Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
This is a demonstration of someone using statistical inference to make a decision. Again...the poker game was not meant as an analogy of fine tuning.


Certainly.

In fact, the FTA 'proves'(your words not mine) the opposite. By any measure of any scale...the probability of life randomly occuring is zero.

The question at hand is 'Did this happen at random?' This being the question, we cannot presuppose that outside influence is not a possibility. If we presupposed this there would be no need to ask the question in the first place.

In addition, I think it's important to point out that 'possibility' does not imply 'plausibility'.
It is possible that a message you saw etched in sand on the beach one day was randomly created by the surf. This, however, is not a 'plausible' explanation because of the probabilities involved.

The terms 'magical', 'fairy', and 'mythology' in this question imply the presupposition that God does not exist.


Morever, this is not the argument the FTA makes.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ashaman,
Or better yet: what are the odds your name is the one you have or that you are as tall as you are?

It is important to point out that these are all arbitrary, non-meaningful classifications and as such are subject to the 'lottery fallacy'. Your name had to be something...you had to be some height.

The difference with the FTA is that life is a non-arbitrary, meaningful classification or phenomenon. It is more like the 'black sand on white beach analogy'. Your lounging on a white sandy beach and someone hands you a grain of sand. It's black. Now do you assume that that grain of sand was randomly picked up off the beach or that it was chosen?


Sure, the laymans Anthropic Principle. It's important to note the the AP is just that...a principle or tautological statement. It says absolutely nothing about how the universe came to be.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

No, it is not. It is an invalid analogy that you are implying bears some relevance to the FTA; i.e., that the inference somebody should make regarding FT is similiar to a gambler inferring that another gambler is cheating because he draws three Royal Flushes in a row.

Which is why I instructed you to not use it as such, which is what you are repeatedly doing.

You are doing this. You must stop doing this. Got it?

Your transparent protestations, while amusing, are growing remarkably tiresome, so, enough, yes? We're not members of your cult and actually use our brains.

Categorically false. As you well know, the FTA claims only that carbon-based life is improbable, not impossible.

No, that is your question, but not the question asked in regard to FT.

SOMMS, seriously, what's the point if you're simply going to keep misrepresenting what the FTA actually is? Doesn't your cult have any kind of punishment for that?

It is not.

Nor can you factor in "outside influence," since no compelling evidence exists of any kind of an "outside influence" to factor in!

Besides, aren't you just trying to weasel by with your inference fallacy here?

There is no need to ask the question in the first place except by disengenuous apologists like yourself who are incapable of understanding what the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc means.

Yet another entirely irrelevant observation that has no salience.

Here's an observation, on the other hand, that has tremendous salience: low probability does not equal impossibility.

Here's another: possibility affirms parsimony, so there is absolutely no need to posit a magical fairy god king "outside influence."

And this observation is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is still possible that it occur in precisely that manner and further, that should it actually occur in that manner, you have no argument.

Let me amend that. You have no argument, since all you are trying to do is imply that a low probability of something occuring (in hindsight, no less, and according to incomplete human perception) is equal to no probability and worse that because there is such a low probability, everyone should simply discard it in favor of a mythology that has no proof at all and absolutely no possibility of being true.

It is impossible for fictional characters to factually exist. Period.

It is not a presupposition. It is an irrefutable fact that can only be childishly denied.

Fictional creatures do not factually exist.

Quite right, since the FTA makes no argument; it is nothing more than a strawman fallacy. What I was addressing, of course, is the argument you imply and think no one sees.

You are doing nothing more than using one of the most laughable misunderstandings of pseudo-science (not even the real stuff) I've ever seen, in order to convince the weak-minded (wherever they may be, I guess, because there are none here) to discard "innocent until proven guilty" in favor of "judge a book by its cover."

It is not just repulsive; it is abhorrent and, once again, demonstrates precisely why your cult is so incredibly detrimental to humanity.

I have to hand it to you SOMMS. Only your level of brazen, disingenuousnous pushes my buttons so well, so congrats on that, at least.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koy,
This is bizzare.

You are arguing with me about what MY intention was when I gave the poker example.



Uh...I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Since my intention was to give an example of statistical inference but you seem to regard this as an analogy to the FTA...by all means please give your own example of statistical inference so we can discuss that.

It looks like this is going to break down into another 'he said/she said'...just like you disagreeing with me on my intentions for giving the poker example.


Your'e disagreeing with somebody what their argument is. ???

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again. However, to iterate...the question that drives the FTA is 'Did this happen at random?'


A circular argument. You are claiming...

No evidence of God -&gt; life happened at random
Life happened at random -&gt; no evidence of God.

It is fallacious to address the question 'Did this happen at random?' by assuming it did not happen by design then answering the question.


This is not a valid contention.

By this same reasoning we would conclude:
-Waves created a sand castle because 'low probability does not equal impossibility.'
-There is no problem with Firestone tires on Ford automobiles blowing apart because 'low probability does not equal impossibility.'
-We should charge 100 year olds the same life insurance rates as one would charge a 10 year old because 'low probability does not equal impossibility.'

This is simply false.


There is no way around it Koy...you must either A-admit probability is useful for making decisions or B-claim that your copy of Hamlet was written by monkeys because 'low probability does not equal impossibility'.



Irrefutable fact? It is an irrefutable fact that God does not exist? Please give us the evidence of this irrefutable fact that God does not exist.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

SOMMS

Asha'man

Right. However, the Anthropic principle shows that you cannot argue probability of something that only happens once, and can only be observed with a selected outcome.

We can’t discuss the probability of things turning out any other way, not using statistics. It isn’t meaningful, and it can’t prove anything. Every statement you make is purely speculation, with no possible evidence to back it up.

However, if you want to admit that you are in the realm of pure speculation, then we can talk about the creation of the universe all day.

Personally, I think that all these fundamental constants are probably related by physical laws that we don’t understand yet. Just like matter and energy are related via the speed of light, all other constants are probably linked together. However, if there turns out to be a range of possible values for these constants, then the Anthropic principle is more than enough to satisfy me that the values were not “selected.”

Koyaanisqatsi

SOMMS, there simply is no point in engaging anything you write, so I will cease.

Enjoy your pointless posturing and pray to your imaginary creatures no jury you find yourself in front of ever thinks the way you do.

After all, if the police think you're guilty and the State is going through so much time and energy and money to try you and the Prosecutor says you're guilty, well, my God! What else will they infer from that, other than that you must therefore be guilty, right?

Jack the Bodiless

Not true. The probability of a randomly configured Universe having constants that are "just right" is UNKNOWN, not zero.

We have no means of calculating this probability. Therefore we cannot say that it's improbable, therefore the Fine-Tuning Argument fails.

Jack the Bodiless

Perhaps another card-game analogy would illustrate this.

You walk into a room and see a card game in progress. On the table are five cards laid out in ascending order: an ace, a two, a three, and so forth.

What is the probability of this arrangement? Is it likely that cheating has occurred?

You do not know the number of cards each player has. You do not know whether they were playing with a full pack or a selected subset. You do not know the rules of the game they are playing.

You cannot draw any conclusion.