Can theists be rational?

[Belz...]

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.

Indeed. In fact, it means nothing at all.

It's incredible how many people fail to see that. Nobody's played poker, it seems (well, me neither but I've seen a lot of it on TV ).

The point is, there is no reason to believe that THIS universe, with its physical laws and constants, is in ANY WAY less likely than any other configuration. And, obviously, life here is tailored to it, so the fine-tuning argument tells us absolutely nothing about anything.

 

[Belz...]

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?

First off, somebody messed with your deck as there are more than one of each letter in there.

Second, you REALLY need to read up on probabilities. I'm serious here. You've been told this time and time again and you refuse to educate yourself. Why is that ?

I'm not predetermining anything. I'm not saying you WILL get that result

No, but you are determining in advance that the sentence means something.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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).

In the case of a murder we have experience with mechanisms by which murders occur. We see a knife sticking out of someone and assume the knife did not suddenly materialize in that person. We assume that some agent caused the murder to happen, which is why we can do the DNA match and sift through probabilities.

What you are doing by framing the fine-tuning argument in the way that you have is assume a mind behind the universe to begin with -- as is evident by the analogies that you use -- so you have already assumed your conclusion.

If you begin with teleology, you end with teleology. RandFan has a different starting place. There is no reason to assume teleology from the outset. We cannot assume that the resting point -- here and now -- was a destination; so the framing of the argument itself is fatally flawed, just as it can be dealt with by further Bayesian analysis (to examine the other necessary characteristics of a fine-tuner, such as a mind independent of matter, a dualistic ontology, etc.) and the multiverse option.

 

[Beth]

#2 is spurious.

Well, I'm not qualified to make that call. Bri has presented some evidence that it may be true, but physicists have been known to revise their theories. It may or may not be true that our universe is fine-tuned. I don't know.

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

Well, I certainly wouldn't call it an exact computation, but if someone wants to use such information in developing an estimate of the probability of a creator, no valid reason has been given why it's not a legitimate thing to do, provided they keep in mind that other explanations, such as the mulitverse, are also possible.

You are looking for patterns in the noise.

Of course. That's what statistics is for. It was developed to separate patterns from 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.

I believe that the latest information indicates that we are in an expanding universe with no indication that it will someday contract or collapse again. The multiverse is a legitimate alternative explanation, but it is no less fantastic a proposal than a creator god. I see no reason to favor it as an explanation over that of a creator*. After all, in an infinite number of universes, there could be an infinite number of creators making infinite numbers of sub-universes. Already we create other creatures in other, smaller bounded universes. Now, how do we tell which type we are in: deliberately created or happenstance? Which type will be more common?

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.

Because it only correlates to the universe being created or not; I see no aspect of your analogy that correlates to fine-tuning. How would you phrase the If-Then proposition of the fine-tuning argument using your analogy?

*There is no reason to favor the creator explantion over that of a multiverse either. But of course, I'm agnostic and willing to consider either possibility.

 

[Malerin]

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.

1. This implausibility is a chain that leads straight back to the Big Bang, so again we're back to the FT question.
2. Given the billions of people who have existed, your existence is more like a HHTHTTHTHTHHTHTHTHTH result than HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. True, it's based on an implusibale series of events, but so is any result. In other words, there's no statisitical significance to your existence, because I would not be surprsied if someone like you existed instead, or you didn't exist at all.

 

[Malerin]

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.

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?

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.

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

Read Inummeracy.

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.

This is true, if you have a thousand people to compare to. In the same way, the FT argument loses it's power if there's a gazillion universes out there. I'm talking about a case where it's you alone flipping a coin over and over again. I KNOW that if you get 30 heads in a row, you're not going to give me even odds on Tails coming up.

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.

I already have Choice and Chance. It's like a Bible of inductive logic.

 

[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.

The argument in question concerns the existence of a god. In other words, it relies on the premise that there is a higher probability of fine-tuning if a god exists than if a god doesn't exist. But the fine-tuner doesn't have to be a god.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments since they're really just objections to the premise, and I happen to agree with them.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Ok and?

And so I find it very difficult to believe that someone would spend time and money looking or listening for something that they don't believe exists.

Invisible elephants have been shown to exist? Really?

Exactly my point. Neither invisible elephants or aliens have been shown to exist. Why would anyone look for them unless they are of the opinion that they exist?

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.

I said:

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.​

I feel fairly confident in saying that most people who spend time and money on paranormal research are of the opinion that the paranormal exists or they wouldn't spend time and money on it.

But that is really beside the point.

All of this is really besides the point. The question that you never answered is whether you feel that having an opinion about the existence of extra terrestrial intelligent life is necessarily irrational. Is it?

<list of questions removed>

Again, I don't agree with the premises of the argument so your questions are somewhat irrelevant.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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

There is evidence to support the premise that the universe is fine-tuned, but even if there weren't you're just objecting to the premise of the argument.

Maybe you were late in joining the discussion or didn't keep up with it, but my point was that arguments for gods and aliens are similar in nature -- you must accept the premises in order to accept the conclusion. If there is no basis for even one value of the premise (even if there is some evidence for others), then the conclusion is little more than conjecture.

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).

Notice the P(H|E) that is on the left side of the equation. P(H|E) is the probability that a god exists IF the universe is fine-tuned. The argument concerns the probability that god exists IF the universe is fine-tuned. The premise of the argument assumes that the universe is fine-tuned in order to arrive at that probability. You are free to disagree with the premise and reject the conclusion of the argument if you like. I do.

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?

Every argument assumes a premise. Stronger arguments have premises that are "merely supported by evidence" (what else would it be supported by?). Again, you can make a valid critiques of the premise and reject the conclusion of any argument (including one based on Drake's equation). But that doesn't indicate a false dichotomy, no matter how many times you repeat the phrase "false dichotomy" in your posts.

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.

That's utter nonsense. You do understand what a false dichotomy is, right? It is not a false dichotomy to propose an argument with premises that can either be accepted or rejected. EVERY argument assumes premises that can be accepted or rejected. EVERY argument is contingent upon accepting the premises in order to accept the conclusion.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The argument in question concerns the existence of a god. In other words, it relies on the premise that there is a higher probability of fine-tuning if a god exists than if a god doesn't exist. But the fine-tuner doesn't have to be a god.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments since they're really just objections to the premise, and I happen to agree with them.

-Bri

Right, yes, but the fine-tuner must be a mind in some sense; and that is assumed in the premises for there to be fine-tuning in the first place.

Why is this argument continuing?

 

[Bri]

Right, yes, but the fine-tuner must be a mind in some sense; and that is assumed in the premises for there to be fine-tuning in the first place.

Not necessarily. The universe could be fine-tuned because of perfectly natural (although currently unknown) reasons. Or it could be fine-tuned by chance (the argument being that the probability is very low, but it's not impossible).

Why is this argument continuing?

I don't know. My point from the get-go was that if one wants to say that belief in a god is necessarily irrational, it would be difficult to do so without special pleading. In other words it would be difficult to come up with a generally-useful definition of "irrational" that would allow one to say that a belief in a god is irrational but that would not include other beliefs that are often considered rational (such as the belief that extra terrestrial intelligence is probable).

Some disagreed with that and tried to show differences between an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation and an argument for god based on Bayes theorem that would allow one to be rational but the other irrational.

The discussion has since moved on to the proposition that belief in extra-terrestrial intelligence is irrational, but that the likes of Carl Sagan and members of SETI don't hold any opinion as to whether extra-terrestrial intelligence exists or not.

Personally, I question why anyone would spend the time and money to listen for something they don't believe exists. But be that as it may, the question becomes whether someone can have a rational opinion about something that isn't clearly supported by evidence.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

The argument in question concerns the existence of a god. In other words, it relies on the premise that there is a higher probability of fine-tuning if a god exists than if a god doesn't exist. But the fine-tuner doesn't have to be a god.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments since they're really just objections to the premise, and I happen to agree with them.

-Bri

What makes you think the universe has to be fine-tuned to begin with. There are many other values that the universe could have and still have some form of life or not have life. We humans are not needed for the universe to exist in the first place or is life.

Paul

 

[fls]

When I started this thread, I had in mind some people of my acquaintance that seem to be reasonable theists. As this discussion has progressed, I realize that what makes them seem to be reasonable (to me) is that they don't go through any of this tortuous rationalization whereby ordinary meanings of evidence and observation become bastardized into something quite meaningless, nor do they pretend that utterly trivial conclusions can provide us with any useful direction. Rather they simply accept that faith provides a personal benefit for them that is otherwise unjustifiable and leave it at that.

It is the attempt to rationalize faith that makes it irrational.

Linda

 

[Bri]

What makes you think the universe has to be fine-tuned to begin with. There are many other values that the universe could have and still have some form of life or not have life. We humans are not needed for the universe to exist in the first place or is life.

Whether or not the universe is really fine-tuned (as assumed in the premise) is a topic for another thread.

If you've been paying attention you know that I agree that there are valid objections to the premise.

ETA: By the way, I like your avatar. It reminds me of an animation about 4D dice I did for a Siggraph conference several years ago.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It is the attempt to rationalize faith that makes it irrational.

Well-said.

Presenting a faith-based belief as an evidence-based belief is irrational. That can be said of any such belief -- including aliens. The question is whether a faith-based belief is itself necessarily irrational, and I agree with you that it's not.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

Well-said.

Presenting a faith-based belief as an evidence-based belief is irrational. That can be said of any such belief -- including aliens. The question is whether a faith-based belief is itself necessarily irrational, and I agree with you that it's not.

-Bri

No, that is not true. We do know of one planet with life, and nothing about earth shows that it follows other laws of physics then the rest of the universe does.

And if faith is only base on beliefs, and not evidence, it is irrational.

Paul

 

[Beth]

When I started this thread, I had in mind some people of my acquaintance that seem to be reasonable theists. As this discussion has progressed, I realize that what makes them seem to be reasonable (to me) is that they don't go through any of this tortuous rationalization whereby ordinary meanings of evidence and observation become bastardized into something quite meaningless, nor do they pretend that utterly trivial conclusions can provide us with any useful direction. Rather they simply accept that faith provides a personal benefit for them that is otherwise unjustifiable and leave it at that.

It is the attempt to rationalize faith that makes it irrational.

Linda

I think this is what most people of faith do. Relatively few try to rationalize it in my experience, it is usually the agnostics and atheists who insist on rationality. Further, cj is the only theist who's been posting in this thread. The rest of us have been atheists or agnostics. What I find interesting is that the way I see it, as apparently does Bri, it is the atheists who are going through tortuous rationalizations to keep from accepting any information that would weaken their chosen point of view. To me, the refusal to accept any evidence that a creator god might exist seems as stubborn and irrational as a theist who similarly refuses to accept any evidence that their chosen god might not exist.

 

[Bri]

No, that is not true. We do know of one planet with life, and nothing about earth shows that it follows other laws of physics then the rest of the universe does.

We've already discussed this at length, so you can go back and read the discussion thus far. We don't know the conditions and events led to the emergence of intelligent life on our planet, and therefore we have no idea of the probability of those conditions and events having occurred elsewhere.

More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_hypothesis

-Bri

 

[fls]

And if faith is only base on beliefs, and not evidence, it is irrational.

I'm thinking that it is non-rational. And that the attempt to make something that is really non-rational, rational, is what makes it irrational. And I realize that I may be perverting what these words are supposed to mean, but we can assign "reason" and "emotion" to the different pathways by which we process information.

Linda

 

[westprog]

Right, yes, but the fine-tuner must be a mind in some sense; and that is assumed in the premises for there to be fine-tuning in the first place.

A simulated universe would possibly be fine-tuned.

Why is this argument continuing?

That's a very deep question. It would make a good #1 for a philosophy exam.