General Discussions > Religion / Philosophy Talk
How does the fine tuning argument support theism?
lumberjohn:
--- Quote from: jomike on Feb 23, 2012, 12:04:51 PM ---A Plantinga or Craig would ask, incredulously: We're believe that such an incredibly unlikely combination of constants somehow simply... occurred? Isn't it vastly more likely they were selected by an Intelligence?
--- End quote ---
Of course it isn't. Because such an intelligence itself is infinitely unlikely. What we know from all our observations of the universe (cosmology and biology both) is that complexity arises only over time from simplicity. And the type intelligence they posit is unbelievably complex. So the hypothesis of a pre-existing intelligence is contrary to everything we know from science about such things. Multiverses or unlikely combinations, though unproven and perhaps unprovable, are not.
andrewclunn:
--- Quote from: teethering on Feb 23, 2012, 12:12:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: andrewclunn on Feb 23, 2012, 11:55:56 AM ---Let me demonstrate with an example.
Imagine that there is a probablistic universe, which is not explicitly causal. All actions and results are probable in nature rather than causal. Now within that universe a being exists that creates a region where the probability of certain outcomes happening consistently that it acts (for all intents and purposes) as a casual universe. In such a fashion a causal universe may exist that is not itself reliant on causality.
--- End quote ---
Again, you posit your "being" where an alternative design-less explanation may posit acausal cause. There's no explanation for where the "being" comes from, similarly to how the explanations have to stop somewhere for any competing theory. There's no virtue in the "being" explanation, on the contrary, it posits the primary cause of literally unimaginable complexity.
--- Quote ---now one could argue that perhaps pockets of this virtual causality might emerge without a designer and therefore no designer is needed, however that is not the assertion of multiverse theory. Mutliverse theory states that several (if not all) possible casual universes exist, so that by virtue of our observing our universe, we know that we must just happen to exist in one that permits life.
The reason why a designer in a container universe is more probable than endless universes emerging within a container universe? We already know that consciousness can arise, but have no evidence for multiple parallel universes.
--- End quote ---
There is no godly consciousness that I know of in existence. All sorts of beings are intelligent in their own way, from bacteria to humans and none of them are capable of constructing or even understanding our universe.
Moreover the incredible complexity of intelligence that would be required to design the universe is a far less parsimonious explanation than an infinite series of universes. That doesn't speak to probabilities, and you shouldn't describe either theory as more probable for reasons I've covered already, but in terms of Occam's razor positing a superintelligent omnipotent conscious being is a huge leap in complexity.
--- End quote ---
So, respond to my first paragraph with a response that I anticipated and responded to later (but split up the post so that it appears that you're making a different post). Stick the term 'godly' in front of consciousness to distort my claim. Finally hand wave in assertions of what's more probable and mentions Occam's razor for skeptical cred :laugh: Care to try again?
teethering:
I've presented my counter to your post. If you feel unable to muster a response, so be it.
Incidentally, this is a topic where I cannot conceive of a reason to resort to personal attacks. I mean I get how things get heated when it comes to questions of ethics and politics, but here... I just don't get it.
jomike:
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 12:35:48 PM ---
--- Quote from: jomike on Feb 23, 2012, 12:04:51 PM ---A Plantinga or Craig would ask, incredulously: We're believe that such an incredibly unlikely combination of constants somehow simply... occurred? Isn't it vastly more likely they were selected by an Intelligence?
--- End quote ---
Of course it isn't. Because such an intelligence itself is infinitely unlikely.
--- End quote ---
"Do you know of a scientist or philosopher who has proven that?" asks Theist. "I'm not aware any such proof in the literature."
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 12:35:48 PM ---What we know from all our observations of the universe (cosmology and biology both) is that complexity arises only over time from simplicity.
--- End quote ---
"Yes, in accordance with the physical laws set forth by the Designer," suggests Theist. "Actually, for all we know, the entire process could have been guided from the get-go by His (or Its) hand, either wholly, or selectively at crucial stages of development. We just don't know."
--- Quote from: lumberjohn on Feb 23, 2012, 12:35:48 PM ---And the type intelligence they posit is unbelievably complex. So the hypothesis of a pre-existing intelligence is contrary to everything we know from science about such things. Multiverses or unlikely combinations, though unproven and perhaps unprovable, are not.
--- End quote ---
"But science can only address the provable," observes Theist. "If the multiverse -- or whatever versions thereof -- turns out to be unprovable, there's no reason to prefer one unprovable hypothesis over another."
andrewclunn:
--- Quote from: teethering on Feb 23, 2012, 12:58:35 PM ---I've presented my counter to your post. If you feel unable to muster a response, so be it.
Incidentally, this is a topic where I cannot conceive of a reason to resort to personal attacks. I mean I get how things get heated when it comes to questions of ethics and politics, but here... I just don't get it.
--- End quote ---
See and here's where I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you really can't see why your response was a failed attempt. Oh well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version