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?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
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.[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
That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. — Relativist
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.There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist. — Devans99
...If and only if there is a God. So:Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes — 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. — Relativist
I showed you how the math works out: a complete analysis of the alleged "fine tuning" does not increase the epistemic probability that God exists. — Relativist
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").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
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's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist
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. — Relativist
That is true only if there is a God. This implication of God existing doesn't make it any more likely that God exists.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
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.But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants: — 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.So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all. — Devans99
It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective. — Relativist
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%.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
The "case" for naturalism is simply this: P(naturalism) = 1 - P(God).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
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.