statistical argument used by apologists

[Malintent]

I suppose there's no reason God couldn't keep on making more and more universes.

.. apart from there being no such thing as a god, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

If there are an infinite number of universes we shouldn't be surprised by the existence of one where Jesus came (from one of the other universes) and healed lepers and turned water into wine and then after dying on a Cross, returned back from whence He came - shortly after bidding farewell to His disciples and promising that He would be back.

An infinite number of universes does not necessarily mean an infinite number of different universes.

actually, it does.

- - - Updated - - -

My layman's view of statistical arguments is that one can use statistics to demonstrate the likelihood or non-likelihood of anything to any degree one wishes. It just all depends on how you frame the argument and apply the statistics. The likelihood of any one event is just about zero. Given events the likelihood of an event changes.

I'd say this phrase fits the issue well: Statistics don't lie, people lie with statistics

It is a proven fact that 86.72% of all statistics are completely made up.

 

[remez]

Hello,

Apologists use the argument that statistically speaking, the universe would more than likely have formed in such a way it either never could have formed any atoms, just subatomic particles or if atoms were formed it would have taken so long they would have never been anything other than hydrogen and helium. The atoms by that time would have been so sprwad out they would not have formed any stars, ect.

I may not be repeating the argument just right but I think you all have heard something along these lines.

The the apologist argues since our universe was statistically speaking the odd one out it must have been made by a creator.

Of course statistics, even if their argument is true our universe would be the less likely one, would not prove God made it or had to have made it.

Please provide a citation of this apologetical argument.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hello,

Apologists use the argument that statistically speaking, the universe would more than likely have formed in such a way it either never could have formed any atoms, just subatomic particles or if atoms were formed it would have taken so long they would have never been anything other than hydrogen and helium. The atoms by that time would have been so sprwad out they would not have formed any stars, ect.

I may not be repeating the argument just right but I think you all have heard something along these lines.

The the apologist argues since our universe was statistically speaking the odd one out it must have been made by a creator.

Of course statistics, even if their argument is true our universe would be the less likely one, would not prove God made it or had to have made it.

Please provide a citation of this apologetical argument.

William Craig Lane
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument

It's known as the fine tuning argument.

 

[remez]

The the apologist argues since our universe was statistically speaking the odd one out it must have been made by a creator.

Please provide a citation of this apologetical argument.

William Craig Lane
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/trans...uning-argument

It's known as the fine tuning argument.

here is the fine-tuning argument....

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god#ixzz4We7yanF5

Then where in the argument does it say what BH said it did in my quote above?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Read WCL's bloody damned argument. It's real, real clear. Do I really need to spoon feed you at every step?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god#ixzz4We7yanF5

It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design. For that reason, as I said earlier, the best hope for the multiverse hypothesis is theism: God could have created a World Ensemble brimming with deliberately finely tuned worlds.


Conclusion

In conclusion the multiverse hypothesis does nothing to eliminate the need for a creator and designer of the universe. Whether or not a multiverse exists, one needs a transcendent, personal creator and designer of the cosmos.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god#ixzz4WecHZVql
​

 

[Lion IRC]

remez is right.

It doesn't say "must have been".

It says "plausibly".

I think a good way to differentiate between;

- design, order, systems, laws, rules, predictability, coherence, etc

and

- disorder, chaos, undesigned, anarchy, incoherence, randomness, etc

...is the presence of causation resulting from creative personal intent (mind)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

remez is right.

It doesn't say "must have been".

It says "plausibly".

I think a good way to differentiate between;

- design, order, systems, laws, rules, predictability, coherence, etc

and

- disorder, chaos, undesigned, anarchy, incoherence, randomness, etc

...is the presence of causation resulting from creative personal intent (mind)

It says, "one needs a transcendent, personal creator and designer of the cosmos."


You are both wrong.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning

 

[remez]

Read WCL's bloody damned argument. It's real, real clear. Do I really need to spoon feed you at every step?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god#ixzz4We7yanF5

It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design. For that reason, as I said earlier, the best hope for the multiverse hypothesis is theism: God could have created a World Ensemble brimming with deliberately finely tuned worlds.


Conclusion

In conclusion the multiverse hypothesis does nothing to eliminate the need for a creator and designer of the universe. Whether or not a multiverse exists, one needs a transcendent, personal creator and designer of the cosmos.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god#ixzz4WecHZVql
​

Straight up....I'm trying to show you where BH, with your support, created a straw man of the FTA. You altered the reasoning of the FTA by substituting the reasoning he offered against an objection to the FTA as the reasoning of the FTA itself. And I'm not sure that you even see it. You are still defending your straw man.

Read WCL's bloody damned argument. It's real, real clear. Do I really need to spoon feed you at every step?

again.....

here is the fine-tuning argument....

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The argument says nothing about your presented multiverse. Hold on I'll address your multiverse in a min...stay with me.
BH......

The the apologist argues since our universe was statistically speaking the odd one out it must have been made by a creator.

That is a straw man. That is not the logic of the argument.

What BH and you were doing was incorrectly concluding that WLC's response to a counter offered against the argument was actually the logic of the argument itself. The multiverse was offered as a counter against premise 2. And WLC responded as you quoted. I do not deny that, I actually agree with it. But his response to the multiverse is not the FTA itself.

To substitute that the reasoning of WLC's response to the multiverse counter for the actual logic of the FTA is to create a straw man. Thus all of you here in this thread thinking that you were mocking theism were mocking a silly straw man.

I see this a lot.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

WCL tells us right up that the Universe needs a creator, that fine tuning is not a possibility with naturalism. Of course it is wrong. But this is the counter argument to the idea of a multi-Universe.

Yes there are strawmen. A lot of apologisms are not proofs or evidence, but Plantigan style defenses. Trying to shift burden of proof while not actually proving anything themselves all too often. And of course, a lot of these apolgists use a lot of slippery rhetoric and weasel words to avoid being pinned down. It's part of the game.

The FTA is the heart of WCL's argument, but obfuscated by other rhetorical ploys he uses.

Basically underneath it all is the claim God created all de nova, not that there is a natural world that exists along side God, not created or controlled by God. We all know this. Multi-Universe is the argument that demonstrates it is logically possible to have a fine tuned Universe without God. So that has to be undermined by the theists such as WCL.

There is a difference between a theology and a defense. Unable to directly prove existence of God, the apologists need to undermine naturalism. This is what it is all about.

The organizing principle here is that God created all, plans all, and that naturalism is not true.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well duh.
Of course the attempted conclusion is a theistic causal agent.

Try focussing on the premisses. Which one of them is less plausible than their negation?

 

[Lion IRC]

Why is the atheistic (negation) premise of an infinite number of uncaused
universes, multiverses, omniverses magically popping into and out of existence spontaneously somehow MORE plausible than the ONE 13.7 billion year old 'singularity' universe we have which appears to have 'laws' governing its otherwise unexplained existence?

 

[bilby]

Why is the atheistic (negation) premise of an infinite number of uncaused
universes, multiverses, omniverses magically popping into and out of existence spontaneously somehow MORE plausible than the ONE 13.7 billion year old 'singularity' universe we have which appears to have 'laws' governing its otherwise unexplained existence?

Because they are implied by quantum mechanics, which we have tested, and we know it works.

Nothing testable implies gods.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why is the atheistic (negation) premise of an infinite number of uncaused
universes, multiverses, omniverses magically popping into and out of existence spontaneously somehow MORE plausible than the ONE 13.7 billion year old 'singularity' universe we have which appears to have 'laws' governing its otherwise unexplained existence?

We know there is a material Universe. And we have unravelled a lot of the mystery about how this Universe came to be, the science is solid and testable. And it indicates strongly the fact that this Universe is not all there is to the material Universe. And the multiuniverse is reasonable and is directly implied by what we know of the formation of this pocket Universe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Across the street people turn bits of the universe into a magic spaceman every week and then they eat the spaceman together while they sing songs and engage in ritualistic behaviors. I think they do this to make sure their lives and the rest of the universe don't come to an unfortunate early end.

It seems odd to me, certainly bordering on mental illness with psychosis, but that's what they do.

I mention it here because apologists would argue that those people wouldn't do these things unless the spaceman was real.

 

[remez]

As I have told you. WLC is a classical apologist. Generally, here is what that means. He feels that the proper approach to apologetics is this. You can't presuppose God exists because that would be circular reasoning. You must develop a case that he does exist. That means you have to provide, support and defend good arguments and reasons that he does exist. The FTA is just one argument of many. So with that spoon fed context lets examine YOUR presuppositions......

WCL tells us right up that the Universe needs a creator,

No he does not. This particular argument CONCLUDES that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning we observe. There is no assumption of a creator. This argument is not arguing FROM a creator. It is arguing FOR the best explanation of the observed fine-tuning.

that fine tuning is not a possibility with naturalism

That is a debatable position to hold. You offered the objection of a multiverse to support that chance is the better explanation. So make your case. The quote you had of WLC regarding this, was only his conclusion that the multiverse does not point to a natural cause. So when you make your case please show me where he reasoning for that conclusion was wrong.

Many others have levied this objection and WLC has addressed this objection as you have quoted. So against his reasoning why do you still hold that chance is the better explanation. You can't just presuppose your position (post 33). Convince me. Show me where his reasoning against the multiverse is wrong and therefore chance is the better option. Here is your "CHANCE" on the line.

Yes there are strawmen. A lot of apologisms are not proofs or evidence,

Then your part is to defeat the argument not just presuppose your position. Defend your position.

Trying to shift burden of proof while not actually proving anything themselves all too often. And of course, a lot of these apolgists use a lot of slippery rhetoric and weasel words to avoid being pinned down. It's part of the game.

Very fair claim.
Make your case for that here with the FTA.
Just asserting your general concern does nothing. Make your case.

The FTA is the heart of WCL's argument,

You just said the argument is at the heart of the argument. That does not make sense. I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you meant that the FTA is at the heart of his case.

And to that...... I would say its more like Exhibit C.

The FTA is the heart of WCL's argument, but obfuscated by other rhetorical ploys he uses.

Again show me where. It's all part of the debate. I can say the same of your position just as easily. But when I feel that has occurred I point it out and provide reasons for my objections. Classic example...Lawrence Krauss' equivocation of nothing.

Make your case.

Basically underneath it all is the claim God created all de nova,

NO
That is what the cumulative set of arguments are trying to prove, not assume. This is classical apologetics not presuppositional. So..............
What is wrong with trying to provide evidence for your point?

not that there is a natural world that exists along side God, not created or controlled by God. We all know this.

You are the one acting like a presuppositionalist....."We all know this." Make your case.

Multi-Universe is the argument that demonstrates it is logically possible to have a fine tuned Universe without God. So that has to be undermined by the theists such as WCL.

No.
The multiverse is not an argument. It is a theoretical cosmological model that is often offered as an objection to suggest that chance is the better explanation of the observed fine-tuning.
so...............

So that has to be undermined by the theists such as WCL.

No.
It is debated and the conclusions weighed.

Are you suggesting that just because you are objecting to the FTA with the multiverse theory, therefore the FTA fails without debate?

Of course he needs to address the objection. That's how debates work. You are presupposing that your objection is better. I don't buy it, so make your case.

There is a difference between a theology and a defense. Unable to directly prove existence of God, the apologists need to undermine naturalism. This is what it is all about.

No.
An argument is not presupposed as fact so it must be supported and defended.
Similarly.....
An objection is not presupposed as fact so it needs to be supported and defended.
That is what it is all about.

Seriously yours is the approach that is presuppositional.

The organizing principle here is that God created all, plans all, and that naturalism is not true.

Again no.
That is the debate.
You are just presupposing your position and I'm asking you to support and defend it.

Sorry if that seems too negative.
Not everything can be so Cheery Charlie.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Vast numbers of Christians most certainly do presuppose God exists. That the Bible is revelation from God and is trustworthy when it claims there is a God and that he created everything. Yes, WCL is an apologist. That is the point. His underlying theology presupposes God exists and the Bible is revelation. This has been dogma in various Christian sects for centuries.

Apologists try to bolster these claims by attacking skeptical claims that deny these basic Dogmas. And here, things like Fine Tuning Arguments and such come into play. Some apologist arguments are meant to counter intra-Christian debates, Calvanism vs Arminism for example. Catholocism vs protestantism. Some apologisms are aimed at science that undermines religious dogma.

You are seeing the forest but don't see the trees.

 

[Lion IRC]

William Lane Craig was an atheist/agnostic prior to becoming a Christian.
How can he be a presupposionalist?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Plantingian defenses. This is an attempt to bolster Christianity by making claims that shift the burden of proof to religious skeptics. Mostly strawmen.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2504

Here is Plantinga on defense.

"[SIZE=+0]Both these comments, I believe, conceal confusion. The Free Will Defense is not a theodicy, and it is not an attempt to explain the existence of evil; it is a defense. In particular, it is a defense against the charge of inconsistency or contradiction. Numberless hordes of atheologians have claimed that a proposition most theists believe -- God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good -- islogically inconsistent with another proposition they believe, namely, that there is evil (or that there is some specific kind of evil such as e.g., nonmoral evil)."

Theology and defense are different things.
[/SIZE]

 

[blastula]

WLC doesn't really care about arguments, logic or evidence as actual proofs. The "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" trumps all else.

Mark Smith - Contra Craig

In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.


He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.

Craig thinks Christianity is a properly basic belief. Reasonable Faith - Belief in God as Properly Basic

In application to the witness of the Holy Spirit, my claim is that God can so powerfully warrant Christian beliefs that they become intrinsic defeaters of the defeaters lodged against them, so that, yes, they remain both properly basic and warranted.

 

[Lion IRC]

No, what WLC is saying is that direct personal experience is properly basic.
Eg. If a scientist detects evidence, they are warranted in their belief that their sensory experience of that evidence is worth something. Reality and our sensation of reality is properly basic.

And there is a stronger foundation for believing in the empirical evidence we derive from our senses than there is for accepting the unsupported claim of a skeptic who simply asserts
"no, you didn't experience the Holy Spirit William Lane Craig, you must be delusional or lying"

How does someone else verifiably know what William Lane Craig did or did not experience? They have no 'proper basis' to make assertions about another person reality.