The constants in physics are artifacts of our knowledge. — Moliere
The constants are constant, so there's no need to think of them as if they landed precisely where they needed to in order for life to flourish. They didn't land at all. They're just the number they happen to be. — Moliere
Could they be different? Possibly. But it is also possible that they could not be different. — Moliere
Why are there exactly 52 cards? Couldn't there be 60 cards? — Moliere
It has been mathematically calculated that, back at one second, the universe's expansion energy and the opposing gravitational energy must have differed by less than one part in 10 to the power 15 (one part in a million billion). If it was different at all (in either direction) then there would be no galaxies, no stars, and so no planets. — Antony Latham
So it could have differed in one direction or another direction, hypothetically speaking. But it didn't. Why didn't it? — Moliere
yet again - you are trying to change the "what is" That is not an argument against FTA. You are in effects saying "ok lets just say the facts were different" Changing, the facts is not an argument. — Rank Amateur
The argument goes -- at least if I'm reading any of this right -- that these are really specific values that could have been different, but weren't. The values that they are support life -- and there are very few such values that would support life. So the best explanation for these specific values is that there is a designer who chose them. — Moliere
I am finding it hard to understand why you don’t see the issue here. The customary post-Enlightenment attitude to this matter has always been that as the Universe was not ‘God’s handiwork’ [i.e. the consequence of intentional creation], then the only alternative was that life arose by chance. — Wayfarer
My understanding of the argument goes:
1. sentient, moral agent beings like us exist.
2. in order for beings like us to exist those values, along with other criteria have to be
near exactly what they are - if any were changed appreciably - we would not exist.
3. the probability of all possible combinations of events needed for all of this criteria to
exist is incredibly unlikely - on the order of 52! or more. — Rank Amateur
Which hypothesis for these facts is most probable.
1. This system was designed as such to support 1. therefor there is in some way a designer
2. As improbable as it is these were all just random events that allowed 1.
3. There are an infinite number of universes or conditions that are in existence, making the odds that one like ours exist highly probable.
If "chance" means unintentional, accidental, then it translates into "The universe and everything in it is either the consequence of intentional creation or it is not" - a truism. If "chance" means random, lacking any pattern, then it is obviously false, since most people before, during and after the Enlightenment had at least some idea of the universe as a fairly orderly place. — SophistiCat
An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.
2. in order for beings like us to exist those values, along with other criteria have to be
near exactly what they are - if any were changed appreciably - we would not exist.
3. the probability of all possible combinations of events needed for all of this criteria to
exist is incredibly unlikely - on the order of 52! or more — Rank Amateur
↪Rank Amateur Yes, I am aware of Robin Collins's argument. Maybe we'll get to him, but I was rather hoping to engage proponents of FTA directly. I could talk about Collins's argument (I'll need a refresher), but I wouldn't want to just talk to myself. I don't think his argument works, but he is one of the few to take up the defense of the FTA seriously, and if he is wrong, his failure is instructive. — SophistiCat
You don't seem to understand what we are talking about. — SophistiCat
there is no metaphysical reason why we should consider the laws to be fixed — SophistiCat
No. Item 1 is an observation.It is just an observation on some verifiable truths.
1. embodied sentient beings like us exist.
2. There is a significant number of physical criteria necessary for 1 to exist
many of these criteria need to be within small tolerances for 1 to exist
3. In the realm of possible options, there is an incredibly low probability
all of these conditions will exist. — Rank Amateur
But 3 is a claim about probability, with no support at all. As has been shown above, we can put whatever probability we like on the conditions obtaining, and each probability has as much support as any other, which is none at all. — andrewk
But 3 is a claim about probability, with no support at all. As has been shown above, we can put whatever probability we like on the conditions obtaining, and each probability has as much support as any other, which is none at all. — andrewk
More generally, statements about probabilities are never observable facts. They are based on a model, and models are interpretations, not facts. — andrewk
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.