A first cause has to exist prior to time - that is the only logically way anything could have come about:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality). — Devans99

It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.
An initial state is not "something from nothing".
A physical foundation of reality, such as quantum fields, indeed exists at all times. As you say, it can't have come from nothing. Can one get nothing from something? That seems hard to believe, but irrelevant because it would entail a finite future (time maps to a finite, delimited number line). Even then , it would entail physical reality existing at all times on this finite line segment. What makes you think this is impossible?
A hypothetical "timeless" entity couldn't DO anything, because action entails a passage of time.

If there is change, there is causation. Logically we have gone from a no time to time situation. That can't happen unless a change can take place without time. — Devans99

If there is change, then time has elapsed. You could posit another dimension of time, but not an absence of time, but that is problematic because it entails an infinite past for God. Your only hope is to consider there to have been an initial state that included God.

There is evidence of something unnatural - the Big Bang:

- It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
- Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
- That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural — Devans99

Please support you claim that natural events necessarily come in pluralities.
It's absurd to claim a level of entropy is "unnatural". There is no known physical constraint on the level of entropy. Space expanding is natural, that's silly to suggest it's not. We certainly don't understand everything about these, but whenever you latch onto such unknowns and claim"therefore it must be unnatural" you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions.
— Relativist

It's a very simple model I'm proposing. God caused the Big Bang somehow. The associated expansion of space is what is keeping us out of equilibrium - that is down to God. — Devans99

"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

The Big Bang is effectively the end of God's evolvement in the universe from our perspective. — Devans99

When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. That's as simple as your scenario. If God is a live option, no evidence should be trusted. Historically, unknowns have been the driver for science. "Goddidit" could as simplistically been used as an explanation for any.

Any isolated system decays to equilibrium without an active agent - this applies to the universe. So God is required. — Devans99

If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero.

In quantum field theory equilibrium means something different than in classical physics, because of the nature of quantum uncertainty. See this.

By "our" genetics, I assume you're referring to altering the genes that are in a zygote.

If the full result of changes could be known, then probably not a problem. The problems are that it would require trial and error to learn that, and the "errors" would be unfortunate victims.

Yeah, it's complicated. My main thing is that Presidents get credit and blame for the economy, despite the fact that they rarely have any direct, short term impact. Policies that do make a difference usually take years to have an impact.

What you wanted to say and almost did was "Demand for labor which can not be met by reserves of unemployed workers tends to drive up wages." — Bitter Crank

No, the qualification doesn't belong there. The idea is that when there's demand for labor, workers are enticed to move to better paying jobs.

It's sound theory, but it's not a law of nature. Over the last few years (during the recovery from the last deep recession) unemployment was dropping, employment was rising, and wages were stagnant for quite some time--in violation of the theory. Now, they finally have started to rise. — Bitter Crank

I imagine there's something to it, but you're right - it's not a law of nature. I expect it's a general trend, although I expect it would be a slow process.

People don't notice these increases in wages? Bullshit! — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean pay increases aren't noticed, I'm just suggesting that no one will open their pay envelope, see a raise, and exclaim "cool - the supply/demand for labor thing is paying off."

The universe is a macro phenomena, so the initial state is a macro state. If it is unstable, that implies it is changing in the macro world. That implies causality holds in some form. That implies a first cause. — Devans99

Unstable does not imply "is changing", it implies that it necessarily WILL change. We're assuming time is past-finite, so there cannot have been a temporally prior cause. A finite past is more problematic for theism: God cannot have existed prior to the universe because there is no time prior to the universe=spacetime.

You need a very strong reason to reject causality in the macro world. — Devans99

Agreed, and you would need a strong reason to believe causation can occur without a passage of time.

- You can't completely describe anything with Schroedinger's equation; it does not take account of gravity which is dominant for the macro world. — Devans99

Our current physics is clearly incomplete: general relativity breaks down as we retrospectively approach the "big bang". Cosmologists believe it likely that there is a quantum basis of gravity. This is the last gap in proving the universe is a quantum system. At this point, it's at least as reasonable to assume this is the case as it is to entertain the possibility that nature is explained by something unnatural. IMO, it's even more reasonable because there is no empirical evidence of anything existing that is unnatural - there are only arguments from ignorance (AKA "God of the gaps").

- I do not see how time can emerge without something changing which implies some form of causality and thus a first cause — Devans99

Who said nothing is changing?

- God is not magic — Devans99

OK, I'll just call it "unnatural", where "natural"= that which operates solely through inviolable laws of nature.

- Time is a dimension so I do not see how such could emerge from anything — Devans99

Treat time as consisting of discrete moments that are connected to one another. It maps to a number line beginning at zero (t0) and proceeds infinitely to the future. The initial state is at t0; it's a boundary. This has to be the case if the past is finite. If God did it, then he exists at t0. My issue is that God is not needed to explain why the initial state changes.

see this QM based explanation very much opposed to Occam's Razor, whereas causality based accounts are very much inline with Occam's Razor — Devans99

Occam's razor (the principle of parsimony) teaches that we should make no more assumptions than are necessary to explain the evidence. What superfluous assumptions are being made here?

Theist accounts typically omit detail. Asserting God is the first cause does not explain specifically what he directly caused. Where exactly is his fingerprint? Current science can account for the state of the universe as far back as the end of the Planck epoch. That's the current boundary of scientific knowledge, but it's very clear that there is more to learn. Quantum Field Theory based on the standard model of particle physics is known to be incomplete: it doesn't explain gravity or dark matter. Dark energy and the nature of the cosmological constant are mysteries. In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions.

- Time runs at different rates due to special relativity; that has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy changing at different rates definitely does not cause time to run at different rates. Entropy is a result of causality (IE time) not time is a result of entropy. — Devans99

Carroll does not say entropy causes time, but that time, entropy, and change are related in some fundamental way.

Causality is nothing more than the determininistic state to state evolution of the universe. If we consider the universe a quantum system, this evolution is describable (in principle) as a Schroedinger equation. A classical account of causation is subsumed by the evolution of the system as a whole. Typical accounts of causation inevitably only represent subsets of the system; a complete account of causation would require consideration of all elements of the universe, and that's what the hypothetical Schroedinger equation would do. This is boilerplate quantum physics, based only on the assumption the universe is fundamentally a quantum system - it's widely (though not universally) accepted.

- It sounds a lot like creation ex nilhilo and without time. — Devans99

Nope, it doesn't involve anything existing that didn't previously exist. It's just changes of state of a quantum system.


Carroll's hypothesis about time is speculative, but no more so than the assumptions you make in your argument. I present it, not because it's necessarily true - but to demonstrate there are possibilities besides your own. We really don't know the nature of time, so it's invalid to draw your conclusions. You basically depend on an argument from ignorance: we don't know the nature of time, so you implicitly suggest we must accept your assumption.

I don't buy 'the eigenstates are inherently unstable' - something must have changed with the ground state 14 billion years ago else there would be no Big Bang. — Devans99

Irrespective of whether Carroll's hypothesis is true, one can coherently account for the big bang with the past being finite. It just means there was an initial state that was inherently unstable. You need a strong reason to reject that, not merely because you prefer an account that requires an intelligent creator who performs magic (i.e. can do things that violate the laws of nature).
.

What causes the initial state to start causing everything else? — Devans99

Certain eigenstates (high energy ones) are inherently unstable.

Ordinary causation (in the macro world in which we live) entails a transfer of energy, so the intuitive assumption (of Aristotle and Aquinas) is inherently based on the introduction of energy from the "cause" (or efficient cause) to the effect. But no transfer of energy is required in this quantum scenario; rather the energy is balanced against a negative energy elsewhere in the system.

An Aristotelian/Thomist first cause (or prime mover) is actually physically impossible because it entails a source of unlimited energy. Obviously if there is a God, he's not limited to the physically possible, but this argument for God is simply an argument from ignorance: no physical cause could be conceived, so it's concluded "it must be a God."

But time and causality are inextricably linked and a first cause is required for causality. So if there is a start of time, there must be a timeless first cause else nothing else would exist within causality. — Devans99

An initial state (such as the one described in the Carroll hypothesis) "causes" everything that follows. What's missing in that scenario?

Because there does not seem to any other logical option; time cannot stretch back in an infinite regress; it would have no starting moment so as a result, none of it would be defined. — Devans99

False dichotomy - I gave you another logical option that doesn't rely on an infinite past. Show why it doesn't succeed.

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’. — Devans99

"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.

IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.

A "state of nothingness" is incoherent.

It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress;

An initial point in time is a state of affairs that needn't be unchanging.

- I wish you had actually gone over the detailed ground I laid, but so be it. I've responded to the other thread.

If time has a start then there must be a timeless first cause to create time. — Devans99

That does not follow. There merely needs to be an initial point of time. Refer back to my description of Sean Carroll's hypothesis from the other thread: the ground state constitutes the initial point of time for all universes.

The notion that a first cause can be "timeless" is problematic. Timeless does not mean "frozen in time" it means that something exists independent of time. Abstractions exist timelessly (consider the law of non-contradiction - it is an abstraction; it did not come into existence and it cannot cease to exist). But abstractions are not causally efficacious. Why believe a timeless entity can be causally efficacious?

I'm still a little unclear where exactly does the matter/energy come from in Carroll's hypothesis? Or is it that it always existed? — Devans99

Quantum fields are the fundamental basis of all that exists, and the assumption is that these simply exist by brute fact. In the ground state, time is non-existent. This means there is no time at which the ground state didn't exist - because time passes only as spacetime emerges from the ground state. This emergence is an aspect of thermodynamics: a high energy eigenstate (of the ground state) has low entropy, and time is associated with the thermodynamic gradient of decaying from low to high entropy.

We don't see time running at different rates depending on the rate of entropy increase so I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not cause time; time and causality cause the 2nd law. As cause and effects multiply with time so entropy increases. — Devans99

On the contrary, time does run at different rates. I expect you're aware that a hypothetical spaceship traveling close to the speed of light will experience a slower rate of time. The entropy of a melting ice cube on the spaceship will be a function of the rate at which time runs on that spaceship.

If each universe has its own time; what passes for time/causality as far as the multiverse goes? I would of thought some overarching time/causality would have to apply to allow the birth of new universes? — Devans99

There is no multiverse time. This is consistent with special relativity: even within a universe, time is relative to a reference frame. Between universes there is no reference frame.

Carroll's hypothesis does not preclude child universes (nor grandchild universes...), but it provides an overarching landscape for everything.

That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life. — Relativist

I believe it is. We have a sample size of one saying it is. The onerous nature of interstellar travel means we are not overrun by aliens. — Devans99

That's more or less reasonable. I've argued elsewhere that if God exists, there's a much greater liklihood of life elsewhere in the universe than if there is no God. Unfortunately, a single sample doesn't provide enough data to point in either direction. That said, theists have more reason than atheists for fearing alien invasions!

WHY is there consciousness? — Unseen

Presumably it is a product of biological evolution. Should we ask why marsupials have pouches for their young, or why anteaters have long skinny tongues? The existence of these various adaptations do not imply there's a teleological reason for it. Rather, it just seems to be a product of chance adaptation to chance environment.

if you are hoping for a nation-saving solution with the syllabus, pension for standardized testing and bureaucratic silliness let alone bold education then it is hard. — thedeadidea

No, I realize there is no nation-saving solution. I primarily wanted to shift your attention from the need for voters who are better informed to the need for improved critical thinking. Not only is that the more serious problem, it is also more feasible to address. Addressing it does not mean fixing it, it means improving it - perhaps little by little, step by step - drawing attention to this as a problem, striving to improve our own critical thinking, and finally working towards small improvements in education (informal education and eventually formal). It needn't be autocratically imposed in formal education; it can be through improved textbooks by authors who realize the problem exists. Even individual teachers who embrace the issue could address it in some limited way. Eventually perhaps electives in critical thinking skills could be offered. Still a bit of a utopian vision, I admit, but still a reasonable principle to have in mind.

But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning. — Devans99

Irrelevant, because this just affects the prior probability of God. "Fine Tuning" considerations do not increase that probability. If the prior probability of God is 10%, the final probability is also 10%. If the prior probability is 90%, the final probability is still 90%.

So understand that I'm not claiming the FTA makes a case for naturalism, I'm just pointing out that it has zero relevance to the question of God's existence. You need to rely on those other arguments to support your belief. Some are better than others, but the FTA is the worst of all.

Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism. — Devans99

The "case" for naturalism is simply this: P(naturalism) = 1 - P(God).

I propose that if you want to make a case for God, it's time to move onto a better argument than FTA. If you want to do that, I propose starting another thread.

1. Quantum fluctuations do not produce matter; they respect the conservation of energy — Devans99

That's an antiquated understanding. What is conserved is mass-energy: energy and mass are interchangeable. According to Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the building blocks of matter and energy are the quantum fields. e.g. an up-quark is a "ripple" in an up-quark field- a ripple that persists if the energy is a quantum of energy. Fluctuations that are not at the quantum level are referred to as virtual particles: i.e., these are fluctuations in a quantum field that interact with other fields. Carroll's hypothesis entails the quantum fields existing in a ground state ( "zero energy"), but such a state is a superposition of eigenstates with different energy levels (+ and -) that add to zero. The "fluctuation" refers to the uncertainty of a hypothetical measurement: a measurement would entangle with one eigenstate of the superposition; the wave's energy amplitude equals the quantum uncertainty.

2. If they did produce matter, we'd be at infinite matter density by now

Nope. The energy amplitude is limited by the quantum uncertainty, which is (in principle) a calculable finite number.

3. If Eternal Inflation is natural and time is infinite, there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation instances simultaneously.

The theory of eternal inflation refers to FUTURE eternal. Under Carroll's hypothesis, time is an aspect of thermodynamics: each distinct universe has its own, independent arrow of time. The direction of its arrow is a result of its starting energy being positive or negative. This means the total energy of the multiverse always adds to zero. It also means the individual universes are causally isolated from one another.

4. An intelligent first cause would want a multiverse teeming with life (=design objective).

That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life.

There's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist
Not from God's perspecti"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism, just like "the universe was designed for life" and "life is special" are implications of God existing. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism. ve. — Devans99

That is true only if there is a God. This implication of God existing doesn't make it any more likely that God exists.

"Life is an unintended consequence" is an implication of naturalism. So when you erroneously use an implication of God as evidence of God, it's equivalent to using "life is an unintended consequence" as evidence of naturalism.

But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants: — Devans99

A random set of constants does not entail a coincidence, and the unintended consequence of life eventually emerging can't be considered a coincidence. It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective.

So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all. — Devans99

That is analogous to 20 different universes each having life. You've forgotten that the "universe lottery" consists of randomly picking a SET of values. The number of sets of values corresponds to the number of entries in the universe lottery.

OK you don't know what to do - so let's get realistic.

IMO the fact that most are not informed is not the biggest problem. The bigger problem is that people do not know how to think critically. Those who get "better informed" just fit the information into their existing ideological framework. We seek out news sources that fit our ideology, so even much of the new information has already be framed to fit our ideology.

What can we do? Education. Teach critical thinking skills. We can't teach everyone all the relevant information, but we can at least help them better evaluate what they DO hear.

If driving a car is a privilege and not a right, an activity one requires a licence for why should the fate of a nation and world be decided on the whim of people who are possibly contemptuously stupid ? — thedeadidea

You have identified some valid problems with universal suffrage in a democracy, but that's easy. What alternative do you propose? Identify the "right" people? I don't see a perfect way to do this. In universal suffrage, there's a chance the idiocy on all sides cancel each other out.

So In summary, I think that time/causality absolutely requires a first cause. — Devans99

You overlook one possibility: that there is an initial state.

A few years ago, Sean Carroll hypothesized that there is a ground state of the "quantum system of reality." He believes in the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, so he sees quantum fluctuations as merely being eigenstates of the ground state. Some quantum fluctuations result in universes, and each universe is a space-time, causally and temporally separated from one another. Time passes in each universe, but all originate in that initial point of time that is that ground state.

Why would anyone who believes in raising the economic situation of people at the bottom vote for Trump? He's done little except screw them over more. — YuZhonglu

The unemployment rate is down, so there is an aggregate benefit. Perhaps some of the people who had been unemployed would vote for him.

There is also an economic theory that low unemployment results in demand for labor exceeding supply, and that this drives up wages. I don't know if this has ever been confirmed, but it's not an implausible theory. Even if true, no individual is likely to notice it, so I don't see how this would get him any votes.

That said, my problem with Trump-onomics is that the only thing he's actually done is to decrease taxes for the rich and for corporations. This has resulted in increased deficits, and in fact -- they are on an unsustainable path: unsustainable because we're on an unsustainable path: eventually, interest on the national debt will dominate the budget. This is the same unsustainable path Ronald Reagan put us on in the 80s. Within the next few years, there will be no choice but to increase taxes to get deficits down. That will result in economic contraction. Whoever is President will be blamed.

If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs. — Devans99

Sure, but the mere fact that he won is not such a reason. There's something unique about every possible winner, so merely being unique is irrelevant; it's not a reason to suspect rigging. As I noted, EVERY POSSIBLE WINNER is unique, so uniqueness alone is not suspicious (nor is it a "fluke").

But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke. — Devans99

There is no "fluke" if the universe is a product of random chance. You are only considering the implications of God's existence. An implication doesn't constitute additional evidence, so it does add to the probability of God:
:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(there is a reason the universe supports life) = P(G)
There's no basis for considering #2 more probable.

You referenced a "fluke" but this is a red herring. When a lottery winner happens to be a OEHD, this does not constitute a "fluke" because he had the same chance of winning as everyone else. If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke.

There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist. — Devans99

Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely.

The epistimic probability that there's a reason is identical to the probability that God exists:
P(there is a reason) = P(G)
P(there is no reason) = 1-P(G)

You're ignoring, or refusing to think through this rigorously.

Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes — Devans99

...If and only if there is a God. So:
P(winner is not unique in God's eyes) = P(G)

Examine the math I gave you. You aren't thinking it through completely. Again, the starting point is:
P(G) = prior probability of God
P(N) = 1-P(G) = prior probability there is no such God

You have provided no basis for increasing P(G) because all you have done is to discuss the implications of God's existence. This doesn't change the probability.

I see you've ignored my proof, and are just repeating the same erroneous claims.

The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting? — Devans99

That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. The neutral question is: is the universe designed for life, or is life an unintended consequence of the way the universe happen to be?

[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident. — Devans99

This does not correctly capture the naturalist position. If naturalism (i.e. there is no God that wants to create life) is true, life is nothing special - it is nothing more than a unique or rare characteristic of a universe whose properties are the product of randomness. By wording it as you did, you are treating life as a design objective.

The one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf (OEHD) analogy captures the error

That's consistent with my observation that its use revealed one's class. I think the same holds true in the African American community. — Hanover

I wouldn't relate it to "class" (whatever that even means). It just seems to be the received world-view of a lot of people. When I was young, I remember using the word when talking to my father about a black guy that worked for him. Had the civil rights movement not become so public (on the news, discussed in schools, etc), I may have never realized there was anything much wrong with it. So in my case, I was living in a time and place where the treatment of blacks (not just use of "n-") came to my attention.

Regarding use of the word by Blacks: I truly believe they should stop it, because it sounds like a hypocritical double standard to accept it from Blacks but not Whites. That said, it makes perfect sense that it will be perceived differently depending on the source. A black person is not connoting superiority when he says it, but he might perceive that when uttered by a white person (irrespective of what was in the white guy's heart when saying it).

Just because I say there is a 10% chance of God, you cannot assume that implies a 90% chance of naturalism - we already know the chances of naturalism are a billion to one - that evidence stands irrespective of any probability estimates we make for God. You are mixing up two separate probability calculations. — Devans99

For purposes of this discussion at least, what is relevant is whether or not there is a God that wants to create life. Label the converse of that to be "naturalism".

P(N|F)....which means the probability that naturalism is true given the fact of a universe that is life-friendly. This is not a "billion to one". — Relativist

Why is it not billion to one? — Devans99

Because P(G) + P(N) =1 ; i.e. EITHER there is a God, or naturalism is true.
You proposed using P(G) = .1, so it follows that P(N) = .9

If P(N) is .9, the existence of a life-friendly universe doesn't DECREASE the probability of naturalism.

Afraid you have lost me here. You can't do the above; the probability of naturalism is a billion to one. — Devans99

I think you're overlooking that P(G)+P(N) =1. To claim there's a billion to one chance of naturalism being true implies you believe the probability of God is 999,999,999/1,000,000,000

My question is whether this social convention of never uttering the N-word is a reasonable act of respect or whether it's simply a politically imposed rule that can be used to divide and destroy? — Hanover

By "politically imposed" I infer that you're referring to "political correctness." i.e. in our current society, it is deemed politically incorrect to say the actual "n-word". This is surely the case, but it's not "simple", it's evolved into political incorrectness for good reasons, partly historical - but also because today it DOES divide.

it's just part of my programming at this point in my life. The fury of my parents should they hear that word from one of their children would be indescribable — Hanover

That's very interesting, because I have the opposite experience, growing up in Houston. My father always used the n-word to refer to African Americans (my mother didn't). His family were small-town farmer folks, and many of them were even worse (they invariably prefixed the n-word with "god damned"). I learned to not use the term based on becoming inspired by the civil rights movement, and (TBH) this resulted in my having a rather low opinion of my red-necked cousins and anyone who sounded like them. I loved my dad, but we had many arguments about his vocabulary - and he eventually stopped using the word (at least around me).

But the two alternatives are not equally likely:

1. By chance is a billion to one
2. By design is chance of God existing (say 10%) * chance of God being interested in life (say 10%) giving a hundred to one — Devans99

You've been discussing probability informally and drawing a false conclusion because your getting lost in the non-rigorous analysis. Let's clean it up.

You're basically saying that if naturalism is true, then it is extremely unlikely that a universe would be friendly to life. In probability terms, this can be stated as:

P(F|N) <<1 where F="the universe is Friendly to life, N= "naturalism is true", and "P(F|N)<<1" means "the probability of the universe being friendly to life given naturalism is a very small number (consistent with your informal claim that the chances are 1 in a billion).

This seems a plausible assumption, given the analysis by physicists about the implications of small changes to any of the fundamental constants. However, the relevant issue is: is naturalism plausible given the totality of evidence available to us. The totality of evidence includes the fact that our universe actually is life-friendly. So we need to consider the following:

P(N|F)....which means the probability that naturalism is true given the fact of a universe that is life-friendly. This is not a "billion to one".

You claimed we needed to factor in the background probability of God (the life-wanting kind). That's fine, but we also need to factor in the probabiliity of ~God, and that is equivalent to P(N)=1-P(G)
So let's use your assumption that the probability of God is 10%. This means:

P(G)=.1
P(N)=.9

So the going-in assumption (before considering fine-tuning considerations) is that naturalism is probably true. Now let's factor in the one additional bit of knowledge that we have: this universe is life-friendly. Now let's factor in our background knowledge that this universe is life-friendly. This means the key thing to compare is:

P(G|F) vs P(N|F) ......Key Comparison

You seem to believe P(G|F) is higher than P(N|F), but I see no reason to think so. The probability that THIS universe is life-frienndly is 1, so this means:

P(G|F) = P(G)
and P(N|F) = P(N)

This implies the key comparison:

P(G|F) vs P(N|F)

is equivalent to:

P(G) vs P(N)

and you gave us the assumption P(G) = .1, so you should conclude naturalism is true. Of course, the real issue is that the analysis doesn't result in giving us a reason to change our prior epistemic probability about God's existence - as I showed previously, and you have ignored.

Life is objectively significant if you factor in the possible existence of God (who would want intelligent life). — Devans99

God's existence wouldn't make life "objectively significant" because significance is always subjective. I could agree that being significant to God is relevant. But you are not considering each of the two possibilities on their own terms. The two possibilities are: 1) the universe is designed for life OR 2) life is the result of the chance characteristics of the universe. Analyze each:

Alternative 1: the universe is designed for life
Implication 1: Life is significant to the designer

Alternative 2: life is the result of the chance characteristics of the universe
Implication 2: Life has no significance to the designer or there is no designer

The question should be: is there more evidence for one alternative vs the other?

The only fact in evidence is: there is life in the universe. But this fact is consistent with both alternatives, so it doesn't make your preferred alternative any more likely.

Now let's "factor in the possible of existence of God (who would want to create intelligent life)." Let's consider epistemic probability:
A. P(God) = p (the probability of this sort of God is some value, p)
B P(Alt 1)= p (the probability that Alt1 is true is equivalent to the probability this God exists)
C. P(~God)= 1-p (the probability that this sort of God does not exist)
D. P(Alt 2) = 1-p (the probability that Alt 2 is true is equivalent to the probability this sort of God does not exist).

In other words, the alternatives inherit the prior probability that God exists (or does not). There is nothing about the alternatives that increases or decreases God's probability. i.e. consideration of "fine-tuning" has zero relevance to the epistemic analysis of God's existence.

Probably, but I'm baffled as to how his supporters could consider this a credible charge. Worst case the Dems did something similar to Trump: engaged in opposition research that included soliciting and utilizing information that came from foreign sources. How can he consider DEMS doing it as a crime if he doesn't consider it a crime when HIS folks do it?

I'm hoping I'm overlooking something, because otherwise - it's a sad indication of the quality of rational, critical thinking among the population of this country.

That's correct, but my point is that the mere fact that the dwarf won does not serve as evidence that the organiser wanted the dwarf to win. It's POSSIBLE that he did, but there's no basis for considering it probable — Relativist


I would say if you only enter one lottery in your life and you know nothing about lotteries except it is a billion to one shot and you win, then it is only natural to suspect the lottery was rigged. — Devans99

Saying "it is only natural" does not constitute objective evidence. Consider that in a fair lottery, some random person will win - and yet (per your admission) every possible winner will suspect the lottery was rigged for him, but he will be wrong

To be honest, I think you've hit on the source of the fallacious thinking: it's based on the unsupported belief that there "must be a reason" for all subjectively significant events. .

Trump just repeated his assertion that "there was a crime on the other side" - referring to the Democrats and or Clinton. Someone please explain what crime he is alleging?

My impression is that he's referring to the "Steele dossier," but what's the actual crime? Conspiracy? Whatever the crime is supposed to have been, what evidence establishes (or is suggestive of) guilt - and which individuals are implicated?

My point on the dwarf is that his unique set of characteristics happen to correspond to what the lottery organiser wants to win the lottery (is the closest analogy I can think of).

Or that the unique set of characteristics required for a universe to be life creating happen to correspond to what God would want from a universe - for it to be live supporting. — Devans99

That's correct, but my point is that the mere fact that the dwarf won does not serve as evidence that the organiser wanted the dwarf to win. It's POSSIBLE that he did, but there's no basis for considering it probable. If the lottery was fair, the dwarf had exactly the same probability of winning as every other individual. Being a OEHD doesn't change the probability of his winning. This can be depicted with conditional probabilities:

P(W) = 1/327M --- the probability of any individual winning, given there are 327M people in the population.

P(W|OEHD) = the probability of an individual winning, given that the individual is a OEHD

The fact is that P(W|OEHD) = P(W); this just means a OEHD has the same chance of winning as does everyone else.

Now let's say you are a person of average height, not hemophiliac, and with 2 working eyes. You know that almost everyone in the US is like you in those respects. Should this make you suspicious that the lottery was rigged? Clearly P(W|~OEHD) > P(W|OEHD) -- i.e. it was far more likely that the winner would not be a OEHD. But does that imply the lottery was rigged for OEHD?

So on the basis of the above argument, I can assign a non-zero probability to God's existence which is much higher than the chances of the universe being life supporting by accident. — Devans99

It is a certainty that an undesigned universe whose parameters are a product of chance would have some unique characterisitcs. If the universe is not designed, then clearly life is just a unique characteristic that results from the universe being what it is.

You have avoided responding to my analogy of a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf (I'll abbreviate as OEHD) winning a lottery. There are far more Hispanic girls, or men of European ancestry, than OEHDs, so should we suspect the lottery was rigged just because we identified a set of characteristics that make the winner unique? The point is that a post hoc analysis of ANY winner could identify characteristics that make him unique, and therefore uniqueness does not comprise evidence of rigging. This is similarly true for the existence of life: it is merely a unique characteristic of the universe, identified post hoc. So just like a OEHD- it doesn't imply rigging.

Regarding your case for a creator - Try again. You didn't show that the creator would be likely to desire life to exist.

Agreed

If you only entered one lottery in you life and you won at a billion to 1, would you not find it suspicious? This is the situation with the universe; there was only one lottery for life supporting attributes, our universe won the jackpot; it seems highly suspicious. — Devans99

There you go gain, treating the "universe lottery" as a lottery "for life supporting attributes" - i.e.treating life as a design objective.

The starting point of the analysis should be a consideration of the two possibilities: design or chance. If the world is a product of chance, this simply means there's nothing special about life - life is just an unintended consequence of the universe being what it is. If the world was a product of design, then perhaps life was a design objective. The fact is that we have exactly one data point (the actual universe), and this one data point is equally consistent with both these possibilities - it doesn't make design more probable than chance.

If you do not treat life as a design objective, there is no relevant coincidence. — Relativist

But God independently of fine tuning has a non-zero chance to exist. So there is a non-zero chance of a design objective which dwarves the chance of a fine tuned universe happening by accident. — Devans99

The phrase "the chance of a fine tuned universe happening by accident" is self contradictory. If the world happened by chance, then it is not finely tuned - it just happens to have the characteristics that it has (including the fact that it can produce life). This illogical thinking seems to be at the heart of your position.

Regarding the epistemic probability of God: bear in mind that you're referring specifically to a God that would choose to create life. What evidence is there for such a God? Cosmological arguments only point to a first cause; contingency arguments only point to there being a creative force that exists out of metaphysical necessity. What objective basis do you propose for assigning a probability to a God that wants to create life, over a God that just wants to create complex universes and is indifferent to life.

even so, on dogmatic grounds, Buddhists will never admit that there is 'a soul that has been reborn'. Again, they will depict in terms of a 'mind-stream', but in practice, it seems very much like 'a soul' to me — Wayfarer

Under this paradigm, the parts that are actually me (which is transient), are just hitching a ride on something that is eternal - so even if this were true, it seems to lack all significance to anyone's life.

And I might add, every being's self-perception gives rise to the sense of 'me'. I guess that this sense is fundamentally the same in every being - what is different in each, is the unique memories and experiences that are associated with it. — Wayfarer

Starting with that, if my memories are not being reimplanted into a reborn body, then (in my estimation) it's not me. For that matter, if my identity were implanted in a female, and my thought processes were then influenced by estrogen instead of testosterone, that also would not be me.

This seems to mean that could only be a pure haeccity (a bare identity devoid of any the above worldly properties) that is reborn. And if that were the case, it seems completely irrelevant because it omits all the things that I feel make me ME.

I don't see how any of this makes sense unless you assume there is some "essence" of a person. i.e. that which makes you YOU, as a unique individual - and this essence cannot be physical, not even partly physical. — Relativist


If you were a process philosopher, then you might analogise the possibility of rebirth as being more like a coherent stream of consciousness, than an essence. In fact that's close to the Buddhist attitude, which is that there is no person or singular self-existent entity which transmigrates from one life to another. Instead it's conceptualised in terms of the terminology of the 'citta-santana' (sometimes translated as 'mind-stream') which is the moment-to-moment continuum (Sanskrit: saṃtāna) of sense impressions and mental phenomena, which is also described as continuing from one life to another . — Wayfarer

I don't see how you can escape the essence issue if we are to regard this as an individual person (such as ME) being re-born. Whatever it is that is reborn is not ME unless it has all the necessary and sufficient properties that individuates me.

LOL. Fact-check from Trump-hating Wapo. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html?no-st=1557361075 — fishfry

Genetic fallacy to reject a claim because of a prejudice you (and Trump) have against them. Show that it's false (good luck with that).

Regarding the picture you showed, it's discussed here. The Obama administration had to deal with a short term sudden influx of unaccompanied minors, and they had to deal with it somehow. In Trump's case, it was a situation caused by his policy.

As far as separating families, Obama did the same. Obama also put kids in cages. You could look it up. — fishfry

I looked it up:

"Under past administrations, some border-crossers were occasionally prosecuted, and were thus separated from their families. Children were separated from parents when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian. Prosecution was more common in cases with more severe crimes, like drug-running. ...

"The main difference between Trump and Obama, as both experts noted, centers on how they handled immigrants caught near the US-Mexico border. Under Obama, the Justice Department was given broad discretion on who should face criminal charges, and federal prosecutors rarely went after families.
But in April, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would prosecute 100% of illegal border-crossers in a policy known as "zero-tolerance." Adults went to jails and awaited criminal proceedings. Children were sent to detention centers run by the Department of Health and Human Services, and some were eventually placed in foster care."

Trump's zero-tolerance policy treated all border-crossers as criminals, which resulted in separating children from parents whose only crime was crossing the border.