The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
It's covered very well in the source I cited and I refer you to it.

Why don't you humor me and try to explain it yourself.

Originally posted by DeepThought
cpuid instruction.

When we find the equivalent in the universe, this discussion most certainly is over. 😵

Vendor: GenuineGod
Humans: Yes
Appearance of design: No - well, now that you found this - Yes

Originally posted by JS357
The reason-able possibility of a motivated capable agent, then, is enough. For example in the cite I made, intelligent ET life sending prime numbers into space is deemed reasonably possible because we are doing it. The guy fixing the ballot lists is deemed reasonably possible because it has happened elsewhere and the motivation and moment exist. So there has t ...[text shortened]... iteria for possibility, no? What are the reasonable criteria for an ID-er being deemed possible?

I was thinking more along the lines of Pantheism.

Entanglement, Bell's Theorem (failure of locality), etc. etc.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't you humor me and try to explain it yourself.

You said, "I postulated what I called "Metarules" as an explanation i.e. some universal rules that require the forces to be within narrow ranges of the ones seen in our universe. However, that explanation should be supported by some type of evidence or logical reasoning. "

Shouldn't any postulated explanation be supported "by some type of evidence or logical reasoning"?

Like Pantheism? Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by JS357
You said, "I postulated what I called "Metarules" as an explanation i.e. some universal rules that require the forces to be within narrow ranges of the ones seen in our universe. However, that explanation should be supported by some type of evidence or logical reasoning. "

Shouldn't any postulated explanation be supported "by some type of evidence or logical reasoning"?

Like Pantheism? Intelligent Design?

Sure, I never said they shouldn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sure, I never said they shouldn't.

postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

I will take your postulation of metarules to be a suggestion.

Originally posted by JS357
postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

I will take your postulation of metarules to be a suggestion.

My post on p. 2 ended:

I find this line of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God. Many alternative universes, MetaRules or a conscious universe (perhaps recycling itself with contraction and expansion i.e. Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches in a reoccurring pattern) seem to be logically consistent with these observed facts although you can always rely on a "lottery" argument.


I was suggesting a few alternatives consistent IMO with the observed facts at least on a preliminary basis as a starting point for further discussion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My post on p. 2 ended:

I find this line of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God. Many alternative universes, MetaRules or a conscious universe (perhaps recycling itself with contraction and expansion i.e. Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches in a reoccurring pattern) seem to be logically consistent wi ...[text shortened]... h the observed facts at least on a preliminary basis as a starting point for further discussion.

Then the question is, of what are you persuaded and why? After all, universes where the constants aren't just right would not have people debating the matter. So it is inevitable that we will have the illusion that the universe we are in is fine-tuned for our intelligent consciousness, because we happen to be intelligent and conscious enough to think that way. But consider the possibility that someday, this impression may fade, if we get global warming or cooling on a cosmic scale. It might even be that scientists will find that a slightly different value for some physical constant could have been operating all along and could have been better for us.

After all, if we are going to speculate, we aren't limited to explanations that glorify us.

Originally posted by JS357
Then the question is, of what are you persuaded and why? After all, universes where the constants aren't just right would not have people debating the matter. So it is inevitable that we will have the illusion that the universe we are in is fine-tuned for our intelligent consciousness, because we happen to be intelligent and conscious enough to think that way. ...[text shortened]... .

After all, if we are going to speculate, we aren't limited to explanations that glorify us.

This is just the "lottery argument" which isn't very persuasive. That we were merely the recipients of incredible luck isn't any more satisfying an explanation than "Goddunnit"; it just is more amenable to a different set of pre-existing conceptions.

Global warming isn't going to affect the physical laws mentioned in the passage I cited to. The strength of the basic forces, for example, isn't going to fluctuate based on "local" conditions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is just the "lottery argument" which isn't very persuasive. That we were merely the recipients of incredible luck isn't any more satisfying an explanation than "Goddunnit"; it just is more amenable to a different set of pre-existing conceptions.

Global warming isn't going to affect the physical laws mentioned in the passage I cited to. The strength of the basic forces, for example, isn't going to fluctuate based on "local" conditions.

I don't argue for luck. Putting it in those terms is a red herring as far as I am concerned. What happens is, that where conditions permit, beings that refer to themselves as "we" will come to exist. That much we know.

What do the necessary conditions include? I don't argue for luck, but I also find no need to posit a supernatural intelligent designer as a necessary condition at this point in time. I am open to reasons to change that position. But I will ask how to test that idea.

Originally posted by no1marauder
From wiki:

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12][13]

N, the ratio of the strengths of electromagnetism to that of gravity for charged subatomic particles, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived unive ...[text shortened]... cally consistent with these observed facts although you can always rely on a "lottery" argument.

I find this line of argument quite persuasive...

What line of argument? There is no actual argument in the text that you quoted from wiki. It's just a list of counterfactual claims by Rees, each having the rough form "If C were slightly different from its actual value, then X would be the case" where C is a physical constant and X is some state of affairs inappropriate for life. That's not an argument, and it is not at all clear how such observations, even if true, are to be cast into suitable premises for a fine tuning argument. A typical way it goes is that one will start with these sorts of counterfactual claims and formulate an associated fine tuning argument in terms of probability claims, in a style of Bayesian inference. Problem is, it is not at all clear that any probability claims follow from these sorts of counterfactual observations regarding physical constants. There's a forceful "normalizability" objection to be made here (I think it owes back to McGrew and Vestrup in Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument ). There are formal requirements for coherency of probability judgments, including that the space of possible values have a normalized measure. This could hold for the fine tuning parameters if the space of possible values were delimited in some non-arbitrary way; or if there were biasing factors that theoretically favor some possible values over others. But there seem to be no theoretical reasons that supply these restrictions on the fundamental constants at issue. I think this is a very strong objection to fine-tuning arguments that has not received enough attention.

Point is, there's no actual argument constituted by such a list of counterfactual claims regarding physical constants. And, the jump from such counterfactual claims to an argument relying on probability claims, if that's the sort of argument you would be referring to, seems dubious.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I find this line of argument quite persuasive...

What line of argument? There is no actual argument in the text that you quoted from wiki. It's just a list of counterfactual claims by Rees, each having the rough form "If C were slightly different from its actual value, then X would be the case" where C is a physical constant and X is s ...[text shortened]... on probability claims, if that's the sort of argument you would be referring to, seems dubious.

The argument is rather clear and you know what it is (see the title of the thread). Your claim that there isn't one is disingenuous.

Small variations in virtually any of the most basic properties of the universe lead to a universe where life is impossible. An explanation of why this is so seems to be in order. So far the two competing ones seem to be "s**t happens" and "it was designed that way by a designer" (I offered some other possibilities but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of evidence to support them). You'll have to explain to me why picking the one black marble in the bowl with a billion white marbles isn't more "dubious" than someone left one black marble there.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't argue for luck. Putting it in those terms is a red herring as far as I am concerned. What happens is, that where conditions permit, beings that refer to themselves as "we" will come to exist. That much we know.

What do the necessary conditions include? I don't argue for luck, but I also find no need to posit a supernatural intelligent designer as a ...[text shortened]... int in time. I am open to reasons to change that position. But I will ask how to test that idea.

"Where conditions permit" is a product of the physical laws that exist. Small variations in any of the basic forces would make "conditions not permit". Is it a "necessary condition" that there be an "intelligent designer"? No, but the evidence for all explanations should be weighed rather than one being excluded out of hand. Therefore, if your favored hypothesis is the type of "lottery argument" you are making, then you'd have to explain why you think that there were other drawings and they produced lifeless universes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Small variations in virtually any of the most basic properties of the universe lead to a universe where life is impossible. An explanation of why this is so seems to be in order.

Small variations in just about every possible aspect of your parents lives up until your conception lead to a universe where your existence is impossible.
Do you find this in need of explanation? If not, why not?

So far the two competing ones seem to be "s**t happens" and "it was designed that way by a designer"
Competing ideas are not necessarily equal.

You'll have to explain to me why picking the one black marble in the bowl with a billion white marbles isn't more "dubious" than someone left one black marble there.
You'll first have to explain why you think the marble you picked is black. Did you paint it black after you picked it perhaps?

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is just the "lottery argument" which isn't very persuasive. That we were merely the recipients of incredible luck isn't any more satisfying an explanation than "Goddunnit"; it just is more amenable to a different set of pre-existing conceptions.

You don't seem to understand the lottery argument - which might explain why you don't find it persuasive. Properly understood, a lottery argument is of course much more persuasive than 'Goddunnit'.
Be honest now, you don't believe God chooses all the lottery winners do you? If you don't, then you accept the lottery argument for lotteries. Why the sudden change of heart when it comes to universes?