I am afraid that I cannot give you any more than wild guesses on the actual probabilities of specific parameters being within life supporting range. But there are just so many things that need to be right for life to be supported that I hope you will agree the resulting combined probability that the universe is life supporting by chance has to staggeringly remote. — Devans99

Why should I agree to that? You admitted that you know nothing about the probabilities. You know nothing for any one of the parameters. And you know nothing about the entirety of them. But yet you claim to know something about what the chance is? How can you get something out of nothing?

Why should I agree to that? You admitted that you know nothing about the probabilities. You know nothing for any one of the parameters. And you know nothing about the entirety of them. But yet you claim to know something about what the chance is? How can you get something out of nothing? — Echarmion

I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist!

There are about 20 separate parameters. Conservatively assuming there is a 50% chance for each to be in life supporting range, then we have 50%^20 = 0.0000953674316% chance for the universe to be life supporting by chance.

What are you about, Devans? What is your purpose, your agenda? I do not think anyone here begrudges you any belief you happen to believe in, but you have been offering them as substantive for really a long time across many threads in what amounts to a long-term one-note samba of nonsense. And all of it refuted in many ways by many people. So what are you about? Is it just getting attention?

Cause and effect is a vestige of Kantian thought. Today it's a convenient fiction, and known and understood to be such because there are better ways to think of these things. Which may be news to many, but not to you, because you've been told this numerous times. Every point you've tried to make in this thread has been dealt with multiple times. So why repeat? What are you about?

Cause and effect is a vestige of Kantian thought — tim wood

No it is not - it is matter acting on matter via Newton's 2nd and 3rd law.

I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist! — Devans99

How about just not making stuff up? Not every question has an answer. It's okay to say "I don't know". Is that such a weird thought?

There are about 20 separate parameters. Conservatively assuming there is a 50% chance for each to be in life supporting range, then we have 50%^20 = 0.0000953674316% chance for the universe to be life supporting by chance. — Devans99

Let's do a little thought experiment:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the result is, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you get a million dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

Do you take that wager?

Cause and effect is a vestige of Kantian thought. Today it's a convenient fiction, and known and understood to be such because there are better ways to think of these things. — tim wood

Baloney. The Kantian 'all events must have a cause' is a synthetic judgement that is used in almost all of theoretical physics. Is it "fiction" that you have that innate sense of wonderment from your conscious existence?

How about just not making stuff up? Not every question has an answer. It's okay to say "I don't know". Is that such a weird thought? — Echarmion

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. I think a rough estimate is sufficient in this case - the number in question is huge - it hardly matters precisely how huge.

Let's do a little thought experiment:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the result is, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you get a million dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

Do you take that wager? — Echarmion

As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager.

Baloney. The Kantian 'all events must have a cause' is a synthetic judgement that is used in almost all of theoretical physics. Is it "fiction" that you have that innate sense of wonderment from your conscious existence? — 3017amen

I'm told scientists today - and for maybe 100 years - think in terms of fields. Newton, ante Kant, thought partially in terms of cause and effect and partially in terms of the operation of laws. Doesn't really matter because you are confusing how things are thought and thought of, with how they are. If you embrace cause and effect, you are simply stating that your understanding of how the world works is c. 1760. And that's not altogether bad. It's obviously a useful concept. But it isn't how it is., except, as noted, when the fiction is convenient. Another example is Newton's laws. No intelligent person rejects them, but most who know them also know they're not quite right, although good enough for many purposes.

What you have consistently ignored is that the over-all chances of something happening are only partly informed by establishing the odds on a sample size of one. Also part of the math is how many tries. A baseball batter is doing well to hit .300. On a given at bat he probably won't hit. Given enough at bats and he'll get plenty of hits.

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. I think a rough estimate is sufficient in this case - the number in question is huge - it hardly matters precisely how huge. — Devans99

Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim.

As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager. — Devans99

argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars.

If you embrace cause and effect, you are simply stating that your understanding of how the world works is c. 1760 — tim wood

Can you give me an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause? The creation of the universe is a macro level event - huge amounts of matter were involved. So if you wish to disprove my argument, then an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause must be provided.

Even in the micro world, everything likely has a cause. There is no alternative to the basic principle of causality - matter/energy acts on matter/energy - apart from true randomness - something from nothing in informational terms - and that does not work - mathematically impossible - impossible to produce on a computer. Micro level phenomena that are described as random are probably actually caused, it just we lack the physics to predict them so we attribute them to random - impossible.

Don't leave your argument dangling. — Banno

I wasn't making an argument. Just noting that the "authorities" referred-to are highly-credentialed scientists. So your dismissive remarks, implying that the OP is irrational and anti-science, are unjustified. :smile:

Can you give me an example of a macro-level phenomena without a cause? — Devans99

One of your billiard balls, going down the table, passes several balls. Think about it. (Not my example; another way of warning you to think about it.) That is, it's an event, but what's the cause?

Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim — Echarmion

It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge.

argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. — Echarmion

I'm not quite following your argument.

Doesn't really matter because you are confusing how things are thought and thought of, with how they are. — tim wood

Really? Please share your thoughts on the differences between our perceptions of the world, and what the world really is?

It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge. — Devans99

Let's try the thought experiment again:

Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the results of each roll are, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

It's 100 dice. It has to be some huge number, right? So you should absolutely take the wager?

One of your billiard balls, going down the table, passes several balls. Think about it. (Not my example; another way of warning you to think about it.) That is, it's an event, but what's the cause? — tim wood

The billiard ball is set in motion, perhaps by another ball or the cue - this is Newton's 2nd law in action.

The balls each exert a minor attraction thanks to Newton's 3rd law and gravity, but it is insignificant in this case.

The ball continues in a straight line, as per Newton's 1st law.

Your point is?

If all 100 dice come out 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

It's 100 dice. It has to be some huge number, right? So you should absolutely take the wager? — Echarmion

- If 100 come out 6, I loose 100 dollars
- If 99 come out 6, I gain a million dollars
- Any other result is neutral (?)

I would take the wager.

- If 100 come out 6, I loose 100 dollars
- If 99 come out 6, I gain a million dollars
- Any other result is neutral (?)

I would take the wager. — Devans99

Actually I meant that if any one, or multiple, of the 100. So in all cases except all 100 coming out 6, you get a million dollars.

Of course all the dice have a six on every side. So you just lost 100 dollars.

The first cause must be able to cause something whilst not being effected in anyway. So it must be self driven - capable of independent action - intelligent.

Then as a separate argument, fine tuning also implies an intelligent first cause.

There is really absolutely nothing circular about my argument. — Devans99

It wasn't a separate argument. You used it to dismiss the notion of a universe created without fine-tuning, itself an argument against an intelligent first cause. This is quite an epic logical error. But I dig that you choose not to believe it is a circular argument, despite all the evidence.

I see. But I still feel that the probability of all 20+ parameters coming out in life supporting ranges by accident is very likely incredibly remote. Just an estimate.

I see. But I still feel that the probability of all 20+ parameters coming out in life supporting ranges by accident is very likely incredibly remote. Just an estimate. — Devans99

I realize you feel that way. I just feel you're fooling yourself, just like the con artist that offered you the wager would have fooled you.

It wasn't a separate argument. You used it to dismiss the notion of a universe created without fine-tuning, itself an argument against an intelligent first cause. This is quite an epic logical error. But I dig that you choose not to believe it is a circular argument, despite all the evidence — Kenosha Kid

You are getting very confused:

1. The OP proves (assuming causality) that a timeless first cause is required. The OP has nothing to do with fine tuning and is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.

2. I made the completely separate argument that the fine tuning argument implies it is very likely that there is intelligence behind the universe. This also is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.

I realize you feel that way. I just feel you're fooling yourself, just like the con artist that offered you the wager would have fooled you — Echarmion

Look at it this way:

1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.

So what can a betting man do?

Quick question first: If I present to you a scientific theory that describes exactly how this happens, would you accept that the laws being as they are does not necessitate an intelligent creator? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, please provide a ToE or otherwise your theory of causation!!

Your point is? — Devans99

At the moment that you either did not read or did not understand the question. Try reading it.

At the moment that you either did not read or did not understand the question. Try reading it. — tim wood

The event is the billiard ball going down the table. The event is elongated in time. The cause is the cue (or another ball) hitting the first ball.

The cause of what? Now is the time for you to write clearly your understanding of what a cause is.

Or is the whole of you argument "God did it"? — Banno

Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it? — 3017amen

pathetic — Banno

And answering the question with that question is particularly pathetic in this instance.
Without the likes of @3017amen having started talking about — proclaiming — their imagi..."otherworldly" friends, this wouldn't have come up in the first place.
So, shifting the burden of proof.

Lost count among the promoting comments here...
Sleight of hand (covering up arguing from ignorance), gap-filling for the occasion, special pleading.
Did I miss any?

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
You agreeing doesn't make it so.

The cause of what? Now is the time for you to write clearly your understanding of what a cause is. — tim wood

The impact of the cue on the ball causes an equal and opposite reaction as per Newton's 2nd law. It imparts kinetic energy to the ball.

The cause of the additional kinetic energy the ball has is its impact with the cue.