes, I have noticed that you and (especially) No. 1 are careful to avoid the "g" word generally. I apply the word "god" to any (self-aware!) superbeing, consciousness, entity -- whatever you wish to call it -- that has or had some part in shaping the universe we observe today. The Big Bang could have happened by chance, whereupon an intelligent external ...[text shortened]... e the ability to "fine-tune" physical parameters, but not throw physics entirely out the window.

Well, I was outlining particularly the Stoic concept, and their application of theos to the natural universe itself--regardless of how others would define it (theos/god). That word can be simply excised, and the Stoic understanding of the natural cosmos remains.

Personally, I would not find accepting it all as just brute fact unsatisfying--it is what it is. I simply would find it uninteresting--as do scientists as well as philosophers.

EDIT: I'll take responsibility for bringing that particular, non-conventional god-concept into it; though others mentioned "god", I don't think that No.1 was one of them.

Originally posted by DeepThought
When you see a cloud shaped like an elephant do you see design or do you see a random pattern which your brain has an evolved predisposition to see a designed pattern in?

Is it an African Elephant or an Indian Elephant?

Originally posted by DeepThought
That statement is fine for theories that have experimental justification. Theories beyond the standard model aren't verified experimentally yet. When they have been then you've got some justification for your claim, but until then the theory is too uncertain to extrapolate from. The entropic argument seems to be resolved by an appeal to cosmic inflati ...[text shortened]... the idea of universe as theos I just think it's difficult to justify from within Physics.

As a piece of Metaphysics I don't have any particular objection to the idea of universe as theos I just think it's difficult to justify from within Physics.

Assuming that I’ve sufficiently explained how the Stoics used that term—and that it could simply be dropped, without altering their understanding of the universe—I of course have to defer to your knowledge of physics, also with appreciation for your non-dogmatic articulation. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I was outlining particularly the Stoic concept, and their application of theos to the natural universe itself--regardless of how others would define it (theos/god). That word can be simply excised, and the Stoic understanding of the natural cosmos remains.

Personally, I would not find accepting it all as just brute fact unsatisfying-- ...[text shortened]... al god-concept into it; though others mentioned "god", I don't think that No.1 was one of them.

Well, all that you have said I find to be interesting, even if I side more with DeepThought in this matter! But my feeling is that there is in reality an unbounded number of universes, each of which has varying physical parameters so that it is inevitable that some shall come to be able to sustain life. It is simply natural to me. There is a plurality of worlds, of stars, of galaxies…and so why stop there? And witness how evolution works: random mutation, with a selection mechanism that gives rise to orderly organisms over the span of ages. The key is the roll of a die, but over and over uncounted times. It's so natural to me, that the idea of a god, or a cosmic consciousness, just seems superfluous at best.

I'm working on a short story that I started in July about a being of pure mathematical thought that accidentally sparks the Big Bang, becomes ensnared in its space-time fabric, and early on alters certain physical constants in an attempt to bring about the eventual collapse of the universe so it can be free again. It succeeds in arresting the inflationary period, but clearly that was not enough. It goes on from there, but lately I've been lacking time to get it finished.

Originally posted by JS357
Theory still stops upon encountering design, even if the Western God is removed leaving only design somehow being developed and executed.

Anything -- even No1's random forces -- can be responded to by "that's part of the design." It defeats the one alternative under discussion.

If it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is outside science. This doesn't disprove it, it only takes it beyond the scope of evidence-based inquiry.

I think that can be said about any claim that would have the effect of precluding further (falsifiable) evidentiary inquiry. Or are you saying that that particular possibility is per se unfalsifiable? It seems to me that it is no more or less unfalsifiable than randomness or that we just have to accept that the universe is the way it is as a brute fact that is not amenable to further analysis.

I'm not arguing here, just asking (even in the sentences without the question mark)--I just might not understand your point.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, all that you have said I find to be interesting, even if I side more with DeepThought in this matter! But my feeling is that there is in reality an unbounded number of universes, each of which has varying physical parameters so that it is inevitable that some shall come to be able to sustain life. It is simply natural to me. There is a plurality o ...[text shortened]... at was not enough. It goes on from there, but lately I've been lacking time to get it finished.

Thanks, man. I deliberately limit my time on here, but I want to read that story when it's done! If you drop me a PM then with a link to where I can find it when it's published, etc., I'll see it eventually. 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello

The argument is rather clear and you know what it is (see the title of the thread). Your claim that there isn't one is disingenuous.

No. Just like I said, there is no actual argument in the first post you made in this thread, just some various counterfactual claims. Since "fine tuning" arguments typically take as their premises probab ...[text shortened]... re is the same for the proponent of the fine tuning argument, the same goes for their inference.

What you write is lucid, but now I wonder. Many lotteries are constructed so that somebody has to win in a single drawing. Is that the kind of lottery under consideration, and if so, is it true for the fine-tuning side of the analogy?

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks, man. I deliberately limit my time on here, but I want to read that story when it's done! If you drop me a PM then with a link to where I can find it when it's published, etc., I'll see it eventually. 🙂

I doubt it will ever be published (I'm not a professional writer of any sort), but I'd be happy to share whatever I come up with. I have a bad habit of not finishing projects, which is why I'm trying to make this a *short* story (~50 pages).

Also, I make no guarantee that it will be good writing! 😉

Originally posted by DeepThought
When you see a cloud shaped like an elephant do you see design or do you see a random pattern which your brain has an evolved predisposition to see a designed pattern in?

Truth is simple and pure and clean and crisp and light and nourishing and wonderful.......

Don,t throw a spanner in the works of truth..........by over intellectualizing it.

When you have the truth...............grab it and stop thinking.

Originally posted by Dasa
When you have the truth...............grab it and stop thinking.

One of the problems with religions and religious people seems to be that many of them stop thinking once they grab something that they believe is the truth.

Originally posted by FMF
One of the problems with religions and religious people seems to be that many of them stop thinking once they grab something that they believe is the truth.

It's a bad habit for truth-seekers in ANY discipline, but religion does seem to encourage it more than most of the other disciplines. There's also the group-think aspect - "Hey, you've reached a conclusion not unlike our own! Stop thinking before you change conclusions again and spoil the harmony you could enjoy as part of our group!"

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please check the last 25 pages; I'm not going through the Lottery Fallacy Fallacy again.

EDIT: My first post on p. 5 was a sufficient response though the "debate" has droned on.

The only thing your post on page 5 would succeed in doing is confirming that the lottery analogy I described is indeed an apt one. Take another good look at what your post says: it says that, according to the fine tuning argument, a life-permitting universe's coming into existence is akin to that one particular black marble being drawn from a swimming pool filled with many, many white marbles and just the one black marble. Gee, that's basically nothing more or less than the lottery situation I already described, where the particular winner S represents that black marble in a sea of losers.

Clearly, you do not get the issue here with respect to the lottery argument. Your post on page 5 presumes to indicate that the lottery argument fails because it fails to appreciate that even if the probability that some marble will be drawn is high (or even certain), it's still the case that the probability that the particular black marble is drawn is exceedingly low. But, on the contrary, that is something the lottery argument already concedes and recognizes. In the context of the lottery argument, it is already granted to the proponent of the fine tuning argument that this probability is low. This premise of his fine tuning argument is granted in the context of the lottery argument: the lottery analog is that S in particular wins, which is extremely improbable in the framework of the lottery argument...remember? The point is, the abductive inference that follows is not warranted.

In short, that post on page 5 is just confused about the thrust of the lottery argument. It tries to make the case that it does not respect the fine tuning argument premise about the low order of the probability in question. That's false: this premise is already granted to the proponent of the fine tuning argument for the sake of the argument.** The thrust of the lottery argument has to do with subsequent inference.

---------
**This is already a lot more than I would concede otherwise, were it not for the sake of the argument. I suppose you'll keep ignoring my concerns about drawing probability claims from the types of counterfactual claims at issue. Oh well....

Originally posted by Soothfast
What you write is lucid, but now I wonder. Many lotteries are constructed so that somebody has to win in a single drawing. Is that the kind of lottery under consideration, and if so, is it true for the fine-tuning side of the analogy?

I think the lottery analogy should remain apt either way. The proponent of the fine tuning argument is committed to the stance that there are other sets of physical constants (other than the actual one) that the universe could have had. Of course, the lottery analog to this is that there are other possible winners of the lottery besides subject S. Now, if this proponent of the fine tuning argument thinks that the universe had to have taken one of these sets or another, then this is analogous to a lottery case where there has to be a winner in the drawing. If, on the other hand, the proponent of the fine tuning argument denies this, then it is analogous to a lottery case where there is no guarantee that somebody wins in the drawing. (There are many such actual lotteries that operate like this.) Either way, the same point about the unwarranted inference should follow.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think the lottery analogy should remain apt either way. The proponent of the fine tuning argument is committed to the stance that there are other sets of physical constants (other than the actual one) that the universe could have had. Of course, the lottery analog to this is that there are other possible winners of the lottery besides subject S. Now, ...[text shortened]... t operate like this.) Either way, the same point about the unwarranted inference should follow.

The issue I have with ignoring the fine tune argument is that is just
assumed that a correct or proper means to have life would always appear!
I believe it was the Blind Watchmaker that said life was like a combination
lock, turn it enough times it would occur or open, and my stance on that is
why believe that?

Why must there be a correct combination to the lock that you can get while
turning it? If life were so complex that it requires someone to put the pieces
together just right as in which came first or did they all come at the very
same time DNA, RNA or protein?

If you cannot see design, what makes this discussion matter? To start with
the basic view that life could come about by happenstance is to already
have a view or opinion and that is a matter of faith.