Fine Tuning Of The Universe

Originally posted by Penguin
the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our [b]universe let's just restrict it to arising on planets, is something between 1/1 (every single planet in the universe has life) and 1/3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (only Earth has life).[/b]

Actually no, it only proves that the probability is non-zero. Highly improbable events can still occur regardless of how few 'tries' are made.
If I put two marbles of random colour in a bag, and one turns out to be blue, this does not tell us that the probability of marbles being blue is 1/2. It only tells us that it is non-zero.

Originally posted by black beetle
Kosmos must not necessarily be fine tuned in order to support the biological life; the case of Earth proves that the probability of the arising of the biological life in our galaxy, which it contains from 1 billion up to 30 billion planets, is hovering at the slot 1/1.000.000.000 up to 1/30.000.000.000. The galaxies of the universe are about 100 billion ...[text shortened]... fine tuning” process (by an intelligent G-d that cannot be established as epistemic object)?
😵

You have the freedom to accept or deny whatever you wish, but don't forget
that our decisions bring consequences, just like in chess.

Originally posted by black beetle
No, I ‘ld rather stay with my argument; my point is that, even if we assume that the occurrence of Life within universe is restricted solely to this highly rare possibility (down to just one planet of each galaxy, that is) we are statistically in front of the possibility that Life could occur at (at least) 300.000.000 planets of the observer universe. I ...[text shortened]... rs within the observer universe at the lowest 1/30.000.000.000, “fine tuning” is a delusion
😵

But this is not the argument. The argument is that if any of the cosmological laws or constants were anything other than they are, there would be no life at all since stars would not form or atoms would not form or the whoole thing would callapse in a millisecond. This is true irrespective of whether we are alone in the universe or every other star system in the cosmos is teeming with life.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually no, it only proves that the probability is non-zero. Highly improbable events can still occur regardless of how few 'tries' are made.
If I put two marbles of random colour in a bag, and one turns out to be blue, this does not tell us that the probability of marbles being blue is 1/2. It only tells us that it is non-zero.

Good point, well made.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have the freedom to accept or deny whatever you wish, but don't forget
that our decisions bring consequences, just like in chess.

They do indeed.
Beliefs about the world effect our decisions and actions and those decisions and
actions do indeed have consequences.


This is why it is important that the beliefs about the world we hold are as close to
reality as possible, that they are as close to the 'truth' as possible.

That is the point and reason of rational skepticism and of scientific enquiry.
To make our internal model of reality as true and accurate as possible.

That is the failure and danger of faith, that it allows belief in anything and everything
true or not.

Decisions and actions are based on beliefs.
Beliefs thus have consequences.

Wrong beliefs lead to poor decision making and are thus dangerous.

Faith leads inexorably to wrong beliefs and contains no mechanism for correcting those beliefs.
And every wrong belief alters your perception of the world and the available evidence thus
leading to more and more wrong beliefs over time.

Faith is thus dangerous.

Rational skepticism requires that to hold a belief you must be able to justify it with evidence
and reason and contains methodology (scientific skepticism and methodology) for challenging
and correcting beliefs that are wrong.
Thus rational skepticism (and science) gets more and more accurate over time by eradicating
wrong beliefs.


You are right RJHinds.
Decisions and actions DO have consequences.
I am very aware of this.

That is why I am a rational skeptic.
That is why I believe in science.
That is why I am an atheist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
They do indeed.
Beliefs about the world effect our decisions and actions and those decisions and
actions do indeed have consequences.


This is why it is important that the beliefs about the world we hold are as close to
reality as possible, that they are as close to the 'truth' as possible.

That is the point and reason of rational skepticism ...[text shortened]... why I am a rational skeptic.
That is why I believe in science.
That is why I am an atheist.

And to top it off, a lot of those faith's are have built in biases against other faiths and thus directly leads to warfare, where there would be no religious wars if these faiths disappeared.

Lets all pray for the success of atheism🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is why it is important that the beliefs about the world we hold are as close to
reality as possible, that they are as close to the 'truth' as possible.

Although I generally agree with everything you say in this post, I think it is hard to make a case that holding true beliefs is always desirable or beneficial. Many theists believe that deliberate self delusion is preferable. Even more believe that deliberate delusion of others is preferable. Although I personally prefer to know the truth, not everyone does. And in some instances (to do with love and relationships) I may actually prefer not to know the truth.

Originally posted by Penguin
But this is not the argument. The argument is that if any of the cosmological laws or constants were anything other than they are, there would be no life at all since stars would not form or atoms would not form or the whoole thing would callapse in a millisecond. This is true irrespective of whether we are alone in the universe or every other star system in the cosmos is teeming with life.

--- Penguin.

Sure thing.

For one, since we ignore which forms of Life (other than the ones we are aware of) the combinations of the cosmological laws and constants in the observer universe would permit to occur; and, for two, since forms of Life similar to the ones we observe on Earth could potentially/ statistically be found at least at 300.000.000 planets of the observer universe, it is anyway untenable to assert that “the observer universe does not team up with Life”.

Methinks “fine tuning” is a delusion once we consider that Life, a tricky combination of existence and consciousness that we can hardly even define, can potentially take infinite forms. To the forms of Life of Earth the cosmological laws and constants in “our neighborhood” seem “fine tuned”, however to other potential extraterrestrial forms of Life the conditions of our planet could be just as hostile as we evaluate the conditions on the surface of our sun
😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have the freedom to accept or deny whatever you wish, but don't forget
that our decisions bring consequences, just like in chess.

I unfold my personal reality by means of using specific epistemic instruments and objects that are indeed epistemic instruments and objects😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
They do indeed.
Beliefs about the world effect our decisions and actions and those decisions and
actions do indeed have consequences.


This is why it is important that the beliefs about the world we hold are as close to
reality as possible, that they are as close to the 'truth' as possible.

That is the point and reason of rational skepticism ...[text shortened]... why I am a rational skeptic.
That is why I believe in science.
That is why I am an atheist.

Your worldview is very similiar and just as erroneous as that of sonhouse. Both
of you seem to use the uniformity principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_uniformity

Uniformitism makes assumptions before geologist can even begin to make their
evaluations. I will agree that this principle of uniformity can work up to a point,
but it must be adjusted for exceptions like catastrophes. The most significant of
these, if it actually happened, would be the worldwide flood of Noah's day. Then
if we take in the account of the division of the continents that is also reported
in the Holy Bible and the various earth quakes, we must determine what other
adjustments must be made. We also must make adjustments for the beginning
or as I call it the creation of the heavens and the earth. Was this beginning a
process that took billions or longer or did it only take a week as the Holy Bible
explains? At this point the truth, like is said of beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
But is it okay to base scientific truth on assumptions, opinions, or beliefs?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your worldview is very similiar and just as erroneous as that of sonhouse. Both
of you seem to use the uniformity principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_uniformity

Uniformitism makes assumptions before geologist can even begin to make their
evaluations. I will agree that this principle of uniformity can work up to a point,
but it mus ...[text shortened]... beholder.
[b]But is it okay to base scientific truth on assumptions, opinions, or beliefs?[/b]

“...Uniformitism makes assumptions before geologist can even begin to make their
evaluations. ...”

can you explain exactly which assumptions you are referring to in the above? -please explicitly state them.
I tried looking up “Uniformitism” but there seems to be many different definitions and meanings and I have no idea exactly which precise meaning you are referring to here.

“...But is it okay to base scientific truth on assumptions, opinions, or beliefs? ...”

nobody is claiming that. Science is based on reason and evidence.

Originally posted by humy
“...the rational scientific method is changing. ...”

I have to disagree with you there. Scientific method isn't what is 'changing' ( at least it is not changing in a non-trivial way ) ; only the model of reality that scientific method creates has changed (from a purely Newtonian one to a quantum one for example).

I stand corrected. It is not the method , but the findings.

Originally posted by humy
“...Uniformitism makes assumptions before geologist can even begin to make their
evaluations. ...”

can you explain exactly which assumptions you are referring to in the above? -please explicitly state them.
I tried looking up “Uniformitism” but there seems to be many different definitions and meanings and I have no idea exactly which preci ...[text shortened]... opinions, or beliefs? ...”

nobody is claiming that. Science is based on reason and evidence.

According to Reijer Hooykaas (1963), Lyell's uniformitarianism is a family of four related propositions, not a single idea:
Uniformity of law – the laws of nature are constant across time and space.
Uniformity of methodology – the appropriate hypotheses for explaining the geological past are those with analogy today.
Uniformity of kind – past and present causes are all of the same kind, have the same energy, and produce the same effects.
Uniformity of degree – geological circumstances have remained the same over time.

None of these connotations requires another, and they are not all equally inferred by uniformitarians.

Gould expounded on similar propositions in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle (1987), stating that Lyell conflated two different types of propositions: a pair of methodological assumptions with a pair of substantive hypotheses. The four together make up Lyell's uniformitarianism.

Methodological assumptions

The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Originally posted by sonhouse
And to top it off, a lot of those faith's are have built in biases against other faiths and thus directly leads to warfare, where there would be no religious wars if these faiths disappeared.

Lets all pray for the success of atheism🙂

And to top it off:

One of the (many) problems as regards the way our Christian friends and other theists conceive G-d, is the fact that they attribute existence to a non epistemic object that has a quality (say A), which cannot be found in any of the existing epistemic objects we perceive.

When it seems to them that something has a quality A, then there must be something of which they are aware, which does have this quality. However, not only they appear unable to state what are the epistemic instruments they used in order to come up with their conclusion, but also unable they remain to prove the existence of that epistemic object.

Since they appear to believe that “the existent epistemic object G-d is always A”, it follows that either they are not aware of the real object per se, or they are “aware” of it “indirectly” and not in the unmediated way in which we normally take ourselves to be aware of epistemic objects.

From the point of view of the subject of an experience, there is no non-arbitrary way of distinguishing between the phenomenology of perception and illusion. So, even in the case our theist friends genuinely perceive G-d, they cannot be directly or immediately aware of its existence as an epistemic object. Therefore their view about what perceiving G-d is, and thus their thesis about the perception of G-d as an epistemic object, is by definition false;


So, why should we pray for the success of atheism since theism does not hold?
😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to Reijer Hooykaas (1963), Lyell's uniformitarianism is a family of four related propositions, not a single idea:
Uniformity of law – the laws of nature are constant across time and space.
Uniformity of methodology – the appropriate hypotheses for explaining the geological past are those with analogy today.
Uniformity of kind – past and prese ...[text shortened]... then you go to the out crop of rock."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

So you are saying that we assume things work the same throughout space and also throughout time? This is probably true but I also think it is justified.

If we are wrong in our assumptions and the laws and constants do change through time and/or space then I suspect that raises various other questions but it probably also remove the 'fine tuning' problem. If the laws and constants change through space and/or time then obviously life is going to arise in an area/period where the rules and constants are suitable for life.

--- Penguin.