Originally posted by LemonJello
In Thread 117452, jaywill submitted the following video as demonstration of physical science support for intelligent design.
The video captures a talk by Lee Strobel, in which he presents a particular version of the design argument which relates to the "finely tuned" physical a that is referenced in the article):
Thus, we should also be conditioning on essentially a (weak) anthropic principle – one that is actually entailed by Strobel's own position. That is, Strobel's own position entails that intelligent life exists and therefore that the universe must be finely-tuned. But when we account for this in our conditioning (again, we are just conditioning on Strobel's own entailment), his argument no longer makes any sense. The probability that the universe is finely tuned given the conjunction of [intelligent design and that intelligent life exists and therefore the universe must be finely tuned] is of course the same as the probability that the universe is finely tuned given the conjunction of [chance and that intelligent life exists and therefore the universe must be finely tuned].
The point here is that such "fine tuning" arguments seem to fail when we account for weak anthropic principle. Depending on the form of weak anthropic principle, the "finely tuned" line of thought only seems to, if anything, undermine the notion of intelligent design. For example, check out the following article that discusses this in much more depth (and there is also a pertinent work by Sober that is referenced in the article):
I am still not sure what your objection actually is.
The first thing which gives me concern is whether you are representing the video talk accurately. To ascertain this I will have to watch it again.
If you want to help me understand your objection you can start here:
Where did Strobel mention "anthropic principle" strong or weak in the video ?
Are you raising objections to this particular talk or are you drawing up some larger generalizations to take shot at some other weaknesses in other presentations you have heard?
Did you think "intelligent life" was that much emphasized by Strobel as the result of this "fine tuning" or simply "life"?
That is, Strobel's own position entails that intelligent life exists and therefore that the universe must be finely-tuned. ============================
That is an over simplification and misrepresentation of the argument, even when I consider it in context of your surrounding paragraph.
The probability that the universe is finely tuned given the conjunction of [intelligent design and that intelligent life exists and therefore the universe must be finely tuned]
This sounds like a subtle recasting of the argument to me. This sounds to me like erecting of a strawman argument not representative of the actual video's point.
is of course the same as the probability that the universe is finely tuned given the conjunction of [chance and that intelligent life exists and therefore the universe must be finely tuned].
This doesn't make too much sense to me yet.
It sounds to me like a weak and unsuccessful attempt to recast the argument or look at it from some other angle to exploit a weakness.
Other than the fact that you are clever and have a fertile imagination, I don't see yet a serious counter argument.
Can we agree that there are more than one paramaters that somehow have been exquisetly set just right for life (any life) to develop?
Can we agree that the setting of one of them is unusual enough, let alone the combined novelty of several of them being set just right for the development of life ?
Now here is where you argument loses me.
You seem to be saying "Well, the probabilty of these paramaters being fine tuned intelligently is the same as the probability that they by chance just happened to come out that way. So then, Strobel's argument is invalid."
I don't follow you here. And I seriously doubt that you would transfer such logic to fields of forensic evidence as applied to things like insurance fraud, archeology, and crime detection.