Intelligent Design

[MikeG]

....... "We exist - therefore the probability that the constants would be what they are is unity".

There are two problems with this statement.

Do we exist purely as physical beings, or do we exist purely in the mind of a Cosmic Intelligence?

If there is doubt, then the probability cannot be unity.........

Why would an astrophysicist even consider this stuff? There is no evidence to support it. Scientists deal in reality.

 

[Donn]

The discussion opposing fine tuning so far is that "We exist - therefore the probability that the constants would be what they are is unity".

There are two problems with this statement.

Do we exist purely as physical beings, or do we exist purely in the mind of a Cosmic Intelligence?

If there is doubt, then the probability cannot be unity.

Whatever the variables, the die is cast. Unity it is.

The second problem is that in science everything has a cause.

This is false. Wrong. Untrue. The pucky of the bull. The drol from the bok.

When the constants came into being, why did they have "just the right values". Not just one constant but many?

They voted to frustrate you. It worked.

Keep in mind two problems. Firstly, dark energy and dark matter, what are they apart from scientific fantasy? The unicorns of science.

They have more clothing than the Father and the Son.

Secondly, atheist science is so worried about the fine tuning that it has invented another fantasy, namely gazillions of universes so that the law of large numbers can be used in argument.

You poor benighted soul.

So how fanciful is my Cosmic Intelligence compared to the fantasies mentioned? At least I have some personal evidence. Atheists only have desperate musings.

Your personal evidence is so cute. Give it a hug. No one else cares.

As for the fall-back retort of "No-one can Know therefore you cannot Know" is another meaningless fall-back defense. We are talking about probability of one hypothesis versus another for the Ultimate Reality. You say I have NO evidence. Rubbish, I have evidence, but not the evidence atheists are prepared to accept.

Yep. Your evidence is ever dense.

 

[acbytesla]

The second problem is that in science everything has a cause. When the constants came into being, why did they have "just the right values". Not just one constant but many?

You seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the law of causality. It says for every effect there must be a cause. Not that every piece of matter requires a creator. In fact, there is EVERY reason to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe is a constant and has ALWAYS existed and the form of the universe is just the result of that interaction between that matter and energy.

As Laplace said 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là'

 

[acbytesla]

As for the fall-back retort of "No-one can Know therefore you cannot Know" is another meaningless fall-back defense. We are talking about probability of one hypothesis versus another for the Ultimate Reality. You say I have NO evidence. Rubbish, I have evidence, but not the evidence atheists are prepared to accept.

The problem of course of your silly silly position is that your evidence comes out of your ass. And it doesn't just fail to prove the existence of a creator it stinks.

Personally, it would matter little to me if you posited some deistic creator as the first cause. I'd disagree but it would be harmless and benign. No, it has to be a creator that has caused and continues to cause the world great misery.

 

[Darat]

You would be wrong then. Post hoc analysis of calculating odds is always flawed. The odds of a specific event occurring that did happen is ALWAYS 100 percent. If you calculate the odds against life occurring in some random unknown spot in the universe to be very high you would be right. But the earth is not a random spot. It is the winning lottery ticket and just like in the lottery the odds of life and that the winning ticket is the winning ticket is ALWAYS 100 percent.

You said "...If you wanted to say that earth at this moment in time is fine tuned for life, I agree,..." That is what I was disagreeing with. If you look at the earth in its entirety from its outermost atmosphere to its core the volume of the earth that is compatible with life is insignificant. If the earth is meant to be fine tuned for life I hope someone has kept hold of the receipt from Magrathea!

 

[Trebuchet]

Earth is not fine-tuned for life, other than being the only place in the solar system hospitable to liquid water. Earthly life is fine-tuned to the Earth, having evolved for that.

 

[acbytesla]

You said "...If you wanted to say that earth at this moment in time is fine tuned for life, I agree,..." That is what I was disagreeing with. If you look at the earth in its entirety from its outermost atmosphere to its core the volume of the earth that is compatible with life is insignificant. If the earth is meant to be fine tuned for life I hope someone has kept hold of the receipt from Magrathea!

I never said the earth as a whole is 'fine tuned' for life. The planet at one time had conditions that made life appear as well as conditions that have allowed life to flourish. I wouldn't use the term 'fine tuned' either as that suggests agency that made those conditions occur. There is also no doubt that the earth has conditions that are both conducive and hostile to life almost simultaneously. Such as fires in forests leading to new life in the oceans and even necessary for certain trees to reproduce.

All I've said is statistically speaking the odds of life occurring on this planet is 100 percent because we know it did. Just as I can tell you who won yesterday's sporting events.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Earth is not fine-tuned for life, other than being the only place in the solar system hospitable to liquid water.

I thought liquid water was being discovered on the moons of various planets.

Found this: “As of December 2015, the confirmed liquid water in the Solar System outside Earth is 25-50 times the volume of Earth's water (1.3 billion cubic kilometers)”.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_liquid_water

 

[Thor 2]

I thought liquid water was being discovered on the moons of various planets.

Found this: “As of December 2015, the confirmed liquid water in the Solar System outside Earth is 25-50 times the volume of Earth's water (1.3 billion cubic kilometers)”.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_liquid_water

Very interesting Fast Eddie. Some of those places may be very cold so for the water to remain liquid it has to be under considerable pressure. Water expands when it becomes ice and can be kept liquid at low temperatures if kept under pressure.

We have examples of life existing in water under very high pressure here on Earth so maybe this has occurred elsewhere also. On the other hand if those planets and moons have hot cores maybe the water is not so cold also.

If intelligent life exists in some of those places they may be pondering how wonderful it is the environment was so finely tuned to suit them.

 

[acbytesla]

Very interesting Fast Eddie. Some of those places may be very cold so for the water to remain liquid it has to be under considerable pressure. Water expands when it becomes ice and can be kept liquid at low temperatures if kept under pressure.

We have examples of life existing in water under very high pressure here on Earth so maybe this has occurred elsewhere also. On the other hand if those planets and moons have hot cores maybe the water is not so cold also.

If intelligent life exists in some of those places they may be pondering how wonderful it is the environment was so finely tuned to suit them.

I'm of the belief that pretty much every planet within the habitable distance from a star had life at some time during the life of the planet. Now, maybe there is a reason that this doesn't occur. But it is amazing all the places on this planet that life is found on this planet. Many in places that people previously thought was inhabitable. There isn't even an answer that maybe even some of these life forms didn't result from abiogenesis and not from some form of biological reproduction. We simply don't know enough about the procesz of abiogenesis to answer this question.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Great. The high likelihood of "constants [that] are right for life" is evidence for a designer if you assume the designer that the constants are evidence for.

Obviously this is a tautology. But huh?

I think I can clarify Turingtest's point and build on it.

The idea behind ID is that if we imagine a powerful being that wants X, then X becomes very likely. The problem is, why should we imagine that such a being would want X? Couldn't we imagine anything else for its desires? What if we imagine that the being would want to prevent X? Doesn't this mean that the being most certainly does not exist?

At this point, it becomes pretty clear that the concept of the powerful being is not increasing our understanding of the natural world one bit. It is merely taking something that is known to be true, and saying "Maybe God did that." And you can apply it anywhere. What are the odds that a coin toss will come up heads? 50/50? If God were responsible, it'd be 100%. So now God is the arbiter of coin tosses. What about the 9/11 terror attacks? They would have been certain to succeed if God was assisting, so we must conclude that God was assisting.

Given all of the above, the vacuous nature of ID should be obvious.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Lets go with the fine tuning / chances argument and apply it to something else.

Now, PartSkeptic, you will of course agree that if I drop a glass on a hard surface that it will shatter into many shards.
These shards will have seemingly random shapes that, if fitted together correctly will form a glass.
And the odds of all those shards forming into EXACTLY those shapes is astronomically low.
But, they have formed.

By your logic the universe is therefore fine-tuned to form exactly those shards and the breaking of the glass is guided by a cosmic intelligence, as the chance of them forming as they did randomly is just too low.

Now, if I drop a glass again, by your logic I should get the same shards.

Yet, if I do, I get a completely different, equally unlikely set of shards.


If your logic falls apart on something as simple as that, why do you feel you can apply it to life?

 

[Pixel42]

Very interesting Fast Eddie. Some of those places may be very cold so for the water to remain liquid it has to be under considerable pressure. Water expands when it becomes ice and can be kept liquid at low temperatures if kept under pressure.

We have examples of life existing in water under very high pressure here on Earth so maybe this has occurred elsewhere also. On the other hand if those planets and moons have hot cores maybe the water is not so cold also.

If intelligent life exists in some of those places they may be pondering how wonderful it is the environment was so finely tuned to suit them.

The large icy moons of the gas giants are subject to tidal forces that heat their centres, resulting in an ocean of liquid water between their rocky cores and a thick layer of ice. These oceans are reckoned by many astrobiologists to be the best prospects for finding extraterrestrial life in the solar system.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Why would an astrophysicist even consider this stuff? There is no evidence to support it. Scientists deal in reality.

The ordinary scientists deal in reality with a small "r".

The great scientists like Einstein dealt with reality and philosophical musings about the deeper nature of Reality.

Since proof of what the Ultimate Reality is beyond scientific measurement and test, it lies to humans to use their brains to hypothesize what Ultimate Reality might be, and how logical their hypothesis is. The one with the best fit should be what rational people accept until a better model comes about.

Small "r" reality may never explain the mysteries of the human mind and it's ability to grasp concepts almost beyond imagination. It is unlikely to measure or test the many supernatural events. The scope by definition is limited. If you wish to live in the comfort of an artificially limited reality that is your choice.

And what about Lawrence Krauss who speculates on what the Ultimate Reality might be, but limits himself to the laws of physics? Do you consider him to be a scientist?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Whatever the variables, the die is cast. Unity it is.

Who cast the die?

This is false. Wrong. Untrue. The pucky of the bull. The drol from the bok.

Give me just one example a scientific event without a cause.

They voted to frustrate you. It worked.

Who is they?

They have more clothing than the Father and the Son.

Why do unicorns have clothing? Give me proof.

You poor benighted soul.

Huh???

Your personal evidence is so cute. Give it a hug. No one else cares.

You think so?

Yep. Your evidence is ever dense.

Your final insult?

Your whole post is sarcastic - the defense of someone who has nothing of value to contribute. Perhaps you should do everyone a favor and find another thread, especially since you do not care what I have to contribute.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)In fact, there is EVERY reason to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe is a constant and has ALWAYS existed(snip)

That is old world scientific thinking that got a real jolt when it turned out the the Big Bang happened. Atheists were thrown into turmoil by a "creation-type" event.

EVERY? Why I have I not come across one reason for your belief?

ALWAYS? Define always. Some say time did not exist before the Big Bang.

 

[Aridas]

No argument from authority. I just want principle so I can be precise.

The principle seems to be that once the event has already happened, it's safe to say that it already happened. Marvelling at how amazing it is that it happened, especially based on highly questionable calculations, puts one in great danger of invoking the Texas sharpshooter fallacy even at the best of times. Just think about how low the chances were that that bullet hit that exact spot!

Douglas Adams. He of Puddle-Hole Thinking notoriety. His argument implies a probability of 1:1 but where does he argue that? And thinking puddles - the ultimate in anthropomorphics!

No. The argument itself has little to do with probability directly and so does not actually properly imply a probability of 1:1, especially not beforehand. Probability can be applied to it, yes, but such misses the more specific focus. There are a couple quite valid and relevant points that can be taken from it, but not that. Similarly, the thinking puddles point is only really worth an eyeroll and can be simply dismissed out of hand (generally along with the one using it) if it's being used to try to undermine the validity of the actual points that the argument addresses.

If you want an example of simple and easy valid use of the analogy, it's validly used to point out that for us to be alive, our universe didn't necessarily have to be fine-tuned for our existence, but rather, that we could easily be the thing that's been "fine-tuned" (not necessarily by an actual intelligence or designer) to live in our universe. Of more importance to you, likely, the possibility of an intelligent designer is unfalsifiable, regardless, though, and the puddle analogy wasn't designed to claim otherwise. It was, however, designed to highlight a couple of the biggest conceptual flaws in arguments like the one that you seem to be trying to push. As Wudang already quoted from your later link -

We could not possibly have existed in conditions that are incompatible with the existence of observers.

This point alone is sufficient to make the entire prior probability argument (in pretty much all its forms) moot and inconclusive. A side note to that is that if we did exist in conditions that were incompatible with the existence of observers, that would be evidence of outside interference.

Ahhh, the butterfly effect. I'd agree with this. That said, the game never stops. Play enough poker games a Royal Flush is dealt at some time. Personally, I don't believe life is rare in the universe. Clearly, this seems to be the only planet at this speck of geological time that seems to have life. But even our vast solar system is but a microscopic point in the universe. There is a vast amount of matter and energy in the universe constantly reacting to their conditions.

...Intelligent life, at least, for our solar system. There's a pretty decent chance that Europa's got life, though, apparently.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The problem of course of your silly silly position is that your evidence comes out of your ass. And it doesn't just fail to prove the existence of a creator it stinks.

Personally, it would matter little to me if you posited some deistic creator as the first cause. I'd disagree but it would be harmless and benign. No, it has to be a creator that has caused and continues to cause the world great misery.

You continue to insult me with rude ad hominems that contribute nothing to the debate. Do you have some sort of anal/excrement fixation?

You prefer a deistic creator because you can attack it better using the argument of perfection. Using the argument of perfection is useless against my hypothesis that the Ultimate Creator is neither good nor evil and has created two opposing super-entities - God and Satan.

My hypothesis fits the facts better than a deistic creator.

With regard to misery, the anti-deistic stance can be equated to "Without God, everything is permitted." On what do you base your high-horse moral stance?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

My hypothesis fits the facts better than a deistic creator.

Can you think of any experiment or observation that would falsify your hypothesis?

Asking on behalf of Karl Popper

 

[PartSkeptic]

With regard to the planets and water and localized fitness for life, such discussions are irrelevant to the "fact" that if the cosmological constant was slightly different, the galaxies and the planets probably would not have formed.

Science cannot answer why the constants are what they are. Science can say that all these constants are remarkably well balanced for life to evolve.

Science also says that it is almost "unnatural" for such precision to occur by chance especially if the universe is a one-time entity.

It is a philosophical discussion as to what came "before" physics with its constants.

The ancient Greeks used observation and logic to deduce some remarkably accurate observations about the universe. We now have many more observations to go further.

So far many here are saying that while remarkable, it is what it is.

And the possibility of a "Matrix-like" Ultimate Intelligence is discounted, although science is starting to accept this a possibility. Atheists still cling to the notion that the "Matrix-like" Ultimate Intelligence MUST be a futuristic super-computer, rather than accept the possibility of something more the "supernatural".