One Version of "Finely Tuned" Argument

Originally posted by menace71
Does mathematical probability factor in to this argument?







Manny

The particular response to Dr. Hugh Ross's presentation of fine tuning of the cosmos for life did.

It was a serious enough effort that I personally feel to follow up on the matter. I am presently waiting for a response from Dr. Ross's organization. They said they have a heavy load of questions and prioritize them and get back in time.

No hurry from my perspective. I intend to get to the bottom of it.

Carry on though without the Probability Algebre if you wish, please.

Originally posted by LemonJello
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.

I am probably saying the same thing here, but in my own words:
Any "finely tuned" argument falls prey to the fact that the only real factor that is "special" about the observed outcome is that it is the existent observed outcome. It is a form of circular argument ie the result is special because it is the result.
It is easy to pick up known attributes of the existent universe and claim they are 'special' - intelligent life for example - but it is far harder to explain why you consider any such attribute special for any reason other than 'it exists'.

Regarding FabianFnas additional objection, I fully agree. Most people using the 'finely tuned' argument are making wildly speculative assumptions about what conditions are required for their chosen set of 'special results' to exist.
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with an algorithm called 'Conways game of life'. It is essentially a set of very basic rules which gives rise to what appears to be a very dynamic system with little moving creatures, sometimes of great complexity. One might assume that by lucky chance the rules that Conway used were 'special', but in reality if you adjust the rules you actually get just as many complex patterns (though different), and in fact they may even seem more 'special'.
If I could prove that an alternative universe was populated by star systems in which every planet was populated by intelligent life, would that prove that our current situation was not special and therefore could not have been designed by an intelligent designer?

Many skptical objections I discribe as pseudo Buddhist.

To me they amount to saying "Well, it just depends on the way you look at things. If you try hard enough you'll see that the sense of uniqueness or design is really just an illusion."

You just kind of adjust your angle and think about it from another angle, and presto! There is only a kind of illusion of design similar to the Budhhist teaching of an illusion of the world. Or they say there is only an illusion of the fine tuning of the iniverse for life.

Concerning this kind of attitude, I tried thinking about things this way for a period of my life. I personally have been spoken to by the Scripture saying:

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight." (Isaiah 5:20,21)

This passage struck me in those days when I labored to call order -chaos and when I tried adopt a belief that there was only a appearance of purposeful and intentional design in nature.

I think as we move more into the 21rst century the predictions of some creationist will prove true. There will be more reasons rather than less, to consider design in the cosmos.

Complaints that creation science makes no predictions are not true. I think the evidence of design will encrease. The most stubburn will escape into a pseudo Buddhist view of saying there is really nothing unique or designed about this arrangement of the cosmos.

Originally posted by jaywill
Many skptical objections I discribe as pseudo Buddhist.

Call them what you will, they remain solid objections, and it seems you have no response other than the rather weak "we will have evidence in future, just you wait and see".

Complaints that creation science makes no predictions are not true.
OK, give us one prediction.

I have had these discussions before regarding the specialness of the status quo. I am yet to find anyone who can actually explain what is so special about what exists without resorting to "because it exists" or the even weaker "because I have a big ego". It is in-fact trivial to show for almost any criteria you can think of that what exists is not particularly special.

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay LemonYellow, I waded through one pass of this dense response to SOME article by Hugh Ross.

And there is some interesting probability theorems there and some argumentation with some Davide Kwon who responded to this discussion (on Ross and not Lee Strobel's video).

In this conclusion they wrap it up:

[b]================================
C ned to learn more and visit the article again, more than once, when I learn some more.

[/b]That sentence in the article refers to the condition Kwon mentions:

P(N|F&L)<<1 unless P(~N&F&L)<<1

This says that P(~N&F&L) being small is a necessary condition for P(N|F&L) not being small.

And from here Kwon concludes that only by assuming non naturalism will P(N|F&L) be non-small. The problem is that P(~N&F&L) is already expected to be extremely small under the assumption that the conditions for which life exists (F) are rare.

The authors then show that by developing some terms you get that a neutral stance on naturalism vs non-naturalism would not be enough to reach the conclusion that P(N|F&L) is small. Only using a strong a priori against naturalism would that conclusion follow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Call them what you will, they remain solid objections, and it seems you have no response other than the rather weak "we will have evidence in future, just you wait and see".

[b]Complaints that creation science makes no predictions are not true.
OK, give us one prediction.

I have had these discussions before regarding the specialness of the stat w for almost any criteria you can think of that what exists is not particularly special.[/b]qs

===============================
Call them what you will, they remain solid objections, and it seems you have no response other than the rather weak "we will have evidence in future, just you wait and see".
===============================

That is not what I wrote. I believe that I said evidence will encrease as we continue into the 21rst century. This is because astronomical knowledge and other forms of scientific knowledge are encreaseing.

The point of disagreement is from your side "But you have no evidence to begin with." That is just apparently an issue on which we will not agree.

But I did not say "Evidence is coming". I said "More evidence is coming."

Lastly, naturalist do the same thing. So to state so is fair. Sure they do.

For example - "We do not yet know how Evolution can explain origin of life. We hope to understand it in the future."

===============================
Complaints that creation science makes no predictions are not true.
OK, give us one prediction.
===========================

I just made one. And since the prediction was made that more evidence would come more indeed HAS come. So prediction has been made AND fulfilled. That is that mroe evidence for the fine tuning of the cosmos for life is predicted to be discovered.

=================================
I have had these discussions before regarding the specialness of the status quo. I am yet to find anyone who can actually explain what is so special about what exists without resorting to "because it exists" or the even weaker "because I have a big ego". It is in-fact trivial to show for almost any criteria you can think of that what exists is not particularly special.
====================================

Is it any more valid if you boast that you have a little ego?

So you come along and boast that we are equivalent to the cock roach. So stop pretending to be a big shot on the planet.

I don't think it is a matter of a huge ego. I think it is realism to recognize for example, that people have the skill of language whereas other beasts do not. This is not a matter of a big ego that dolphins and chimps are not cool and smart. It is the realistic recognition that as cool and smart as they are, humans seem to be in a class of their own.

Realism here is not necessarily egotism.

Above I wrote:

=============================
I just made one. And since the prediction was made that more evidence would come more indeed HAS come. So prediction has been made AND fulfilled. That is that mroe evidence for the fine tuning of the cosmos for life is predicted to be discovered.
====================================

Creationists in the 70s predicted that evidence for a beginning to the universe should encrease. It as there as backround radiation. However the COBE satellite furnished more evidence to a creation moment of the universe in 1993.

That is why one astronomer complained sarcastically that his colleagues were all going off to join the Church of Christ of the Big Bang.

(In other words Creationists' predictions seemed to be getting stronger in confirmation)

Since the 70s the number of theorems have added to the agreeement that the cosmos must have had a beginning. So I count that as predictions made by creationist in answer to those who say "Creationism is not science because it makes no predictions"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Call them what you will, they remain solid objections, and it seems you have no response other than the rather weak "we will have evidence in future, just you wait and see".

[b]Complaints that creation science makes no predictions are not true.
OK, give us one prediction.

I have had these discussions before regarding the specialness of the stat ...[text shortened]... how for almost any criteria you can think of that what exists is not particularly special.[/b]

A professor of geology and theology, Hitchcock, collected thousands of fossils of foot prints.

He predicted the encrease of certain kinds of fossil finds which came to pass. Creationists then do make predictions in the scientific field:

In 1836, Edward Hitchcock delivered a report to the American Journal of Science about "remarkable footmarks in stone in the valley of Connecticut River, which have since awakened so much interest among intelligent men." Throughout his life he collected over 20,000 fossil footprints and established a footprint museum at Amherst College. To this day it remains the world's largest fossil footprint museum.

Hitchcock, professor of geology and theology, and president of Amherst College, devoted his life to reconciling scientific discoveries with the Bible. He believed the footprints had been made by giant birds, and he carried this belief to his grave. We now know the fossil footprints were made by bipedal dinosaurs.

Hitchcock's assumption might seem quaint today, but it's important to remember the times in which he worked. He delivered his report several years before Richard Owen even named the Dinosauria, when the only known dinosaur fossils were fragmentary. The prevailing view of ancient reptiles was that they were like today's lizards, just many times the size. Only with later discoveries, such as the first relatively complete dinosaur skeleton of Hadrosaurus foulkii did paleontologists realize that some dinosaurs were bipedal. And when Hitchcock published another report in 1858, Ichnology of New England, he considered the possibility, based on occasional tail impressions, that the "giant birds" who made the tracks might have had some reptilian characteristics.

Even if he refused to accept a dinosaur as the track maker, Hitchcock did demonstrate some impressive logic. He undertook extensive comparisons between the fossil tracks and those of modern birds, and he identified several potential species among the track makers. He speculated (correctly) that many more fossil tracks might be found if quarries were to be opened. He also reasoned that tracks on inclined rocks were probably originally made of level ground, remarking, "There is no appearance as if the animal had scrambled upwards, or slid downwards, except in one or two tracks of great size, where the mud appears to have been rolled up a few inches before the feet."

Originally posted by jaywill
That is not what I wrote. I believe that I said evidence will [b]encrease as we continue into the 21rst century. This is because astronomical knowledge and other forms of scientific knowledge are encreaseing.[/b]

Rather odd then that instead of presenting any of this evidence you already have, you chose to rely solely on evidence you hope to have in future. As I said, it is a very weak counter argument and a sign that you really don't have any counter argument - hence the need to resort to name-calling.

I just made one.
Where? I missed it. If you think "more evidence will come to light" is a prediction then you are rather confused about what predictions we are talking about.

And since the prediction was made that more evidence would come more indeed HAS come. So prediction has been made AND fulfilled. That is that mroe evidence for the fine tuning of the cosmos for life is predicted to be discovered.
So, what is the prediction and what is the evidence that has come to light? Why are you dodging around the issue?

I don't think it is a matter of a huge ego. I think it is realism to recognize for example, that people have the skill of language whereas other beasts do not. This is not a matter of a big ego that dolphins and chimps are not cool and smart. It is the realistic recognition that as cool and smart as they are, humans seem to be in a class of their own.

Realism here is not necessarily egotism.
But the comparison is based solely on what is, not on what is possible. It is also largely based on what skills we value. For example, when it comes to reproductive success, ants can out do us by far.
But most importantly, we know that we lack many skills that are theoretically possible. For example there are rare cases of people with extraordinary intelligence - therefore we know that the majority of us do not have the highest possible intelligence. So the universe is apparently fine tuned to a situation where extraordinary intelligence is not commonplace. So you must either admit that high intelligence is not desirable, or the fine tuned argument has a major flaw. This follows because the 'fine tuned' argument makes the assumption that our current situation is extraordinarily special. If there are a multitude of other special but non-existent universes, then the fine tuned argument weakens. If we find that we cannot estimate the proportion of special universes to non-special universes then the fine tuned argument falls flat on its face.

Originally posted by jaywill
Creationists in the 70s predicted that evidence for a beginning to the universe should encrease. It as there as backround radiation. However the COBE satellite furnished [b]more evidence to a creation moment of the universe in 1993. [/b]

You are clearly quite confused about what a prediction should consist of. What you have presented here is not the sort of prediction we are talking about. It is rather like saying "I prophesy that next year, something will happen" and then claiming to be a prophet.

Originally posted by jaywill
He predicted the encrease of certain kinds of fossil finds which came to pass. Creationists then do make predictions in the scientific field:

Now you are clutching at straws. Next you will be telling us that a creationist has predicted the finding of more sand on the beach.
We are not talking about whether a creationist can predict something, but whether a creationist can the use creation hypothesis to make a prediction which if it proves to be correct, directly supports the creation hypothesis. If however the result of the prediction is neutral - or as in this case negative - then it doesn't qualify at all.

Originally posted by jaywill
Many skptical objections I discribe as pseudo Buddhist.

To me they amount to saying "Well, it just depends on the way you look at things. If you try hard enough you'll see that the sense of uniqueness or design is really just an illusion."

You just kind of adjust your angle and think about it from another angle, and presto! There is only a kind ...[text shortened]... of saying there is really nothing unique or designed about this arrangement of the cosmos.

Or they say there is only an illusion of the fine tuning of the iniverse for life.

I don't really understand why you bring up this "pseudo Buddhist" sketpicism as you call it. In case you are not understanding the Ikeda and Jefferys paper, they are not claiming that the "fine tuning" of the universe is only an illusion. They are ready to grant you for the purpose of argument that the universe is, in fact, "fine tuned" (although, otherwise they cite at least one "traditional" objection against such a premise that they say they think is valid). What they then show is that this assumed fact that the universe is fine tuned does not constitute evidence for creation. In fact, their contention is that it "can only count against" creation.

Do you see the difference?