BUT IT HAPPENS. — Frank Apisa
But that happens to be the number that gives us a life supporting universe. Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence? — Devans99
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. — Isaac
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
By massive fluke or by design. A simple choice. — Devans99
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
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
Sure, it's a huge possibility space, but you incorrectly treating "we" as participants. Let's be explicit about this universe lottery: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
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).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
A coincidence consists of two facts. The only two facts you can be referring two are:But that happens to be the number that gives us a life supporting universe. Do you honestly not find that a staggering coincidence? — 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.That the universe must be live supporting is a given; the real question is why is the universe life supporting? — Devans99
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 do not treat life as a design objective, there is no relevant coincidence. — Relativist
There you go gain, treating the "universe lottery" as a lottery "for life supporting attributes" - i.e.treating life as a design objective.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
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.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
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
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.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
You have avoided responding to my analogy of a one-eyed, hemophiliac dwarf (I'll abbreviate as OEHD) winning a lottery — Relativist
Regarding your case for a creator - Try again. You didn't show that the creator would be likely to desire life to exist. — Relativist
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
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
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: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 — Relativist
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 wrongThat'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 winner will suspect the lottery was rigged for him, but he will be wrong — Relativist
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
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: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 — Relativist
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 — Devans99
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
P(G)=.1
P(N)=.9 — Relativist
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".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
Because P(G) + P(N) =1 ; i.e. EITHER there is a God, or naturalism is true.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
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 999,999,999/1,000,000,000Afraid you have lost me here. You can't do the above; the probability of naturalism is a billion to one. — Devans99
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.