faustuz

You are absolutely correct, I have not directly dealt with this admittedly very difficult issue. How could we know that other potential universes don’t have their own special characteristics that our own does not have? I have no answer to this question nor, I think, does anybody else. Certainly I am not with those who use the AP as a justification for belief in a Creator. I always say that where there is insufficient data, don’t try to fill in the gaps with hypotheses and call them facts. The jury is out precisely because this problem is so difficult to answer.

All that said, I’m not sure it is entirely unanswerable, or at least that we can’t come up with some reasonable parameters for the problem. It involves looking in our own universe for other potential conscious life forms. If we were to conduct a thorough search (say 1000 years from now, given some rather dramatic advances in technology) and we found no other examples, we would conclude that life is so rare that its existence even on earth is a miraculous event. If, however, we do find life elsewhere in the universe, and that life is more or less similar in chemical makeup and other properties to life on this planet, and the places where that life originated are more or less similar to Earth, then we might conclude that life occurs naturally in places similar to Earth, but with extreme difficulty or not at all in other places. We then might extrapolate that most (maybe not all, but a very high percentage) of other possible universes do not have life because, from examining our own universe, life (specifically conscious life) require very particular conditions that are not commonly found.

Would this provide a definitive solution to the question? I don’t know. But it seems to me that it at least provides a very good indication as to whether or not chance alone can explain conscious life arising. Anyway, as you can tell from my other posts, the purpose of this discussion is not to resolve whether or not the universe is deliberate (or perhaps I should just say, not random). The purpose is to define the parameters that must be fulfilled in order to make that determination.

faustuz

I’ve made no such assumption. When have I made such an assumption? I have not tried to lay out any claim as to the mechanism by which the universe came about anywhere in this thread, or in any other thing I have ever written, for that matter. I simply don’t have the information with which to make that claim. If you are attributing such a claim to me, then you are setting up a straw man. I notice you even put it in quotes "a purposeful being capable of creating universes with predefined constants". Who are you quoting here?

I have never said anywhere in my posts that a non-random universe implies a “purposeful being”. I get this feeling that you haven’t really been following this thread, but just read a couple of paragraphs, because otherwise you would at least see that I never said this or even anything like it. I have only said that incredibly low odds imply something should they indeed turn out to be incredibly low, just like the fact that planets follow elliptical orbits around the sun implies something other than randomness. Once one discounts randomness, then one realizes that an explanation is needed. Does that mean an old man with a beard thought it all up and created it? I doubt it. Yet it does make the universe seem purposeful. What does that mean, being purposeful? It might mean a number of things. I’ll leave it to your imagination the number of things it might mean. All are rather awe inspiring to me because any one would still mean that the universe in some sense exists for conscious life, should the probability prove low. I for one would like to know whether or not it is. Wouldn’t you?

Clutch

Huh? Sorry, I thought it was transparent that I'm saying, "suggests no conclusion about the RFs being designed". Because I thought the plausibility of regarding design as a competing hypothesis was under discussion.

Now you seem to be retreating to the astonishingly trivial point that the basic principle of probability calculation, Normality, is true. Viz, that P(E)=1-P(~E); the probability that an explanation is correct is one minus the probability that it is not correct. So, yes, if the probability that things happened purely by chance is genuinely very low, then the probability that things did not happen purely by chance is correspondingly high.

Leading to two important questions, both of which have been asked (and asked, and asked):

(i) What is the actual provenance of the calculations that purport to show the probability of getting this universe purely by chance? <... pin dropping in distance...>

(ii) What is the comparative probability of the hypothesis that the universe was designed? <... crickets chirping...>

Hence the problem of the Numbers Pulled Out Of Wherever, to which you have simply failed to respond. In particular, Normality requires the assignment of (inter alia) a cardinality to the range of possible outcomes. Did you answer the question of how many ways the universe might have been?

Hmm, what would I do if I thought you were the most honest person in the world, but then you drew five consecutive Royal Flushes? Wait, an answer's coming to me... I'd change my mind. I'd recognize the occurrence of yet another phenomenon to which I am antecedently committed on the basis of powerful independent evidence: my being wrong about someone.

Isn't that just gob-smackingly obvious?

Huh? If you're not claiming that the Really Little Numbers make it plausible to think of Design as a competing hypothesis, then it's unclear that you are saying anything whatever. If you're simply claiming that when an explanation has probability p, then its negation has probability 1-p... then what the fuck? Seriously. This has precisely zero to do with the plausibility of design, in the absence of the calculations that I've explained are missing a couple times now. Are you saying anything at all about design, or not?
Well, I don't know how to make it any clearer. We have to calculate both probabilities to make an argument about one's superiority to the other, you agree. Then you go on to spell out your conviction that the probabilities of the one side -- the chance side -- can somehow be made good. Apart from obliquely admitting that the calculations as they stand are useless (rendering this whole thing pointless), you yet again manage not to grasp the point that you need to calculate the other prospect as well. What are the odds of the existence of beings powerful enough to design universes? How will you calculate this? Why should this be taken even a little bit seriously?

If you really are claiming -- now -- that your point is simply that we can still learn more about why the universe is the way it is, if you agree that no evidence currently on the table suggests anything at all about design, then fine. Say as much directly, and we can get onto the entirely unpressing business of wondering why you said the various things you said, this being the case. Otherwise, you owe an argument.

Baloo

(editted to add - cross posted with clutch, who seems to be on a similar wavelength... as the latecomer to this thread, I respectfully leave it to faustuz to respond to clutch alone, and feel no need to respond to me, if he'd prefer)


faustuz,

Could you reconcile this. You started a thread in the "existence of god" forum with this statement:

So, in your first sentence, you state that you find the AP to be a remotely convincing argument for the existence of God. But, when I challenged the use of the AP as an argument for the existence of God, you state:

You seem to be backing away from saying anything at all in this thread.

Yes, the elliptical orbits of planets implies a natural explanation of Newtonian mechanics over that of random motion of rocks. Yes, the complexity of life implies a natural explanation of evolution over that of spontaneous generation. Yes, the formation of crystaline cubes forming when salt water is evaporated implies a natural explanation other than "they just happened to end up drying out in that patter". And yes, perhaps the improbability of the physical constants being exactly that which is needed to lend to conciousness implies a natural explanation other than "they just happened to pop into existence just once, just that way, and never have been or will again be different".

But, strangely, you chose not to discuss this very intriguing idea in the "Science and Skepticism" forum (where, I might add, there have been a myriad of great threads discussing mulit-world hypotheses, amongst other natural explanations for the constants being what they are). You chose to use "The Existence of God" forum.

faustuz

I have several times thought that I may have made a poor choice as to where to post this, since…
..my point was that I find the argument compelling, compared to, say, the ridiculous Cosmological Argument, but not a convincing proof of God. I regret to some degree posting it in EoG, as it has led to assumptions about my implications that I did not forsee. Oh, well. It is done.
There I obviously disagree with you. I never once claimed that I was actually trying to prove a specific version of creation (which Crutch keeps insisting, to my continual bafflement, that I have done), and since many here seem to think that is what I have said, I’m accused of backing away. My interest in the issue is not to prove a specific version of purposeful design, nor even to claim that the universe is purposeful, but to define the question accurately. The universe is either determined by random chance alone, or there is something more fundamental. I have no idea what that something might be, but I think that ruling out random chance, which I think is scientifically feasible, does have some serious implications. Doing so is akin to Kepler discovering that planets move in elliptical orbits. He did not at that point know why they moved in such orbits, that had to wait nearly a hundred years for Newton. However, he elucidated a principle, one that demanded a theory. Accurately phrasing a question is saying something.
Maybe somebody will move it for me. It’s a tough call, though. Note that this forum is described to not be simply about the existence of God but also "What does the word 'God' mean?". I think there might be some relevancy there. While I agree that the Anthropic Principle does not imply any traditional version of God, it is very often used towards that purpose. Therefore, since the thread is entitled “Thoughts on the Anthropic Principle” I felt that this was a good place to put it. Furthermore, even as I have postulated it, the question is not totally unrelated to the subject of God. Some people use the term to simply describe the phenomenon that determined the a priori nature of the universe. Used such, the term may be appropriate. Many Pantheists claim that the universe is indeed purposeful, although not conscious. They thus define God and the Universe as one and the same, but do not ascribe intelligence to it. I find this interpretation compelling, although not entirely convincing. If the low probability option turns out to be the case, I would find that interpretation even more compelling. Really the whole point of my thread was to 1) examine the likelihood that the universe is not a random event and 2) examine the possible implications of such. That is not really the direction the thread has taken, but that is the nature of such things. I am not displeased because being forced to defend my positions has clarified these positions. My original post was somewhat vague on exactly where I’m trying to go, but I think that I’ve stated my intentions several times subsequently. I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

SRB

An inductive inference based on a sample size of one (i.e. one universe, with one set of laws) will always be so hopelessly weak as to be worthless.

In any case, to revive the fine-tuning argument you would also need to show that there are not many universes, and that other universes do not have interesting properties, and that the creator-hypothesis does not have its own (equally severe) problem of fine-tuning. In an earlier message I argued that fine-tuning considerations could be used equally well to show that God does not exist. If I am correct, any data concerning fine-tuning must be considered irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists.

SRB

Dr. Retard

(I haven't read the rest of this debate yet; I'm just responding to this).

Assuming what the fine-tuning advocates say is true, then the following is right:

If the constants of the universe were ever so slightly different, then we wouldn't exist, and then we couldn't ponder the improbability of our existence.

But what in the world is supposed to follow from this? I leave that to you.

If an improbable event is really striking and astonishing, and we have possible explanations waiting in the wings to make it explicable, then we should not rest content with "it just happened to turn out that way". That's the common sense that fine-tuning advocates appeal to. Are you saying that you've found an exception to this? Are you saying that, if our existence hinges on the striking improbable event, then it's OK to rest content that it just happened that way? If so, then you're wrong. The firing squad analogy proves this much. "If they hadn't all missed me, I wouldn't be around to wonder about it". Well, so what? The fact remains that, if they all just happened to miss, then we're left with an astonishing coincidence, whereas if there was a conspiracy to miss you, then it makes sense. The fact that our wondering turns on the occurrence of an event doesn't in the least obviate the need for an explanation of the event.

Baloo

Faustuz,

I apologize for my previous posts - it seems as though you were discussing the issue: "if we can conclude that our universe's physical constants came about not by chance alone, what are the implications, specifically in regards to the purposefulness of our universe..." and my posts to you were phrased as though you had said: "The physical constants are just right for conciousness, therefore God exists." I guess the vast number of times the latter of those approaches has been used to challenge my atheistic beliefs has caused me to develop a negative knee-jerk reaction to the subject as a whole.

Anyway, since it is my opinion that the proposition {the physical constants, unconstrained in any way, shape or form, ultimately and "accidentally" happened to settle on values conducive to the development of conscious life} is FAR more likely than the proposition {there exists some consciousness external to us which "set" the constants to their present values}, I will step out of this conversation.

If at any time you'd like to discuss other solutions to this conundrum, such as the proposition {there is some other natural explanation, e.g. multi-world interpretation} or {the naturalistic explanation has yet to be unearthed}, I would highly recommend starting a thread in the S&S forum for a less confrontational, more exploratory discussion...

xeren

1st, we don't know at all if the constants of the universe could have turned out any other way, so why assume that they could have, why assume that our universe turning out with these exact constants is a "strikingly improbable event"?

I'm afraid an analogy alone doesn't prove anything. Haven't you learned anything from that idiot C.S. Lewis? He tried to replace logical arguments with analogies, and unfortunately there has been no end to the stikingly obvious problems with his proofs for God.


Okay I've got to got listen to Calvin Normore speak about St. Augustine right now, but I'll be back in a couple hours to explain why the firing squad analogy doesn't work.

-xeren

Baloo

Since it is so widely misused, I will address the firing squad analogy head on. If I were placed before a firing squad of, say, 10 professional soldiers, and I heard the roar of their weapons as the squad fired, but was still standing to contemplate the situation, I'd conclude that one of the following situations occured:

1) By chance, each of the shooters missed, falling into one of these categories

• some shooters, not wanting to shoot an unarmed defenseless person, and figuring that the 9 other shooters would not suffer this dillemma, deliberately miss
• some shooters, by extreme chance, sneezed or experienced some other sort of uncontrolled, minute muscle spasm that caused them to miss
• some shooters did not properly maintain their weapons, which subsequently misfired, fired at an off-angle, or did not fire at all
• some shooters did not disengage their safety, and figured not firing at all was better than firing out of sync with the rest of the team
• some shooters, being human, may have simply "missed"
• some other admittedly improbable circumstance led to a miss on the part of the shooter

2) While waiting to be executed, the great amount of duress led to an incredibly vivid dream sequence in which I imagined the firing squad missing me... I should expect to wake up shortly, but in the meantime, probably ought to do some "pinch tests".

3) Similar to 2 above, some rare form of stress had caused my brain to perceive a situation vastly different from the reality of the situation - I should have conversations with others to verify my perceptions; possibly looking for professional help at my next available opportunity.

4) A friendly or neutral party, out of concern for me, had sabotaged the weapons of the firing squad (e.g. replaced the bullets with blanks) - I might be inclined to keep my eyes open for further assisstance from this party.

5) I was the victim of an elaborate prank/hoax. I might look around for hidden cameras, and try to detect whether the sqad leader bore any resemblence to Jamie Kennedy (host of a hidden camera show on the WB network).

6) Another natural explanation exists, but due to my limited ability/time to ponder the situation and my inability to observe and correctly interpret every single "piece of the puzzle", I simply don't know what that is.

7) There exists some powerful yet benevolent entity which took it upon itself to temporarily interfere with the natural laws of the world in just such a way that bullets fired by the squad did not hit me, while taking great care to leave no other trace of its interference beyond the bullets missing me.

8) Some other supernatural variation of 7)

******************

Having said that, I would put these explanations in a probability order of:
2,6,...large probability gap...,4,5,3,...large probability gap...1,....large probablity gap...8,7.

POINT BEING: just because one natural explanation is deemed to be exceedingly improbable does not preclude the existence of other natural explanations - pay particular attention to #6 above - and it certaintly DOES NOT lend to an argument that supernatural explanations are more likely as a result. That is the lesson that should be taken from the firing squad analogy.