Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

You're the one claiming that the argument aliens exist is the same as the argument that god exists.

I didn't say they were the same. I said that I could think of no basis to conclude that one is necessarily irrational while the other is rational.

At best, Drake's equation gives us a way to estimate p(H).

No, that's the problem, it doesn't. Without knowing the values of the other terms, you can't estimate the probability of aliens.

So what is E? What observation do you think these alien believers (whoever they are) are using to support the idea of alien civilizations?

I'm confused. Are we talking about the Jupiter thing? I've stated repeatedly that I don't think any of the arguments provide support for belief that something exists, be it gods or aliens.

However, the equivalent of the fine-tuning argument for the aliens-on-Jupiter argument would probably be that H is "intelligent beings exist or existed on Jupiter" and E is "a building (or giraffe) exists on Jupiter". The conclusion would be P(H|E) -- the probability that intelligent beings exist or existed on Jupiter given a building (or giraffe) exists on Jupiter.

-Bri

 

[blobru]

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

The only way I can make any sense of fine-tuning in Bayesian terms is this:

Using the wiki example: let's assume the strong nuclear force could have been 50% stronger or weaker than it is, and that +/- 2% is the range of values that "fine-tune" for life. Then the odds that the value would be so fine-tuned randomly are 2/50 = .04. Further, let's assume that the strong nuclear force is typical of the 26 constants. Then the probability that all of them would be fine-tuned is (.04)²⁶ = 4.5 x 10^-37.

Now what is this probability? Is this the chance there is life in the universe? No, this is the chance the universe will be fine-tuned, given our assumptions. For P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E), if we want to make E = evidence of life, then we should make H = hypothesis that the universe is fine-tuned. Then we can reasonably argue P(E) < P(H); since we have no idea how difficult it is for life to arise, except for our assumption that it certainly requires fine-tuning if there is to be a chance at all.

Continuing, as we're otherwise ignorant about life arising, we make P(E) = 1/2(P(H)) = 2.25 x 10^-37. P(E|H) then is the probability of life given fine-tuning, which we just answered in assigning P(E) a value to correspond to our ignorance: P(E|H) = .5. Running the numbers:

P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E) = (.5)(4.5 x 10^-37)/2.25 x 10^-37 = 1;

which when translated back into English yields the rather unstupendous result that if we assume the universe is finely-tuned, and admit we are ignorant about how difficult it is for life to arise even with fine tuning, then finding life in the universe means it is certain the universe is finely-tuned! In other words, if we assume fine-tuning, then just by being alive [in order to assume fine-tuning] we prove fine-tuning! Wow! What a marvelous proof! But wait, as if that weren't miracle enough, for the true coup de grace de dieu, if we go one HUGE eschatological leap further and assume fine-tuning can only be the work of god, then we can state confidently that if we assume god, then by being alive to assume god... we prove god! Fantastic! Wonderful! Who ever would have believed such a feat was possible with mere logic and statistics. Call the papers, the UN, the Vatican, call my mother-in-law!


Thus it seems all the Bayesian F-T argument ever reflects is the bias of our prior and posterior assumptions: one giant fudgesicle factory, and god the dairy queen.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The fact that there is one example of intelligent life in the universe does not mean that this was a likely outcome. That would be an example of anthropic bias.

Point missed yet again.

No wonder we can't have a discussion. To misinterpret what another person is saying, even when they explicitly deny they are saying it and point out exactly what they are saying and why it's different, appears to be your modus operandi.

Will it help if I say that I'm not saying this, and say what I am saying, yet again?

The fact that it occurred here doesn't tell us much about the probability that it occurred elsewhere unless we know the conditions by which it occurred here.

It tells us that there is an actual condition that is a match for the hypothetical one. That's nothing to you though, because you're too pie in the sky stuck on the--entirely correct, I might add, but entirely irrelevant--extrapolation issue.

But whether you get it or not, whether you see it or not, it's still entirely different. You might not have a pet pig, and you might not have a pet chupacabra. And it's not even likely that you have either. But there's something about that pet pig premise that's fundamentally different than that pet chupacabra one.

 

[Bri]

And a giraffe would most likely not be a giraffe. But then we are speculating about a lot of BS we know nothing about. How closely does the picture look like a giraffe and can you rule out pareidolia?

Are you really going to argue this?

The higher the detail, the less likely it would be pareidolia and the more likely some other explanation. Which is why in the analogy I corrected Linda by saying that it would have to be shaped like something identifiable and have a great deal of detail (I believe I said it was exactly like a giraffe up to the nose hairs).

I'm sorry, but you would really, really have to be desperate to argue that if something like that were to be found on the surface of Jupiter that it wouldn't be evidence of at least one intelligent being having been on Jupiter.

Your argument is essentially that if SETI receives a signals from outer space that carries the message "We come in peace...we wish to speak to the one called Obama" that it wouldn't be considered evidence of aliens because, after all, the signal in that pattern could just be a coincidence.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, but you would really, really have to be desperate to argue that if something like that were to be found on the surface of Jupiter that it wouldn't be evidence of at least one intelligent being having been on Jupiter.

I'm sorry but something like that HAS BEEN FOUND on Mars.

You have such a large chip on your shoulder you aren't even listening to what I'm saying. You are speculating about something we know nothing about. It's your hypothetical. You've not given me enough information to make draw any conclusion. Given paredolia I would expect to find things like faces on Mars and girrafes on jupiter.

What the hell is this?

So, please take a deep breath, slow down and pay attention to what is being said. Skip the intimidation and the rhetoric.

Your argument is essentially that if SETI receives a signals from outer space that carries the message "We come in peace...we wish to speak to the one called Obama" that it wouldn't be considered evidence of aliens because, after all, the signal in that pattern could just be a coincidence.

This is a strawman.

 

[Bri]

For P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E), if we want to make E = evidence of life, then we should make H = hypothesis that the universe is fine-tuned.

I believe the fine-tuning argument defines H as "a god exists" and E as "the universe is fine-tuned." It then assumes a probability for P(H) (the prior probability that a god exists) of 1 in a million. Probabilities for P(E|H) (the probability that the universe is fine-tuned given a god exists) and P(E|~H) (the probability that the universe is fine-tuned give no god exists) are assumed to be "low" and "really, really low" respectively. You could use your number 4.5 x 10^-37 for P(E|~H) although the original argument assumes it to be much lower (I don't know the basis for the probability of P(E|~H) in the premise, but yours may higher because of your assumption that the strong nuclear force could have only been 50% stronger or weaker than it is).

Anyway...I agree with your objection to the premise. I don't think the argument provides any valid support for a belief in a god because I disagree with the premise and therefore the conclusion. However, the argument itself is a valid argument, and if you accept the premise the conclusion would be valid.

Similarly, an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation would suffer from the same problems -- there is no basis for values placed on many of the variables in the premise.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm sorry but something like that HAS BEEN FOUND on Mars.

Really???? A giraffe in completely accurate detail down to the nose hairs has been found on Mars? I seem to remember a fuzzy picture of a rock on Mars that sort of resembled a face, but that was easily attributable to pareidolia, but what you're suggesting sounds incredible! Can you post a link please?

You have such a large chip on your shoulder you aren't even listening to what I'm saying. You are speculating about something we know nothing about. It's your hypothetical. You've not given me enough information to make draw any conclusion. Given paredolia I would expect to find things like faces on Mars and girrafes on jupiter.

Oh for Pete's sake, I was very clear about the amount of detail and the accuracy of the giraffe. Do you really think this is the first I've heard of pareidolia or seen pictures of cheese sandwiches with Jesus on them? I was specifically trying to avoid that ridiculous straw man by describing it the way I did. Now either accept the hypothetical as it was intended or don't. The assumption was that the detail of the giraffe I described would make the probability of it being a natural formation on the surface of the planet very, very small.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

A giraffe in completely accurate detail down to the nose hairs has been found on Mars?

I don't remember you giving this detail. I'm sorry.

Now, as to the theoretical or practical possibility of god?

And BTW: What does an improbable event like an image of a giraffe on Jupiter have to do with fine tuning and the improability of you existing?

You seem to think that the fact that an event is improbable proves something just because it is improbable. What does the improbability of your existing prove?

An image of a giraffe on jupiter would be significant not just because it is imporable. That's the point that you fail to grasp.

 

[fls]

I didn't say they were the same.

So now you agree that one makes a claim and the other does not?

I said that I could think of no basis to conclude that one is necessarily irrational while the other is rational.

What about, "one makes a claim and the other does not"?

No, that's the problem, it doesn't. Without knowing the values of the other terms, you can't estimate the probability of aliens.

That's why I said, "at best". But since it doesn't appear that it is being used to support a claim, that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm confused. Are we talking about the Jupiter thing? I've stated repeatedly that I don't think any of the arguments provide support for belief that something exists, be it gods or aliens.

However, the equivalent of the fine-tuning argument for the aliens-on-Jupiter argument would probably be that H is "intelligent beings exist or existed on Jupiter" and E is "a building (or giraffe) exists on Jupiter". The conclusion would be P(H|E) -- the probability that intelligent beings exist or existed on Jupiter given a building (or giraffe) exists on Jupiter.

-Bri

I think you've answered your own question then. The difference is that in one case, a claim is being made that is unsupported by evidence (i.e. irrational), and in the other case, no claim is being made (i.e. rational), since we seem to be agreed that nobody's making reference to a building on Jupiter and claiming that it's evidence for an alien civilization.

Linda

 

[Bri]

I don't remember you giving this detail. I'm sorry.

I'm going to take you on your word that you simply didn't read my post carefully enough or that I wasn't clear enough, but I even mentioned the nose hair in my original description.

And BTW: What does an improbable event like an image of a giraffe on Jupiter have to do with fine tuning and the improability of you existing?

Really, this was Linda's example so ask her. She tried to make an analogy that the spot on Jupiter somehow indicated the existence of aliens, and I corrected her that the analogy might be more apt if the "spot" were something a lot less likely to have occurred naturally, such a picture of a giraffe, accurate down to the nose hairs.

You seem to think that the fact that an event is improbable proves something just because it is improbable. What does the improbability of your existing prove?

No, improbability by itself doesn't mean anything (I never said it did). However, the improbability of something like a building or the giraffe picture on Jupiter would be evidence of an intelligent being having been on Jupiter at some point.

An image of a giraffe on jupiter would be significant not just because it is imporable. That's the point that you fail to grasp.

I don't think I've said otherwise. The fact that it would be improbable for it to be there by means other than an intelligent being is what would make it significant.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Similarly, an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation would suffer from the same problems -- there is no basis for values placed on many of the variables in the premise.

But we know that the concept of intelligent life, in and of itself, is theoretically possible (see humans). We also know that it is practically possible (see humans). We know what intelligent life could entail (see humans). We know that there is a hypothetical framework for the beginning single cellular life (see Abiogenesis). We know that there is scientific theory to get from single cellular life to intelligent life (see Evolution). We know that the elements for life including carbon, water and other elements are common throughout the universe. We have a pretty good understanding of the minimum constraints of the environment that would be needed (conceded that there are gaps in our understanding). We know that there are 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone. We know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in our universe. We know that there are a lot of extra solar planets.

So we have a theoretical framework for ET intelligent life.

God? Still nothing. After all of these pages and at least two threads, there is still no theoretical framework for the physical constraints and requirements for god or how a god could even perform the feats assigned to it.

 

[Bri]

What about, "one makes a claim and the other does not"?

What claim are you claiming one makes and the other doesn't?

That's why I said, "at best". But since it doesn't appear that it is being used to support a claim, that shouldn't be a problem.

If you use Drake's equation to support the claim that intelligent aliens exist, then it's as much a problem as a similar argument for a god.

I think you've answered your own question then. The difference is that in one case, a claim is being made that is unsupported by evidence (i.e. irrational), and in the other case, no claim is being made (i.e. rational), since we seem to be agreed that nobody's making reference to a building on Jupiter and claiming that it's evidence for an alien civilization.

Wow, now I'm really confused. We were talking about an argument that makes a claim about the existence of aliens on Jupiter based on a building or giraffe on the surface of the planet. I think you were trying to equate it to the fine-tuning argument. Both seem to make a claim. Are both irrational? I find the claim about the aliens to be rational if we accept the premises that the building or giraffe would have a much higher probability of being there if an alien was there than if there was no alien.

-Bri

 

[Malerin]

I think it was Beth that made the following point:

Belief in alien life is an extrapolation based on life as we know it.
Belief in a universe creator is an extrapolation based on creators as we currently know them.

In neither case do we have any idea what the actual thing is (alien life, universe creator), but the possible existence of both is predicated upon our limited knowledge of life and creators.

 

[Bri]

But we know that the concept of intelligent life, in and of itself, is theoretically possible (see humans).

The concept of an intelligent being that has the power to adjust the universal constants so that the universe supports life is also theoretically possible, unless you're using the phrase in a way with which I'm not familiar.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'm going to take you on your word that you simply didn't read my post carefully enough or that I wasn't clear enough, but I even mentioned the nose hair in my original description.

Bri, I've no interest in lying or obfuscating. If I did I wouldn't apologize and admit that I hadn't read it. I would simply gloss over it like so many people do. I'm not at all interested in debating for the sake of debating.

I don't think I've said otherwise. The fact that it would be improbable for it to be there by means other than an intelligent being is what would make it significant.

I don't care at all about any of this. Fine tuning is being used because of the "improbability" of the universe being fine tuned.

It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't indicate anything. However, I'm willing to entertain that it does for the purpose of argument and Bayes Theorem. At the end of the day you have to contend with the possibility of an oscillating universe or infinite number of universes which render the theorem meaningless, IMO.

That said, I understand that you are not defending Bayes theorem. I understand that your point is that deficiencies with Bayes theorem as it relates to a fine tuner, are, at least somewhat, comparable to Drakes equation.

I agree that Drakes equation is not capable of giving us a reliable probability but I don't think we can then say that the two are equivalent. They aren't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it was Beth that made the following point:

Belief in alien life is an extrapolation based on life as we know it.
Belief in a universe creator is an extrapolation based on creators as we currently know them.

In neither case do we have any idea what the actual thing is (alien life, universe creator), but the possible existence of both is predicated upon our limited knowledge of life and creators.

That's exactly why I say using terms like "creator" and "designer" and "fine-tuner" is dishonest. The topic is about belief in God (look at the thread title).

We do not have ANY examples of a god or gods that are known to exist.

We do have examples of life and intelligent life. Even if we were unique in the universe, the Drake Equation would still work.

It is not an argument for the existence of ET intelligence.

 

[RandFan]

The concept of an intelligent being that has the power to adjust the universal constants so that the universe supports life is also theoretically possible...

Oh, that is so cool. I honestly didn't know. Please to tell me this theory? BTW: if true, I see a nobel prize in your future.

...unless you're using the phrase in a way with which I'm not familiar.

The possibility of an abstract concept based in theory (a set of facts that relate to each-other). The ability to employ mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world. In this case the abstraction would be a fine tuner and the data would be the apparent fine tuning of the universe.

I'm dying to see the theory for god BTW. Thanks in advance.

Oh, BTW, saying "then a miracle occurs" isn't a valid theory. You will have to be a bit more explicit than "god did it".

 

[Malerin]

That's exactly why I say using terms like "creator" and "designer" and "fine-tuner" is dishonest. The topic is about belief in God (look at the thread title).

We do not have ANY examples of a god or gods that are known to exist.

We do have examples of life and intelligent life. Even if we were unique in the universe, the Drake Equation would still work.

It is not an argument for the existence of ET intelligence.

That's why I said the hypothesis should be watered down to "Something created the universe." or "A fine-tuner created the universe". We, ourselves, engage in small-scale fine-tuning all the time. If the argument can establish that it's more likely the universe was created by something than happened naturally
(PR(E/H) >> Pr(E/~H)), the theist can get a metaphorical foot in the door.

 

[blobru]

I think it was Beth that made the following point:

Belief in alien life is an extrapolation based on life as we know it.
Belief in a universe creator is an extrapolation based on creators as we currently know them.

In neither case do we have any idea what the actual thing is (alien life, universe creator), but the possible existence of both is predicated upon our limited knowledge of life and creators.

That's exactly why I say using terms like "creator" and "designer" and "fine-tuner" is dishonest. The topic is about belief in God (look at the thread title).

We do not have ANY examples of a god or gods that are known to exist.

We do have examples of life and intelligent life. Even if we were unique in the universe, the Drake Equation would still work.

It is not an argument for the existence of ET intelligence.

Yes; if the point is to suggest the possibilities are comparable, it's a ridiculous point, whoever made it (unless it was me, in which case I plead imbecility).

Any instance of life as we know it, on another planet, would qualify as alien life (from virus to slug to donkey to human or anything of similar complexity).

Any instance of a creator as we know them would not qualify as a universe creator (not even close -- unless you know a bricklayer who also builds universes in his spare time [not to mention in the theist version exists beyond space & time and created himself... somehow]).

But perhaps there was another point the poster was trying to make.

 

[westprog]

(emphasis mine) Agreed. The problem is avoiding finding significance when none is warranted. Your existence is perhaps more improbable than anything. Yet you don't conclude anything from that because there is no reason to.

I don't conclude anything from my particular existence. I do draw conclusions from the possibility of any person's existence.

No. Now you are being presumptuous.

That's true. I should have said that it was implicit in the argument.

Only if we have a reason to suspect. That is where you are making your mistake. You are suffering form innumeracy.

Take a million people. Have each flip a coin. Those who have tails sit down. Do it again. And again, and again, and again. Eventually you will come up with one person who has gotten heads thirty times in a row.

What should we conclude from that fact?

Innumeracy.

We should conclude that there is probably a bias in the coins. A billion people, however...

However, in the case of a single instance of 30 heads - with odds of about a billion to one against - we should assume that the likelihood is that there is some kind of bias. (Bearing in mind that there are many patterns with apparent significance - HTHTHT..., TTTTTT..., HHTTHHTT... and so on).

Any apparently significant pattern could be explained by chance or bias. To assume that bias need not be considered is not being numerate, it's being credulous.