Yes. So there are perhaps more than a billion ways the universe could be (or could have tried to be). So what?

If ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10 billion, there are more than a billion different numbers you could pick. So you pick 3,453,786,453. Am I surprised you picked that number? Is it some bizarre fluke in need of explanation? No. Because you had to pick one number.

So why is it surprising that the universe 'picked' one of the options it had available to pick from?

But that happens to be the number that gives us a life supporting universe. Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence?

If there was a God he would certainly want a life supporting universe.

In this case, 2+2 does indeed equal 4 - the universe is fine tuned for life.

Even if you think there is a very low probability of God existing, it is still a much more likely explanation than a billion to one shot coming.

The chances of Devans reading the exact words he is reading right at this moment at exactly this instant of time...

...are probably about a quadrillion, quadrillion to one against.

Almost everything he does today...have those same odds against it happening at exactly the moment it happens.

BUT IT HAPPENS.

The chances of an shuffled deck of cards ending up in the array it arrives at after every shuffle...are millions to one against (high enough so that any shuffled deck will probably not repeat itself in billions of shuffles)...but IT HAPPENS.

We are here...the universe is here.

Whatever the odds are...we defied them and arrived here.

BUT IT HAPPENS. — Frank Apisa

Yes but the question is why did it happen? Has a gigantic fluke come off? Or was it not a fluke at all? Its quite clear to me that the second is vastly more likely.

But that happens to be the number that gives us a life supporting universe. Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence? — Devans99

It doesn't 'happen to be' it is the only number it could ever possibly have been because had it been any other number we wouldn't be here. We are here, so it is completely unsurprising that it is that number.

Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence? — Devans99

Coincidence? @Relativist has already explained that to you and you completely ignored it. The two are inextricably linked, one directly causes the other. That is just not what a coincidence is.

It doesn't 'happen to be' it is the only number it could ever possibly have been because had it been any other number we wouldn't be here. We are here, so it is completely unsurprising that it is that number. — Isaac

You are not asking the right question. We already know it had to be that number else we'd not be here to talk about it. The question should be 'Why was it that number?'

By massive fluke or by design. A simple choice.

Devans99
1.8k

BUT IT HAPPENS. — Frank Apisa


Yes but the question is why did it happen? Has a gigantic fluke come off? Or was it not a fluke at all? Its quite clear to me that the second is vastly more likely. — Devans99

You do tend to suppose your guesses about things are correct.

Whether the universe happened as the result of some design...or just happened...

...the chances of it happening are the same.

There honestly is no "more likely."

When all your 'guesses' point in the same direction?

By massive fluke or by design. A simple choice. — Devans99

But it's neither, because it's not a massive fluke if it wasn't by design. If no one was aiming for or wanted a life-supporting universe, then it wasn't a massive fluke that one turned up. It's only a massive fluke if you presume it was the objective, or desirable at the time.

But there is a non-zero probability of the existence of God; IE someone was aiming for precisely that (a life supporting universe).

And the non-zero probability of the existence of God is much larger than a billion to one shot of it happening by a fluke .

So the only possible conclusion is: the universe is probably fine-tuned for life.

And the non-zero probability of the existence of God is much larger than a billion to one shot of it happening by a fluke .

So the only possible conclusion is: the universe is probably fine-tuned for life. — Devans99

..and we're back to arguments which you have already had countered.

There is not a 'probability' of the existence of God. You have misunderstood how probability works and you have already had this repeatedly explained to you.

If you're not even going to listen to anything people here are saying, there's no point in continuing to post.

I am listening its just I don't agree with what you are saying.

There is not a 'probability' of the existence of God. You have misunderstood how probability works and you have already had this repeatedly explained to you. — Isaac

So you are 100% certain God does not exist? How did you arrive at such a conclusion? I'm sure the world would like to know... there has been some debate on the issue.

You are assuming the fundamental constants could have been different, so each combination of constants participates in the lottery. — Relativist


The fundamental constants could of all been very different:

- The strength of the 4 forces
- The masses and charges of the subatomic particles
- The rate of expansion of the universe

That gives a huge possibility space - and we have only one shot at winning. We won, so it is much more likely it was due to the lottery being rigged (=the universe being fine tuned). — Devans99

Sure, it's a huge possibility space, but you incorrectly treating "we" as participants. Let's be explicit about this universe lottery:

Where ci = a set of values for the constants (e.g. the set of values the constants have in THIS universe)
C = the set of all ci.
n =the number members of C (i.e. the number of possible combinations of constant values)

The possibility space = the participants in the lottery = C. "We" are not participants, so it's invalid to say "we won." Rather, some ci is the winner. We (life) is a consequence of ci having won. We can consider "life permitting" as a characteristic of the winner. In the real-world lottery analogy I gave, this is like identifying the characteristics of the winner (a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf) and noting how improbable it is that such a person would win.

If there was a God (lets say there is a 25% chance of that just for arguments sake), life would be a design objective. So we have:

- 25% chance of God * 100% chance of fine tuning
- 1 in a billion chance that we 'get lucky' and have a life supporting universe without God

Which of the above is a more likely explanation? — Devans99

Erroneous. The issue should be: does the FTA increase the epistemic probability of God's existence. Your 25% assumption refers to the prior probability of a God (one who wants to create life). The FTA does result in an increase to this prior probability. That's because we have knowledge of only one universe (this one), and the existence of life is consistent with both possibilities (God existing and God's not existing).

Back to my analogy, a one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf winning is consistent with a lottery that is rigged for one-eyed hemophiliac dwarves, and also consistent with an honest lottery in which everyone has an equal chance. You're treating the mere fact that such a person won as evidence of a dishonest lottery.

But that happens to be the number that gives us a life supporting universe. Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence? — Devans99

A coincidence consists of two facts. The only two facts you can be referring two are:
1) life is a design objective
2) there is life.

If you do not treat life as a design objective, there is no relevant coincidence. In my analogy, it's not "coincidental" that one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf won the lottery UNLESS we treat such a person's winning as an objective of the lottery (i.e. the lottery was rigged).

That the universe must be live supporting is a given; the real question is why is the universe life supporting? — Devans99

Would you ask, "why did a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf win?" There is a reason for this sort of person winning a lottery only if the lottery was rigged. Similarly, there's only a reason for the universe being life supporting if life was a design objective.

Back to my analogy, a one-eyed hemophiliac dwarf winning is consistent with a lottery that is rigged for one-eyed hemophiliac dwarves, and also consistent with an honest lottery in which everyone has an equal chance. You're treating the mere fact that such a person won as evidence of a dishonest lottery. — Relativist

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.

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.

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.

Regarding the epistemic probability of God: bear in mind that you're referring to 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? — Relativist

1. Causality absolutely requires a first cause (else nothing would exist)
2. The first cause must be able to effect something without in itself being effected
3. So the first cause must be self-driven, IE intelligent
4. An intelligent first cause would want a universe with intelligent creatures in it.

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.

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.

You have avoided responding to my analogy of a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf (I'll abbreviate as OEHD) winning a lottery — Relativist

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.

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

If you were God, the first cause, would you not be lonely/bored? If you had the means and opportunity, maybe you'd create something to keep you occupied. Inanimate matter is boring, so something living. On the basis that life is good, you'd make it as large as possible (larger=more good). IE you'd create a life supporting universe.

On the basis that life is good, you'd make it as large as possible (larger=more good). IE you'd create a life supporting universe. — Devans99

This is probably the most amusing thing you've come up with yet, well done.

God really wanted some intelligent life to entertain him so he created some (14 billion years into the whole project, for some reason), stuck it one one tiny planet in the middle of empty space, populated the rest of the entire universe with lifeless rocks and then buggered off (minus one brief showing to set fire to a bush and hand down some instructions about neighbour's oxen).

God really wanted some intelligent life to entertain him so he created some (14 billion years into the whole project, for some reason), stuck it one one tiny planet in the middle of empty space, populated the rest of the entire universe with lifeless rocks and then buggered off (minus one brief showing to set fire to a bush and hand down some instructions about neighbour's oxen). — Isaac

1. God is timeless so 14 billion years in not relevant
2. The whole universe is teeming with life. Most star systems will turn out life supporting like ours.
3. There are 10^23 star systems in the observable universe. By comparison, there are only 10^10 years since the Big Bang. That means God could not have found us even if he wanted to - there is plenty of life to choose from in the universe so why would he be looking for us? There is no reason we should have 'heard' from God.

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?

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.

So there is only one universe (=only one lottery) and we know nothing about what kind of lottery it is except:

- Its a billion to one shot
- There is a non-zero probability of a God (who would want us to win the lottery)

The probability of a God existing is greater than the probability of winning the lottery / getting a life supporting universe by sheer luck and God would want a life supporting universe.

So we can conclude the chances God fine tuned the universe for life are much higher than its life supporting by a fluke. So we should go with the most probable explanation.

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. .

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 winner will suspect the lottery was rigged for him, but he will be wrong — Relativist

We don't know if its a fixed lottery or not - we know nothing about it so we have to assume a high probability that it is rigged.

- If its a fair lottery we have 1 in a billion chance
- If its a rigged lottery we have 100% chance

If you really knew nothing about the lottery and you won, you'd have to conclude it was very probably rigged.

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. — Relativist

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

We might be going around in circles here. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this one?

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.

God's existence wouldn't make life "objectively significant" because significance is always subjective — Relativist

If it's subjective for God, its objective for everyone else.

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. — Relativist

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

So the chance purposeful fine tuning are 10 million times higher than the chance of a fluke.

There's no coincidence in a life-supporting universe or world. Not when everything is well organised, the resources and mechanisms are operated by laws (of nature), the specific circumstances are wrought from well prepared, properly nurtured and far-reaching influences. If there was just one human being, just one animal, just one plant, then we could speak of coincidence. When there are mechanisms of propagating life existing for billions of years then we call it purpose.

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.

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?

P(G)=.1
P(N)=.9 — Relativist

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

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.

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