Inviting Al Moritz to discuss the "fine tune" argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyrion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I finished reading the article. Before I can start to go into the actual discussion I have one question. It seems obvious, but it is not actually spelled out, that the basic assumption is this:

If the probability of an event is extremely small, and yet it happened, then the only rational assumption is that it was the result of a conscious design.

Is this a correct summary of your stance?
 
I know Tyrantion didn’t exactly invite me to this conversation. So, allow me to address anybody *else *who reads this:

From all I have read of dear Tyrantion’s postings, it seem there runs one particular thread. He accuses “believers” of relying on “faith”.

Now. If those maltreated believers were little philosophers, not little Catholics, Tyrantion would have had every right to quarrel with them about this.

But, they were not. It is perfectly true that in the discipline of philosophy, one cannot legitimately bring up “revelation” and such in order to hammer home a point.

But in theology- amongst people who espouse the same creed- that is perfectly legitimate. The game of theology has different rules from the game of philosophy. And if Tyrantion didn’t know this, I submit that it is his own fault.

Here is an analogy of many of his previous “objections” to what people on this forum stated. He is like a soccer coach who thrust himself onto a basketball court, screaming: “Hand ball!!! HAND BALL!!!”
 
I’m bowing out now, as I do not believe Mr. Al Moritz needs any help from me. But, no matter what the result of this conversation: I cannot help but believe that up until very recently, our own Tyrantion’s position has been an inherently ridiculous one.

Hand ball. : ) Go team.
 
SurprizdbyLewis said:
That was just pitiful.
Click to expand...
What’s pitiful is deliberately misspelling someones name and misnaming them several times as you’ve done in your last three posts.

It’s disrespectful.

And cheap.

Not really worthy conduct on the philosophy forum.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Al_Moritz said:
By the way, Tyrion, that God is metaphysically necessary (an argument that I do not mention in my article) is a philosophical conclusion, NOT a premise. But you wouldn’t know that if you haven’t studied classical metaphysics and believe that the value of Aristotle’s metaphysics hinges on the quality of his science.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Tyrion said:
Well, I finished reading the article. Before I can start to go into the actual discussion I have one question. It seems obvious, but it is not actually spelled out, that the basic assumption is this:

If the probability of an event is extremely small, and yet it happened, then the only rational assumption is that it was the result of a conscious design.

Is this a correct summary of your stance?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is correct. This is an over-simplification.

I’d rather say:
a) if the creation (or generation if you will) of a universe as a one-time event could randomly happen in any configuration,
b) the particular configuration with a favorable outcome (e.g. one that allows for life) is unlikely just as any other particular one, to such an extent that any probability of it is entirely negligible (e.g. substantially less than one single person winning the jackpot four times in a row),
and
c) the one-time event still happens in that particular configuration,

then design or intent is highly likely.
 
atheistgirl said:
What’s pitiful is deliberately misspelling someones name and misnaming them several times as you’ve done in your last three posts.

It’s disrespectful.

And cheap.

Not really worthy conduct on the philosophy forum.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
You’re right. That was uncharitable.

Like I said- I’m auditing the rest of this one.
 
atheistgirl said:
But not necessary because a,b and c could happen? (and clearly did happen)

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
You refer to the brute chance argument. You should read my article in order to understand why this argument does not fly, and is firmly rejected by practically all leading cosmologists who have studied the issue – and this includes atheistic cosmologists.
 
Al_Moritz said:
You refer to the brute chance argument. You should read my article in order to understand why this argument does not fly, and is firmly rejected by practically all leading cosmologists who have studied the issue – and this includes atheistic cosmologists.
Click to expand...
I’ve read your paper - several times now 😊 It took me a few attempts to understand it and I still don’t think I do 😊 It’s a fabulous read by the way.

It’s just to my simple way of thinking, if there’s a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, that means that thing, whatever it is, and regardless of how unlikely, can still happen, purely by chance.

If it then does happen, it’s no indicator of any intent behind it - it just proves it could, and did, happen.

🤷

I’ll re-read your paper again.

After I’ve taken some strong coffee 😃

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
I’ve read your paper - several times now 😊 It took me a few attempts to understand it and I still don’t think I do 😊 It’s a fabulous read by the way.

It’s just to my simple way of thinking, if there’s a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, that means that thing, whatever it is, and regardless of how unlikely, can still happen, purely by chance.

If it then does happen, it’s no indicator of any intent behind it - it just proves it could, and did, happen.

🤷

I’ll re-read your paper again.

After I’ve taken some strong coffee 😃

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Of course it could happen (anything could happen), however when dealing with uncertainty in the explanation of phenomena rational beliefs are held in accordance with probabilistic reasoning and not mere possibility. That the set of universes conducive to life are such a vanishingly small subset of possible universes is most certainly an indicator of of a non-“pure chance” explanation. At least that’s how I see it.
 
Well Tyrion, we are all waiting with baited breath.

Seems to me that Al has you snookered. He pretty well demolished all the arguments offered by the propular secular cosmologists as supposed explanations for the existence of any universe without an Uncaused First Cause, which St. Thomas calls God.

Of course we can all just ignore Cause and just not bother our heads about it and say, " Well, it just exists, let’s leave it at that." Treat it as a " Brute Fact " that we can’t explain, because if we try to explain it, we will be forced to conclude that God exists - and that implies consequences some folks don’t like to think about. Linus2md
 
Al_Moritz said:
I don’t think this is correct. This is an over-simplification.

I’d rather say:
a) if the creation (or generation if you will) of a universe as a one-time event could randomly happen in any configuration,
b) the particular configuration with a favorable outcome (e.g. one that allows for life) is unlikely just as any other particular one, to such an extent that any probability of it is entirely negligible (e.g. substantially less than one single person winning the jackpot four times in a row),
and
c) the one-time event still happens in that particular configuration,

then design or intent is highly likely.
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s accept this modification. But I have two remarks:
  1. I am talking about events is general, and their probability. We try to forge a common ground for your article, so we need to speak in more generic terms, then the “creation” of the world. We need to establish your general and basic epistemological principle here.
  2. The only difference is that you added the subjective assessment “favorable”. To rephrase what I said before:
If the probability of an event is extremely small, and we consider that event “favorable” (post facto!) and yet it happened,
then it is a rational assumption to say the event was very likely the result of a conscious design.

Is this now correct?
 
atheistgirl said:
I’ve read your paper - several times now 😊 It took me a few attempts to understand it and I still don’t think I do 😊 It’s a fabulous read by the way.

It’s just to my simple way of thinking, if there’s a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, that means that thing, whatever it is, and regardless of how unlikely, can still happen, purely by chance.

If it then does happen, it’s no indicator of any intent behind it - it just proves it could, and did, happen.
Click to expand...
Your point is based upon a fallacy known as retrospective determinism. It is to argue, invalidly, that because some event has taken place, its chance occurrence must have somehow been inevitable beforehand. You cannot, this fallacy makes clear, appeal to probability, after the fact, simply because the event did, in fact, happen.

Chance only comes into play when a number of possibilities have some or equal likelihood of occurring, but the final outcome is indeterminable beforehand. We cannot, after the fact, claim chance as the explanation without first eliminating all other possibilities. When some event has an extraordinarily minuscule calculable probability, then it is incumbent upon us to eliminate all other explanations before concluding that the outcome was, indeed, one of mere chance.

The real power of the fine tuning argument is that cosmologists have identified over 30 constants that were set at the Big Bang instant. That all of these constants could have been vastly different and resulted in very different universes than we have now means that the “brute fact” of all thirty or more of these constants simultaneously being set at precise points could not have been a chance event because these occurred together in an instant. Chance would be a wildly untenable hypothesis. There must have been a valid reason to explain the outcome, chance will simply not do.

For a better sense of how even minute differences in the constant settings would have impacted the universe, see:

reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998
 
atheistgirl said:
I’ve read your paper - several times now 😊 It took me a few attempts to understand it and I still don’t think I do 😊 It’s a fabulous read by the way.

It’s just to my simple way of thinking, if there’s a one in 600 trillion chance of something happening, that means that thing, whatever it is, and regardless of how unlikely, can still happen, purely by chance.

If it then does happen, it’s no indicator of any intent behind it - it just proves it could, and did, happen.

🤷

I’ll re-read your paper again.

After I’ve taken some strong coffee 😃

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
But if it happens the first time, and the outcome is remarkable in some fundamental way, then one is justified in thinking design was at play.

If I throw a dozen paints onto a canvas one time, and the outcome is not a blotched canvas but a perfect portrait of my wife, I have to think that this was not a chance event.
 
Tyrion said:
Ok, let’s accept this modification. But I have two remarks:
  1. I am talking about events is general, and their probability. We try to forge a common ground for your article, so we need to speak in more generic terms, then the “creation” of the world. We need to establish your general and basic epistemological principle here.
  2. The only difference is that you added the subjective assessment “favorable”. To rephrase what I said before:
If the probability of an event is extremely small, and we consider that event “favorable” (post facto!) and yet it happened,
then it is a rational assumption to say the event was very likely the result of a conscious design.

Is this now correct?
Click to expand...
Proposing the existence of " possible " worlds is simple evasion by secular " cosmologists " who are unable to explain the existence of this actually existing world. It is the kind of Sophism use to indoctrinate young " heads full of mush " at colleges and universities throughout the world and among the ignorant public in the attempt to destroy the sense of the Divine in their thinking. Such efforts are nothing but intellectual " child abuse. " For adult men and women to abuse the intellectual innocence of the young and ignorant in this manner is dispicable.

The bases of such arguments are nothing short of " mathematical " flights of fancy so common in pulp science fiction and in no way represent either science or philosophy. In fact they are nothing but cheap acts of exhibitionism, the kind exhibited by " celebraties " of all kinds in the attempt to gain attention or to turn " color " into cash.

That such efforts should be hailed by the media is another indicator of the intellectual and moral decadence of the times. In a normal society dedicated to truth and right thinking they would be hooted out of town. These individuals and movements are nothing but intellectual " snake oil " salesmen. Linus2nd
 
atheistgirl said:
But not necessary because a,b and c could happen? (and clearly did happen)

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
and just as equally they could not happen as they did?. the big bang happened only once as far as anyone can tell. and equally may never be possible again. so included in all possible explanations of how it all happened you’d need to include the possibility of a creator. that is if you have no objection to looking at all possible causes equally.
 
snarflemike said:
But if it happens the first time, and the outcome is remarkable in some fundamental way, then one is justified in thinking design was at play.

If I throw a dozen paints onto a canvas one time, and the outcome is not a blotched canvas but a perfect portrait of my wife, I have to think that this was not a chance event.
Click to expand...
To speak of " possible " worlds is nothing but intellectual evasion by those who cannot explain this actually existing world. Such efforts are neither scienc nor philosophy, they are nothing but mathematical pipe dreams. Moving the " goal posts " will not have a better result. It serves only as a rationalization for postponing a personal decision to accept reality. Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top