[Levi]

So the fallacy is that just because someone won a lottery, doesn’t mean that it was rigged?

[Algernon]

Rigged? You certainly have a way of consistently missing the point. Haven’t we already seen this movie?

Hopefully there’s someone out there that’s willing and able to actually address the issues raised in the OP. Perhaps even someone sharp enough to discern the underlying crux.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

So that wasn’t the fallacy?

Sorry. What is the fallacy in a nutshell?

[Fred]

“So the fallacy is that just because someone won a lottery, doesn’t mean that it was rigged?”

Are you suggesting that if anyone wins a lottery, it must have been rigged – because the odds were against it?

[Levi]

No.

For the universe, yes. Because it got many different constants just right: Gravity, the speed of light, the distance from the sun, the type of sun, the size of the sun, the size of the moon, the existence of a moon, etc. Do you think so? Why do you believe that?

Actually, I think I understood the fallacy a little more. Algernon, here I come.

[Pater]

The fact that Bill won a lottery is concrete evidence of a cause.

If we list “pure luck” as a possible cause, we then have to ask the question – “compared to what?” in order to validate that conclusion.

If Bill wins the lottery again, and then again, and then every week for a year, you might say that he had the same likelihood of winning each one, and that there is nothing remarkable about his lucky streak.

Not one single person on this planet would believe you. They would conclude an intelligent actor has somehow purposely swerved the odds in Bills favor.

The lottery doesn’t come close to the odds-against represented by the FTA.

For example, Bills odds of choosing a correct lottery number is 1 in 69, and Bill correctly choosing 6 numbers is 1 in 10^-8. The odds of the low starting entropy of the universe (just one of the FTA parameters) is 1 in -10^(10^123). That compares to Bill choosing one correct number, or 1 in 69, as I said.

Although estimates vary pretty widely, there are at very least 22 parameters of the FTA.

Of all the universes we know of (expanded instantly into existence with no cause out of nothing), this one, against 1 in -10^(10^123) odds, happened to expand instantly out of nothing with no cause having extremely low entropy.

Of course we don’t know of any other universes. There isn’t the slightest shred of evidence of any other universes.

Which might have been your point of the OP. People believe in God with no “solid” evidence in the case of the FTA. I disagree. I think the FTA offers solid, substantive evidence for design by an all-powerful God. And I would add that you have zero evidence for your beliefs.

So what do you do about that?

[Jabberwock]

If we have no evidence of other universes, how can we know that universes starting with high entropy are even possible?

[Pater]

A video of an atom bomb producing a golf course comes to mind. A high entropy result would seem to be more likely.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[Jabberwock]

A starting universe is not a RESULT by definition, so your answer does not pertain to the question.

[Pater]

You never fail to fixate on irrelevancies.

[Jabberwock]

Lol, it is your answer that is irrelevant. Your argument pertains the effects, I am asking about your basis for the probabilities for the cause.

[Pater]

You seem to be agreeing that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

Progress.

So we add to that that everything that begins to exist does so in a low entropy state, compared to its state once the starting is over.

That is a reliable signpost of intelligent design.

[Jabberwock]

No, I am pointing out that you are confused. Your atom bomb analogy does not work, as it concerns the effects, not the causes. Expecting that the causes behave like effects is an obvious fallacy.

[Pater]

Now I see the nature of your confusion. But it beats me what might be causing it. The effect of your confusion is your nonsense conclusion. My atom bomb analogy looks at the effects to discern a cause, just like every situation in history. No one ever expects a “cause to behave like its effects.”

(Eagerly awaiting your next irrelevant fixation)

[Jabberwock]

So you are just a step from understanding why your analogy does not work. You can do it!

When you are done, then you can try again at the answering the question: why think that high-entropy STARTING universes are possible?

[Pater]

Bam!

[Algernon]

Pater @Paterfamilia ,

Other universes? Zero evidence of my beliefs? It’s like a cavalcade of “red herrings”.

How about if you set aside all the red herrings? Set aside all the arguments you’ve previously heard against the FTA? Set aside all the arguments you’ve previously heard for the FTA? Do you think that you can do that?

Tell you what? I’ll walk you through it step-by-step.

Prior to Bill winning the lottery: Do you believe that his experiences were due to the lucky charm? Do you believe that it is reasonable for Bill to believe that they were due to the lucky charm? Why? or Why not? for each of the questions.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[Pater]

Um, set aside all the facts and listen to your tortured story?

If you think I don’t understand your point, that’s fine. Please present it in short factual statements.

Thanks

[Fred]

Pater: “If we list “pure luck” as a possible cause, we then have to ask the question – “compared to what?” in order to validate that conclusion.

If Bill wins the lottery again, and then again, and then every week for a year, you might say that he had the same likelihood of winning each one, and that there is nothing remarkable about his lucky streak.”

You created a different scenario. In the story, there is a single lottery win, not multiple. What would indicate that the lottery was rigged? Every possible winner has the same low probability chance of winning, so it’s a certainty that the winner would be a low probability. Only if there is a statistical anomaly should we suspect rigging.

Mulitple wins would indeed be a statistical anomoly, but the “universe lottery” is best seen as a single win. All universes* had an equally low chance of winning, so there’s no anomaly.

—————–

* where a universe is defined as a set of the fundamental constants – just like it takes a set of powerball numbers to define a winner.

Pater: ” I say “tortured” because your analogy uses a “lucky charm” in the place of the all-powerful, all knowing, all loving MGB creator of the universe. There isn’t any actual correspondence between the two, so the analogy fails.”

The FTA is supposed to be an argument that “proves” a creator exists. The existence of an MGB is not a premise – that would be circular. The analogy is fine: the charm may (or may not) be responsible for the lottery win. A hypothetical God may (or may not) be responsible for the win in the “universe lottery”. The “win” doesn’t constitute evidence for the charm (or God) being responsible.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Fred.

[Pater]

Fred said: “Mulitple wins would indeed be a statistical anomoly, but the “universe lottery” is best seen as a single win. All universes* had an equally low chance of winning, so there’s no anomaly.”

The odds against the low entropy of the universe is higher than winning a year’s worth of lotteries. And there are at least 21 other parameters in the “universe lottery”. Each parameter is a lottery on its own. So treating it as a single win is a grave error. We’d have to call it at least 22 wins. Given that there could logically be an infinite combination of parameters, the odds against are well beyond our understanding.

Fred said: “The FTA is supposed to be an argument that “proves” a creator exists. The existence of an MGB is not a premise – that would be circular. The analogy is fine: the charm may (or may not) be responsible for the lottery win. A hypothetical God may (or may not) be responsible for the win in the “universe lottery”. The “win” doesn’t constitute evidence for the charm (or God) being responsible.”

The FTA indicates a high probability of intelligent design. More probable than chance or necessity. I don’t think that point is arguable. Every analogy breaks down at the point where the substitutions have no similarities. I would say that luck, and God’s power in action, have no similarities, and are in fact near opposites. The erroneous conflation renders the analogy as nonsense.

[Pater]

Anyway,

@ Algernon – I say “tortured” because your analogy uses a “lucky charm” in the place of the all-powerful, all knowing, all loving MGB creator of the universe. There isn’t any actual correspondence between the two, so the analogy fails. And most believers don’t ground their faith on the words of an elderly relative. It’s usually a lot more complicated than that.

If you didn’t want the FTA to be involved, you could have picked a different target. Like sticking with the lottery or whatever. Nobody believes that a lucky charm is responsible.

The FTA is a powerful, factual argument that routinely gets hand-waved away by the weak arguments or false analogies of atheists who will generally will admit that they are quite lucky to be alive. In a cosmic lottery sense, that is.

@Jabberwock

A “starting” universe is the result of a cause. Something caused it to start. The result might be instantiation of matter, forces, or process. Maybe your definition of “starting” means it hasn’t actually “started” yet in fact. In which case there aren’t any “results” of the “starting” yet.

So, no golfing today, dang it.

[Algernon]

Pater @Paterfamilia ,

I say “tortured” because your analogy uses a “lucky charm” in the place of the all-powerful, all knowing, all loving MGB creator of the universe. There isn’t any actual correspondence between the two, so the analogy fails. And most believers don’t ground their faith on the words of an elderly relative. It’s usually a lot more complicated than that.

Evidently you don’t understand even the basics of how analogies work. The basic idea is that a comparison is made between two things that are similar in SOME respects – NOT all respects. Yet you point out how the two are different in a certain respect and then declare that the “analogy fails”. This is literally cringeworthy.

Um, set aside all the facts and listen to your tortured story?

If you think I don’t understand your point, that’s fine. Please present it in short factual statements.

Thanks

If you understood even the basics of how thought experiments work, you would not ask for it to be “present[ed] in short factual statements”. Also literally cringeworthy.

Understanding thought experiments requires reasonably good critical thinking skills and reasonably good conceptual thinking skills. Intellectual honesty is also required. Based on your responses thus far, you seem to fall well short.

I offered to walk you through it step-by-step, but you refused to engage in good faith. The offer is still open.

Hopefully there’s someone on this site that’s willing and able to actually address the issues raised in the OP and engage in good faith. No one that can bring reasonably good critical thinking skills, reasonably good conceptual thinking skills and intellectual honesty to the table?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Algernon.

[Pater]

I didn’t ask for you to explain your “thought experiment” in short factual statements. Thought experiments typically take the form of substitutions and alternate possible outcomes. So I’m not sure your story even qualifies. I asked you to make your point again, if you think I missed it.

In the OP you said this – “The reality is that there remains no solid evidence that the charm actually protects him from harm. The reality is that there remains no solid evidence that the charm actually bestows an occasional boon upon him. Bill’s continued experience with the charm had led him to continue to draw a false conclusion. Perhaps even more understandable, but still decidedly false. Bill’s line of thinking is absurdly backward. It is sophistry. There was no solid evidence before he won the lottery, there still was no solid evidence after he won the lottery. Things are not true just because one likes to believe them.”

That seems to explain your point pretty well. Short statements that you think are facts. You are implying that believers in God do so in spite of having no evidence. My point is that the FTA is the evidence. Not the only evidence, but strong evidence nevertheless.

And, as I said, there are no similarities between God and a lucky charm. Your analogy failed.

Perhaps your plea for someone on this site to engage your discussion, someone who is at least close to being as smart as you are, as unlikely as you seem to think that might be, fails to notice that you seem to have trouble catching up.

Any intellectual honesty on your end?

[Algernon]

With each passing post, you underscore the fact that you refuse to engage in good faith.

Yes, I do still hope that there’s someone on this site that’s willing and able to actually address the issues raised in the OP and engage in good faith. Someone that can bring reasonably good critical thinking skills, reasonably good conceptual thinking skills and intellectual honesty to the table.

One can only imagine you having gone to hear Jesus speak only to interrupt him after one of his parables to say: “Please present it in short factual statements.”

[Pater]

I googled the following interrogative:

“Which is worse, projection or denial?”

Needless to say, there is widespread disagreement. So I’ll ask here instead.

Projection – “Psychological projections are seductive but can create chaos in relationships. Toxic people use projection as a defense mechanism, attributing their issues onto you.”

Denial – “To be “in denial” is to be fooling yourself about the reality of your situation. If you stay up late watching TV on the eve of your AP Biology final, you are probably in denial about your lack of preparation for the test.”

Which of these is worse?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[James]

The argument presents the three options for the constants as chance, necessity or design. Design is arrived at by ruling out chance and necessity. The argument is unsound because the opening trilemma is actually a false trichotomy. Because it is logically possible for a designer to act arbitrarily, it could be that chance and design are both true. In addition, it is logically possible that God creates this universe in every metaphysically possible world. Under that scenario, the constants are designed and necessary.

Furthermore (and with respect to the first issue), assuming a designer does nothing to increase the odds of the constants being what they are. If the constants could have been different then that is true even if there is a designer and the constants being unlikely is still true by virtue of the particular choice made by the designer being unlikely. We are just lucky to find ourselves in a world where he chose the way he did.

[Algernon]

No comment on the content of the OP? You should probably start a different thread if you want to discuss what you posted.

The reason that I presented the “thought experiment” is because a more direct approach, as you’ve attempted here, never seems to get any traction. Thought that maybe by presenting a parallel scenario, some would recognize that they have a double standard. Few, if any, would deem Bill reasonable in believing that his experiences were due to the “lucky charm”. Even after Bill won the lottery. Or that his winning the lottery can reasonably be used as evidence that the “lucky charm” works.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Algernon.

[Levi]

I think I got your post a little more. Here is what you said: “The reality is that there remains no solid evidence that the charm actually protects him from harm.”

Why do you think it is so with the design hypothesis?

[Algernon]

<div>What you quoted from the OP is but one statement taken out of context from a thought experiment that illustrates the fallacy of a particular line of thinking. You first need to understand that line of thinking BEFORE trying to apply it to the FTA. There’s nothing in your post that indicates this.</div>

But tell you what. I’ll offer to walk you through it step-by-step just as I did with another poster who declined.

Prior to Bill winning the lottery: Do you believe that his experiences were due to the lucky charm? Do you believe that it is reasonable for Bill to believe that they were due to the lucky charm? Why? or Why not? for each of the questions.

[Levi]

I’ll take you up.

“Do you believe that his experiences were due to the lucky charm?”

No. Charms are just materials.

“Do you
believe that it is reasonable for Bill to believe that they were due to
the lucky charm?”

No. Charms are just materials. They are not capable of doing anything powerful.

[Algernon]

Of course. in Bill’s mind, given his grandfather’s experiences combined with his own, the most likely explanation was that the lucky charm worked. Their combined experiences confirmed it.

When Bill later won the lottery, that sealed the deal. Either it was due to chance or the lucky charm. In Bill’s mind, since the odds that it was due to chance were extremely low, the most reasonable explanation by far was that it was due to the lucky charm.

After Bill won the lottery: Do you believe that his experiences were due to the lucky charm? Do you believe that it is reasonable for Bill to believe that they were due to the lucky charm? Why? Or why not? for each of the questions.

[Levi]

“Of course. in Bill’s mind, given his grandfather’s experiences combined with his own, the most likely explanation was that the lucky charm worked. Their combined experiences confirmed it.”

If the experiences were true, then maybe the charm did work, ofc. the grandfather may be lying, etc.

“When Bill later won the lottery, that sealed the deal. Either it was due to chance or the lucky charm. In Bill’s mind, since the odds that it was due to chance were extremely low, the most reasonable explanation by far was that it was due to the lucky charm.”

Maybe.

“Do you believe that his experiences were due to the lucky charm?”

In my worldview, if that really happened, I wouldn’t believe it. I would think some demonic spirit was on it. Or I would think Bill was lying about the whole thing.

“Do you believe that it is reasonable for Bill to believe that they were due to the lucky charm? Why or why not?”

In our experience, no nonliving can do anything to affect living things (unless there’s a spirit behind it). I would need more evidence to prove his point. Ofc. there may be bias.

[Poul]

The OP elucidates how easy it is to come to the wrong conclusion when pondering the question of “Am I not lucky to be alive and able to ask this question?”. The theistic explanation is just one of a hundred probably wrong answers one could imagine.

Here is my two cents: The fine-tuning argument makes two assumptions, namely

A1: The values of the physical constants are arbitrary.

A2: There is only one universe.

Both of these assumptions are based on ignorance.

A1 rests on our ignorance of why the laws of nature and the constants in particular are what they are. Perhaps by now Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have made some progress. Probably not. Alas we cannot ask them, as they are both dead. I doubt we’ll ever figure it out. There doesn’t seem to be much progress.

A2 rests on the same myopic tendency that has always driven us. We used to think the Earth was flat until Aristotle (The authors of the Quran still thought so a thousand years later). Then, we used to think the world revolved around us. Until Nicolaus Copernicus, who gets the credit for explaining the heliocentric model of the Cosmos. Then we realised that the sun is just another star. Then, Edwin Hubble discovered that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies. Then we discovered that the visible Universe is only about 14 billion years old. But that is as far as observation is possible. We’ll never know if the Universe is all there is or ever was. Personally, I would observe that history has shown us the world is bigger than we imagined. And if the birth of the Universe could happen once, why not twice or billions of times? Definitely not because “there is only room for one universe”. At any rate, our understanding of the geometry of the Universe falls flat on its face when trying to contemplate what lies beyond.

[Pater]

A1, and your explanation, seems to be a reiteration of the question being scrutinized. Since many of the constants and values are simple physical relationships, it seems unlikely that they are not variable.

We do know what the constants and values are, and it seems unlikely that they would have the particular necessary relationships that allow life on planet earth. Why they are what they are is the question at hand. I don’t think “We don’t know, and probably will never know,” adds much.

A2, If there is a multiverse, the explanatory challenges are multiplied as well. It just deepens the issues. Our scientific discoveries are based on progressive analyses of what’s in front of us. Basing scientific theory on something for which there is no evidence at all doesn’t make much sense. It’s not science.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Pater.

[Mammal]

Fwiw, the multiverse is implied by the inflation model and the value of the quantum vacuum indicating it to be false (temporary). The inflation model has passed 4 out of 5 tests.. 5th one still pending. Just saying.

[Poul]

True, there is no evidence for the multiverse. But there is also no evidence against it. We don’t know how to attach probabilities for either. If the multiverse is real, the anthropic principle works: We necessarily exist in a universe with parameter values that allows us to exist, but there could be billions out there with parameter values that don’t allow us to exist.

The fine tuning argument assumes that the Universe is unique and the (natural) parameter values are arbitrary. We don’t know how to attach probabilities to actual parameter values either. There could be a natural reason why they take the observed values.

[Fred]

@Pater:”The odds against the low entropy of the universe is higher than winning a year’s worth of lotteries. And there are at least 21 other parameters in the “universe lottery”. Each parameter is a lottery on its own. So treating it as a single win is a grave error.”

You’re wrong. To produce this universe (which is life permitting) all the parameters have to be virtually unchanged. It’s analogous to a 6 power ball lottery: matching 1, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 numbers is every bit a loss as is matching no numbers. In the universe lottery, there are 22 “power balls”. If there are n possible sets of values, then the probability of that set winning is 1/n. It is a certainty that the winner will have that low probability- so there’s no anomaly- and thus no rational basis to claim the “universe lottery” was rigged.

@Pater: “The FTA indicates a high probability of intelligent design. “

No, it doesn’t- because there is no statistical anomaly.

You may be considering this tautology:

P(x|d) > P(x)

This reads: the probably of x given design for x is greater than the probability of x. But it’s grossly misleading- because it would seem to imply all lotteries are rigged (designed to achieve a particular outcome). What’s missing is a consideration of P(d)- how probable is it that the outcome was designed. None of the FTA analysis analyzes that.

The FTA is intentionally misleading, basically making an argument from incredulity: “how could a low probability outcome occur!?” The answer: low probability things happen all the time. This brings to mind a quote from Richard Feynman:

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

Feynman’s point was that you can’t just hunt for anomalies after the fact and then say they are somehow significant.

[Pater]

I would be right if the license plate read R-FEYNMAN wouldn’t I?

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

Pater: “I would be right if the license plate read R-FEYNMAN wouldn’t I?”

Describe a full scenario and explain how it relates to the fine-tuning argument. I’ve made my point, and you seem to have no relevant response.

[Pater]

Maybe you didn’t understand the relevance. I personally don’t know how to construct the math. I’ll give you that. But if Mr Feynman saw a license plate with his name on it, he wouldn’t simply chalk it up to chance.

In like manner, we live in the universe that is fine-tuned for life. BTW, for you to ignore my very relevant distinction between the lottery and the universe lottery seems ridiculous and disingenuous. The odds against are beyond comprehension.

Anyway, this universe (Fine tuned for life) is the target. Why is it the target? Because it’s the one that exists. We aren’t projecting into the unknown, we are forensically examining the known. How did we get to this point?

And we rule out all the possibles that seem irrational. It (the universe) doesn’t exist on the back of a turtle, it’s not inside a crystal ball, and pure chance doesn’t have a chance. Just like Mr Feynman’s personalized license plate. He would not think it happened by chance.

[Fred]

@Pater- It still seems that you aren’t following the probability issue.

The FTA we’re discussing is based on the considering the consequences of differing values for the roughly 22 fundamental constants of fundamental physics. The “universe lottery” entails treating those constants as having their values by random chance. Every specific combination of constant values has exactly the same (extremely low) chance of winning the universe lottery. Do you get that?

Life is not a contestant in the lottery. Rather, life is a consequence of the the way the universe happens to be (and it happens to have some specific set of constant values).

Remember erstwhile Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy? He gave a farewell speech when he stepped down, describing his path to the Speakership. He started as a poor kid who did not expect to go to college, because of the cost. On his 18th birthday, he bought his very first lottery ticket. He won $1M. He used that money to go to college, embark on a career, and eventually get elected to Congress and eventually became Speaker (even though it was brief).

The probability that a lottery would produce a Speaker of the House is very low indeed, but does that imply the lottery must have been rigged to make it happen? Of course not! It was a post-hoc consequence of his having won, but the uniqueness of a consequence does not imply a rigged lottery. Every winner does something unique as a consequence of winning. Similarly, every hypothetical set of physics constants would have produced a unique universe with unique consequences. You’re focusing on one consequence of the winning universe and claiming this somehow implies the universe lottery had to be rigged to make it happen.

Feynman related the plate number of one random license plate. That he would relate that particular one was low probability, but it was the exact same probability as any other license plate he happened to walk past that day. You chose to ignore that, and then created an entirely different scenario.

@Pater: “In like manner, we live in the universe that is fine-tuned for life.”

That is what the FTA is supposed to prove, not merely asserted. Was Kevin’s lottery fine-tuned to create a Speaker of the House?

Perhaps you’re just stating the obvious: that differing values of the constants would have produced a universe that is NOT life-permitting. Similary, a different winner of Kevin’s lottery would not have produced an outcome that is “speaker permitting”. Different winners result in different consequencences.

@Pater: “ you to ignore my very relevant distinction between the lottery and the universe lottery seems ridiculous and disingenuous. The odds against are beyond comprehension.”

Beyond comprehension? Not to a mathematician. You don’t seem to understand probability. Your “relevant distinction” was to treat the universe lottery as 22 one-constant lotteries (ignoring that “winning” one matching constant doesn’t result in life-which is the point I made and you ignored). The odds of winning 22 one-ball lotteries is identical to the odds of winning one 22-ball lottery. So it’s a distinction without a difference. Every set of constants has the exact same probability of winning; every set of constants would produce a universe and it would have some unique consequences.

As I said (and you ignored): if there are n possible sets of constant values, then every winning set has the exact same 1/n probability of winning – so this allegedly “beyond comprehension” low probability is inevitable. n is just a number, and the probability calculation holds regardless of how big it is. It even holds if the number of combinations is infinite.

@Pater: “Mr Feynman’s personalized license plate. He would not think it happened by chance.”

You ignored the anecdote as Feynman told it, sidestepping it with an irrelevant alternative. Feynman was on his way do deliver a lecture. If he saw a license plate with his name on it, that would be a [u]coincidence[/u] worth explaining. Here’s a possible explanation: since he was walking through the parking lot on the way to deliver a lecture, the natural conclusion is that the owner was a fan of Feynman’s.

In the case of the universe lottery, there is no coincidence (unless you ASSUME life was a design objective – but that would make the FTA circular), because life is a post-hoc consequence. Similarly there’s no coincidence that Kevin became Speaker as a post-hoc consequence of winning a lottery. Speakership was not being raffled off, and neither was life in the universe lottery.

[Pater]

C’mon Fred seems more like you’re ignoring my answer. The size of the number is the whole point of probability analysis. Winning the lottery is 1 chance in 300,000,000. Winning the universe lottery is 1 chance in (n), where n is a number beyond calculation or comprehension. They aren’t the same.

About circularity – this is a forensic examination. The target is already obtained. We can therefore make attributions about the process. In examining the odds that Kevin would become speaker of the house, one would have to factor in the fact that winning a lottery was instrumental to the process.

Our target is the life permitting universe that exists. We look at all the parameters that yielded that result, and ask the questions about their cause. Chance, necessity, or design. Every time we rule out necessity for a given parameter, we’re free to punch the chance button. Winner winner chicken dinner and all that.

We all have some understanding of what “chance” entails. It entails that when relying on chance, chances are, you’re going to lose way more often than not. And there is a point where we say in practical terms, there’s no chance, when the odds are 1 in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and keep going.

So the question is, what are the odds against all the parameters of the universe falling within life permitting boundaries, when there doesn’t seem to be any reason to attribute their values to necessity? Design is the more likely choice. The only reasons to discount design are ideological a priori assumptions.

[Fred]

@Pater:“C’mon Fred seems more like you’re ignoring my answer. The size of the
number is the whole point of probability analysis. Winning the lottery
is 1 chance in 300,000,000. Winning the universe lottery is 1 chance in
(n), where n is a number beyond calculation or comprehension. They
aren’t the same.”

Pater – I addressed your point, and you’re ignoring it – or you simply don’t understand the math. I repeat: the: the probability of winning is 1/n, irrespective of the size of n. Yes I understand that if x = 300,000,000 and y = 300,000.000,000,000,000,000 then 1/y is less than 1/x, but that is irrelevant because each contestant in any given lottery has the exact same chance of winning that lottery. That’s the case with the universe lottery: if ANY winner had a 1/n probability of winning, then there’s nothing anomolous about winning despite those odds!

Test: If Joe wins a lottery that had 1,000,000 entries (probability of winning: 1/1,000,000), and Mike wins a lottery with only 1000 (probability of winning: 1/1000) – is there more reason to think Joe’s lottery was rigged? Defend your answer.

@Pater=”About circularity – this is a forensic examination. The target is
already obtained. We can therefore make attributions about the process.
In examining the odds that Kevin would become speaker of the house, one
would have to factor in the fact that winning a lottery was instrumental
to the proceed.

You’re ignoring my point and distorting the analogy. The target (Kevin became speaker) is already obtained. Now we’re considering whether or not this fact (Kevin’s becoming speaker) constitutes evidence the lottery was rigged in order to achieve that outcome. “The universe was designed for life” is analogous to “the state lottery was designed to produce a speaker” . It’s analogous because both life, and speakership, are post-hoc consequences. Do you understand the difference between being a post-hoc consequence of winning, and being a contestant in a lottery?

@Pater: So the question is, what are the odds against all the parameters of the universe falling within life permitting boundaries”

That question is a red herring because “life” wasn’t a contestant in the “universe lottery”; life is a consequence of the way the universe happens to be. I understand why you’re putting it this way – it’s because that’s the way the FTA is framed, but what I’m trying to help you understand is that the reasoning is fallacious.

The set of parameters that exist in this universe was the contestant, not life. The probability that this universe would exist is 1/n, where n is the number of sets of fundamental parameters. n is a large number, so 1/n is very small. But ANY universe that could have won had the exact same probabilty of existing – so there is no statistical anomaly.

Life is a type of thing. We aren’t considering all the types of things that would have existed if a different universe had come into being. Only THAT would be a proper comparison, but it’s not possible to do such an analysis – because we can’t identify the sorts of things that would have existed. Suffice to say: every possible universe would have something unique about it.

[Pater]

I completely disagree, it’s not a red herring. It’s the point. One universe, exquisitely tuned for life. Incredible odds against. The fact this universe exists IS the statistical anomaly.

I have to ask, how does it strike you that at every point that you claim naturalism is sufficient, the actual odds against are billions and billions against?

Like the beginning of the universe, and the beginning of life, and a thousand different bio-processes, and DNA construction and protein information, and consciousness, and rationality and dozens of others. All of them just happened to happen. But that’s the cord that ties them all into the same basket is that each is so incredibly unlikely to have happened at all.

I guess you just get immune to ridiculously improbable pronouncements from scientists, most of which aren’t scientific at all. Just guesswork to uphold the doctrine of atheist ideology.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Pater.

[Fred]

@Pater- It appears you don’t understand the difference between an event that is low probability and one that is a statistical anomaly. Let’s test that.

Lydia Smith bought a powerball lottery ticket (picking 8 numbers that all matched) and won a billion dollars.

Was her win low probability? Explain why, or why not.

Was her win a statistical anomaly?Explain why, or why not.

Let’s say there are n unique sets of values for the fundamental parameters.

What’s the probability that any particular set would happen to exist?

Let’s pretend set number 1,678 had been the set that came to exist. Was this probable or improbable? Is it a statisical anomoly that set 1,689 won? Why or why not?

[James]

This universe being part of a metaphysically necessary multiverse raises the probability of it existing to 1 (a certainty). So should we believe that we are part of a such a multi-verse “just because” it raises the odds off it being here to an absolute certainty? Of course not. And that is the problem with the fine tuning argument as stated in the OP. Making an exception for God is just special pleading.

[Pater]

The OP makes an unsupported assertion that there is no evidence of design in the universe. If you buy that, (as stated in the OP) you might be right.

The “multiverse” is a theory that tacitly admits that the universe appears to be designed. I agree with you that it is an ad hoc response that has no evidence that exists for the sole purpose of denying God’s existence.

Those who offer the theory as an explanation agree that it seems impossible that the values and constants would be what they are, appearing in an instant out of nothing with no natural cause. Making the attribution of responsibility for the designed existence of the universe to God would not be special pleading.

Rather, it’s the only rational explanation.

[Mammal]

You are wrong on mostly everything you wrote here. The multiverse is entailed by our best physics that models the very early inflation. It does not imply design any more than without it. And no, supernatural design is definately not the only, or best explanation. Quantum monism, the Ads/CFT duality are among two candidates offering superior explanatory power for any perceived fine tuning.

[Pater]

“Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues.”

One thing we can say unequivocally about models – they are always wrong, and the excuse is always the same. False assumptions.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Pater.

[Mammal]

You don’t quite understand. There are numerous sources, but this debate about sums it up:

https://bigthink.com/13-8/is-the-multiverse-real/

You wanna read Siegel’s counter argument at the bottom with the reasons as to why a multiverse can probably not be avoided.

Stephen Hawking agreed, Sean Carroll too, among many others.

bigthink.com

Is the Multiverse real? Two astrophysicists debate

Is the multiverse real? It's one of the hottest questions in all of theoretical physics. We invited two astrophysicists to join the debate.

[Pater]

As I expected, the argument against from Dr Frank was basically what I said. No evidence and unwarranted assumptions. Damaging assumptions. The sometimes frustrating part of these arguments is that when they get proven wrong, it changes nothing for the zealots.

A good example is the “junk DNA” argument, which says that the 95% of the genetic code that was declared “junk” by Ohno and basically the whole community, has since been proven to be vital. And here’s a new one (at least to you probably), Dr Noble’s new paper – “Time to admit – Genes are not the blueprint for life”. But I digress.

Scientists routinely espouse viewpoints motivated by their ideology, or money, or power (fame, clout, recognition, etc). There is underway a backlash of sorts, and calls from within the community for the entire community to back off the cliff, and return to actual testable, confirmed data are increasing. It was a dark day when Dr Eugenie Scott declared that the outright lies being told in textbooks up and down the educational spectrum were in fact “useful”. A major correction is in process. Hopefully the trend will continue.

The “multiverse theory” is just another example. Principally motivated by ideological imperative to defeat the fine tuning argument for the existence of God. You can name all the atheist scientists who agree with it that you want. That only helps to confirm that it’s not a scientific theory at all. Just wishful speculation.

[Mammal]

That is a long way of saying you don’t understand the science.

Again, as Siegel explained, based on what we know and on the theory that best explains inflation, a multiverse is very much entailed. Pretty much all the scientists that accept inflation, accept that it means there is most likely a multiverse. And not for reasons as you so ignorantly alluded to.

[Pater]

No that’s not what it is. We don’t usually see you resort to lying and insults when you’re dodging a response. Having a bad day?

[James]

For anything which we know exists and is possible (cars, trees, planets, minds) there is more than one type of them. We all agree that a universe is possible but absent any other evidence, there being just one universe (and just one type) in existence would make it a statistical outlier. Absent any other type of evidence, the notion of a multiverse enjoys inductive warrant. Philosophically, there is sufficient background evidence to provide warrant for an expectation that there may well be more than one universe because the assumption of there being just one requires one to assume that the universe is a statistical outlier when it comes to possible things, and for no reason (which is an ad hoc assumption, by definition).

All of the above holds, even if there was no scientific backing for a multiverse (which there is) and is still sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of your claim that the notion of a multiverse is ad hoc (an idea that you falsely attributed to me in your previous response to me) and posited only to do away with the notion of God. The notion of a multiverse still leaves the question of God’s existence open (eg, Did God create the multiverse?) and that is the direction I predict that theists will go in when faced with arguments like this. But the reason why they can do this, is because God has been defined in such a way to render the idea unfalsifiable (meaning, it cannot be demonstrated false and even if it is). However, that is a topic for another thread.

[Mammal]

Well, seeing that you claim to understand it, do you also understand the implications of this empirical evidence that bubbles (plural) form when an atomic system undergo the kind of transition that physicists believe led to our universe inflation?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240122144349.htm

sciencedaily.com

New research sheds light on a phenomenon known as 'false vacuum decay'

Scientists have produced the first experimental evidence of vacuum decay.

[James]

The OP makes an unsupported assertion that there is no evidence of design in the universe.

Cars, houses, computers (etc) are all in the universe and are all designed so there must be evidence of design in the universe. Clearly the author of the OP isn’t denying the existence of those things. The claim is more likely along the lines of, where we think we see prima facie evidence of design yet no verifiable designer, we ought to be more sceptical of the prima facie evidence for design, and especially when our attempts to defend an invisible designer requires appeals to lines of reasoning that are demonstrably unreliable or fallacious when applied elsewhere. The author of the OP was pointing out that the fine tuning argument engages in a line of reasoning that is demonstrably unreliable, as we can demonstrate by applying the same reasoning elsewhere (and in relation to things for which we have no emotional investment).

The “multiverse” is a theory that tacitly admits that the universe appears to be designed.

Where does it do that? Are you able to summarise the theory and explain how it does this? Cosmologists have said things like, “It’s almost as if someone has tinkered with the numbers” but they would not disagree with the reasons why concluding that they were tinkered with is problematic, but I shall cover that in another reply.

I agree with you that it is an ad hoc response that has no evidence that exists for the sole purpose of denying God’s existence.

Obviously I said no such thing. You’ve just committed a motive fallacy (a form of ad homniem fallacy). I said that we shouldn’t believe in a multiverse just because it makes our universe more likely. That isn’t the only reason people embrace a multiverse and even given a multiverse, the question of God’s existence remains open (a separate consideration alongside consideration of whether we are part of a universe or not).

Those who offer the theory as an explanation agree that it seems impossible that the values and constants would be what they are, appearing in an instant out of nothing with no natural cause.

The cause is irrelevant. The values seem unlikely (not impossible) given that they could have been different in a myriad of different ways. However, if they could have been different in a myriad of different ways that then is true even if there is a different. It is highly unlikely that we find ourselves in a world where the designer made the choice that he did. In and of itself, assuming a designer does nothing to make the present constants more likely.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by  James.

[James]

Corrections ….

Obviously I said no such thing. You’ve just committed a motive fallacy (a form of ad homniem fallacy). I said that we shouldn’t believe in a multiverse just because it makes our universe more likely. That isn’t the only reason people embrace a multiverse and even given a multiverse, the question of God’s existence remains open (a separate consideration alongside consideration of whether we are part of a multiverse or not).

Those who offer the theory as an explanation agree that it seems impossible that the values and constants would be what they are, appearing in an instant out of nothing with no natural cause.

The cause is irrelevant. The values seem unlikely (not impossible) given that they could have been different in a myriad of different ways. However, if they could have been different in a myriad of different ways then that is true even if there is a designer. It is highly unlikely that we find ourselves in a world where the designer made the choice that he did. In and of itself, assuming a designer does nothing to make the present constants more likely.