theophilus

Jobar

Theophilus, your points above, particularly #3, are why most of us unbelievers do not claim to have absolute disproof of some entity or power which might be called God.

(We deduce- adduce?- the impossibility of the Xtian God from non-probabilistic arguments.)

And your last paragraph is simply wrong. We *do* know of several methods whereby life may arise- though we do not know *which* of those ways life on Earth actually arose. Any environment with the proper chemicals and temperatures, with energy being put into it, may possibly produce life. (Ah, if you care to dispute this, please do so in E/C and not here.)

the_cave

Got it, and it makes sense. But I'd like to add a point (though it's late, and I might be rambling.)

I think we can perhaps talk about what one might style the language of prior necessity, and maybe even prior possibility after all. We say of bachelors that they are all unmarried. If you ask why, the answer is that that's the definition of bachelor--the "reason" is analytic: it's "because" that's the way our language is made. So I think that you could also have a "because" for the existence of the universe, based on whatever physical laws we eventually decide are most fundamental (for example, some physicsts suggest that the universe is a quantum event--it's a collection of virtual particles that (somehow?) never annihilated with their virtual anti-particles, in a "space" of dimensions which aren't the same as our four...For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the main thing is that these physicists are able to meaningfully talk about a cause of the universe by referring to a feature of quantum theory. They claim quantum mechanics is "caused" by the necessary existence of these kinds of particles, made necessary by the fundamental assumptions of the theory, plus math. It's a description of a part of a theory, rather than a temporal cause of one event by another. Now why the laws of quantum theory exist, I have no idea! Maybe there's some deeper "explanation", again based on a mathematical model, or maybe that's it--we'll never know, as you suggested. But it's not impossible. And that's how I think scientists use the language of "prior possibility". Maybe I'm misreading things.

the_cave

After thinking about this, I now understand what you've trying to say. I'm still not sure it's correct, but I'm also not sure we can resolve it. See, I think maybe Mississippi rivers are a dime a dozen--but the cFTA claims that intelligence, on the other hand, of any sort is extremely improbable--that is, even more so than the Mississippi river. However, I think enough people have suggested that we really have no way of knowing this, that I think they're right. Anyway, my point is the cFTA depends on both our assumed value of intelligence and its assumed rarity. We can argue about the aesthetics of the former, but maybe we can't meaningfully argue about the latter at all.

(But come on, don't you really think intelligence is a pretty darn impressive thing? Myself, I'd argue it's more impressive than a river any day, even if I were a river )

the_cave

I don't mean to be technical or get all mystical on anyone, but if we're talking about a Pantheistic God, then it definitely possesses consciousness, because here we are.

Great! Then we at least both believe in God!

Fiach

Wonderful, I believe in the inanimate god of natural forces, lacking consciousness, unable to think or reason. It just is the entire universe and the primal forces whose properties precipitated the big bang. I like this because I can call myself a THEIST. I live anywhere in the USA and not be lynched or burned on a stick for being an atheist. And If your Islamic fundamentalist counterparts in the Middle East capture me, my ID will not identify me as an Atheist but as a Theist, believer in the god of natural forces. I feel safer already.

Fiach

HRG

Not at all. A mathematical theory is not an "entity" and does not exist in the same sense that entities (rocks, planets, humans, djinns, gods...) exist.
As I said, probability theory is not tied to materialism. Within its frame, probabilities are assigned to propositions; and "God X exists" is as much a proposition as "A large asteroid will crash into the Earth within 1000 years".

Regards,
HRG.

theophilus

"God X exists" is NOT the same type of proposition. An asteroid crashing into the earth is an event, i.e., a space time happening and is, therefore, subject to probability statements (which, by the way, a mathematical concept would not be - what is the "probability" that 1 + 1 = 2? For that matter, what is the probability that the color blue is blue?).

The existence of God is not an event If you want to debate the probability of a god "hapapening," i.e., coming into existence, then you could make probability statements only if you had a comprehensive knowledge of all the factors involved. But since we're (at least I am) talking about the God of scripture who never "came into being," and is self-existent - doesn't depend on anything external to himself for his being, probability statements regarding his being are meaningless.

Again, I think probability statements are made in the "context" of materiality and God is immaterial. Since naturalisitc knowledge is completely circumscribed by matter, you can have no knowledge of supra-material beings. Unless, of course, it is revealled, which is exactly the position which Christianity holds.

the_cave

But could I, for example, feel grateful about a rock, perhaps because it was around for me to use? Maybe it's holding some papers down...and pretty rocks make me happy...can I feel that, even though the rock isn't a being trying to make me happy?

What if I just prayed somewhere near the rock, praying to nothing in particular, or held an image of the beauty of the rock in my mind as I meditated? Can I at least do that?

But...we think and reason. You trying to tell me I'm unnatural?

And the last time this happened in the US was...? (date & location, please).

mattbballman

Dear metcaf,

Thank you for your critique. You are right. I shall attack at a somewhat different angle.

This is an intriguing analysis but in the end must be considered inadequate to bring about the estranged conclusion that we ought to think the fine-tuning argument unsound on grounds that both God and God* would exist.

In principle, there is no reason to suppose that God and God* are distinct beings except that one operates the actual world (say W) and the other operates some possible world (W*). It seems to be an Anselmnian analysis that God is God* just in cast the creator of W* is the creator of W. I have no reason to make a distinction.

Secondly, I think that some world F* that contains a population quantitatively greater than F in no wise presumes that F* is more improbable than F. The contention is that F* may contain a greater multitude on the basis of contingencies not entailed by the initial conditions for life. For example, F's population may have been made stagnant due to governmental sterilization of the masses. These counterfactuals would not be initial conditions set out by the Big Bang for they are contingent on actions by free creatures.

Thirdly, and even more damaging, is the misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument. Many propose that the argument is predicated merely on improbability (which an equal improbability of any event coming about may be compared). But there are two fundamental differences between any equally implausible event coming about versus a life-permitting universe. In the case of a life permitting universe, it is not that such is equally improbable as its alternatives but, rather, that in an ocean of options where only life-prohibiting universes encircle lies only one drop of a life-permitting universe. Secondly, fine-tuning does not merely conclude on the basis of improbability but on the basis of specified complexity, which was my objection before (e.g., improbability + a known pattern). This combination is what makes an archaeologist contend that an artifact has been uncovered rather than a natural formation of the soil, that a paleontologist has unearthed a bone instead of a rock, and that a building inspector knows what the workers have actually built versus the hills such structures sit by. But you have sufficiently proven that to be misunderstood.

For these reasons I believe that your critique of design is inadequate.

matt