statistical argument used by apologists

[BH]

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

I forgot to put something in my posts about the watch and the universe, not that it might make a difference anyway. The thing is that a watch is not like our universe with rare life. It is more like the bunch of statistical universe more than likely going to be nothing but gas and nothing more. Watches are not like Paley said, you just find one on a beach. Watches are everywhere, billions of them. This is why I was comparing the watch argument and the more than likely gas only universes. I left it out. Serves me right posting while tired after getting off work.

 

[BH]

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

Paley's argument is a fine tuning argument in favor of a creator of a watch rather than a random creation from nature of a watch. But he was wrong in that he presents watches as rare and found singly only on a beach when in reality there have been millions if not billions of watches made by creators. Our statistically most likely universe is supposed to be nothing but gas and subatomic particles, and nothing as big as stars or planets. If statistically speaking watches which number in the millions and billions are still most likely statistically to have been made by creator and you deduce a creator for watches for that reason then it only seems to me that the most common universe statistically speaking of nothing more than gas and subatomic particles would be the proof of a creator, not the rare one like ours with life. And our little thinking helium atom in the op would be justified in his belief. Our rare one would prove due to its rarity it was not made by a creator but by the works of nature. And as for a watch--if you found one that was made by natural processes how would you be able to tell it was made by natural processes anyway? That's another probem with Paley's argument. If you found a watch made by nature on its own how would you know it to be so?

Please bear with me. I am not as sophisticated philisophically speaking as you and rezan and Lion are. I am having to read and realize my point is not getting across as I wish to be due to my ignorance of how to frame arguments in a philosophical and in depth manner as I wish. That is my fault and not you guys and girls.

 

[BH]

Just fyi I went back and edited my post before this one one more time just in case you read it before I edited it.

 

[bilby]

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.

An infinite timeline can be bounded at one end. Just not both.

Just because the universe has an end, that's no reason to conclude that it has a beginning.

Of course, the heat death of the universe isn't the end of the universe itself anyway. It's just the end of anything interesting happening.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think people tend to conflate "Random" with "Uniformly Distributed". We only get to observe the one universe, so we have no idea what the probability distribution for "all possible outcomes" might look like.

Some more thoughts here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4507-The-Problem-With-Odds

aa

 

[bilby]

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

Paley's argument is a fine tuning argument in favor of a creator of a watch rather than a random creation from nature of a watch. But he was wrong in that he presents watches as rare and found singly only on a beach when in reality there have been millions if not billions of watches made by creators. Our statistically most likely universe is supposed to be nothing but gas and subatomic particles, and nothing as big as stars or planets. If statistically speaking watches which number in the millions and billions are still most likely statistically to have been made by creator and you deduce a creator for watches for that reason then it only seems to me that the most common universe statistically speaking of nothing more than gas and subatomic particles would be the proof of a creator, not the rare one like ours with life. And our little thinking helium atom in the op would be justified in his belief. Our rare one would prove due to its rarity it was not made by a creator but by the works of nature. And as for a watch--if you found one that was made by natural processes how would you be able to tell it was made by natural processes anyway? That's another probem with Paley's argument. If you found a watch made by nature on its own how would you know it to be so?

Please bear with me. I am not as sophisticated philisophically speaking as you and rezan and Lion are. I am having to read and realize my point is not getting across as I wish to be due to my ignorance of how to frame arguments in a philosophical and in depth manner as I wish. That is my fault and not you guys and girls.

As you say, Paley's watch fails as an argument because it contradicts itself. He remarks upon the watch because it's out of place - surrounded by nature, the watch stands out as a designed object. But then he goes on to say that nature is clearly also designed, because it's just like the watch. In which case, why was the watch remarkable to begin with?

Fine-tuning arguments are not the same thing at all. They are quite distinct from The Paley's Watch argument, and are wrong for very different reasons.

 

[remez]

The main question from post 52....

If those two claims are true why use the statistical argument I mention in the op anyway?

I mean this politely......you (and others) are confused. Please allow me an attempt me to clarify the apologetic......

Since WLC seems to be the common ground of discussion here allow me to be specific to that common ground.

There are several different arguments that exist for the existence of God. In a typical debate regarding if God exists, WLC usually proceeds thru five different arguments to make a case for Christian Theism. In this order the LCA, KCA, FTA, MA and the historical evidence of the Resurrection. Note the design of the approach and I state this briefly. Establish by use of the LCA that there has to be a necessary eternal first cause. Move on to narrow the field of what the first cause must be by presenting the KCA. Provide more support with the FTA which is your stats concern. Narrow further to Theism with the MA. Then narrow the theism field with the Resurrection. Thus along the way, demonstrate all other worldviews is less reasonable. Again that was overwhelmingly abbreviated. I'm not trying to defend the entire apologetic and it's implications here. Only trying to clarify a particular path of apologetic reasoning for theism.
So..............

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.

Sort of....but you are conflating the LCA and KCA and that creates a confusion. Thus your conflation presents the apologetical reasoning as oversimplified and poor to say the least. Further to intentionally or unintentionally create this distortion by this conflation is to make a straw man out of the apologetic. To be completely fair to you, I believe your conflation was unintentional.

If those two claims are true why use the statistical argument I mention in the op anyway?

Because the fine-tuning is a different aspect of the universe that we are trying to address.
to quote CC......

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.

Precisely. So...Is it due to physical necessity, chance or design?

The FTA is addressing a different aspect of the observable universe then does the LCA and KCA. The LCA and KCA dealt with the issues of eternity and cause whereas the FTA addresses the issue of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning is an issue of mathematics, therefore any discussion of fine-tuning would need to address statistics.
Further...........

or "this statistically proves god made the universe."

Reminder the FTA is only one argument that is part of the cumulative case. The FTA does not conclude there is a creator. It concludes that the best explanation for the observed fine-tuning is design. Thus that conclusion helps build the case for a creator.

It is not the entire case as you purported in the OP. Doing so would again diminish the reasoning of the apologetic by creating yet another straw man. That is what I originally intended for you to discover when I asked for a citation of where an apologist actually made the straw man argument as you purported. Again to be fair, I do not think this straw man was intentional either. Some of the others????

Finally. Please keep in mind, that was a very brief attempt to clarify the apologetic directed at your concern, not to defend the apologetic itself.

Hope that helps.

 

[remez]

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

Noted.

I would advocate for one small but very important distinction ...... It is the FTA not the FTH.
But......
I thank you for that statement.

 

[Sarpedon]

Of course, the heat death of the universe isn't the end of the universe itself anyway. It's just the end of anything interesting happening.

A meaningless distinction for the purposes of this argument. A building that is reduced to a pile of rubble is called 'destroyed,' a universe with no matter reduced to a fraction of a degree over absolute zero can also be called destroyed.

The persistence of the universe after its 'purpose' has been fulfilled is contrary to the religious argument. The length of time between the universe being made uninhabitable and the ultimate heat death is considerable. The idea of a purposeless universe is terrifying to them. If you can get them to admit that the universe could continue to exist after its purpose is fulfilled, the next thing to ask is 'how do you know that hasn't already happened?'

 

[Sarpedon]

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

Wrong, the fine tuning argument is not a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified. It cannot be falsified because it is based on assumptions about the constants of the universe that have not been adequately established. The so called 'scientific facts' you speak of are in fact assumptions.

We can't know if life is impossible if the conditions of the universe were different, because we can't know if it is possible for these conditions to be different, as I alluded to in my first post.

 

[Juma]

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.

this doesnt make sense. You must have misunderstood the argument.
It goes like this:

Argument 1 goes:
A universe with can have people in it is unlikely
Thus a creator is necessary.

Argument 2 goes:
A watch created by chance is a unlikely.
Thus a clock creator is necessary.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On the heat death of the Universe, it has been estimated that black holes should evaporate and disappear at about 1 X 10**100 years. But that is matter. As far as dark matter and dark energy goes, nobody knows. Of course the energy field that allows virtual particles to come and go seems to remain. Which can over time create new pocket Universes.
As the Universe expands, there is more chance of the sort of quantum fluctuation that created this Universe to create more pocket Universes, as per Alan Guth's theory. So the heat dead Universe would only, theoretically, be a phase of the Universe, not the total and final end of the Universe.

Of course, since we know almost nothing about dark matter, dark energy, why we have the field that allows us to have virtual particles and why there are dimensions and what the most basic underlying principles of existence of the multiverse, we can't really say much about any of this.

 

[Lion IRC]

Some people will take ANY explanation ahead of theistic fine-tuning (teleology)
Where is Occam when you need him?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

Wrong, the fine tuning argument is not a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified. It cannot be falsified because it is based on assumptions about the constants of the universe that have not been adequately established. The so called 'scientific facts' you speak of are in fact assumptions.

We can't know if life is impossible if the conditions of the universe were different, because we can't know if it is possible for these conditions to be different, as I alluded to in my first post.

The fact that there are numerous constants that have to be in a very narrow range for the Universe to exist is fact, and may or may not be explainable.

This is the hook that theists hang their theory the Universe must be designed on. It's a hypothesis, if not a good one, that judgment depending on your perspective. Having a hypothesis and demonstrating a hypothesis is true are two different things. This is a foot-in-the-door argument for theism, offering a way to prevent naturalism from excluding God altogether as a possibility.

 

[bilby]

Some people will take ANY explanation ahead of theistic fine-tuning (teleology)
Where is Occam when you need him?

He's over there, wondering why you think that special pleading to declare your 'god' a simple entity is supposed to impress anyone.

An intelligent designer (based on our experience of such designers) is a hugely complex entity that requires an enormous amount of time, energy and resources to evolve. Any hypothesis that assumes the existence of such an entity from nothing, either by its spontaneous coming to be, or by it's having persisted eternally, is doing such violence to poor Occam as to leave him a faint plasma of expanding monatomic gases.

But you excuse your god from the rules, because reason and logic don't apply when they fail to support your favourite hypotheses, do they?

 

[blastula]

No, what WLC is saying is that direct personal experience is properly basic.

No, he isn't. WLC is a conman, but even he knows the term "properly basic" applies to beliefs not experiences. A belief can be based on an experience, that makes it properly basic within the context of other knowledge, but he hasn't shown that belief based on witness of the alleged Holy Spirit should be "properly basic." He does nothing better than merely assert it.

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.

This was wrong the first time you tried to argue this and still is, as far as it is equating scientific observation to subjective religious belief.

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"

No, there is a better foundation to doubt claims that only rely on subjective belief and no good support otherwise.

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.

The same way I can reasonably doubt when someone says:
-I saw a ghost
-I am Napoleon
-I just flew in from Seattle and my are tired from flapping

And as most of us atheist were at one time theists, so we know what the experience of theistic belief is like, and that religious experience is crappy evidence for theism, which is why we ultimately rejected that belief.

 

[blastula]

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?

False equivalence. I, at least, don't argue that theists "must be lying or deliberately suppressing the truth." That's a strawman. I believe most are simply mistaken. And if you wan to be taken seriously that a god is talking to somebody, you at the minimum have to first demonstrate this god.

 

[remez]

On the heat death of the Universe, it has been estimated that black holes should evaporate and disappear at about 1 X 10**100 years. But that is matter. As far as dark matter and dark energy goes, nobody knows. Of course the energy field that allows virtual particles to come and go seems to remain. Which can over time create new pocket Universes.
As the Universe expands, there is more chance of the sort of quantum fluctuation that created this Universe to create more pocket Universes, as per Alan Guth's theory. So the heat dead Universe would only, theoretically, be a phase of the Universe, not the total and final end of the Universe.

Of course, since we know almost nothing about dark matter, dark energy, why we have the field that allows us to have virtual particles and why there are dimensions and what the most basic underlying principles of existence of the multiverse, we can't really say much about any of this.

Citation for the Guth theory please.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On the heat death of the Universe, it has been estimated that black holes should evaporate and disappear at about 1 X 10**100 years. But that is matter. As far as dark matter and dark energy goes, nobody knows. Of course the energy field that allows virtual particles to come and go seems to remain. Which can over time create new pocket Universes.
As the Universe expands, there is more chance of the sort of quantum fluctuation that created this Universe to create more pocket Universes, as per Alan Guth's theory. So the heat dead Universe would only, theoretically, be a phase of the Universe, not the total and final end of the Universe.

Of course, since we know almost nothing about dark matter, dark energy, why we have the field that allows us to have virtual particles and why there are dimensions and what the most basic underlying principles of existence of the multiverse, we can't really say much about any of this.

Citation for the Guth theory please.

https://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402

Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" book.

Google Alan Guth, inflationary Universe, you tube for numerous Guth video's explaining the concept.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2010.web.dir/Hannah_Bilafer/Alan Guth Homepage.html
Alan Guth's website. The horses mouth.

Plus about a billion online sites explaining Guth's theories.


From his book, "The Inflationary Universe":

He asserts, “such a localized big bang does not yet have an accepted name… I will call such a region a ‘pocket universe’… our entire observed universe is believed to be only a minute fraction of one of these pocket universes. The pocket universe… is only a minute fraction of all that exists… The process… goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at an ever-increasing rate… Thus, a region of false vacuum does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes! In the cosmic shopping mall, an infinity of pocket universes can be purchased for the price of one… As the pocket universes live out their lives and recollapse or dwindle away, new universes are generated to take their place… While life in our pocket universe will presumably die out, life in the universe as a whole will thrive for eternity… eternal inflation … implies a panoramic view of the whole universe that captures the same emotional appeal as the steady-state theory.” (Pg. 246-248)

 

[BH]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.