The design argument

Originally posted by LemonJello
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 po ...[text shortened]... about drawing probability claims from the types of counterfactual claims at issue. Oh well....

Physicists don't seem to concede your point that the probability of determining the odds that certain physical parameters were present in the universe is impossible. A couple have already been mentioned here; DT's calculation of the number of possible string vacua in string theory and the number that could lead to life habitable universes is approximately 10 to the 400th power. Penrose's calculations on the possibility of a universe with the proper amount of entropy to be consistent with the existence of Second Law of Thermodynamics at the time of the Big Bang given the number of baryons in this universe is 10 to 10 to the 123rd power. Other examples could also be provided.

Even if one concedes that this calculations are necessarily imprecise, reasonable differences in assumptions will not yield any probability for a life habitable universe that is not vanishingly small. A concern over a 1 in 10,000 result might be justified as one which, though unlikely, could happen at random, but surely the type of odds we are talking about make resort to analogies with die rolls and lotteries totally inappropriate and unreasonable.

If Rick saw his roulette wheel come up a million times in a row "22" would the argument that any possible sequence is just as likely to occur as another stop him from replacing his roulette wheel? Would it be "absurd" for him to do so?

At some point, resort to what might be called "common sense" surely should be considered rather than the unbending allegiance to sophist arguments.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Physicists don't seem to concede your point that the probability of determining the odds that certain physical parameters were present in the universe is impossible. A couple have already been mentioned here; DT's calculation of the number of possible string vacua in string theory and the number that could lead to life habitable universes is approximate ...[text shortened]... on sense" surely should be considered rather than the unbending allegiance to sophist arguments.

"the type of odds we are talking about make resort to analogies with die rolls and lotteries totally inappropriate and unreasonable"

The fact that there is no comparable calculation of the odds of there being a mechanism that designs and implements the design, makes analogies to the odds of random processes useless for either side. Further is your continued facile juxtaposition of "designed" with "random" instead of the proper juxtaposition of "designed" with "undesigned." It is it is a convenient way to enter these calculations into the record for their value in an argument from incredulity but it skips a step in your argument.

Originally posted by JS357
"the type of odds we are talking about make resort to analogies with die rolls and lotteries totally inappropriate and unreasonable"

The fact that there is no comparable calculation of the odds of there being a mechanism that designs and implements the design, makes analogies to the odds of random processes useless for either side. Further is your continued ...[text shortened]... the record for their value in an argument from incredulity but it skips a step in your argument.

I have already responded to this point. You seem intent on ignoring my explanation. So be it.

p. 24 for example: More precisely the question is whether the properties this universe possesses came about randomly or non-randomly and if the latter what caused it to have the properties it does?

I tailor my posts o the person I am responding to normally. Most of the people who have responded to my posts are simply asserting a random process while ignoring the truly astronomical odds that this assertion is correct. If people want to concede non-randomness, I've been willing to discuss other possibilities like MetaRules but so far no one has taken me up on that (your post cited your "MetaRule" was just a flippant one relying on the Anthropic Principle the inadequacy of which I have already addressed).

Originally posted by no1marauder
A conscious universe isn't non-corporeal.

Do you suppose that a conscious universe would say to itself "Hey, why is this universe so wonderfully tuned?""

You're being absurd. You're talking about the universe somehow being "alive" at the outset, and yet insist that there's a problem with the Standard Model as it relates to the chances that life could arise in the universe. Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think the universe has some kind of consciousness, you surely should be prepared to admit that life could arise even in universes with physical constants that do not allow for the formation of atomic matter. But if not, why not?

Originally posted by Soothfast
You're being absurd. You're talking about the universe somehow being "alive" at the outset, and yet insist that there's a problem with the Standard Model as it relates to the chances that life could arise in the universe. Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think the universe has some kind of consciousness, you surely should be prepared to admit t ...[text shortened]... h physical constants that do not allow for the formation of atomic matter. But if not, why not?

A conscious universe is obviously more than "life". It is everything if we assume that they are no other universes.

Could some pure conscious, non-corporeal life form evolve in a universe that consisted of merely a singularity or one without any complex atoms at all? Damned if I know. Does it matter for the sake of our discussion?

EDIT: The question posed was, again, "whether the properties this universe possesses came about randomly or non-randomly and if the latter what caused it to have the properties it does?"

Originally posted by no1marauder
A conscious universe is obviously more than "life". It is everything if we assume that they are no other universes.

Could some pure conscious, non-corporeal life form evolve in a universe that consisted of merely a singularity or one without any complex atoms at all? Damned if I know. Does it matter for the sake of our discussion?

It matters, because you maintain that the chances are vanishingly small that a (single, unique) universe could come into being that happens to have physical parameters set at values conducive to the rise of living things such as ourselves that must wonder at the fine-tuning of the cosmos. But that's assuming that universes with parameters that are not "fine-tuned" for us must necessarily harbor no analogues to "us." Who knows what weird resonance states a universe of pure energy (and no atomic matter) might be able to achieve that simulates the neurons of a thinking brain? Even if you reject the idea of a multiverse, it may still be that the probability that a single universe will have parameters that allow for the evolution of some kind of life (however strange) is more like 50/50 or better.

But I'll say again, the very thesis of a "conscious universe" opens the door wide for precisely those kinds of improved odds, and so undercuts itself. You're saying that thought is possible in the heats of a universe not even a picosecond old, which is saying a lot. It's pushing the limits of what I think is possible, so that the notion of non-corporeal life very suddenly looks as ordinary as a titmouse.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have already responded to this point. You seem intent on ignoring my explanation. So be it.

p. 24 for example: More precisely the question is whether the properties this universe possesses came about randomly or non-randomly and if the latter what caused it to have the properties it does?

I tailor my posts o the person I am responding to normally ...[text shortened]... ippant one relying on the Anthropic Principle the inadequacy of which I have already addressed).

I appreciate your intellect and politeness and patience. Why does the latter (random) need an explained cause and not the former (nonrandomly) need one?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Bear in mind that the probability we are looking at is not the probability of life actually coming about in a given universe, but the probability of a universe in which life is remotely possible. If a range of the parameter space predicts a universe where stars can't burn hydrogen then planetary systems aren't possible and life can't exist at all. So i ...[text shortened]... In universes where hydrogen won't fuse there isn't any iron to build the combination lock from.

This universe being setup properly in a macro sense is easier how?
The universe to support life just happens that doesn't seem a bit much?
All the stresses that could come into play only do so at just the right
amounts, all the necessary ingredients also would be there at just the
right place at just the right amounts mixed properly and enriched in such a
way that it could start life and continue it. These are just the grand parts of
the puzzle, we then have to go into the itty bitty micro universe and get all
of them to form just right as well. What could go wrong, or why would it
ever get just right on its own?

Originally posted by KellyJay
This universe being setup properly in a macro sense is easier how?
The universe to support life just happens that doesn't seem a bit much?
All the stresses that could come into play only do so at just the right
amounts, all the necessary ingredients also would be there at just the
right place at just the right amounts mixed properly and enriched in such ...[text shortened]... o form just right as well. What could go wrong, or why would it
ever get just right on its own?

What answer did Man have 10,000 years ago?
Or a thousand?
Or even 100?

What does not having an answer prove?

Originally posted by JS357
I appreciate your intellect and politeness and patience. Why does the latter (random) need an explained cause and not the former (nonrandomly) need one?

My post says the opposite.

Originally posted by no1marauder

No1marauder, on another thread sometime, I'd like to discuss with you some issues about pantheism. I'm thinking about it. If we can keep out the noise, I'll open up a thread where we can compare a little the Christian faith and pantheism. Maybe, after I re-read up on some things we can include panentheism (sic) as well.

Would you be up for that?

Originally posted by no1marauder
My post says the opposite.

It does. I screwed up.

But the question now is, why does one of them require an explanation and not the other? (I should have expressed it this way.)

You see, I continue to object to the false dichotomy of designed versus random. One reason is that random does not rule out designed. If there is true randomness in this universe, and it is designed, the design merely included that randomness. So design is not falsified by there being some randomness, and the unfalsifiable design model lives on against that false dichotomy.

You object that most of your correspondents speak of randomness as the alternative to design so you do too. It seems to me that this approach lacks rigor and smacks of trying to win instead of trying to learn together. We should start with 'designed' v 'not designed' and demand of ourselves that randomness be shown to be implied by 'not designed'. That way the pivotal importance of the improbability argument is based on sound reasoning. Edit: although that argument has other hurdles to clear.

Originally posted by JS357
It does. I screwed up.

But the question now is, why does one of them require an explanation and not the other? (I should have expressed it this way.)

You see, I continue to object to the false dichotomy of designed versus random. One reason is that random does not rule out designed. If there is true randomness in this universe, and it is designed, the de ...[text shortened]... y argument is based on sound reasoning. Edit: although that argument has other hurdles to clear.

The definition of "random" is clear enough. So to do what you propose we need a firm, unambiguous definition for "designed" (unless it was already given somewhere around 109 pages ago).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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:
[quote]In the case we are discussing [b]there are only ...[text shortened]... signed? If not, why not?

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

For no1, in case you missed this post earlier.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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 ThinkOfOne

Clearly the Yahtzee parody parallels your line of thought.

I don't think the situation is with the Yahtzee parody is that "clearly" parallel to the fine tuning in the creation event and its latter developments.

In one toss you have five possibilities, I think, 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.
Am I right?

Fine tuning for the existence of life involves possibilities far, far, far beyond five possible outcomes.

We need certain outcomes for gravity.
We need certain outcomes of the strong nuclear force.
We need certain outcomes for the weak nuclear force.
We need certain outcomes for the proton to election mass ratio.
We need certain outcomes for electro magnetic interaction.
We need certain outcomes for expansion rate of the universe.
We need certain outcomes for the position of the earth to the sun.
And more calibrated physics values are needed for life permitting universe.

How can we possibly draw a comparison between the big bang being tuned to permit life with six possible outcomes of a die toss?

MIT Physicist Gerald L. Schroeder writes:

"With the universe we did not win just one lottery. We won at the choice for the strength of the electromagnetic force (which encourages atoms to join into molecules). We won at the strength of the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nuclei together; were it a bit stronger the diproton and not hydrogen would be the major component of the universe, and no hydrogen means no shining stars.) Other winning lotteries were the strength of the weak nuclear force and the strength of gravity (which dominates the universe at distances greater than the size of molecules and clusters mass into galaxies, stars, and planets), the mass and energy of the big bang, the temperature of the big bang, the rate of expansion of the universe, and much more. Lottery upon lottery, and all winners. They have meshed to produce the wonderful world in which we live. By chance? Not if our understanding of the laws of nature is even approximately correct. To this observer of nature, our universe looks like a put-up job."

[ The Science of God, Gerald L. Schroeder, Broadway Books, pg. 26] (my bolding)