The design argument

Originally posted by no1marauder
The "lottery argument" is a rhetorical game without any real substance.

Yet you refuse to answer my questions. Why is that?
And no, your 10,000 franks analogy does not work. Why is the current universe equivalent to successive wins in a lottery? Justify your claim. Simply throwing out fantastic odds wont scare me off. Make an actual argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you refuse to answer my questions. Why is that?
And no, your 10,000 franks analogy does not work. Why is the current universe equivalent to successive wins in a lottery? Justify your claim. Simply throwing out fantastic odds wont scare me off. Make an actual argument.

I have fully explained my objection to the Lottery Fallacy. Most of your questions are based on you not paying attention to the substance of my posts. The description of "black marble" as opposed to the "white marble" is given in the link I already provided. The description of what physical properties (almost all fundamental forces) make the universe "life possible" and thus a "black marble" was given all the way back on page 2.

And the 10,000 francs analogy was explained as clearly as possible. Simply put, the Lottery Fallacy doesn't make either explanation more or less likely so it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. One must go beyond the rhetorical gamesmanship and actually objectively examine the evidence something you absolutely refuse to do (just like the person who would say that maybe the husband won because of chance and puts his hands over his ears when someone mentions Rick's actions).

Please actually read some of my posts this time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The argument itself doesn't; the evidence for and against the argument needs to be evaluated.

As it stands right now, you seem to be agreeing that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself" and that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument itself isn't persuasive either way..." since "' a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same' as a universe that 'was a result of random forces'."

If a universe created by "random forces" would appear the same as a universe that was "fine tuned", then the constants you cited in your OP would also appear the same. How then can you possibly find the "line of argument" you cited in your OP "quite persuasive"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

What question is that? It keeps changing every post.

My existence can be explained by looking at the actions of specific individuals making conscious (or perhaps not so conscious) choices.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As it stands right now, you seem to be agreeing that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument carries no weight in and of itself" and that "...the Fine Tuned Universe argument itself isn't persuasive either way..." since "' a universe that was fine tuned in reality would appear the same' as a universe that 'was a result of random forces'."

If a universe cr ...[text shortened]... . How then can you possibly find the "line of argument" you cited in your OP "quite persuasive"?

That doesn't follow at all. The argument doesn't carry weight; how could it? But the fact that even small variations in virtually all the fundamental properties would have resulted in a barren universe is evidence in support of the idea that this type of universe's existence is improbable.

See the Rick's analogy. The fact that from our observational point after an event two explanations are possible does not make them equally likely. Where one explanation is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As it is designed to. Birth, death and rebirth in infinite cycles (Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, etc. etc. etc.).

Neatly volleyed back. Upon reading this I immediately thought of the just-so stories of Rudyard Kipling.

The position you are suggesting is unfalsifiable.

"Unfalsifiability: Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason."

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/179-unfalsifiability

And you are far too smart not to know this even as you asserted it. Are we having fun yet?

Originally posted by JS357

The position you are suggesting is unfalsifiable.

"Unfalsifiability: Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason."

What is your "gut feel"?

Is it that no intelligent design ever went into, say, the total phenomenon of sexual reproduction ? None what-so-ever? No "understanding" of any type was responsible for the mechanism of all that occurs between the production of a male sperm and a female egg with the cascading events between them which produce another , ie human life ?

I am asking about your gut feeling, your intuitive feeling. I am not asking you to show in a sportsman like way that SOME plausible objection to ID can always at least be submitted.

What's your gut feel there ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That doesn't follow at all. The argument doesn't carry weight; how could it? But the fact that even small variations in virtually all the fundamental properties would have resulted in a barren universe is evidence in support of the idea that this type of universe's existence is improbable.

See the Rick's analogy. The fact that from our ...[text shortened]... likely. Where one explanation is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely.

Let's say this I believe that YOUR existence came about as a result of divine intervention. The odds that out of all the millions of sperm fighting for one egg, the one that resulted in you being conceived winning out are really slim. If you also factor in the odds of your parents having been conceived and the odds of all your preceding ancestors, the chances of your existence having come about by random are exceedingly small.

While it's possible that your existence came about by random, it is highly unlikely. "Where one explanation is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely". You must feel VERY special.

Originally posted by no1marauder
One in 2500 for one variable multiplied by what for the others?

A straightforward product isn't the right thing to do, and in any case the point of my argument was to show what one needs to have some grip on the measure space of the problem. Electroweak theory has everything well enough defined that one can do this. The Standard Model isn't expected to be the end of the road for physics. One of the things one expects of physics theories beyond the standard model is that the various gauge couplings are replaced with one underlying coupling. Trying to draw conclusions based on the product of uncertainties within the theory constructs an argument from ignorance. And no I'm not making the opposite fallacy - if we had a theory with only two free parameters and everything depended on their ratio in the same way as the standard model it would not disprove the notion that the universe was designed after all.

In the standard model you can get a huge number doing that I agree, since the Higgs couplings are arbitrary (deduced from fits to experiment), but all that is is evidence for physics beyond the standard model where we expect this stuff to be tied together - it is not evidence that the universe is deliberately designed for life.

Fine tuning arguments are a heuristic to assess a theory, they should not be used to draw conclusions about the universe, doing so falls into ignoratio elenchi.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's say this I believe that YOUR existence came about as a result of divine intervention. The odds that out of all the millions of sperm fighting for one egg, the one that resulted in you being conceived winning out are really slim. If you also factor in the odds of your parents having been conceived and the odds of all your preceding ancestors, the cha ...[text shortened]... n is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely". You must feel VERY special.

I really don't understand the extreme emotional reaction some people are having. Why would I feel " VERY special"? The mechanics of human conception are rather well known to me.

If the post is meant to drop back to a multiverse explanation for the issues raised, why not simply say so? Why personalize the matter?

Originally posted by DeepThought
A straightforward product isn't the right thing to do, and in any case the point of my argument was to show what one needs to have some grip on the measure space of the problem. Electroweak theory has everything well enough defined that one can do this. The Standard Model isn't expected to be the end of the road for physics. One of the things one expe ...[text shortened]... ot be used to draw conclusions about the universe, doing so falls into ignoratio elenchi.

Claiming it will all be worked out in the future seems quite a leap of faith.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] The position you are suggesting is unfalsifiable.

"Unfalsifiability: Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiab ...[text shortened]... t a plausible objection to ID can always at least be submitted.

What's your gut feel there ?

My gut feel WRT the argument, is that arguing for (or against) ID on the basis of science is an example of the logical fallacy of unfalsifiability. (By way of clarifying, I am not saying that pointing out this fallacy supports rejecting ID. It supports concluding that this is not a scientific topic.)

My gut feel WRT ID itself is that it is an idea that depends on already having faith in a creator god. When I introspect I find no such faith. So I do not believe that ID is true, but to further clarify, this does not warrant any claim on my part that it it is untrue. I just leave it where it is, as an idea. If I either come to have faith in a creator god, or see a way to avoid the fallacy mentioned above and see evidence of ID, my view may change.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's say this I believe that YOUR existence came about as a result of divine intervention. The odds that out of all the millions of sperm fighting for one egg, the one that resulted in you being conceived winning out are really slim. If you also factor in the odds of your parents having been conceived and the odds of all your preceding ancestors, the cha ...[text shortened]... n is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely". You must feel VERY special.

I'd ask you the same thing I asked JS357.

What about your "gut feeling" about, ie. you own brain ?
I mean your deep down intuitive sense - your "gut feeling".

Do you think absolutely no kind of "understanding" has gone into the emergence of something like your very own thinking brain from the goo and mud of inorganic matter ?

I know some alternative to Intelligent Design can at least be proposed. The sport of objection of offering an alternative can be played from the fertile imagination.

But what about your real intuitive sense? No knowledge based understanding went into whatever it took to turn out your human brain from dust and rock?

Originally posted by JS357
Neatly volleyed back. Upon reading this I immediately thought of the just-so stories of Rudyard Kipling.

The position you are suggesting is unfalsifiable.

"Unfalsifiability: Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome ...[text shortened]... ty

And you are far too smart not to know this even as you asserted it. Are we having fun yet?

It's an ultimate conclusion based on the evidence. We know there was a Big Bang and the present cosmological evidence says there will be a Big Crunch.

Bell's Theorem and quantum entanglement are part of science, are they not?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I really don't understand the extreme emotional reaction some people are having. Why would I feel " VERY special"? The mechanics of human conception are rather well known to me.

If the post is meant to drop back to a multiverse explanation for the issues raised, why not simply say so? Why personalize the matter?

I really don't understand the extreme emotional reaction some people are having.

That would be strictly an inference made on your part.

Why would I feel " VERY special"?

I was thinking that you'd be able to put together the implication that you are the result of "divine intervention" rather than of random chance, hence making you "VERY special". Evidently I thought wrong.

It was an attempt to point out the absurdity of "the Rick's analogy", hence the utilization of the following quote in my argument: "Where one explanation is highly unlikely, we are justified to find another more likely".

Listen, to a certain extent I understand the seduction of very large and very small numbers. Perhaps you need to take some time and really think about it.

If the post is meant to drop back to a multiverse explanation for the issues raised, why not simply say so?

It wasn't.