Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

But the critical assumption isn't what P(E|H) is, but P(H)P(E|H). And that assumption is entirely equivalent to an assumption of what P(H AND E) is.

In fact, the entire equation is a waste of time. You're doing nothing but estimating P(H AND E) to compare to P(H' AND E), and equating the latter with a specific false dichotomy you have in mind. Frankly, the argument is backwards. H should be the hypothesis that the universe was fine tuned by accident as you suppose. Then when you get a conclusion (which you already know, is going to be P(H|E) is small), it would actually match what the equation is really telling you (by concluding that the probability the universe would have those parameters, by chance, in the way you prescribe, is low--leaving you to other possibilities--the fine tuner being only one of many, but in this way it would at least replace your false dichotomy with a direct question begging).

The whole point of taking this "fine tuning" thing to conclude "fine tuner" is just sophistry.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The question is whether belief that such a being exists is irrational. I'm not sure that a belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life requires that the believer know what the aliens eat for breakfast.

-Bri

The questions were not really asking for that level of detail. It is possible to provide reasonable answers to the questions in my previous post for extra terrestrial intelligent life in our universe:

What is it?

A species which has developed on a planet other than Earth which reproduces, displays characteristics which demonstrate abstract problem solving ability, an awareness of self and its environment.

Is it conscious?

Yes, this is implicit in the above definition.

Does it still interact with our universe? If so, how do we know?

If it does not interact with our universe we would not consider it to exist in our universe.

Can we interact with it? If so, how do we know?

If we cannot interact with it (even as observers), we would not consider it to be intelligent life.

 

[Bri]

It's not about disagreeing with the premise. It's that "fine-tuner" doesn't tell us anything.

Of course it does. It indicates that a being exists that fine-tunes the universe in order for it to support life.

One could as easily say, "sun mover" to explain the movement of the sun. It says nothing. It contains no information. To state "that the sun moves is evidence of a 'sun mover'" is spurious as is a fine-tuner for the self same reasons.

An argument of a "sun mover" would depend on the probability of the sun moving the way it does without a "sun mover" being significantly smaller than the probability of the sun moving with a "sun mover." In that case, the probability would probably be the same of the sun moving with and without a "sun mover." So in the case of a "sun mover" you're correct, it wouldn't conclude any higher probability of a "sun mover" existing than is assumed as a prior probability.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What is it?

A species which has developed on a planet other than Earth which reproduces and displays characteristics which demonstrate abstract problem solving ability and an awareness of self and its environment.

Is it conscious?

Yes, this is implicit in the above definition.

Does it still interact with our universe? If so, how do we know?

If it does not interact with our universe we would not consider it to exist in our universe.

Can we interact with it? If so, how do we know?

If we cannot interact with it (even as observers), we would not consider it to be intelligent life.

But what does it eat for breakfast?

The point is, so what? There are properties inherently included in the argument and others might not be included in the argument. It is defined in a way that is required by the argument.

One objection to Drake's equation is that it "lacks imagination" -- it must make too much of an assumption that aliens will be "like us." It doesn't help in figuring out the probability of other forms of life that we might never have seen before that might have entirely different requirements than life on earth.

I'm not saying that the conclusion of the argument for a fine-tuner can or should satisfy all theists, just like some people might have other definitions of "life" or "intelligence" that might not be satisfied by the definition of "extra terrestrial intelligent life" that would be implied by an argument such as Drake's equation.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Good point randfan.

It shows how the hypothesis of "sun mover" would keep us from learning the truth about what we observe. It's a non explanation that is a bigger mystery than what it explains. Fine tuner is EXACTLY that. It's not just a non answer-- it feels like an answer, so it could readily get in the way of the right answer.

 

[articulett]

How can something be conscious without an organ of consciousness (brain)-- it's like hearing without ears or seeing without eyes or running without a physical body. It's just... not fathomable.

You may as well say it's "magic".

 

[RandFan]

Of course it does. It indicates that a being exists that fine-tunes the universe in order for it to support life.

"indicates"? Like a snowflake "indicates" a snowflake makers. A tree "indicates" a tree maker? This mode of thinking was put to rest decades a go. We don't need a god to explain how snowflakes or trees are made.

Get a pack of cards. Deal out 5. The chance of those specific cards being dealt is less than 1 in 2.6 million. Pat yourself on the back. You just performed an extremly rare event. What do you conclude from that?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Asking what intelligent life eats for breakfast is missing the point.

The point is that when we postulate the existence of intelligent alien life in our universe we at least have some idea what we are looking for, such that we would have some chance of realising if it did actually exist and we experienced it. On the other hand the 'fine tuner' is totally undefined. If it exists how would you recognise it?

Until what a 'fine tuner' is is defined, any arguments about its existence are meaningless.

Defining a fine tuner as the thing which set the fundamental constants of our universe such that life could exist does not constrain fine tuners to be conscious. E.g., the fine tuner could just be the way things are when a universe pops into existence.

 

[RandFan]

We could as easily add, snowflake maker and tree builder.

Humans dig irrigation channels to water their crops. Therefore there must be a river creator to dig rivers.

Pièrre Simon Laplace conceived the idea that the solar system was formed from a spinning cloud of gas. After reading his theory Napoleon inquired of Laplace "Where does God fit into your system?" Said Laplace: ‘Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis’.

Please forgive my narcisism but I want to make sure we don't gloss over this fact.


Humans have been searching for answers for thousands of years. God(s) have often been used to explain how things work or were created but in the end we simply don't need god. Saying that we can't imagine how it could happen without god (fine tuner) is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

• It was fallacious when it was used to explain the movement of the sun.
• It was fallacious when it was used to explain the creation of the solar system.
• It was fallacious when it was used to explain the creation of carbon molecules.
• It was falalcious when it was used to explain the formation of living things.

It's known as god of the gaps. When you don't understand something you stick god into your equation.

 

[Bri]

"indicates"? Like a snowflake "indicates" a snowflake makers. A tree "indicates" a tree maker? This mode of thinking was put to rest decades a go. We don't need a god to explain how snowflakes or trees are made.

I already explained the difference in my previous post, when you tried to equate the argument of a fine-tuner with one of a "sun mover."

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I already explained the difference in my previous post, when you tried to equate the argument of a fine-tuner with one of a "sun mover."

And your explanation was spurious because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You want to poke holes in the theory of the sun mover because you have knowledge that the sun mover believers didn't have. You are special pleading. Your ignorance now is no more special than their ignorance was then.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Again, in different words--all the argument indicates, given that P(E|H') is the only thing tied to a number that has numerical meaning, is that the universe has a low probability of having come about by chance in the way prescribed. The error starts when you give it the delicious-tasting name "fine tuning", and continues to equivocate from there.

Fine tuning in itself suggests a tuner. You have to reinvent the term to apply it to the "fine tuned without a tuner" case--and once you do, and use that as the central point of the argument, you've changed what you're talking about. You're talking about universes picking numbers at random--which precludes that it has to occur at random that particular way. So the complement is simply that it doesn't do that, not that a fine tuner exists.

It's a false dichotomy, plain and simple. You're no worse to claim the fine tuner has a beard and wears a crown.

 

[Bri]

Until what a 'fine tuner' is is defined, any arguments about its existence are meaningless.

Defining a fine tuner as the thing which set the fundamental constants of our universe such that life could exist does not constrain fine tuners to be conscious. E.g., the fine tuner could just be the way things are when a universe pops into existence.

You can define "god" in any way you want and adjust the premises accordingly. How "meaningful" the argument is depends on how you define "god" and what values you place on the probabilities in the premise.

In this case, I'm guessing the author of the argument assumed that god is an intelligent designer of the universe, and that any non-intelligent constrainer of fundamental constants would go into P(E|~H).

Someone else might not find that definition meaningful, and might add "omnipotent" or "benevolent" to it, and might adjust the probabilities in the premise.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You want to poke holes in the theory of the sun mover because you have knowledge that the sun mover believers didn't have. You are special pleading. Your ignorance now is no more special than their ignorance was then.

Of course it's based on what we know and don't know. If it's discovered that multiple universes exist, or that the universe isn't fine-tuned as it appears to be, the argument would fall apart just like your hypothetical argument for a "sun mover."

Isn't the rationality of a belief generally based on the evidence that you have rather than evidence that hasn't yet been discovered? It's not irrational to follow the evidence, even if new evidence later points a different direction.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

It is fallacious to use the Anthropic principle to argue in favor of an intelligent designer. It is untestable and unnecessary.

I don't think that is the argument being put forth here. At least, no more so than it is the argument being put forth in support of the argument for intelligent aliens.

Humans are pattern seeking creatures and we assume that since people make things then ordered states must be created by an intelligence. Yet snowflakes are ordered without any intelligence.

No, there is no assumption that ordered states must be created by an intelligence. There is an assumption that ordered states may be created by an intelligence. Do you disagree with that assumption?

You are trying to equate that which cannot be equated. One is argument from knowledge. The other is an argument from ignorance.

It seems to me that you are trying hard to avoid accepting any type of evidence that contribues to a hypothesis you wish to reject. You say they cannot be equated, but your arguments against doing so seem pretty specious to me.

 

[Bri]

It's a false dichotomy, plain and simple. You're no worse to claim the fine tuner has a beard and wears a crown.

In this case, the argument assumes a probability of a fine-tuned universe if a god exists and a probability of a fine-tuned universe if no god exists. For any given definition of "god" you would have to place the probabilities accordingly. There is no false dichotomy.

I think it can be safely assumed that the definition of "god" used in the original argument probably doesn't include natural explanations of fine-tuning. Making that assumption, then you would include the probability that there is some natural explanation in P(E|~H) rather than P(E|H).

-Bri

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

In this case, I'm guessing the author of the argument assumed that god is an intelligent designer of the universe, and that any non-intelligent constrainer of fundamental constants would go into P(E|~H).

<snip>

What is it about the set of fundamental constants for our universe which makes the likelihood of an intelligent creator larger than the likelihood of a random number generator, or a set of fundamental constants with only the values as taken in our universe in it?

 

[Bri]

What is it about the set of fundamental constants for our universe which makes the likelihood of an intelligent creator larger than the likelihood of a random number generator, or a set of fundamental constants with only the values as taken in our universe in it?

I don't know that it is any more likely. As I've said before, I have similar objections to the premise of the argument.

Similar questions can be asked about the premises of any argument that concludes that extra terrestrial intelligent life is probable.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Isn't the rationality of a belief generally based on the evidence that you have rather than evidence that hasn't yet been discovered?

Only if the evidence tells us something to justify the model. A sun-mover had no explanatory power. Given the dearth of knowledge and understanding of philosophy I wouldn't decree those who believed in a sun mover irrational.

That said, though your ignorance is no more special it is more damning. You now have at your disposal an extensive set of philosophical and scientific tools. You know that the idea of a "fine-tuner" tells us nothing. You know that it is simply an attempt to plug up the gap of our understanding. You also know that the god of the gaps argument has been shown time and again to be wrong. It is irrational to posit a fine-tuner because a "fine-tuner" has no explanatory power. We know that those kinds of theories in the past were simply based on ignorance. We can do much better today than to insert "here be dragons" in the gap of our knowledge which is what you are doing. It was understandable for ancient cartographers. Not anymore.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think that is the argument being put forth here.

What you "think" is not at issue. It is, demonstrably so, the argument being put forth.

At least, no more so than it is the argument being put forth in support of the argument for intelligent aliens.

I've no idea what this means. The two arguments cannot be equated. One is an argument from ignorance. The other an emperical claim that we are trying to falsify.

No, there is no assumption that ordered states must be created by an intelligence. There is an assumption that ordered states may be created by an intelligence. Do you disagree with that assumption?

You are playing a semantical game. There may be an invisible pink unicorn under my bed. Is there any reason to believe that there is?

It seems to me that you are trying hard to avoid accepting any type of evidence that contribues to a hypothesis you wish to reject.

No. I'm trying hard to get you to realize there is no evidence. An argument from ignorance is not evidence.

You say they cannot be equated, but your arguments against doing so seem pretty specious to me.

There exists intelligent life in our universe. We know many of the requirements for that intelligent life. We know that many of the fundamental requirements are common throughout the universe. We are simply trying to determine, based on what we know, the likelihood of intelligent life outside of our solar system.

We know nothing of an ID (god). There is nothing for us to falsify or test. It is for that reason we can state plainly and with confidence that the two cannot be equated.