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? — Echarmion
I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist! — Devans99
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
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
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
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
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
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
As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager. — Devans99
If you embrace cause and effect, you are simply stating that your understanding of how the world works is c. 1760 — tim wood
Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim — Echarmion
argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. — Echarmion
It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge. — 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? — tim wood
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. — Devans99
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
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
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
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
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
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
I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen
The cause of what? Now is the time for you to write clearly your understanding of what a cause is. — tim wood
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.