The design argument

Originally posted by twhitehead
You don't seem to understand the lottery argument - which might explain why you don't find it persuasive. Properly understood, a lottery argument is of course much more persuasive than 'Goddunnit'.
Be honest now, you don't believe God chooses all the lottery winners do you? If you don't, then you accept the lottery argument for lotteries. Why the sudden change of heart when it comes to universes?

I believe lotteries are not fixed, but the universe is fixed. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
You don't seem to understand the lottery argument - which might explain why you don't find it persuasive. Properly understood, a lottery argument is of course much more persuasive than 'Goddunnit'.
Be honest now, you don't believe God chooses all the lottery winners do you? If you don't, then you accept the lottery argument for lotteries. Why the sudden change of heart when it comes to universes?

Because lotteries are lotteries and the universe is the universe. Or:

The fine tuning argument is not driven by the improbability of just any universe coming into existence, like the probability of someone winning the lottery, which might be high. Instead the argument is driven by the specified probability of a life-permitting universe coming into existence. A useful illustration that’s sometimes used is that of a gigantic swimming pool, filled with hundreds of billions of white marbles (representing life-prohibiting universes or failed universes), but containing only one black marble (representing a successful and life permitting universe). While it is true that the probability of pulling out any particular marble is the same as that of pulling out any other particular marble and provided we are going to pull out a marble, then the probability of pulling out a marble is 1 (i.e. it is certain that it will happen), it is also true that the probability of pulling out a black marble is mind bogglingly lower than the probability of pulling out a white marble. Yes, a marble is definitely going to win this lottery, but that’s not the probability in question (incidentally, the marble illustration is routinely used by William Lane Craig in debates on the existence of God). So it is, according to the fine tuning argument, with the probability of a successful life-permitting universe coming into being. 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 probability of a successful and life-permitting universe coming into being is not at all the same as any other universe coming into existence. It is astronomically lower (pun intended, and now pointed out in case you missed it).

The appeal to the lottery fallacy is so common and yet so basically flawed in a rather obvious way that I’ve dubbed it The Lottery Fallacy Fallacy. This of course doesn’t mean that there’s no possible decent way to reply to the teleological argument. But if there is one, this ain’t it.

http://www.rightreason.org/2010/the-lottery-fallacy-fallacy/

The "lottery argument" really doesn't say anything but that IF the universe we have was a result of random forces it would appear on first view to be the result of "fine tuning" because we exist. But a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same. So the argument itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulted. Unfortunately those who use the argument stop, pat themselves on the back and refuse to look at any further facts because they think they have come up with a clever rhetorical refutation when they have done nothing of the kind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Small variations in just about every possible aspect of your parents lives up until your conception lead to a universe where your existence is impossible.
Do you find this in need of explanation? If not, why not?

[b]So far the two competing ones seem to be "s**t happens" and "it was designed that way by a designer"
Competing ideas are not necess ...[text shortened]... hy you think the marble you picked is black. Did you paint it black after you picked it perhaps?[/b]

If it is in need of explanation then those explanations are available and rational. I don't have to rely on "s**t happens". Of course, unfortunately for your example, my existence is made possible by decisions of sentient beings. How far would you like to push your analogy?

It doesn't appear those two competing ideas are equal at all so you are correct.

The black marble was picked. Our later actions have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by C Hess
Everything that appears to be designed has a designer.
The universe appears to have been designed.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.

This is essentially the argument from design (as I've understood it), and it is a rock-solid argument if the premises are true. So, are they?

We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capa ...[text shortened]... ybe, perhaps have a designer, or not.[/i]

That's the proper conclusion for now, me thinks. 😏

I believe God designed all of this, but don't think I would say that if a
thing looks like it was designed means it was. Not sure how you'd go about
proving that one.

Can you prove anything was not designed either?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The fine tuning argument is not driven by the improbability of just any universe coming into existence, like the probability of someone winning the lottery, which might be high. Instead the argument is driven by the specified probability of a life-permitting universe coming into existence.

It is possible then, that the lottery argument doesn't apply.

A useful illustration that’s sometimes used is that of a gigantic swimming pool, filled with hundreds of billions of white marbles (representing life-prohibiting universes or failed universes), but containing only one black marble (representing a successful and life permitting universe).
What do you mean by 'life permitting universe' and why do you think there is only one such universe possible?
Why do you represent it with a black marble, and all the rest with white marbles?

(incidentally, the marble illustration is routinely used by William Lane Craig in debates on the existence of God). [b]
I am not surprised. He is well known for using ridiculously bad logic.

[b]So it is, according to the fine tuning argument, with the probability of a successful life-permitting universe coming into being.
How does this differ from the case of us painting the winning lottery ticket black, and all the rest white?

The appeal to the lottery fallacy is so common and yet so basically flawed in a rather obvious way that I’ve dubbed it The Lottery Fallacy Fallacy.
I still don't understand what you think the fallacy is, or what you think the argument is that you are labeling fallacious. So far you seem to be simply claiming that a lottery analogy doesn't apply, but I think you need to answer some of my questions before you have made your case.

I also want to see where you are willing to apply the analogy, and where you are not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If it is in need of explanation then those explanations are available and rational. I don't have to rely on "s**t happens". Of course, unfortunately for your example, my existence is made possible by decisions of sentient beings. How far would you like to push your analogy?

Please clarify. Are you saying that your birth was no accident and that every single event in the universe leading to your birth was a result of a choice by a sentient being?

The black marble was picked. Our later actions have nothing to do with it.
What makes it black and all the other ones white? Are you sure that the color is not something you are painting on to them?

Originally posted by no1marauder
DT: The reason we have apparently fortuitous coincidences in physical parameters is that we don't understand the physics properly yet

That's a similar argument to one Einstein used to use against Quantum Mechanics. It turned out that the physics properly understood didn't support the idea that there was more there there.

Intellectual snobbery never ...[text shortened]... ng such ultimate questions, then I find such lack of imagination in those departments troubling.

Since my background is in physics I don't see how my comments can constitute "intellectual snobbery". There's a straightforward reason that physics departments don't regularly discuss these things and that is because they don't form part of researchers' work. Seminars are based around actual research, so theoretical physicists discuss what they've done and don't naval gaze.

Much as it's nice to be compared with Einstein, I don't think that the comparison is justified. His objections to quantum theory were based around a realist desire to hang onto the determinism of classical physics. Also he was concerned with the ramifications of the interpretation of quantum theory for his theory of relativity. It wasn't until the seventies that John Clauser and Stuart Freedman (1972) and Alain Aspect et al. (1981) did experiments with entangled photons to show that entangled photons violate Bell's inequality (although their validity is disputed). His alternative is still not completely ruled out. The main difference though is that he was arguing about the interpretation of a theory that predicted experimental results. I'm arguing with the interpretation of a heuristic principle that doesn't predict anything. Anthropic arguments in physics have a lousy track record. Fred Hoyle predicted a resonance in Carbon-12 on the basis that life exists so the triple alpha process had to be possible. That's the only result - and since we know the abundance of carbon it wasn't even necessary to invoke it.

You haven't dealt adequately with LemonJello's point about measure, which is a good one. Especially with speculative theories we are guessing in the space of theories. A free parameter in the Standard Model is the electroweak mixing angle (also called the Weinberg angle). It gives the relative strength of the electromagnetic and weak interactions as well as setting the relative mass of the Z and W particles. The angle is experimentally determined to be about 30°, if it were near 90° then the Z would have a huge mass and the neutral current would to all intents and purposes not exist, and the electromagnetic field would be twice as strong. If it is near zero then the neutral current and U(1) field would cancel each other out and there would be no electro-magnetic field.

The normal symbol for the angle is theta with W as a subscript, but I can't find the keystroke so I'll use ß, the angle is in the range [0, pi/2]:

e = g sin(ß.) where e is electric charge and g is weak charge.
de = g·cos(ß.)dß = e·cot(ß.)dß
de/e ~ sqrt(3)·dß
2dß/pi ~ 2*de/pi*sqrt(3)e

A change of one part in 1000 or so in the electric charge really wouldn't matter all that much - that kind of change in atomic energy levels happens in strong magnetic fields and life doesn't stop. So based on the electroweak mixing angle we have a probability of getting the right kind of universe of 1 in 2500 or so - which is not unlikely enough to be regarded as unnatural or any kind of fine tuning disaster.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since my background is in physics I don't see how my comments can constitute "intellectual snobbery". There's a straightforward reason that physics departments don't regularly discuss these things and that is because they don't form part of researchers' work. Seminars are based around actual research, so theoretical physicists discuss what they've done ...[text shortened]... - which is not unlikely enough to be regarded as unnatural or any kind of fine tuning disaster.

One in 2500 for one variable multiplied by what for the others?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please clarify. Are you saying that your birth was no accident and that every single event in the universe leading to your birth was a result of a choice by a sentient being?

[b]The black marble was picked. Our later actions have nothing to do with it.
What makes it black and all the other ones white? Are you sure that the color is not something you are painting on to them?[/b]

You're moving the goalposts; your original assertion was:

TW: Small variations in just about every possible aspect of your parents lives up until your conception lead to a universe where your existence is impossible.

How that became "every single event in the universe" is rather hard to fathom.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because lotteries are lotteries and the universe is the universe. Or:

The fine tuning argument is not driven by the improbability of just any universe coming into existence, like the probability of someone winning the lottery, which might be high. Instead the argument is driven by the specified probability of a life-permitting universe coming into exi ...[text shortened]... k they have come up with a clever rhetorical refutation when they have done nothing of the kind.

The "lottery argument" really doesn't say anything but that IF the universe we have was a result of random forces it would appear on first view to be the result of "fine tuning" because we exist. But a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same. So the argument itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulted.

Herein lies the crux of the fallacy of the Fine Tuned Universe argument. As you've pointed out: " a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same" as a universe that "was a result of random forces". And vice versa. As such, the Fine Tuned Universe argument "itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulted". The bottom line is the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because lotteries are lotteries and the universe is the universe. Or:

The fine tuning argument is not driven by the improbability of just any universe coming into existence, like the probability of someone winning the lottery, which might be high. Instead the argument is driven by the specified probability of a life-permitting universe coming into exi ...[text shortened]... k they have come up with a clever rhetorical refutation when they have done nothing of the kind.

"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,..."

According to current cosmology, someday our universe will "fail" and not sustain life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is possible then, that the lottery argument doesn't apply.

[b]A useful illustration that’s sometimes used is that of a gigantic swimming pool, filled with hundreds of billions of white marbles (representing life-prohibiting universes or failed universes), but containing only one black marble (representing a successful and life permitting universe). ...[text shortened]... r case.

I also want to see where you are willing to apply the analogy, and where you are not.

Consider this hypothetical:

You are present at Rick's on a Saturday night. You are aware that a Bulgarian couple need 10,000 francs to purchase an exit visa and the husband is playing roulette (with little success) in an attempt to win that amount. You see the wife talking to Rick the owner of the cafe and the latter then walks to the table. Speaking to the husband he says "Put it all on 22" and nods to the operator of the roulette wheel. The wheel is spun and lands on "22". Rick then says to the husband " Leave it" and the husband leaves his winnings on 22. The wheel is spun again and "22" comes up. The husband has won 10,000 francs!


Now from your perspective the situation is that husband now has 10,000 francs. He would have had that 10,000 francs whether 22 came up on two successive spins of the wheel by blind chance (very unlikely) or whether Rick had arranged for 22 to come up on two successive spins (infinitely more likely given the circumstances).

The lottery argument would be akin to saying that because we now exist in a world where the husband won the 10,000 francs, we cannot possibly make any evaluation of whether that world arose by random chance or conscious decisions. That is clearly an inadequate and unpersuasive position. We need to look beyond the existing situation and examine the evidence that we have to determine which of those two options is more probable. The "lottery argument" is a rhetorical game without any real substance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The "lottery argument" really doesn't say anything but that IF the universe we have was a result of random forces it would appear on first view to be the result of "fine tuning" because we exist. But a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same. So the argument itself isn't persuasive either way and external evidence must be consulte ...[text shortened]... sulted". The bottom line is the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself.

The argument itself doesn't; the evidence for and against the argument needs to be evaluated.

Originally posted by JS357
"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,..."

According to current cosmology, someday our universe will "fail" and not sustain life.

As it is designed to. Birth, death and rebirth in infinite cycles (Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, etc. etc. etc.).

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're moving the goalposts; your original assertion was:

TW: Small variations in just about every possible aspect of your parents lives up until your conception lead to a universe where your existence is impossible.

How that became "every single event in the universe" is rather hard to fathom.

I have not moved any goal posts. I am asking you what your belief is with regards to how you came about. I wasn't even making assertions as such - unless you dispute the facts perhaps?
Are you able to answer the question, or not?