Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

Okay, let's just start here.

H is there is a god. H' is there is no god. E is there is life.

...

Good so far. Where does "fine tuning" come in? How do you get to the 26 dimensionless constants varying?

The actual argument as posted says nothing about fine-tuning, but it is probably assumed as a basis for the probabilities assigned to "there is life if a god exists" and "there is life if there is no god" (without fine-tuning there isn't much reason to place one any higher than the other).

You can make E "the universe is fine-tuned" if you like.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

This is serious ignorance. Scientists use observation to discover new species all of the time. Here is an article of scientists using observation to discover new animal species in Vietnam.

Observation is a crucial part of the scientific method.

Yet they seldom go looking in outer space or in their cupboards for those new species, do they? I would guess that they usually have some evidence that a new species is likely to be found in the area they're looking first.

Given the argument cj posted, I will conclude that it is possible that a god is probable. Note that I don't actually believe that a god is probable -- that would be irrational. But I would find it astonishing if a god didn't exist, so I'm going to camp out on SETI's doorstep with a listening device and wait for a god to speak to me. While I'm at it, I'll distribute a screen saver I wrote that, if there is a god, he will use his godly powers to change from an aquarium into a blue screen of death. I've already distributed my screen saver to 3 friends, and we've already seen some "interesting" events. I'll keep you posted!

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

IF our universe if fine-tuned (a premise which does have some evidence) THEN the probability of the existence of a creator who fine-tuned it is more probable than if our universe is not fine-tuned.

Which is known as an argument from ignorance. I realize you might have difficulty realizing why it is but make no mistake about it, it is. I'll try and make it clear why it is an argument from ignorance.

BTW: I apologize for the patronizing tone.

In the past, people didn't know how things worked. Since humans were capable of making things and altering their environment and humans could consciously cause things to happen then it was assumed that everything in nature that happened and appeared ordered must also be caused by a conscious entity. For instance, trees looked constructed so they explained how trees grow using their limited knowledge and filled in the gaps of their understanding with whatever was convenient.

This is what you are doing. The universe appears "fine tuned" therefore there must be a fine tuner. The sun appears to move across the sky therefore there must be a mover.

You don't know for a fact that there is a "fine tuner". You are only inferring it based, in large part, on what you DON'T know the way the ancients inferred tiny people to explain how trees are constructed.

How does the fine tuner, fine tune? Does it use knobs on a machine or does it simply wave its hands or twitch its nose like Samantha from bewitched?

A "fine tuner" has no explanatory power. It has no predictive power. It tells us nothing of the "fine tuner" or the mechanisms used by the fine tuner. It's a blank model. It is only saying "god did it" which has demonstrably been the wrong answer for thousands of years. It's god of the gaps.

When Laplace presented to Napolean his theory for the creation of the solar system, Napolean was struck that Laplace had not included this "fine tuner" you speak of and asked Laplace about it. Laplace responded, "I have no need of that hypothesis".

From the Atom to DNA to the synthesis of carbon humans have been closing the gaps for god to hide in. As for a "fine tuner", there is no need of that hypothesis if for no other reason than it doesn't explain anything but to plug up our ignorance.

 

[yy2bggggs]

You can make E "the universe is fine-tuned" if you like.

In that case, you're never sure E happens, so you cannot ever perform the inference. You've given the argument a soul, but in exchange, you took away its teeth.

 

[RandFan]

Yet they seldom go looking in outer space...

"Seldom"? How do you determine the frequency? I don't think you can confidently make this comparison.

I would guess that they usually have some evidence that a new species is likely to be found in the area they're looking first.

(emphasis mine). {sigh}

• Inteligent life exists.
• That life is carbon and water based.
• These and other elementary components that make up life on earth are common throughout the universe.
• It wasn't that long ago that we didn't know if there were extra-solar planets. We have since found them.
• If bacteria can be found in one isolated pond it can be found in another.

This is what is known in scientific parlance as "some evidence".

God? Nothing.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Adding to the above:

You can make E "the universe is fine-tuned" if you like.

I realize you yourself, Bri, may not have particular issue with this. But the key thing to note here is that it doesn't change my objection in the slightest--only the notation used:

The question then is whether or not J is H'E is true. J is H'E is true if and only if the model, JH' AND E, is the only possible (or at least, the only viable) model that is an alternative to H AND E.

And this:
A person who accepts the fine tuning argument is either irrational, or has a very good reason to suspect that H AND E and JH' AND E are the only possible alternatives.

It's not only still a false dichotomy under this change in notation, it's the same false dichotomy. Given that the argument is used by someone to conclude something about P(H|E), they are either irrational, or they have a really good reason to believe that E has to be true (namely, that it's not a viable possibility for E to be false).

 

[Beth]

Which is known as an argument from ignorance. I realize you might have difficulty realizing why it is but make no mistake about it, it is. I'll try and make it clear why it is an argument from ignorance.

BTW: I apologize for the patronizing tone.

In the past, people didn't know how things worked. Since humans were capable of making things and altering their environment and humans could consciously cause things to happen then it was assumed that everything in nature that happened and appeared ordered must also be caused by a conscious entity. For instance, trees looked constructed so they explained how trees grow using their limited knowledge and filled in the gaps of their understanding with whatever was convenient.

This is what you are doing. The universe appears "fine tuned" therefore there must be a fine tuner. The sun appears to move across the sky therefore there must be a mover.

The problem with this is that despite your insistence on the history lesson, this isn't the argument being made. It is not inferring a fine tuner exists anymore than Drake's equation infers that Intelligent E.T. life exists.

A "fine tuner" has no explanatory power. It has no predictive power. It tells us nothing of the "fine tuner" or the mechanisms used by the fine tuner. It's a blank model.

Intelligent E.T. life has no explanatory power. It has no predictive power. It tells us nothing of the Intelligent E.T. life. It's a blank model. So why believe in Intelligent E.T. life?

there is no need of that hypothesis if for no other reason than it doesn't explain anything but to plug up our ignorance.

And how is this different from the argument for Intelligent E.T. life? The reasons you give for claiming one is an argument from ignorance apply equally well to the other.

 

[RandFan]

The problem with this is that despite your insistence on the history lesson, this isn't the argument being made.

It is, you are claiming that fine tuning is evidence of something. It's not.

Intelligent E.T. life has no explanatory power.

It's not relevant. No claim is made about the ET inteligent life that requires explanatory power of the ET inteligent life.

On the contrary you are saying that we can infer something from the fact that the universe is fine tuned. The only thing we can infer is that there is/could be/might be a fine tuner. This is akin to saying that since the sun moves accross the sky there is/could be/might be a sun mover.

But saying that there is/could be/might be a sun mover tells us nothing. It's simply filling in the gaps of our ignorance.

A (fine tuning) is caused.
Since A is caused it requires B (a fine tuner).

There is no such argument for ET inteligent life.

 

[Beth]

It is, you are claiming that fine tuning is evidence of something. It's not.

It's not relevant. No claim is made about the ET inteligent life that requires explanatory power of the ET inteligent life.

What claim do you feel is being made about a 'fine tuner' that requires the explanatory power of a 'fine tuner'? I think you are assuming some claim that I am not making regarding a fine tuner.

On the contrary you are saying that we can infer something from the fact that the universe is fine tuned. The only thing we can infer is that there is/could be/might be a fine tuner.

Yes. That's all that's being inferred in this argument.

Since A is caused it requires B (a fine tuner).

There is no such argument for ET inteligent life.

I am not making the assumption that the apparent fine tuning is caused by a fine tuner. Thus, I don't see it as any more of an argument from ignorance that is the argument for ET intelligent life. If you want to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the actual argument I am making.

 

[RandFan]

What claim do you feel is being made about a 'fine tuner' that requires the explanatory power of a 'fine tuner'? I think you are assuming some claim that I am not making regarding a fine tuner.

If a watch points to a watchmaker then it is necessary that the watch be made by the watchmaker. Otherwise there is no point.

That's all that's being inferred in this argument.

It's spurious to state that while a watch infers a watchmaker it does not infer that the watchmaker, so inferred, made the watch.

I am not making the assumption that the apparent fine tuning is caused by a fine tuner.

Actually you are. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If we can infer from the watch a watchmaker then we must also infer that the watchmaker caused (made) the watch.

If you want to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the actual argument I am making.

Logical arguments have consequences. If you want to avoid the consequence of a watchmaker making a watch then you will have to stop infering a watchmaker from a watch.

 

[RandFan]

Beth and Bri,

We should note that there are a number of significant difference between the arguments that you and I are making.

Mine: Having seen snow on the ground, knowing what causes snow, knowing that the variables for the event could happen again I infer that it is plausible that it will happen again.

Yours (strictly for comparison purposes): There is snow on the ground. It could have snowed.

Yours (a more apt analogy): There is snow on the ground. Someone could have put it there.

ETA: BTW, I should tell you up-front that this is part of a larger point I'm trying to make. Do you agree with the above comparisons?

 

[Beth]

If a watch points to a watchmaker then it is necessary that the watch be made by the watchmaker. Otherwise there is no point. It's spurious to state that while a watch infers a watchmaker it does not infer that the watchmaker, so inferred, made the watch.

While that is the point of the watchmaker analogy, that isn't the analogy that's been made here. It's fairly well understood that some kinds of fine tuning can occur via natural processes (e.g. evolution). Thus, while a finely tuned universe may be considered evidence pointing to a fine tuner, it is by no means considered proof that a fine tuner existed in the same way that a watch or other obvious artifact is considered proof of a watch maker.

Actually you are. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If we can infer from the watch a watchmaker then we must also infer that the watchmaker caused (made) the watch.

See above

Logical arguments have consequences. If you want to avoid the consequence of a watchmaker making a watch then you will have to stop infering a watchmaker from a watch.

I am not inferring a watchmaker. Let me repeat what I said last time since you seem to have missed it. If you want to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the actual argument I am making.

 

[RandFan]

Thus, while a finely tuned universe may be considered evidence pointing to a fine tuner, it is by no means considered proof that a fine tuner existed in the same way that a watch or other obvious artifact is considered proof of a watch maker.

You are missing my point. If the evidence points to a watchmaker then if we assume a watchmaker then we must assume that the watchmaker made the watch.

Let me repeat what I said last time since you seem to have missed it. If you want to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, you'll have to deal with the actual argument I am making.

Likewise. Logical arguments have consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences then avoid the argument.

Let's move on. Please to deal with post #1051 and I will explain how that one demonstrates this one.

 

[Beth]

You are missing my point. If the evidence points to a watchmaker then if we assume a watchmaker then we must assume that the watchmaker made the watch.

I am not making a watch --> watchmaker argument. How do you think this applies to the fine tuner argument?

Likewise. Logical arguments have consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences then avoid the argument.

I repeat, I am not making a watch --> watchmaker argument.

Let's move on. Please to deal with post #1051 and I will explain how that one demonstrates this one.

Let me rephrase it somewhat please.

Randfan: Having seen snow on the ground but not on the pavement, knowing what causes snow, knowing that the variables for the event could happen again I infer that it is plausible that it will happen again.

Beth: There is snow on the ground but not on the pavement. It is possible that the pavement is warmer than the ground, but it is also possible that someone cleared the snow off the pavement. The amount of snow on the ground can be used to infer which of those possibilities is more likely.

 

[Bri]

In that case, you're never sure E happens, so you cannot ever perform the inference. You've given the argument a soul, but in exchange, you took away its teeth.

What? You give a probability P(E|H) to "the universe is fine-tuned if a god exists." Then you give a probability P(E|~H) to "the universe is fine-tuned if a god doesn't exist."

There is evidence that the universe is fine-tuned. If you think the probability of that happening is much higher if a god exists than without a god you will wind up with a high posterior probability of the existence of god.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What? You give a probability P(E|H) to "the universe is fine-tuned if a god exists." Then you give a probability P(E|~H) to "the universe is fine-tuned if a god doesn't exist."

There is evidence that the universe is fine-tuned. If you think the probability of that happening is much higher if a god exists than without a god you will wind up with a high posterior probability of the existence of god.

-Bri

Um, what evidence is there that the universe is fine-tuned?

 

[Bri]

"Seldom"? How do you determine the frequency? I don't think you can confidently make this comparison.

Who looks for new animal species in outer space or in their cupboards? Yes, I'm pretty confident it's seldom, if not never.

This is what is known in scientific parlance as "some evidence".

While you're hilighting, you might want to look at the entire sentence I wrote:

I would guess that they usually have some evidence that a new species is likely to be found in the area they're looking first.​

The "evidence" you listed certainly indicates that it's possible to find new species in outer space, but not that it's likely.

Where is the evidence that any new animal species is likely to be found in outer space or in a cupboard?

There's a reason why the vast majority of entomologists don't spend their time looking for new species of insects in outer space or cupboards -- new species of insects aren't likely to be found there.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I am not making a watch

I didn't say that you were.

How do you think this applies to the fine tuner argument?

You assert that there is something to be inferred from the fact that there is fine tuning as one might infer a watchmaker from the fact that there is a watch.

Randfan: Having seen snow on the ground but not on the pavement...

I've no idea what the pavement has to do with my argument. You are introducing irrelevant variables.

Beth: There is snow on the ground but not on the pavement. It is possible that the pavement is warmer than the ground, but it is also possible that someone cleared the snow off the pavement. The amount of snow on the ground can be used to infer which of those possibilities is more likely.

I'm rather unclear as to your rephrasing. How is a comparison of two facts (snow in one place and no snow in another place) relevant? What two facts are you comparing for the fine tuner? Do you have two creations?

I would prefer something more in line to the actual arguments rather than comparisons that introduce irrelevant variables.

 

[articulett]

I am not making a watch --> watchmaker argument. How do you think this applies to the fine tuner argument?

I repeat, I am not making a watch --> watchmaker argument.



Let me rephrase it somewhat please.

Randfan: Having seen snow on the ground but not on the pavement, knowing what causes snow, knowing that the variables for the event could happen again I infer that it is plausible that it will happen again.

Beth: There is snow on the ground but not on the pavement. It is possible that the pavement is warmer than the ground, but it is also possible that someone cleared the snow off the pavement. The amount of snow on the ground can be used to infer which of those possibilities is more likely.

No... you are positing a nonphysical immaterial someone who took the snow off the ground (or made it snow)-- not an every day physical person (or... for the sake of analogy-- an everyday natural weather event.)

 

[Bri]

The question then is whether or not J is H'E is true. J is H'E is true if and only if the model, JH' AND E, is the only possible (or at least, the only viable) model that is an alternative to H AND E.

There are only four possibilities:

• there is a god and the universe is not fine-tuned
• there is no god and the universe is not fine-tuned
• there is a god and the universe is fine-tuned
• there is no god and the universe is fine-tuned

The assumption in the premise is that the universe is fine-tuned, which leaves only two possibilities:

• there is a god and the universe is fine-tuned
• there is no god and the universe is fine-tuned

Sure, it's a dichotomy all right. But not a false one. If a higher probability is assigned to the first one than the second one, the posterior probability of the hypothesis will be higher than the prior probability.

It's not only still a false dichotomy under this change in notation, it's the same false dichotomy. Given that the argument is used by someone to conclude something about P(H|E), they are either irrational, or they have a really good reason to believe that E has to be true (namely, that it's not a viable possibility for E to be false).

Nonsense. It is assumed in the premise that the universe is fine-tuned.

-Bri