statistical argument used by apologists

[bilby]

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.

Then he is making a truly childish error. Kindergarteners know this claim to be false. So why doesn't WLC?

http://www.optics4kids.org/home/content/illusions/

 

[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.

We can test notion of 'properly basic' belief by applying it to someone who says they have never experienced sensus divinatus.

Imagine if I were to tell an atheist that they must have sensed God.
They insist they haven't. I say yes you have. They say no.

I tell them they must be lying or deliberately suppressing the truth because they don't like the idea. They disagree.

I tell them in that case their God antenna must obviously be broken. (Deluded/mentally ill)

Such an atheist would be right to demand an explanation from me as to how I could possibly know their lived experience (evidence). On what basis can I assert that they HAVE experienced God when their properly basic belief is to trust their real lack of experience of God?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

We can test notion of 'properly basic' belief by applying it to someone who says they have never experienced sensus divinatus.

Imagine if I were to tell an atheist that they must have sensed God.
They insist they haven't. I say yes you have. They say no.

I tell them they must be lying or deliberately suppressing the truth because they don't like the idea. They disagree.

I tell them in that case their God antenna must obviously be broken. (Deluded/mentally ill)

Such an atheist would be right to demand an explanation from me as to how I could possibly know their lived experience (evidence). On what basis can I assert that they HAVE experienced God when their properly basic belief is to trust their real lack of experience of God?

The answer from Calvin (and others) is, original sin. Original sin has damaged our sensus divinatus.
Only God can help us, if he chooses, and nothing we can do will help.

The skeptic answers, there is no SD. It's just a false claim. If God is good, just, merciful, and compassionate, why would God allow original sun to exist?

 

[remez]

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 they do. They would not likely be presenting the FTA as evidence for Gods existence. They already assume it. Get it?

Yes, WCL is an apologist. That is the point. His underlying theology presupposes God exists and the Bible is revelation.

If WLC was a presuppositionalist he would not be presenting the FTA as evidence for the existence of God.
Think it through.

Some apologist arguments are meant to counter intra-Christian debates, Calvanism vs Arminism for example. Catholocism vs protestantism.

Technically those would be polemics.

Some apologisms are aimed at science that undermines religious dogma.

No
The aim is not at science.
Science is often used to support and defend the premises in arguments that conclude God's existence.
Why in the universe would we attack good science?
Now naturally this means we may use one cosmology to challenge another. I'm thinking multiverse here. But that is the way it should be. Your baseless assertions of attacks on science is just you whining about the fact that your favored science was not as good as the science we used to combat it.

The REAL aim is answering the call to provide reasons to believe God exists. Granted I now have good reason to believe that God exists. But....... If I'm going to attempt to convince someone else God exists. I'm certainly not going start by telling them..... well first you have to believe he exists and then etc. Circular reasoning.

I have been challenged to provide evidence for my belief many times. I have a reputation that invites this sort of conversation. I can assure you I never begin with the notion that you must presuppose God exists in order to know God exists. Enough of your whining and distortions...........

......... how does your multiverse better position chance as the best explanation for fine-tuning? Did someone tell you that or what? Seriously lets get some science in here. Make your case already.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

I have a five dollar bill in my wallet. Ergo I am a billionaire. That's how WLC uses evidence.

 

[BH]

Hello,

I presented the argument in the op as I heard it a couple of times. If there was a more sophisticated version of it out there or one a little different but similar that made more logical sense I was unaware.

My point is that I have heard street apologists say that statistically speaking it is unlikely our universe formed on its own by chance. The likelyhood statistically speaking is that it would have turned out to be nothing more at most than helium and hydrogen.

All I did was flip it and let the universe, based on these statistics, be mostly hydrogen and helium but with the caveat a hydrogen atom could think and figure out that statistically speaking its type of universe was more likely to be the one that existed than one like ours. The little atom concludes that this must have been God's desire since its the one most likely.

But it wasn't. It was just chance. How do you convince the little atom God didn't do it it was just chance in his universe's favor?

Forget what other people may have said. The argument about our universe is being offered by people on the street. Deal with it in the form it has been presented and not what some William Lane Craig has argued. His and these street apologists are offering similar but yet somewhat different arguments it seems to me.

 

[Sarpedon]

What? The universe is mostly hydrogen and helium. The rest is inconsequential. It only seems consequential because we happen to live on it.

Do you have street philosophers in Texas? Somehow, I was picturing Texas differently. We get the occasional street preacher here, but they generally don't talk about science other than to say it is bad.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think BH was referring to people who are sometimes called 'tent-maker' apologists.

Amateurs like me who, (as Tim McGrew puts it,) "swim in the intellectual shallow end of the pool".

 

[Lion IRC]

...My point is that I have heard street apologists say that statistically speaking it is unlikely our universe formed on its own by chance. The likelyhood statistically speaking is that it would have turned out to be nothing more at most than helium and hydrogen.

That's right. They do say that. And more.
Because they/we argue that out of all the conceivable types of universes God
could have made, He chose to make this one.
And by definition, if He made it, it's designed a certain, intentional way.
Whether we regard His handiwork as intelligent or 'finely' tuned is beside the point.
The point is, it's TUNED not the result of a whirlwind moving thru a junk yard and by pure chance a Boeing 747 is the result.

...All I did was flip it and let the universe, based on these statistics, be mostly hydrogen and helium but with the caveat a hydrogen atom could think and figure out that statistically speaking its type of universe was more likely to be the one that existed than one like ours. The little atom concludes that this must have been God's desire since its the one most likely.

But it wasn't. It was just chance. How do you convince the little atom God didn't do it it was just chance in his universe's favor?.

You would try to convince the little observer atom the same way atheist street preachers do. By telling him that his plain old boring vanilla universe is just one of a gazzilion multiverses which have existed on and off for an eternity and that some are boring and others interesting and that if he waits long enough he might be lucky enough to disappear from the boring one and reappear sometime later in a more complex universe which has people and stuff.

The problem with any counter-apologetic against the statitistical improbability of fine tuning is that they all rely on 'probability' claims.

How probable is it that this universe has always existed?

How probable is it that this universe could be something 'other' than what it is?

How probable is it that there are an infinite number of finely tuned universes?

How probable is it that a Higher Being exists causing/creating differently tuned universes here there and everywhere?

 

[Sarpedon]

All I saw in that article was an exhortation to NOT engage in apologetics, but to work hard and donate to the church so the church can pay professionals to do the apologetics. Which surprises me not at all, because, in my view EVERYTHING a church does has as its goal to get people to donate more money to the church.

What BH seems to me to be describing is a kind of independent apologist, which that article you linked seems to be entirely against: Someone who goes out by himself and preaches things that are not mainstream teachings. I can see why the church would discourage that, because that's a message they can't control, and there's the risk that if the preacher is successful, he might set up his own church (which happens).

- - - Updated - - -

To be even more accurate: the universe is mostly dark-whatever.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hello,

I presented the argument in the op as I heard it a couple of times. If there was a more sophisticated version of it out there or one a little different but similar that made more logical sense I was unaware.

My point is that I have heard street apologists say that statistically speaking it is unlikely our universe formed on its own by chance. The likelyhood statistically speaking is that it would have turned out to be nothing more at most than helium and hydrogen.

All I did was flip it and let the universe, based on these statistics, be mostly hydrogen and helium but with the caveat a hydrogen atom could think and figure out that statistically speaking its type of universe was more likely to be the one that existed than one like ours. The little atom concludes that this must have been God's desire since its the one most likely.

But it wasn't. It was just chance. How do you convince the little atom God didn't do it it was just chance in his universe's favor?

Forget what other people may have said. The argument about our universe is being offered by people on the street. Deal with it in the form it has been presented and not what some William Lane Craig has argued. His and these street apologists are offering similar but yet somewhat different arguments it seems to me.

I pick on WCL because his website is a main repository of apologist arguments.

That will trickle down to others in some form or another. There are others who do the same but there is really little difference except maybe style. The boiled down street version is, our Universe cannot have come about by chance because the odds against that are so tremendous. So it must have been created by an intelligent creator. And the Universe was created to support life as we know it.

This argument only came about when scientists managed to create the calculations of various constants that seem so narrow for life to exist as we know it. And then searches for ways to explain that.

Google for anthropic principle for more. Naturally it didn't take long for Godidit to start making the rounds. Alan Guth came up with inflation, and described how the same physics that creates virtual particles can create a physical Universe. Which physics strongly implies a multiuniverse.

From here we get to this point. Some apologists are more sophisticated than others. WCL makes his website accessible to those who ask him about such things which means he has lots of stuff on his site that one can read that floats these apologies. He's not the only one, but it is all about the same in the end.

The short bumper sticker answer is the many constants of the Universe are so improbably by mere chance that God must have purposefully created the Universe as it is, for our benefit.

Try googling you tube, fine tuning argument for a fine array of arguments pro and con.

 

[BH]

What? The universe is mostly hydrogen and helium. The rest is inconsequential. It only seems consequential because we happen to live on it.

Do you have street philosophers in Texas? Somehow, I was picturing Texas differently. We get the occasional street preacher here, but they generally don't talk about science other than to say it is bad.

Yes, we have street philosophers in Texas and most of them try to pass as street preachers as well. I personally believe in a god. I have no problems with people trying to prove his existence. I do not like bad arguments though.

I have heard it said that there is no way for the universe to exist without god having made it because there can be nothing truly eternal in the natural realm. And the apologists say you can't have something come from nothing, therefore god made the universe. If those two claims are true why use the statistical argument I mention in the op anyway? Statistics simply have no place in the discussion. The universe couldn't be any other way than the way god made it . So whatever universe you would happen to find yourself in would have had to be fashioned by god. You can't say "This is how the universe would be statistically speaking if it formed on its own and was not formed by god" or "this statistically proves god made the universe." It would akin to me saying what my chances are to marry a nonexistent beautiful woman and have a family with her. You cannot statisticize the impossible and if the universe cannot exist without god making it then you cannot statisticize what the odds are of it forming without god making it. By trying to statisticize what the universe would be like if god did not make it you are saying you really don't believe the arguments about something not being able to come from nothing or that nothing in the natural world can be eternal.

 

[bilby]

What? The universe is mostly hydrogen and helium. The rest is inconsequential. It only seems consequential because we happen to live on it.

Do you have street philosophers in Texas? Somehow, I was picturing Texas differently. We get the occasional street preacher here, but they generally don't talk about science other than to say it is bad.

Yes, we have street philosophers in Texas and most of them try to pass as street preachers as well. I personally believe in a god. I have no problems with people trying to prove his existence. I do not like bad arguments though.

I have heard it said that there is no way for the universe to exist without god having made it because there can be nothing truly eternal in the natural realm. And the apologists say you can't have something come from nothing, therefore god made the universe. If those two claims are true why use the statistical argument I mention in the op anyway? Statistics simply have no place in the discussion. The universe couldn't be any other way than the way god made it . So whatever universe you would happen to find yourself in would have had to be fashioned by god. You can't say "This is how the universe would be statistically speaking if it formed on its own and was not formed by god" or "this statistically proves god made the universe." It would akin to me saying what my chances are to marry a nonexistent beautiful woman and have a family with her. You cannot statisticize the impossible and if the universe cannot exist without god making it then you cannot statisticize what the odds are of it forming without god making it. By trying to statisticize what the universe would be like if god did not make it you are saying you really don't believe the arguments about something not being able to come from nothing or that nothing in the natural world can be eternal.

"there is no way for the universe to exist without god having made it because there can be nothing truly eternal in the natural realm."

How can we know this? The First Law of Thermodynamics seems to imply that EVERYTHING in the natural realm is 'truly eternal'.

"And the apologists say you can't have something come from nothing, therefore god made the universe"

But if true, (and the premise is far from axiomatic), then that leaves us with the EXACT same problem of explaining the origins of god that we had with explaining the origins of the universe - all that has been done is to add an un-evidenced and unhelpful entity to the debate.

Any answer we come up with for the question 'Where did god come from?' could be applied directly to the universe - rendering god needless. Only by special pleading can a case be made for god's origins that cannot also apply to the universe itself.

God isn't only not THE answer, he can't even logically qualify as AN answer.

 

[BH]

Well, it seems to me these street preachers are contradicting themselves. First they say you can't have a universe because something can't come from nothing and then they say you can't have anything in the natural world be eternal, so the universe can't be eternal, so god made it. But then they go around and spout that such and such is what the universe would look like statistically speaking if god did not make it. It makes no sense. If it can't exist without god making it then don't claim statistically speaking it would somehow be different if god didn't make it . Make up your mind what you believe.

I really do not understand what the big deal is about philosophy anyway. The natural world is just what it is. Our philosophical speculations aside.

There was a man on youtube who used philosophy to prove you could make a rocket ship go faster than the speed of light and if you had lived in a time before Einstein proved the speed of light was the cosmic speed limit you would have seen no problem with the argument offered.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problems with revelation are well known. Which revelation? How do you interpret revelation? What do you do if revelation is obviously wrong, for example, two contradictory creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2?

You can have positive theology that tries to prove something, or negative theology that tries to disprove the idea that the natural world can be eternal and infinite et al. Philosophical questions provide some basis for such efforts. Bolstering revelation claims in general.

Findings of science are a part of this both for and against theological arguments. Theology is not monolithic. We have Bible literalists trying to square young Earth creationism with science, and progressive Christians that have abandoned that and taken up with guided evolution, but struggle with issues like original sin, joined at the hip with original sin/creation mythology.

It's a vast series of arguments that are often long and complex because one problem can spawn others and it's not easy to create a working systematic theology that ties up all the loose ends.

 

[BH]

Here is another thing I do not understand.

Why is it argued that the "fine tuning" as someone called it of the universe and resulting rarity of life like ours is used as a proof for god making it(statistically the universe should be dead if god did not make it or guide its creation) but it is the exact opposite with a watch found on the beach. The statistics favor a creator making a watch and are against it randomnly being created out of nature on its own. If a dead universe is statistically more likely then why isn't that interpreted as evidence of a creator since it is statistically more likely a watch is created than forms without a creator?

 

[Juma]

Here is another thing I do not understand.

Why is it argued that the "fine tuning" as someone called it of the universe and resulting rarity of life like ours is used as a proof for god making it(statistically the universe should be dead if god did not make it or guide its creation) but it is the exact opposite with a watch found on the beach. The statistics favor a creator making a watch and are against it randomnly being created out of nature on its own. If a dead universe is statistically more likely then why isn't that interpreted as evidence of a creator since it is statistically more likely a watch is created than forms without a creator?

It is. You got it wrong.
A creator of the universe is (said to be) needed since a world with humans in it by chance is (said to be) extremely unlikely.
The similarity with the watch is obvious.
(And the argumen by itself is bullshit of course)

 

[BH]

Here is another thing I do not understand.

Why is it argued that the "fine tuning" as someone called it of the universe and resulting rarity of life like ours is used as a proof for god making it(statistically the universe should be dead if god did not make it or guide its creation) but it is the exact opposite with a watch found on the beach. The statistics favor a creator making a watch and are against it randomnly being created out of nature on its own. If a dead universe is statistically more likely then why isn't that interpreted as evidence of a creator since it is statistically more likely a watch is created than forms without a creator?

It is. You got it wrong.
A creator of the universe is (said to be) needed since a world with humans in it by chance is (said to be) extremely unlikely.
The similarity with the watch is obvious.
(And the argumen by itself is bullshit of course)

Statistically it is more probable a watch is made by someone though, not accidentally made by nature. The watch made by nature is the rare one. The ones made by a creator common. so why wouldn't the most probable universe (one of hydrogen and helium gas with nothing more than subatomic particles, no stars, ect) be the definitive proof that god indeed made that universe, instead of our rarer life forming universe? I do not understand the logic why in one case the statistically most likely proves a creator and in the other case the statistically less likely is what proves the creator.

With the watch, a watch created out of the works of nature, not a creator, is the least likely to be found. A creator making a watch is the most likely source for a watch. But when we talk about universes it is flipped. The one most likely to occur is the one where there is no life maybe not even stars and it is attributed to nature acting on its own and less likely is the one attributed to a creator. What gives? Seems to be consistent you would argue the dead universe without life or stars would be the one the creator made since it is the most likely.

The universe we know, being the rare one, would be the one offered as proof god did not make it just as a watch made without a creator would be rare among those made by a creator.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Paley's watch is an analogy. The fine tuning argument is not an analogy, but a hypothesis based on scientific fact.

 

[Sarpedon]

I have heard it said that there is no way for the universe to exist without god having made it because there can be nothing truly eternal in the natural realm

Who says the universe is eternal? It looks like its headed for heat death. Irrelevant objection.