Can theists be rational?

[Malerin]

"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?

Rand, who would rather play with?
A dealer who deals himself 10,J,K,Q,A (spades) and then 10,J,K,Q,A (Diamonds)
A dealer who deals himself 2D,2C,4S,3C,7H and then 6H,4H,6C,9D,2S

All four hands are equally probable, though I don't think you'd stay in the game after the second royal flush was dealt.

Some results are more significant than others, even when the probabilities are the same.

 

[Malerin]

To make it as simple as possible, change H to "Something created the universe". Pr(E/H) will suffer as a result (to agnosticism), but the negation of H (~H) is clear: nothing created the universe. Then Pr(E/~H) can be argued to be <<.5, which would result in confirmation. This doesn't get you theism ("something" could be a super-intelligent race of aliens), but it does get the theist's foot in the door.

 

[RandFan]

Some results are more significant than others, even when the probabilities are the same.

Only because we arbitrarily assign the significance.

In a game of lowball I would prefer a Bycicle (small straight of any suit) to a Royal Flush.

You?

Your point is irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

[RandFan]

Rand, who would rather play with?
A dealer who deals himself 10,J,K,Q,A (spades) and then 10,J,K,Q,A (Diamonds)
A dealer who deals himself 2D,2C,4S,3C,7H and then 6H,4H,6C,9D,2S

All four hands are equally probable, though I don't think you'd stay in the game after the second royal flush was dealt.

Some results are more significant than others, even when the probabilities are the same.

I didn't understand your point. Please ignore the previous post.

What if only one hand has ever been dealt? How many instance of creation do we have to compare?

 

[Bri]

It is irrational to posit a fine-tuner because a "fine-tuner" has no explanatory power.

What do aliens explain?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This business of "finer tuner" is a sham anyway. The context of this discussion (see the thread title) is belief in a god or gods.

"Fine Tuner" is yet another attempt to make a religious belief sound like science. It fits right in this succession of terms:

Creationism, Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and now Fine Tuner

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, theists used to argue sort of the opposite of the fine-tuning argument (in a way). They used to use miracles as proof of God's existence. Miracles are instances of the suspension of the rules (those constants that the fine-tuning argument say were set by a tuner).

So the fine-tuning argument is that since things are the way they are, God exists.

The miracle argument was that since things sometimes aren't the way they are, God exists.

I think yy2bggs was spot on with the term "sophistry".

 

[RandFan]

What do aliens explain?

As it relates to the topic at hand, nothing that I know of. We are not trying to explain anything by aliens. To posit a fine tuner raises some very fundamental questions that positing ET Inteligent life doesn't raise.

1. How did the universe come to be?
2. It's fine tuned so there must be a fine tuner.
3. What is a fine tuner?
4. That which fine tunes the universe.

Your argument is circular and it explains nothing. I know, you want us to stop at step #2 but your answer raises far more questions than it answers.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/3881/amiracleoccurscq6.jpg

 

[Bri]

As it relates to the topic at hand, nothing that I know of. We are not trying to explain anything by aliens. To posit a fine tuner raises some very fundamental questions that positing ET Inteligent life doesn't raise.

1. How did the universe come to be?
2. It's fine tuned so there must be a fine tuner.
3. What is a fine tuner?
4. That which fine tunes the universe.

You said "It is irrational to posit a fine-tuner because a "fine-tuner" has no explanatory power."

• What do aliens eat for breakfast?
• How many arms do they have?
• Can they communicate with their thoughts?
• Do aliens probe their own anuses, or only the anuses of other species?

I can play that game too. If it's irrational to posit the existence of a fine-tuner, then it's also irrational to posit the existence of aliens for the same reason.

Your argument is circular...

Is not. And it's not my argument.

and it explains nothing. I know, you want us to stop at step #2 but your answer raises far more questions than it answers.

Because positing aliens doesn't raise any questions. Got it.

-Bri

 

[Malerin]

I didn't understand your point. Please ignore the previous post.

What if only one hand has ever been dealt? How many instance of creation do we have to compare?

Only one, unfortunately, which makes the argument highly dependent on cosmologist's speculation of what the universe would have been like, if the constants had different values, and biologist's speculation on the conditions for life.

However, when the odds are long enough, sometimes one instance is all you need. Suppose a special one-time lottery was created for just you. The odds of you winning are ten trillion to one. You fill out your card, the numbers are drawn, and you win. Even though there was only one instance of the lottery, with those kind of odds, it would almost be impossible to think someone hadn't rigged it in your favor.

 

[RandFan]

You said "It is irrational to posit a fine-tuner because a "fine-tuner" has no explanatory power."

Creation is a caused event. How does one cause an event? To say "god did it" doesn't tell us anything.

What do aliens eat for breakfast?
How many arms do they have?
Can they communicate with their thoughts?
Do aliens probe their own anuses, or only the anuses of other species?

The answer to these questions is not salient to whether or not they exist.

The question that we are trying to answer with ID is how did the universe come to be. Not whether or not god exists. The question we are trying to answer with whether or not ET Inteligent life exists is whether or not ET Inteligent life exists. The question does not presupose fundamental questions the way the existence of god does.

What is a fine-tuner? Any answer is circular.

 

[RandFan]

Only one, unfortunately, which makes the argument highly dependent on cosmologist's speculation of what the universe would have been like, if the constants had different values, and biologist's speculation on the conditions for life.

However, when the odds are long enough, sometimes one instance is all you need. Suppose a special one-time lottery was created for just you. The odds of you winning are ten trillion to one. You fill out your card, the numbers are drawn, and you win. Even though there was only one instance of the lottery, with those kind of odds, it would almost be impossible to think someone hadn't rigged it in your favor.

False analogy.

There is only one lottery ever. I declare that the 8 balls that are drawn are so remote as to be impossible.

Or better yet. I get 1,000,000 balls each with a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and put them in a bing and jumble them up. I then randomly choose 10. I then declare that the chance of those 10 coming up are so remote that what happened was the result of a miraculous event.

 

[Bri]

The question that we are trying to answer with ID is how did the universe come to be. Not whether or not god exists.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the argument cj posted has to do with the existence of a god.

What is a fine-tuner?

A fine-tuner is a being which has the power to set the fundamental constants of the universe to relatively specific values that would allow life to develop and exist.

Any answer is circular.

Not any moreso than any other definition.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

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

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.

I'm saying that the two arguments are equivalent in some important ways. Specifically, I think if one is considered to be an anthopomorphic argument, so must the other. I think that both speculations include factors we have no clue about and cannot estimate, thus both must be considered arguments from ignorance if you choose to phrase our lack of knowledge that way. I don't think either is an empirical claim that we are trying to falsify. Instead, I would say that both claims are unfalsifiable and will remain so throughout our expected lifetimes.

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?

I think you are the one attempting to play a semantical game rather than answer my question. The difference between a premise of "must" and one that says "may" is quite significant. I'll ask again: There is an assumption that ordered states may be created by an intelligence. Do you disagree with that assumption?

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

I can equivalently say:

There exist creator beings on our planet. We know the requirements for creating other entities of various types. We know that some creators beings have created other entities that reproduce and evolve in their created universes. We are simply trying to determine, based on what we know, the likelihood of creator beings outside of our universe having created this universe.

We know nothing of an ID (god). There is nothing for us to falsify or test.

Likewise, I can equally say:
We know nothing of alien intelligences. 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.

The reasons you put forth are NOT differences between the two questions and speculations, but apply to both. Your argument that one is rational and the other not seems to me to be based on nothing more than "Because I say so."

 

[Malerin]

False analogy.

There is only one lottery ever. I declare that the 8 balls that are drawn are so remote as to be impossible.

Or better yet. I get 1,000,000 balls each with a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and put them in a bing and jumble them up. I then randomly choose 10. I then declare that the chance of those 10 coming up are so remote that what happened was the result of a miraculous event.

This goes back to significant events. If the first 9 balls you randomly choose happen to be: 314159265, you're going to think the draw was rigged somehow, even though 314159265 is just as likely as 984532892. One is significant, the other isn't.

 

[Malerin]

H|E isn't anything at all. P(H|E) is, but not H|E. Now H, E, H AND E, etc, are all propositions. But H|E isn't anything.

If H/E was nothing at all, how would we assign a degree of belief to it? It's a conditional proposition of the type If it rains, then the street gets wet. Our degree of belief in that will be very high because we know streets tend to get wet when it rains. If I get dealt five aces(E), then the deck is rigged(H). If the test comes up positive (E), then I have malaria (H). Those are all either true or false. The Pr in front is an epistemic value of how likely we think the conditional proposition is.

It's an equation. It's not a fallacy. This isn't a fallacy:

x = 1-x

...it's just not true unless x is 1/2. And this isn't a fallacy either:

x = f*g x

...even if it's false, true in certain cases, or always true. Terms get to be on both sides of equations in math. Furthermore, Bayes Theorem isn't a definition of P(H|E)--rather, it's a consequence of Bayesian probability that Bayes Theorem is true (that's what it means for it to be a theorem).x

Sounds good. I thought formulas and theorems were definitional. I stand corrected.

 

[fls]

Under what conditions could we expect aliens to exist? The problem is that we don't know the conditions, other than to say that it's not impossible.

Right. Like we don't know the conditions under which your stroke will be prevented.

It's anecdotal evidence. If you held the belief without any evidence, it would certainly be a faith-based belief.

Right. Like the idea that aspirin might prevent a stroke in you is a faith-based belief.

No, the bulk of the practice of medicine is based on evidence where I live. Where do you live?

I guess medicine is like sausage where you live, then - you don't want to know how it's made.

If nothing less than direct observation counts as 'evidence'. And if speculation based on probabilities and minor extrapolation is indistinguishable from speculation based on extremely low probabilities and gross extrapolation. Then I can understand why pretty much everything would be classed by you as a faith-based belief.

What's the difference between "a value for n" and "the size of the value for n?"

One is absolute and one is relative.

If the relationship between the two doesn't change, it's entirely because you're assuming that fine-tuners make fine-tuning more likely (rather than less likely). If you don't make that assumption, then the two values could be anything you want, even the opposite. Even if you continue with that assumption, the difference between the two values might be more or less depending on how much more likely you think one is than the other.

So what's your point?

-Bri

Regardless of how the argument could be formed, I'm talking about the way the argument is formed by the proponents. They start by establishing a relationship between a god/fine-tuner and life such that life is much more likely in the presence of a fine-tuner than in its absence - a 'likelihood ratio'. They then claim that because fine-tuning is present (i.e. p(E/~H)*p(~H) is very low), this supports the presence of a fine-tuner. But since we've already established the relative relationship between god/fine-tuner and life (i.e. by establishing a sort of 'likelihood ratio'), p(E/H)*p(H) and p(E/~H)*p(~H) will vary together, leaving p(H/E) unchanged. This means that p(E/~H)*p(~H) is not confined to a specific value. In particular, it is not confined to a very low value - i.e. to a relative term such as 'fine-tuning'.

My point is that I hope it would give one pause to discover that the fine-tuning argument, which purportedly supports the idea of a fine-tuner, may come to the same conclusion even if the universe isn't fine-tuned.

Linda

 

[Bri]

Right. Like we don't know the conditions under which your stroke will be prevented.

What are you talking about? We do know the conditions under which strokes will be prevented.

Right. Like the idea that aspirin might prevent a stroke in you is a faith-based belief.

If it's not based on evidence, it's a faith-based belief. If it's based on evidence then it's not a faith-based belief.

The idea that aspirin may prevent strokes is based on evidence, and is therefore not faith-based. If it weren't based on evidence, the American Heart Association probably wouldn't recommend aspirin to prevent strokes.

I guess medicine is like sausage where you live, then - you don't want to know how it's made.

No idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that mainstream medicine isn't based on evidence where I live?

If nothing less than direct observation counts as 'evidence'.

I've never said that. There are different types of evidence.

And if speculation based on probabilities and minor extrapolation is indistinguishable from speculation based on extremely low probabilities and gross extrapolation.

Again, I never said that they are indistinguishable. However, I don't know which you're considering to be based on high probabilities and minor extrapolation, since that doesn't describe either belief in gods or aliens, both of which are based on unknown probabilities and major extrapolation.

Then I can understand why pretty much everything would be classed by you as a faith-based belief.

Again, that seems to be your own straw man since I never said. I stated that mainstream medicine tends to be evidence-based in the very post to which you're responding, so you should be well-aware that your statement isn't accurate.

What I did say was that neither belief in aliens or gods is evidence-based.

Regardless of how the argument could be formed, I'm talking about the way the argument is formed by the proponents.

You're talking about the premise, not about how the argument is formed. The argument is formed like any other Bayesian argument.

They start by establishing a relationship between a god/fine-tuner and life such that life is much more likely in the presence of a fine-tuner than in its absence - a 'likelihood ratio'.

Yes, that's assumed in the premise, true enough.

My point is that I hope it would give one pause to discover that the fine-tuning argument, which purportedly supports the idea of a fine-tuner, may come to the same conclusion even if the universe isn't fine-tuned

It would certainly give one pause to discover that the conclusion wouldn't change if the premises were to change. But in this case, there would be no need for one to pause, since that simply isn't the case.

If the universe isn't fine-tuned, the probabilities assigned to P(E|H) and P(E|~H) would be the same, and the conclusion would be that the chances of a god remain 1 in a million. Or, the probabilities assigned might be reversed, and the conclusion would be that the chances of a god are less than 1 in a million.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I just want to say that I'm always amused by the analogies people use and the analogies they avoid to support what they believe.

To me, positing a god from the appearance of seeming fine tuning is the equivalent of positing a sun mover from the appearance of the sun seeming to move.

It's identical.

It's not at all identical to positing life on another planet once you understand how life happened to evolve on ours. Life will evolve if it can evolve...and life will evolve to fit the environment it evolves on giving the impression that the environment was made specifically for that life.

The god hypothesis gets it backwards just like the sun mover hypothesis. The seeming design just like the movement of the sun is due to our perspective-- not from actual design or movement of the sun-- and neither need a designer or fine tuner or mover or any consciousness to just do what it cannot help but do.

Drawing such a conclusion makes a person unable to understand the facts. If you imagined a sun mover as being responsible for the movement of the sun and you considered the suns movement as evidence-- you'd be making the same circular argument as people make for god... and you would be increasingly unlikely to understand that the movement of the sun is something that happens in our brain-- our perception-- and we don't need magic to perceive things in a story telling... agency directing manner.

But that doesn't mean that the agency we detect actually exists or the connections we've made are accurate.

But I like hearing the rationalizations and analogies people tell themselves so they can convince themselves that their woo is true and rational too!

 

[RandFan]

This goes back to significant events. If the first 9 balls you randomly choose happen to be: 314159265

You've got 1 and 5 in there twice. That doesn't make any sense. There are 1,000,000 balls numbered 1 through 1,000,000

...you're going to think the draw was rigged somehow, even though 314159265 is just as likely as 984532892. One is significant, the other isn't.

You are not making any sense. I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that the events that we know that have the probability of 1 are in fact an impossibility?