You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other. — Relativist
Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way?But the problem is that science assumes that there’s a lawful regularity in the cosmos. But it doesn’t, and probably can’t, explain why there’s such an order. It’s simply given. — Wayfarer
I believe the Aristotelian deity entails a first cause, so it wouldn't be outside the chain of being. This at least was Flew's interpretation, and I believe this is what is entailed by the FTA if it is true.Which was an aristotilian deity, outside the chain of being and some sort of pure intellect. I don't think we need either the implied dualism or this kind of pure intellect. Perhaps we do, perhaps it would entail a separate creator, but I can't see how this could be demonstrated. (given my own beliefs, which are theist, I don't have a problem with the conclusion, I just think whatever the argument would be speculative and likely carry assumptions out of our everyday lives into cosmological issues.) I don't think Hawking's cosmology which is FT based is theistic or even deistic. (though I will concede in advance I am not sure I truly get it. But I see no diety in there.) — Coben
That's a reasonable description, but I submit the source of the problem was the perceived explanatory gap that I rebutted in my Op: the premise that life should be "expected". That premise is not derived from Physics. The false premise has been characterized and rebutted in a variety of ways, but I haven't seen it rebutted in terms of an epistemological principle as I did in my (revised) op.The real context here is not theist vs. non-theist, but one group of physicists (and not a group of theists) arguing with others. FT came out of non-theist physicist concerns that the chance of a universe right for life seemed so radically small it bothered them. Right or wrong it seriously bothered a group of non-theist physicists. And it bothered other physicists enough to try to find a rebuttal, some of these along with some of the first group thinking that a multiverse offered an elegant solution. Later theists heard about FT and used it also. — Coben
That's of course possible, but what's the motivation to propose that? It seems to me the motivation is the premise that our improbable existence entails an explanatory gap that must be filled. The purpose of my Op was to dispute that, and I revised it yesterday to identify a principle that distinguishes between cases where explanations are required, and where they are not.Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way? — aletheist
It might be on a subliminal level. But it's not an argument I make. It could simply be that life lucked out. The only universe that is happens to have conditions that allow for life, perhaps even make it likely or very likely. Of course I'm (also) a pantheist, beyond being a theist in a more traditional sense, though not one that would make any of the big religions consider me a member.Tell me if you embrace the claim that the improbability of our existence entails an explanatory gap — Relativist
The motivation is simply to challenge the widespread and usually uncritical assumption that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged for billions of years. It seems to me that the only motivation for that is to enable us to extrapolate our present observations into the very distant past, which I find highly dubious.That's of course possible, but what's the motivation to propose that? — Relativist
I was not commenting on the OP, only the specific post to which I replied. As a theist, I happen think that fine-tuning arguments are interesting, but by no means demonstrative. On what rational basis could we assign a prior (im)probability for the boundary conditions of the only existing universe to which we have access?It seems to me the motivation is the premise that our improbable existence entails an explanatory gap that must be filled. The purpose of my Op was to dispute that. — Relativist
That is presumably the intent of every author of an OP, but side issues inevitably come up as the thread develops.My intent for this thread was to discuss the claims in my Op. — Relativist
And still be rational? Not if the contradiction is truly present.Is there no contradiction? We're more or less opposed in our views; let's suppose we contradict each other. Does it make sense then there could be someone who supports both of us? — TheMadFool
I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility.What is it that you refer to as ‘I’? What information are you basing that ‘certainty’ on? And how are you certain of that information? — Possibility
No one was being informed at the time of the bog bang. There is no ontological connection to our epistemic inferences about the big bang.Because we can trace evidence of informing interaction back as far as the Big Bang. — Possibility
Humans are likewise rare for the same reason. But one could make a fine tuning argument that the fundamental constants must have been finely tuned so that X would be produced, because X is otherwise very improbable. (for X=heavy metals or humans).Not sure that it implies that anything requires an explanation? Heavy metals are "rare" due to the way that they are formed (with respect to the rest of the cosmos) and likewise fulfill the rare functions that they fulfill because of their "ontological matrix". — Pantagruel
I agree.I think assuming teleology is unwarranted, but also perhaps unnecessary. A carbon atom is no more mysterious than a hydrogen atom, but opens up a whole universe of new possibilities.
Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? — aletheist
Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way?
I don't think that's parsimony. It's just an assumption. There is no need to make the assumption that laws are eternal. We can work with what seem like rules now, and black box whether these rules may have changed or may change. You do not have to commit to something you don't know. Further there is evidence that constants and laws have changed.Parsimony, obviously. If an explanation works well enough, why complicate it without reason? — SophistiCat
I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility. — Relativist
No one was being informed at the time of the bog bang. There is no ontological connection to our epistemic inferences about the big bang. — Relativist
Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way? — aletheist
I don't think that's parsimony. It's just an assumption. There is no need to make the assumption that laws are eternal. We can work with what seem like rules now, and black box whether these rules may have changed or may change. You do not have to commit to something you don't know. Further there is evidence that constants and laws have changed. — Coben
Yes, I agree. One can have evidence, and there is evidence that laws have been around for a long time, with at least a great deal of consistancy, and even at some distance from earth. IOW consistancy through space and time. There is also evidence coming in that some have not.If we can have evidence that constants and laws have changed, then we can have evidence for the contrary. — SophistiCat
I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility.
— Relativist
I recognise that at some point we feel compelled to draw a line to protect the integrity of the system. Something must be incorrigible, but that something is not necessarily — Possibility
Parsimony entails explaining the available facts with the fewest assumptions, not with entertaing the possibility we are missing some facts.It's a paradigmatic assumption. I am not blaming scientists for having gone with it. We work from local to more distant time and place. But that assumption that these things do not change is not parsimonious since one need not make that assumption and one can still use all the, for example, mathematical models that work now and seem to have been in place for a while. It's not less parsimonious NOT to make that assumption. Less assumptions cannot be less parsimonious. — Coben
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.