Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.html</a>

This is a typical fine-tuning page.

It says that over 30 parameters must be fine-tuned for the universe and over 66 for Earth etc.

All of this just destroys the fine-tuning argument.


If it is argued that we are lucky that 96 parameters are just right for us to exist, then God was just as lucky that these 96 parameters came out right.


God would only not be luck if he did not have 96 independent knobs to twiddle until he got the right settings.

There are just not that many fundamental constants. If you want to set 96 values independently of each other, you need 96 things to change, and there are not 96 fundamental constants.

Fine-tuning people insist that God was constrained by the laws of physics, and that any small deviation from these 96 parameters would spell catastrophe for his plans.


So all God could do was set what few constants he could and hope that they all worked together to set these 96 parameters.

Pure luck!

Tercel

Hey Steven,
have you read Bede's essay on <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_hannam/fta.html" target="_blank">fine tuning</a> in the Sec-Web library? He discuss the idea of design in a level below the fundamental physical laws which might be used to explain the "luck" or getting a possible combination that "worked together".

Steven Carr

Perhaps if you pointed out that bit to me....

Koyaanisqatsi

That's a curious "argument" bede proposes, considering it isn't an argument at all; it's a concession.

The only thing bede actually argues is an assertion (or, in this case, merely an implication) of a necessary designer that never proves the requirement; i.e., never establishes the necessity of that necessary designer.

Again, it is nothing short of human arrogance and/or stupidity to assume that just because we have the ability to perceive a design that there must, therefore, be a designer.

That is simply non-sequitur.

Ironically, bede comes to this very conclusion and then dismisses the implications in favor of semantics by trying to disingenuously (IMO) separate out "God" from "Necessary Designer."

From bede's paper:

See? He states quite clearly that fine tuning does not prove God exists and then immediately dismisses this finality by setting up his strawman conclusion through disingenuous semantics.

First, it is not the "considered position of scientists" that fine tuning "in the form of the anthropic coincidences is real."

The "considered position of scientists" is by no means consistent in regard to fine tuning; at best all one could argue is that the majority of cosmologists (the field that actually studies this) would agree that the universe as we currently understand it appears to us to have a remarkable complexity that we don't fully understand.

What a shock.

Bede, however, does not make this non-committal observation precisely because it establishes nothing and proves nothing, but it is much closer to the truth than what he twisted everything into in order to imply that "anthropic coincidences" are "real;" aka, an immutable fact of the universe, which isn't true as far as anyone actually knows.

All "we" know is that, from our perspective, it seems that certain events had to occur and did in fact occur in order to result in the right conditions for life, thereby giving the universe the appearance of being "fine tuned," which is nothing more than the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I will personally guarantee anyone who requires it that if any of these "scientists" bede groups together en masse were to hear this fallacy applied to their theories they would loudly and roundly reject it en masse.

Second, he tries to imply that God still exists, just that "a creator is by no means the only explanation." This, in fact, is the modus operandi, IMO, of bede's entire paper; to skirt the issue of proof of god's existence in order to remove that entirely from the equation.

Look at the wording. It assumes the Judeo-Christian God factually exists (but just might not have been "involved"), directly contradicting his clear-cut answer.

In other words, he's simply doing what every single theist always does; God exists as a given, therefore how do arguments (any arguments) bear on this fact just after stating categorically that fine tuning does not prove that God exists!

He's simply skirting the argument entirely; pretending that the argument doesn't set out to actually prove God's existence, which, in fact is the entire purpose of the teleological fallacy!

It is nothing short of scholarly fraud couched in the guise of thorough, honest deconstruction and it is, quite frankly, appalling.

What argument? The one for which bede just declared the answer was "no?" The one bede just entirely skirted by using carefully chosen words that assume God already factually exists, but just didn't get "involved" in fine-tuning, the implication being, of course that God simply created the watch, wound the watch and then let it go?

Not in the slightest! Indeed, precisely the opposite would be true, since such a "discovery" would fulfill parsimony in that it would be evidence in favor of natural occurrence and not supernatural interference.

In fact, the entire anthropic principle already proves a natural explanation to the universe, precisely because of parsimony! It doesn't matter how small the probability is of anything occurring; the very fact that it is a viable probability, proven by such calculations, upholds Occam's razor by establishing that a natural occurrence could, in fact, explain the origins of the universe!

That's what is so profoundly dishonest about bede's "conclusion," since the very fact that anyone can calculate precisely what the probability factors are involving our universe proves that our universe naturally occurred!

If no one could calculate the probability, then and only then would we have any kind of proof that the universe could not have a natural (as opposed to supernatural) origin, so all bede is here doing is trying to obfuscate this fact by turning it all on its head; by stealing the truth from one theory in order to imply the truth of another!

It is blatant, dishonest and speaks volumes to the unethical lengths apologists like bede (and, by proxy, I'm afraid, you as well Tercel) will go to in order to try and turn black into white.

Again, precisely the opposite would be true, since the discovery of life on other planets with the same or a very similar genetic architecture to our own would suggest complete commonality to the "pathways of life!" Indeed, it would be expected that similar genetic architecture would be found anywhere in the universe precisely because life is not magically blinked into existence by a mystical fairy god king.

No, actually he did not examine this claim, he disingenuously skirted it, IMO, in order to imply that this is precisely what happened.

To whom? Not to the majority of cosmologists who actually study this.

It just is appalling to make such sweeping generalizations in a conclusion; to put such tenuous words into the mouths of the scientific community as a whole by mere proxy!

Note, too, that this is his only conclusion; aka, not a conclusion in the slightest!



And I would suggest you get down on your filthy knees and beg Dawkins' forgiveness just prior to spending the rest of your life praying to your imaginary god for committing such a blatant act of deliberate fraud, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

A new low, bede, and I didn't think that was possible. Probable, yes, but not necessarily possible.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
This seems to be your current modum operandi. Saying an inference is an assertion. Bede's conclusion is no more of an assertion than saying 'A person who plays 3 consequtive Royal Flushes is likely cheating' is an assertion.

Not to mention Bede's work does have useful applications in real world scenarios like data integrity.


You really can't have it both ways. You must either A-deny statistical inference or B-claim life randomly happening is not improbable.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

SOMMS

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

He does not make any inferences at all, SOMMS; if you'd actually read what he wrote, you would recognize that fact. As I argued (and demonstrated) he deliberately misconstrues the actual argument in order to skirt the entire question of God's existence; an assertion inherent within the terminology he disingenuously tries to slip by anybody's radar.

What a perfect example of what I was talking about! If you'll recall, my response to your fallacious analogy was to point out that you had misconstrued the argument into this inccorrect analogy; that the correct analogy would be that you walked into a room where a poker game was being played and a player had a Royal Flush so you decided to calculate the odds of a person drawing a Royal Flush. Period.

There is nothing analogous to the fine tuning fallacy in your forced and misconstrued analogy of a person drawing three Royal Flushes!

The universe didn't happen three times, it happened once, just like a player drawing a Royal Flush!

The fact that something has a small chance of occuring MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but instead of being an honest person and acknowledging such an irrefutable fact, you (and bede) seek instead to twist the words and findings of cosmologists into a strawman like the stupidity with your analogy.

If this is an example, your comment is demonstrably false.

Or, C, demonstrate how you and bede are deliberately misconstruing the argument into one that cannot be supported by the facts in evidence in order to imply an inference that cannot be legitimately made.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,

I just couldn't let some of these slip by...

Your analysis is disingenuous. You are mistaking a 'probabilistic argument' for a 'proof'. Bede presents a probabilistic argument (not a proof) for God and says as much in your quote. Many people (you included) do not need 'proof' to believe things. In fact, most of our beliefs are based on probabilistic arguments...not proof.


This is also a bit feigned and slanted. It is not the complexity of the universe that cosmologists wonder at...it's the fact that life occured from it despite all odds against it.

Your comment about the post hoc fallacy is incorrect. You are claiming that one cannot statistically infer anything about an event that has already happened. This, of course, is completely wrong.


A highly questionable claim. One could just as easily interpret 'Even if intelligent design were proven it would still not necessarily mean that the Judeo-Christian God was involved' as 'this is not proving a god exists'...which would be restating would Bede previously said. The term 'involved' here doesn't mean 'God exists but was out to lunch that day' it means 'The concept of God is orthogonal to this concept.

I thought you just said 'probability doesn't imply proof'. If this is so how does improbability imply proof? It seems you are saying 'we can calculate the odds of life happening...therefore this proves the life randomly happened.'

Using this same argument I can 'prove' that the Enclyclopedia Brittanica sitting on my desk at home randomly happened.

I really don't think you are making this claim...perhaps you could be more clear with your point here.

Not being able to calculate a probability is indicative that 'we need more information' NOT THAT 'God did it'.

By this argument:
We should think that the moon circling the earth was the result of some supernatural influence BECAUSE we can't calculate the probability.
We should think that a child drawing a snowman was the result of some supernatural influence BECAUSE we can't calculate the probability.
Ad infintum.


I think by now few scientists (if any) disagree with the observation that the conditions necessary for life to develop are very specific and very precise and any significant change in those parameters would yeild a lifeless universe.

I guess we must agree to disagree on this point.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,

A quick note...
I think it's important to point out that the 3 Royal Flushes mentioned above is an example of using statistical inference to make a decision. This is not an analogy of fine tuning nor is it intended to be. Again...this is an example of using statistical inference...NOT fine tuning.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Koyaanisqatsi

And I think it's important to point out (as I did) that your "3 Royal Flushes" analogy (for that is what it is and was intended to be from the start) is as flawed as flawed can be for all of the reasons posted, but especially in regard to the FTA, because you're committing the same disingenuous fraud that I contend bede is attempting; using terminology to imply an inference that is neither legitimate nor borne out by the actual facts in evidence.

If I walk into a poker room and somebody draws three natural Royal Flushes, I would suspect fraud because of my über understanding of the fact that it is more likely that fraud was being committed.

This does not, however, prove fraud, nor does it mean anything relevant at all, other than what I personally suspect.

I would, of course, be horrifically incorrect in basing any actual judgments upon my suspicions alone, which is what you are implying is perfectly fine and natural and what we should all just do in accord with the FTA.

Hell, why stop there? Why not just do away with "innocent until proven guilty" while we're at it?

It is dishonest and the worst form of pseudo-science fraud imaginable, SOMMS and you should know that.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

luvluv

Isn't the probablity of all of the FTA parameters falling into just the right order a bit higher than simply the odds of winning a lottery? Instead of the three flushes argument, it would be more like walking into a room where a guy threw up a deck of cards and all of them landed on their edges and stayed up right. In such a situation, one would be justified in saying that it was not chance.

At any rate, I don't see how the FTA is a lottery fallacy because quite often lottery's are drawn and NO ONE WINS for several drawings. This is the case with most lottery's where the winning number is drawn randomly is and not picked from the purchased numbers. And this is the case often when lotteries only have a fixed number of options (seven numbers below ten) that are far, far less numerous than the possibilities available to the universe (which we assume could have taken any value). So it is the case even with lotteries that involve a much smaller statistical probability range than the universe that SEVERAL drawings are needed to draw a number someone actually played. The universe had a much more daunting task, probablity-wise, and it only had, as Koy says, one crack at it.

I just want to clarify that people EVENTUALLY win the lottery because there are influences outside the system of sheer probability, that ensures that the numbers are played until someone wins. In other words, lotteries are not simply cases of sheer probabilty. Intelligence forces the process to keep going until someone wins. If they were strictly the results of the natural laws of probabilty, and if there were more possible combinations than numbers played, quite often no one would win. So I'm not sure a lottery is a good way to prove that FTA is fallacious.