Can theists be rational?

[RandFan]

Who looks for new animal species in outer space or in their cupboards?

I'm still confused as to what your point is. You seem to be making a point that has no relevance to the facts. We look for species where we think we might find them. Sometimes we are wrong.

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.

This really misrepresents the argument. Scientists are looking where ET Inteligent life is more likely to be. They are not looking on the sun or gas planets. They are looking where they think it is more likely.

 

[Bri]

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

It is assumed in the premise of the argument, but there is evidence of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from developing life as it is currently observed on the earth.​

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It is assumed in the premise of the argument, but there is evidence of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Which raises some important questions:

1. Do you know for a fact that the universe hasn't been expanding and collapsing for an infinite number of times each with a different set of variables?
2. Do you know for a fact that there are not an infinite number of universes with different variables?
3. Do you know what the chances of you existing are?
4. What do you extrapolate from the unlikely event that you exist?
5. Why should we extrapolate anything from the fact that it was extremely unlikely for the universe to be as it is?

It's a fallacy to assume that the fact that an unlikely event has occurred means anything or increases the probability of any other proposition.

Beth: Along with my snow comparison #5 goes to the watch implies a watchmaker argument.

 

[Bri]

I'm still confused as to what your point is. You seem to be making a point that has no relevance to the facts. We look for species where we think we might find them.

We typically look for things we are reasonably likely to find. If we don't believe we are reasonably likely to find something, we don't usually spend millions of dollars and countless hours looking for it.

This really misrepresents the argument. Scientists are looking where ET Inteligent life is more likely to be. They are not looking on the sun or gas planets. They are looking where they think it is more likely.

Oh, I see...so it's rational to look for invisible elephants as long as you look in the African plains where they are more likely to be, even if you don't believe it likely that they exist.

I would guess that people who spend time and money looking for aliens typically believe it likely that they exist.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

We typically look for things we are reasonably likely to find. If we don't believe we are reasonably likely to find something, we don't usually spend millions of dollars and countless hours looking for it.

Ok and?

Oh, I see...so it's rational to look for invisible elephants...

Invisible elephants have been shown to exist? Really?

 

[RandFan]

We typically look for things we are reasonably likely to find. If we don't believe we are reasonably likely to find something, we don't usually spend millions of dollars and countless hours looking for it.

Actually this ISN'T true. Please talk to cj and see Paranormal Research. I'm confident to say many, many people have spent many, many millions of dollars for decades and have not produced anything and there is no reasonable basis to think that they will. But that is really beside the point.

 

[Beth]

I didn't say that you were.

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.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this. I do not infer a fine tuner from the fact there is fine tuning in the same way that I would infer a watch maker from a watch. I am inferring a greater probability of a fine tuner as a result of fine tuning, not that there must be a fine tuner. While you may not consider the difference significant, I think it is. When you switch to a watch-->watchmaker analogy you have gone beyond the inference I making with the fine-tuning argument.

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

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?

The fact that the pavement is clear when the ground is not is analogous to the fine tuning.

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

I feel the analogy as I phrased it is better because you can directly relate it to the fine-tuning argument:

IF there is snow on the ground but not on the pavement
THEN the the probability of the existence of a snow-clearer who clears it away it is more probable than if the pavement was also covered with snow.

I don't follow how your phrasing maps onto that argument.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is assumed in the premise of the argument, but there is evidence of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from developing life as it is currently observed on the earth.​

-Bri

If it is assumed in the premise of the argument, then it seems to me that the conclusion (of a fine-tuner) is assumed.

That we can live only if the universe had specific constants can never be used to define that the universe is fine-tuned. To do so implies a teleological viewpoint from the outset. The phrase "fine-tuned" looks like a dead give-away.

There are many other alternatives -- most of which result in us not being here. "Fine-tuning" looks to me as if it begins with too many hidden assumptions.

None of that is evidence that there is fine-tuning. It is evidence that the constants are what they are. Fine-tuning implies that someone can and will change the constants to produce a particular outcome. The evidence is actually only that there are constants. "Fine-tuning" appears more like a conclusion one can draw from that evidence if one assumes a teleological perspective.

When we ask the question, "what are the chances of us being here?", we assume that the point of it all is that we be here. But we cannot and should not make that assumption.

 

[RandFan]

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this. I do not infer a fine tuner from the fact there is fine tuning in the same way that I would infer a watch maker from a watch. I am inferring a greater probability of a fine tuner as a result of fine tuning, not that there must be a fine tuner.

If there is a fine tuner then there are consequences of there being a fine tuner.

The fact that the pavement is clear when the ground is not is analogous to the fine tuning.

In what way?

I feel the analogy as I phrased it is better because you can directly relate it to the fine-tuning argument:

Why? I don't see that at all.

IF there is snow on the ground but not on the pavement
THEN the the probability of the existence of a snow-clearer who clears it away it is more probable than if the pavement was also covered with snow.

I don't see how this follows. You are comparing two states. Snow on ground but not on pavement. What does that have to do with the single state of a fine tuned universe? Do you have two examples of creation? A fine tuned state and a state that is not fine tuned?

I really don't get your analogy.

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

1. Do you know for a fact that the universe hasn't been expanding and collapsing for an infinite number of times each with a different set of variables?
2. Do you know for a fact that there are not an infinite number of universes with different variables?
3. Do you know what the chances of you existing are?
4. What do you extrapolate from the unlikely event that you exist?
5. Why should we extrapolate anything from the fact that it was extremely unlikely for the universe to be as it is?

It's a fallacy to assume that the fact that an unlikely event has occurred means anything or increases the probability of any other proposition.

 

[Beth]

If there is a fine tuner then there are consequences of there being a fine tuner.

And, aside from the fine tuning, what would those consequences be?

In what way?

Why? I don't see that at all.

I don't see how this follows. You are comparing two states. Snow on ground but not on pavement. What does that have to do with the single state of a fine tuned universe? Do you have two examples of creation? A fine tuned state and a state that is not fine tuned?

I really don't get your analogy.

The snow is analogous to the universe. The snow not on the payment is analogous to the fine tuning of the universe. But if my putting it into the same IF THEN format as the fine tuning argument didn't make sense to you, we should probably try a different analogy. I felt it didn't fit our arguments very well the way you originally put it.

 

[Beth]

[*]Why should we extrapolate anything from the fact that it was extremely unlikely for the universe to be as it is?
[/LIST]It's a fallacy to assume that the fact that an unlikely event has occurred means anything or increases the probability of any other proposition.

Beth: Along with my snow comparison #5 goes to the watch implies a watchmaker argument.

The way science often works:

1. We set up a pair of hypotheses, typically termed the null and the alternative. Usually the alternative is what is being tested to determine if it might be true.

2. We collect relevant data and determine the probabilty of getting the data we got under the assumption of the null hypothesis.

3. If the probability of the data we collected is sufficiently unlikely under the null, it is rejected and we conclude the alternative is more likely to be true instead.

In this case, (1) the null is the hypothesis that there is no creator. The alternative is that there is. (2) The data collected is the probability of the Universe being as it is. If it is fine-tuned, then the probability is small. (3) If the probability is unlikely enough, some people feel that is justification to accept the alternative.

There is a fallacy in this case. Ich has explained better than I could. I happen to agree with him that no definite conclusion can be drawn because of that. BUT that doesn't affect the application of Bayesian logic to the issue. We can still give a higher probability to the existance of a creator if the universe requires fine-tuning in order to produce creatures like us than if the universe did not require fine-tuning in order to produce creatures such as us. What we can't do is conclude that because of the fine tuning, a fine-tuner must exist.

 

[RandFan]

In this case, (1) the null is the hypothesis that there is no creator. The alternative is that there is. (2) The data collected is the probability of the Universe being as it is. If it is fine-tuned, then the probability is small. (3) If the probability is unlikely enough, some people feel that is justification to accept the alternative.

#2 is spurious. You cannot use the improbability of an event like fine tuning to calculate the probability of an undefined creator.

If you sit down and deal out 5 cards from a deck of 52 there is a 1 in 2.6 million chance that those 5 cards will be drawn. What significance is that? Your chance of existing is small beyond comprehension. What significance is that? What can we conclude from that fact? If I say it is because of an intelligent being who wanted you to deal out those 5 cards or who wanted you to be alive would that be an appropriate hypothesis?

You are looking for patterns in the noise.


Now, please factor into your equation the following:

• The universe could have expanded and collapsed an infinite number of times. Each with different variables.
• There could be an infinite number of universes. Each with different variables.

Bayes theorem as it applies to an undefined creator is nonsense in many ways.

 

[RandFan]

The snow is analogous to the universe. The snow not on the payment is analogous to the fine tuning of the universe.

I don't see how that follows at all. There is an event. Snow on the ground. How did it get there? There are two choices.

• A natural explanation (it snowed).
• An intelligence based and purposeful explanation (a creator made snow).

I'm really am at a loss as to why this is not a good comparison.

 

[Malerin]

#2 is spurious. You cannot use the improbability of an event like fine tuning to calculate the probability of an undefined creator.

The police do it all the time. A DNA match is a highly improbable event and can be used to calculate the probability that an undefined murderer is actually person X.

If you sit down and deal out 5 cards from a deck of 52 there is a 1 in 2.6 million chance that those 5 cards will be drawn. What significance is that? Your chance of existing is small beyond comprehension. What significance is that? What can we conclude from that fact? If I say it is because of an intelligent being who wanted you to deal out those 5 cards or who wanted you to be alive would that be an appropriate hypothesis?

Let's say you have a deck of 52 cards. Each card has a letter of the alphabet on it. You deal out the cards and they come out in this order: HELLO RAND HOW ARE YOU TODAY
Just chance?

Now, please factor into your equation the following:

• The universe could have expanded and collapsed an infinite number of times. Each with different variables.
• There could be an infinite number of universes. Each with different variables.

Bayes theorem as it applies to an undefined creator is nonsense in many ways.

That information is included in the background knowledge or Pr(E/~H)k

 

[RandFan]

The police do it all the time. A DNA match is a highly improbable event and can be used to calculate the probability that an undefined murderer is actually person X.

No. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. In the case of DNA we are making a match. If you could tell us how the fine tuner fine tuned and then demonstrate how the unique signature of the fine tuner matches the fine tuned universe so that we could make a match and rule out other fine tuners you would have a point. You can't and so you don't.

Let's say you have a deck of 52 cards. Each card has a letter of the alphabet on it. You deal out the cards and they come out in this order: HELLO RAND HOW ARE YOU TODAY
Just chance?

I've already dealt with this. I've told you to see Palous' book Innumeracy. You are committing a fallacy. He deals with it much better than I. The truth is that every hand has the exact same probability. The mistake you are making is determining ahead of time an event. Fine tuning isn't a predetermine event that we can go back in time and see that it was predetermined. As Paulos has said, our world would be very, very strange if very unlikely events didn't happen.

That information is included in the background knowledge or Pr(E/~H)k

And renders it meaningless. See infinite monkey theorem.

 

[yy2bggggs]

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."

You observe that life exists. You presume that the universe is fine tuned.

There is evidence that the universe is fine-tuned.

How does evidence that E is true help you do an inference? Recall, the equation is:
P(H|E)=P(H)P(E|H)/P(E)
...where P(E) has multiple forms--but essentially it's just P(E).

If E is true, you can perform an inference. What do you do if E may be true? If it is merely supported by evidence?

Assume it's true? Then you beg the question--and you're going down that false dichotomy road. Demonstrate so convincingly that it's true that E' doesn't become a viable possibility? Then you meet my caveat criteria for being able to maintain rationality.

Ignore it and apply the inference anyway? Then, again, you're begging the question, while sinning against mathematics.

Hedge your bets? Then you need something other than Bayes Theorem.

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

...at the beginning of the day. And at the end of the day, if you merely stop with the hypothetical exercise, there's no issue.

But if you accept the argument, by presuming that the universe is fine-tuned (or guessing, or holding as a premise--however you phrase it, doesn't matter--the key is you're accepting the argument), then you're denying the two alternative not-fine-tuned possibilities, and are committing a false dichotomy.

Again, as I've repeated so many times now... if, and ONLY if, let's suppose, you have a good reason to suspect that it's not even viable to hold the universe as not fine tuned...

THEN you are acquitted of the accusation of false dichotomy...

Otherwise, sorry. It's a classic false dichotomy.

The only condition necessary for the fallacy of false dichotomy to be truly committed, is that at the end of the day, you have ignored n-2 of n>=3 viably possible scenarios, be you excuse yourself as holding a premise or no.

I cannot see how you can argue otherwise.

Edit:

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.

Sure... why not? It really is, genuinely, more believable that an elephant was used to build a house that I know for sure exists than it is to believe that an elephant was used to build a house I'm not quite sure exists.

 

[Malerin]

No. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. In the case of DNA we are making a match. If you could tell us how the fine tuner fine tuned and then demonstrate how the unique signature of the fine tuner matches the fine tuned universe so that we could make a match and rule out other fine tuners you would have a point. You can't and so you don't.

It doesn't work like that. The DNA match works because it is much more plausible on the theory that so-and-so committed the crime than it is on the theory that the match happened by random chance. The life-permitting values of the phsyical constants are much more plausible on the theory that something set them than on random chance. In both cases, the evidence is already known (DNA, values of the constants). That doesn't stop us from using it to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis (X commited the crime, something made the universe).

I've already dealt with this. I've told you to see Palous' book Innumeracy. You are committing a fallacy. He deals with it much better than I. The truth is that every hand has the exact same probability. The mistake you are making is determining ahead of time an event. Fine tuning isn't a predetermine event that we can go back in time and see that it was predetermined. As Paulos has said, our world would be very, very strange if very unlikely events didn't happen.

I'm not predetermining anything. I'm not saying you WILL get that result, I'm saying what would you think if you DID get that result, or any meaningful sentence out of a random drawing of cards? You would obviously conclude it wasn't random.

It's like this:
1. You take a coin out of your pocket. You believe it's a fair coin.
2. You flip it once, and get heads. You don't have enough information to change your mind about the coin.
3. You get heads again. Still not enough information. Two heads in a row is easy to achieve.
4. Heads again. Three heads is still not that hard, and your background knowledge is such that you know you'll occasianlly get that result with coins.
5. Heads again. Maybe a small doubt about the coin sets in.
6. Heads again. The small doubt grows
....
30. Heads again. You are certain the coin is loaded.

There's nothing predetermined about that. It's a steady accumulation of evidence that is much more plausible on the theory that the coin is loaded than on the theory that it's fair. Would you really give even odds on tails coming up on the 31st toss? It's like a roulette wheel that lands 00 20 times in a row. Only a fool would bet on it, but 20 house numbers has the same probabiltiy of any other result.

And renders it meaningless. See infinite monkey theorem.

I've admitted a multiverse or oscillating universe is a defeater for the argument.

 

[RandFan]

It doesn't work like that. The DNA match works because it is much more plausible on the theory that so-and-so committed the crime than it is on the theory that the match happened by random chance.

But in order to work you have to have one thing to match to another. There is no such match for a fine tuner. The analogy is false.

The life-permitting values of the phsyical constants are much more plausible on the theory that something set them than on random chance.

They do not equate. In one instance you have something to compare to. In the other you are only looking backwards at what you deem unlikely and extroplating from that.

What can you extrapolate from the extreme inplausibility of your existence?

I'm saying what would you think if you DID get that result...

Are you not telling me ahead of time what that event is? Yes, yes you are. The fact is that these kinds of events do happen. All of the time. The trick is knowing ahead of time when such a rare event will happen.

...or any meaningful sentence out of a random drawing of cards? You would obviously conclude it wasn't random.

Actually that is not true and has been dealt with at length in debunking bible codes and other such.

Read Inummeracy.

30. Heads again. You are certain the coin is loaded.

You are making a classical error that Paulos deals with explicitly in Inummeracy.

Pick a thousand people. Have each flip a coin. All that have tails sit down. Do it again. All that have tails sit down. Do it again, and again, eventually you will get someone who gets heads 30 times in a row or 40 times in a row (if you have enough people someone will win the lottery or flip a coin 30 times in a row). Dawkins does this BTW on one of his older videos. Ok Malerin, what does the person who wins the lottery supposed to make of the fact that he or she won the lottery? You are saying that such an event is proof of something. Proof of what? You are engaging in a well understood fallacy. The trick is to pick the event ahead of time. In this case you say that it is me (RandFan) who gets the heads 30 times in a row.

Malerin, unusual things happen all of the time (please get Paulos' book). If these types of events didn't happen we would live in a very, very strange world.

As it relates to statistics you are suffering from Innumeracy. Get the book. Get cured.

I'm screaming at you to get the book.

 

[RandFan]

30. Heads again. You are certain the coin is loaded.

Oh, BTW, If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of my being born at all is at *most 1 divided by 6 x 6 ¹⁰⁰ What do I conclude from that?

*This is an extremly conservative figure as it only takes into account the male lineage.