Is existence created from random chance or is it designed? — xxxdutchiexxx
The prior probability of any specific world existing is infinitesmal (not strictly zero) and yet some world would have to exist, since SOMETHING has to exist. — Relativist
Platonism in mathematics is the view that abstract objects such as numbers are real independently of any act of thought on our part, but can only be grasped by the mind; ergo, real but immaterial (which is why Platonism poses a conceptual challenge to materialism). — Wayfarer
what Kant called the synthetic a priori - 'a proposition the predicate of which is not logically or analytically contained in the subject—i.e., synthetic—and the truth of which is verifiable independently of experience—i.e., a priori'. — Wayfarer
excellent mathematicians are able to see things that I simply cannot; and I don't think this is a matter of experience but of innate intellectual ability. — Wayfarer
I assume you're using "created" in the sense of a contingent being that is the product of causation.The issue is about probability for created unit of reality to exist.
Eternity can simply mean existing at all times, which is consistent with a finite past. A finite past implies an initial state, and cannot have been created: because for a thing to be created, it had to have not existed prior. There is no "prior" to the existence if time.With any other potential world, the issue is the same. Was that world created through a process or does that world exist as is in eternity? In any case, though, we exist and we are created. That means that there is practical or an absolute 0% probability that we are created through some random unconscious act of some other prior potential world.
I agree it is epistemically possible that god exists - this is just another of the "random" possibilities. I see no basis for claiming a god is more probable than a brute fact that results in our coming into existence. In fact, by your reasoning, it seems that "god" is nothing more than this brute fact that entails our existence.If something has to exists, as you say, that includes possibility for God to exist, not exclusively some undefined world or worlds. And then, just taking into account randomness in our reality, we can conclude that there is practical or an absolute 100% chance that God, conscious creator of our reality, exists, since there's opposite probability that we exist as a result of randomness.
Your analysis depends on the assumption there is something objectively special about life. — Relativist
I agree that we have diverse talents, but talents are not innate knowledge -- only an ability to deal with knowledge. — Dfpolis
The probability is low that monkeys hitting on keyboards will randomly produce Hamlet, but it is highly probable that they will accidentally produce some words. — Relativist
It is not only possible that God exists. If we take into consideration accepted observations about our reality, God exists with highest certainty. — Henri
There's a tendency to incredulously look at life as magically appearing from primitive substances. But this overlooks the development of increasing complexity. So while it is highly unlikely that a living creature would come to exist from random processes applying to simple things, it is not unlikely for something more complex to arise from something that is somewhat less complex. — Relativist
Can you show it to be more probable that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omnipresent being exists than a multiverse? — Relativist
Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
It reflects bias to dismiss one possibility due to lack of evidence, while embracing another that also lacks evidence. So it would be poor reasoning for an atheist to claim there must be a multiverse, and equally unreasonable to claim it must be God. We should therefore agree that both are possible, as far as we know. Right? — Relativist
The best explanation for the order is the existence of laws of nature.I think the counter to that is for anything to emerge, there has to be at least some order.
That is not correct. The FTA is based on the obsevation that life as we know it would not exist had the constants been different.the point of the fine-tuning argument, as far as I understand it, is that the order that is observed in the Universe ultimately derives from a very small number of fundamental constraints
Then you should agree that the FTA has no persuasive power.Relativist: "Can you show it to be more probable that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omnipresent being exists than a multiverse?
No, but I do suspect that those terms are essentially meaningless in this context
This seems a nuance one might consider after deciding there is a God.'existence' is the wrong term for 'God'. Even if 'God' is real then God is not 'something that exists' in the sense that you're naturally inclined to understand by the term 'existence'. There is not anything 'out there' that answers to the name. This is the meaning of 'transcendent'.
That's great rationalization for the absence of evidence for a God if he exists, but it doesn't provide a reason to think God, rather than (for example) multiverse is the reason for the alleged fine tuning for someone who is open to both possibilities (God's existence and nonexistence).The point is, again, 'God' is not one term in an empirical hypothesis, not a cause in the sense that fire is the cause of heat or water the cause of rust. So, an appropriate theistic answer to the question of what evidence there is for God, is the fact of existence - that God is the reason that anything exists whatever.
That's great rationalization for the absence of evidence for a God if he exists, but it doesn't provide a reason to think God, rather than (for example) multiverse is the reason for the alleged fine tuning for someone who is open to both possibilities (God's existence and nonexistence). — Relativist
Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.
Life is not the result of a random process. It is the result of complexity arriving through stages of increasing complexity. — Relativist
There is a terminological issue which is frequently overlooked in discussions of whether God exists; which is whether the very word 'exists' is correct in respect of God in the first place. — Wayfarer
For the FTA to have any utility, it needs to have some persuasive power. — Relativist
The fact that you bring up intentionality demonstrates that you aren't judging the FTA apart from your related beliefs. — Relativist
it is also possible that the world is simple a brute fact — Relativist
1) How is it not arbitrary to label any state as a "definite end" or "final state", if every state will evolve to another through a potentially infinite future? — Relativist
2) How would one distinguish a non-intentional state from an intentional one? I ask because your claims seem based on the assumption of intentionality ("knowing" that God did it) rather than demonstrating it. — Relativist
There's also no scientific support for intentionality or God. — Relativist
You seem to be doing exactly what I anticipated: only considering metaphysical possibility to admit God into consideration, and refusing to admit it for anything else. — Relativist
We only have to consider actual evidence
Then this removes God from consideration. — Relativist
Possible worlds is just a semantics for discussing modal claims. — Relativist
ou are inconsistent in your use of modality. What exactly is the modality you propose to use to "baselessly" (without evidence) propose God as the solution? — Relativist
For God to be the answer, God must be "possible" and possibility entails a modality. — Relativist
But whatever modality you use, consistency demands using the same modality to consider multiverse. — Relativist
Snowflakes depends on a variety of elements — Relativist
it is epistemically possible that a metaphysically necessary God exists. — Relativist
The issue is that "essence" is a concept based on a primitive analysis of human-ness and dog-ness (etc). — Relativist
If everything that makes us human or dog is an accident (as genetics and evolution suggest) then there is no reason to think there IS such a thing. — Relativist
my original issue is that the existence of "essence" is an assumption. — Relativist
Again: every metaphysical theory depends on assumptions. — Relativist
You denied the concept is related to DNA — Relativist
Seriously, do you not understand that this is a postulated pardigm? — Relativist
Earlier I referenced Armstrong's ontology. He accounts for existents differently, and it's every bit as complete and coherent. — Relativist
one can't "prove" any particular "conceptual space" is true. — Relativist
I am addressing the argument from incredulity that arises from considering only the two endpoints: the quantum fields (as an example of what may be fundamental) and the existence of conscious life. It's hard to imagine how life could have just "happened" from random behavior of quantum fields. However, if one considers the natural processes that give rise to increasing complexity, it's not so incredible after all.Relativist: "Life is not the result of a random process. It is the result of complexity arriving through stages of increasing complexity. "
The logical conclusion to make, exclusively based on probability, is that life is not the result of random process because God created it.
Laws of nature are not "randomly set, " they just are what they are, although they may manifest themselves differently depending on the context.In order to set one level of complexity, random materials are randomly working with other random materials, through randomly set "laws of nature", with the probability for that random process to result in a new, more complex and consistent unit of reality being near 0% or an absolute 0%.
You're going from a bad argument to a worse one. I'm not interested in debating evolution with someone who is so ill-informed.For example, we haven't observed a single case where a non-human being evolved into a human or other being with 100% observable and demonstrable human-like consciousness and abilities that result from that level of consciousness.
Your wording is loose. The FTA doesn't point to evidence, it fits a hypothesis to a set of facts. This is abductive reasoning, specifically: inference to the best explanation. A reasonable abduction requires that other explanations be considered - you have to test how well the facts fit the alternatives.Dfpolis: "We only have to consider actual evidence "
Relativist: "Then this removes God from consideration."
No, it does not The point of discussing the FTA is to consider whether it points to evidence for the existence of God, and if so, how strong that evidence is. To say flatly that there is no evidence is to beg the question under consideration
Assertion without evidence. You quoted Carr, but all he does is to put the God hypothesis on par with multiverse - indicating both are metaphysical claims. Carr hasn't even considered #2, so I'll give you another quote:Relativist: "For the FTA to have any utility, it needs to have some persuasive power."
Clearly, it does.
Every phenomenon is explainable because there is natural law. How do we explain natural law? That's a metaphysical question, who's answer depends on the metaphysical assumptions you make (despite the fact that you deny there are metaphysical assumptions, but more on that later). Physicalism with the assumption of a finite past entails an initial, uncaused state, a state that entails the natural law that determines the subsequent states of the universe. That initial state, inclusive of its properties, would be a brute fact.Relativist:" it is also possible that the world is simply a brute fact"
Only if you reject the fundamental principle of science, viz. that every phenomenon has an adequate, dynamical explanation.
All this does is to show that the God hypothesis fits the facts, as I described in the first portion of this post. You have to show this more likely than the two "not-God" alternatives.I started with Brentano's analysis of intentionality in Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. showing that it is characterized by "aboutness" and then showed that the laws of nature have the same kind of aboutness
That deduction is contingent upon metaphysical assumptions. Obviously, physicalist metaphysics does not entail God.It is metaphysics, in examining the foundations of physics, that deduces the existence of God.
You have made no such argument in this thread, so this seems moot.1. I do not use metaphysical possibility to argue the existence of God. I only use actual being.
The persuasiveness of your claim is similar as Johnny Cochran's persuasive case for O.J.'s innocence: convince the jury to ignore the full picture. "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit"; "God provides an answer, so look no further." Your challenge is to show that the God possibility is a better explanation for each of the not-God possibilities I presented.2. I do use the logical possibility of a multiverse as one reason to say that the FTA is not a sound proof, only a persuasive case.
I have no idea what you're talking about.3. As I have pointed out a couple of times recently, possibility is not information. Information is the reduction of possibility
Perhaps there are, but we're discussing the failure of the FTA specifically.More broadly, there are sound, evidence-based deductive arguments for the existence of God.
Here's the problem: Removing multiverse from consideration because it's not entailed by accepted science is equivalent to saying the multiverse is (narrowly) physically impossible (a modal claim). Then you proceed to claim this makes a persuasive case for the God hypothesis, despite God also being physically impossible (your solution must be implicitly "possible" to be considered, but clearly it's not the same modality of possibility). I admit you hadn't couched it in these terms, so I'm happy to rephrase the error as a special pleading if you prefer.I can't make sense of this. You don't give any example of my modal errors. You assume that my discussion of God is "baseless." Finally, you speak of a solution without specifying the problem.
We can show God exists?! Are you referring to some other, unstated argument? I'd be happy to discuss these at some point, but let's first complete our FTA discussion, and clearly one can't assume God exists if one is to claim the FTA makes a persuasive case for God's existence - that would be circular. We have to approach it abductively, but then you need to meet the challenge of comparing it to the 2 "not-God" hypotheses.Yes, but since we can show that God exists, we know that the existence of God must be possible, as nothing impossible can be actual. My philosophical claims about God are categorical, not conditional.
That would be interesting to discuss, but I'm discussing an evaluation of the FTA without presumption - and it is presumptive to assume God exists when approaching the FTA. If you're willing to agree the FTA fails such an evaluation, then we can move on to the evidence you have for God outside the FTA.I demand evidence of actual existence to credit a multiverse, just as I do for the existence of God
Regarding snowflakes: snow and liquid water are not in the form of individual snowflakes any more than humans are just a hodgepodge of water and hydrocarbons. Regarding sandstone: Silicon and oxygen are only produced through fusion in large stars, in novae; quartz (silica) particles are the predominant mineral in standstone, but the quartz has been particalized and compacted over time- which depends on a series of activities and environments.The last time I looked, snow is a form of H2O and sand is mostly SiO2. There is nothing about a
planet that requires heavier elements for its formation.
It is a concept that's vague, in the context of evolutionary history - as I pointed out.It's "an assumption" that the billions of people on earth have the objective capacity to evoke the concept <human>? I can't agree. For me, it is an experiential fact.
I'm stating an belief that I'm pretty confident of, but I invite you to prove me wrong by agreeing that physicalist metaphysics does not depend on assumption.Relativist: "every metaphysical theory depends on assumptions. "
Thank you for sharing your faith.
If you can't draw a sharp line between human and non-human in your ancestral line, then your concept of "human" is flawed.You seem confused. DNA encodes out physical structure, and that structure goes into evoking the concept <human>. Still, to know that you're human, I don't need to know about your DNA. So, while DNA is a cause of what you are, it's not part of most people's concept <human>.
It depends what you mean by "postulated." If you mean fundamental concepts abstracted from reality, I agree that essence and existence, potency and act, substance and accident, etc are such concepts. If you mean put forward as unjustified speculative starting points, then that is far from the case.
You're reversing the burden of proof. The FTA purports to show God's existence is likely. It fails to do that. It's failure has no bearing on whether or not God exists, and I've made no claim that it does.Again, it is impossible to logically show that there is more chance that God doesn't exist than that God does exist. That can be the starting point in understanding anything else.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.