Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pjoo]

Yeah, except that those arguments are only rational if their premises are rationally. Believing in God for reason X can be totally rational, but reason X itself might not be rational, screwing up the whole thing. For instance, I'd take issue with the rationality of thinking that life in this universe is improbable, so I'd find that person to be irrational, or at least ill-informed about the actual evidence at hand.

And rational means it makes sense, it's well-informed, credible, unbiased, logical...
Life is, without creator, extremely unprobable. If some of the physical constant would be different by fraction, life would be impossible. Well, this is, unless we have unlimited or close to unlimited universes or chances for universes, unlimited universe = guaranteed life.
But believing universe is limited is, I feel, is reasonable belief.

[Leafsnail]

And a magical creator who already has the entire plan for what he wants to do with the universe in his head is far more likely than a single particle exploding, I suppose?

Anyway, you're still wrong.  A bad premise can scupper an argument.  If you are not allowed to challenge the premise of an argument, you can "prove" anything.  Let's try one.

Tomorrow, when I get to school, I'm going to punch the first person I see in the face.  Why?  Because I believe it will make them happy.  Why do I believe this?  Because boxers punch each other in the face and they can be happy.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason, I'm still right, and I'm still going to hurt an innocent person.  Or is your argument flawed?

[Idiom]

And a creator...  is far more likely than a single particle exploding, I suppose?

A particle exploding out of nothing is completely illogical, unless it was converted from energy. And then the energy exploding out of nothing to collide and explode into those particles just because it f-ing can is completely illogical. And then a creator existing to create energy or particles because he can exist is f-ing illogical.

A bad premise can scupper an argument.

A bad goal can too. I can give an example, but you've already provided one.

The problem is that people set out in an argument with the goal to prove extremes when concerning their beliefs and aren't willing to accept even the tiniest of compromises. And so you get people who absolutely believe to the death in illogical fantasies and/or the illogical selective blackout of certain possibilities.

[Pjoo]

And a magical creator who already has the entire plan for what he wants to do with the universe in his head is far more likely than a single particle exploding, I suppose?

Anyway, you're still wrong.  A bad premise can scupper an argument.  If you are not allowed to challenge the premise of an argument, you can "prove" anything.  Let's try one.

Tomorrow, when I get to school, I'm going to punch the first person I see in the face.  Why?  Because I believe it will make them happy.  Why do I believe this?  Because boxers punch each other in the face and they can be happy.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason, I'm still right, and I'm still going to hurt an innocent person.  Or is your argument flawed?

Umm.. there is flaw with your logic.
Your premises are
Boxers can be happy
Boxers get punched in the face
=> people you punch in the face get happy

There also no rational correlation between being punched in face and being happy, premises only appliy to boxers, and they only can be happy.

Oh, and one practicle exploding more likely than Creator? Yeah, maybe. But we have millions of costants that have to be close to value they are for universe to be suitable for life. Planck's constant being changed by fraction ruins it, different strong force - no life, some elements have to be just like they are, oxygen and carbon for example. And as far as I know, that aminoacid(lightning, proteins, amino acids, cool stuff, yadayada) thingy isn't that likely to happen either. If you believe in unlimited universe, or like, unlimited parrel universes, there eventually will be life without creator, no problem. If you believe there is only this one universe we can observe, well it's far more likely divine plan exists than universe getting it all right by chance. So, premises

1) If there is only single universe, it has either required unimaginably much luck or creator to be able to have life
2) There is only this single universe

=> Creator is unimaginably likely to exist

Now, both 1 and 2 can be wrong, but I find then rather rational premises. I don't persoanlly agree with the second, but that would atleast be your simpler choice.
But sure, irrational premise ruins it, it's just, it isn't always irrational even if it's not true. If it is irrational or not more often depends on how you see the world, if you believe in certain philosophical theory or not, etc.
But yeah, I can basically state rationally that you do not exist, if I just use extreme skepticism. It's not really your place to decide now skeptical I can be, but you are allowed to point out internal conflicts with my argument and world view, or when my premises don't consider all the facts. You, however, aren't supposed to tell me I have to be less skeptical. You can say you do not agree with my skepticality, but it is up to me to decide how skeptical I am.

Oh, and it's not just single particle exploding, it's single particle exploding without cause. It's not unlikely, it's illogical. It violates the laws of causality?

EDIT: I just want emphasis on how I agree with both of your premises.

[Ampersand]

For one, it was not a single particle. There were no particles. There was only a singularity of energy. A very different concept. Also, it did not explode, it expanded. Finally, the probability of it expanding at any given moment is extremely unlikely, the probability of it expanding over an infinite expanse of time is 1:1

[G-Flex]

Yeah, except that those arguments are only rational if their premises are rationally. Believing in God for reason X can be totally rational, but reason X itself might not be rational, screwing up the whole thing. For instance, I'd take issue with the rationality of thinking that life in this universe is improbable, so I'd find that person to be irrational, or at least ill-informed about the actual evidence at hand.

And rational means it makes sense, it's well-informed, credible, unbiased, logical...
Life is, without creator, extremely unprobable. If some of the physical constant would be different by fraction, life would be impossible.

Ergh. You're getting screwed up by the anthropic principle here.

Yes, life as we know it relies on physical constants and so forth being what they are. That doesn't actually matter, because if the physical constants were different, then the universe would be different and some completely different form of "life" could have developed anyway. After all, what we call "life" is defined somewhat arbitrarily anyway.

The argument you're making is like the argument that life on Earth must have had an intelligent creator because the odds are so low that this particular planet could support life. This is true, sure, but since the only planets where people would be wondering this are the ones that support life to begin with, it's not actually a valid concern. The only valid concern is whether or not it's probable that ANY existing planets support SOME kind of life, which it is.


I mean, it's like if you throw a 52-deck of playing cards on the ground, have them come up in a certain configuration, and think "Wow, what are the odds that they'd come up like that! Someone must have done this on purpose!". Yes, the odds of that particular configuration are low, but so are the odds of ANY configuration, and certainly one had to happen! Now, when we're talking about the probability of life on the planet or in this universe, it's the same deal. We only consider this particular configuration important because it's important to us, and it's only important to us because it's the one we developed on. It's like if you threw down those cards, and some form of life somehow evolved on them that ended up relying on those cards being in that configuration. Sure, any other might kill them, but if the cards had landed differently in the first place, some other form of it might have developed.

It's like if you look at Earth itself, on a smaller scale: Polar bears could not survive in the Sahara, and lions might not do so well on the Arctic ice caps. The animals have grown out of and adapted to very specific environmental conditions, and deviating from them enough (even within the parameters of this planet, right now) kills them. That doesn't make it unlikely that those conditions are natural or even random.


So basically, the argument doesn't apply because the conditions and the things living in those conditions are NOT randomly joined. Now, if you threw humans onto a random planet or into a random universe and they still survived, that would be a whole other story. But the probability of life developing and evolving in a way that suits the conditions of the planet, climate, or universe on which it develops is not low at all. In fact, it's obvious that it would happen that way. After all, it's those conditions which caused life in the first place.


To draw another analogy for those conditions causing that particular type of life, think of a random number generator, or, hell, the DF world simulator. The output of any given DF world (including history) is pretty rare; you give it a seed that's different by any amount and you're likely to get something drastically different. However, you can't just look at any DF world and think "Wow, these two civilizations having this exact history can't be by accident, since any minor change in initial conditions would have thrown it off so much" because the initial conditions are what cause that final condition anyway. Same with life. Yeah, life is incredibly rare and relies on specific conditions, but that's not a good argument for a designer, since those specific conditions are what caused that specific thing (life) to begin with. If those conditions were different, maybe there would be a completely different form of life, perhaps wondering the same thing, and making the same argument you are, about how life is impossible to develop naturally because only his universe can support his particular kind of "life".

[Pjoo]

Universe as we know it relies on physical constants being what they are. Any change in those constants would make life, possibly even matter - impossible.

If the strong nuclear force were a bit stronger than it is, hydrogen would fuse into diprotons. Aand well, that would be intresting... If lower, no other elements but hydrogen would form.

Aand similar stuff with weak nuclear force, electomagnetism, gravity constant, planck's constant, ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant, mass-density of universe, ratio of proton mass to electron mass, expansion rate of universe, decay rates, etc. A lot of stuff. You need fine-tuned universe to support life, which isn't possible without multi-verse or designer. Or I atleast don't know how else.
Any of these off by few percent and life cannot exist. What was the chance for that? All these things need to be randomly the same if universe is to have any heavy elements or even elements at all. Or chemical reactions...

Also, you do need atleast carbon(or possibly substitute) and oxygen(or possibly substitute, dunno what, don't think anything as small burns as well) for life. They just do have these certain properties no other elements have that are required for life. Chance for life actually happening in earth-like conditions I do not know about.

[Ampersand]

So?

Pour water onto the ground until it forms a puddle. The puddle then claims that the ground was designed to hold it in it's present shape. It just is not the case. Life, like water, is constantly shifting and changing to adjust to it's environment. The fact of the matter is we're not even sure if the forces of nature CAN be any different from the way they are. Beyond that, Physicists have demonstrated that even if they were slightly different, life sustaining conditions are absolutely possible over a fairly wide degree of variation.

Just because a round peg fits in a hole does not mean that the hole is round.

Furthermore, if there are other universes, a possibility looking more and more likely every day, then the whole argument falls apart, because for everyone one universe where people are saying that the universe is so perfectly designed for life, there are untold quadrillions more that are completely void.

[Pjoo]

So?

Pour water onto the ground until it forms a puddle. The puddle then claims that the ground was designed to hold it in it's present shape. It just is not the case. Life, like water, is constantly shifting and changing to adjust to it's environment. The fact of the matter is we're not even sure if the forces of nature CAN be any different from the way they are. Beyond that, Physicists have demonstrated that even if they were slightly different, life sustaining conditions are absolutely possible over a fairly wide degree of variation.

Just because a round peg fits in a hole does not mean that the hole is round.

Furthermore, if there are other universes, a possibility looking more and more likely every day, then the whole argument falls apart, because for everyone one universe where people are saying that the universe is so perfectly designed for life, there are untold quadrillions more that are completely void.

Strong Nuclear force bit weaker.
No other elements but Hydrogen.
No life.

Gravitation a bit stronger.
Stars collapse on themselves.
No life.

Proton mass:Electron mass different
Chemistry required for life impossible.
No life.

If we only have one universe and it has only hydrogen, there cannot be life. Simple as that.
Hydrogen doesn't create life alone, not even with pixies or goblins.

Can't.
Make.
It.
Any.
Simpler.

[Il Palazzo]

Pjoo, perhaps you've missed it, but Ampersand understood you correctly and made a valid counter argument.

[Pjoo]

Pjoo, perhaps you've missed it, but Ampersand understood you correctly and made a valid counter argument.

It's not valid counter argument, with only hydrogen there simply cannot be life.

The fact of the matter is we're not even sure if the forces of nature CAN be any different from the way they are.

The point is, why they are exactly like they are?

Furthermore, if there are other universes, a possibility looking more and more likely every day, then the whole argument falls apart, because for everyone one universe where people are saying that the universe is so perfectly designed for life, there are untold quadrillions more that are completely void.

If you believe in unlimited universe, or like, unlimited parrel universes, there eventually will be life without creator, no problem. If you believe there is only this one universe we can observe, well it's far more likely divine plan exists than universe getting it all right by chance. So, premises

1) If there is only single universe, it has either required unimaginably much luck or creator to be able to have life
2) There is only this single universe

=> Creator is unimaginably likely to exist

Now, both 1 and 2 can be wrong, but I find then rather rational premises. I don't persoanlly agree with the second, but that would atleast be your simpler choice.

You need fine-tuned universe to support life, which isn't possible without multi-verse or designer.

Yes, multi-verse is imo best option, but it's not any more grounded in fact than God. Some people have no problem believing in supernatural, for them God makes probably more sense than universe splitting up infinite times every time you kill cats with quantum-randomized poison applications. The whole multiverse-thing is still on quite theoretical level.

[Ampersand]

•   Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
• Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
• The Earth's total mass is 5.9736×10^24 KG while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around 7×10^13 KG. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has created and tested much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
  
  
• In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
• If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
• The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
• If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is not an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.

The Fine Tuning argument presupposes that the phenomenon of life and it being presumably only possible in a universe with physical constants exactly like the ones in ours is what qualifies this as special or sublime, however, this is based entirely on nothing other than the entities that determine what qualifies this universe as special or sublime are living (humans). This is an affirming the consequent fallacy. It could also bee seen as a confirmation bias fallacy. In a hypothetical universe with different physical constants, there may be an emergent natural phenomenon that is vastly more complex than the emergence of life, the evolution of life, and the ecology of life. This phenomenon, we will label "phenomenon x", would be impossible in our universe because our physical constants may not permit phenomenon x to occur. There is no objective reason why the possibility of life demands a fine tuner more than phenomenon x. There is also no objective reason why any natural phenomenon, no matter the complexity, should demand a fine tuner any more than another. Hypothetically, if it were shown that life of some kind is possible in most possible universes, but the phenomenon of lightning is only possible in this one, then an apologist might assert that because we occupy the only possible universe with lightning, this universe must have been finely tuned.

[Makrond]

tl;dr: People think there must be an intelligent designer because they assume that life could not possibly exist under any other circumstances than what we have right now.

Just because it's not life as we know it(, Jim) doesn't mean it's not life.

[Neruz]

If the infinite multiverse theory is correct, then not only is life probable, it's certain. When you're working with infinity any finite chance of occuring will occur an infinite amount of times.


People assume there must be a designer because they don't understand probability. Lets say i generate a random number between one and ten million (i will in fact do this now), and that number turns out to be 645,231. There was a one in ten million chance of 645,231 being the number that cropped up, yet there it is.

Each individual number has a tiny chance of occuring, but the chance of a number occuring is certain. The same could well be true for life; the probability of the specific life known as humans is minute, the probability of a form of life is almost certain.


Simply because something is improbable, does not mean it is impossible, furthermore the Universe has been around for 14 billion years (and that's just our universe), if we assume that every time a planet formed, the Universe 'rolled a dice' to see if life would occur on that planet, then we look at the number of stars in the sky and assume that each star has, lets go conservative and say each star has only 3 planets on average (which is highly improbable, but not impossible), that is a gargantuan number of rolls of the dice.

To put it in perspective, we estimate approximately 10^20 stars in the universe. That's 10 with 20 0's, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, which, if our conservative estimate on planets is right, means 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets, or 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 rolls of the dice to see if life would appear.

With that many shots, it's entirely unsurprising that life appeared. Of course we don't know about all the times the roll came up wrong, because we weren't around then. Life might seem miraculous to us at first glance, until you actually do the numbers.


Space is big, bigger than you can possibly imagine, unimaginably big, impossibly unimaginably big. Don't bother trying to imagine how big, you can't, it's just too big.

[G-Flex]

I'll say that even if the Universe had completely different matter/energy in it than it did now, that doesn't mean the Universe wouldn't exist. Something else we'd call "life" might still exist in it, or you know what? Maybe it wouldn't! The thing is:

Even if you restrict the definition of "life" to be what we now know as life (which is necessarily is), there's still NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT. Sure, life might be impossibly rare, but so is everything! Hell, rocks are impossibly rare by those standards, as is just about everything else. If you mucked with the fundamental constants of the universe, then you'd STILL get things that are rare. Hell, the argument I made earlier still applies, that even if life is incredibly rare, then so is anything else determined by the configuration of the universe itself. In other words, no matter how the universe is formed, you're going to wind up with a lot of stuff that wouldn't exist if the universe were any different. It doesn't make that stuff, or the universe, special in any way.

So hey, maybe life is virtually impossibly rare. My playing card analogy still holds. Throw a quintillion playing cards on the ground, every possible result will seem impossibly rare. It's not a valid argument for anything. You don't even need to consider the possibility of multiple concurrent universes for your argument to fall apart, because it does so on its own merits.