There is no inherently insurmountable odds against evolution. The only way creationists manage to calculate those odds is by assuming this one specific outcome out of the nearly infinite number of paths evolution could have taken.
What an idiot... if a guy kept winning the lottery every time for a hundred years, I might be suspicious but I would not "infer" it was an unfair lottery, it's called probability buddy, look up what that is
I don't have anything to add to this video, really. I think ToolTime9901 did a good job answering it, and all the rest of the comments cover anything else that I could say.
I just wanted to say that I really like this guy's voice. I feel like he should be an announcer or radio host or something. Voice actor, maybe. Nothing profound to say; I just like his voice.
Every planet around every star in every galaxy is a lottery ticket. There are plenty of 'losers'. In hindsight, we can say we are the winners.
As for what is the probability the universe could sustain life at all, it is inapplicable, because there's no way to know for sure if it is possible that it could have turned out another way.
I really think this is a bad analogy. This universe is the only outcome that we know of. So a better analogy would be you winning the lottery and then looking at all the conditions that came into play for you to win, then saying they were fine tuned for you to win. It is very unlikely that Joe Blow will win the lottery, but when he does, it was only chance. Also, we have endless time spans, so many dice rolls occur, which makes improbable things likely to happen eventually.
Because the analogy doesn't hold. In the Lottery Example, you have a probability distribution for elements in the sample space - i.e. an individual winning the lottery, whereas no such probability distribution is known in the case of physical parameters. Secondly, while winning the lottery is a phenomenon pre-specified in some stochastic model, in what sense could life ever have been pre-specified in some stochastic model? You'd need life to pre-specify it in the first place!
Well my problem is: How do you know that a LSU is like predicting the lottery ? It may as well be like playing the lottery 150.000.000 times and winning once. Under these circumstances an LSU still remains unprobable but does not require justification despite that. It is like assuming I have magic powers because I can throw sand in a way that is astronomically unprobably (any specific order of a hand full of sand is astronomically unprobable).
How do you know that the existence of God is more likely than the universe popping up randomly ?
This would require you to be able to know God's probability beforehand. However, the design argument is supposed to establish God's probability when you first have to know God's probability in order to make sense of the argument. Seems kind of circular to me.
FGB I am sorry if I am catching MK2 and your discussion in middle but I wanted to comment on a statement you made: "This would require you to be able to know God's probability beforehand." This would be the case if he was making the claim from perspective of Designer > Design. But as far as I understand he is making the claim/argument from Design > Designer
What I meant is this: Maybe God is equally unlikely as a universe that randomly supports life. In this case God would not be a more plausible explanation than it happening randomly.
Imagine that you play the lottery for one hundred years and NOT win one single time. Would it be fallacious to infer that the lottery was somehow fixed against you?
No because thats not the same thing. You would have to say the environment was designed for the Ford Pinto not the other way around. We know this is not true, the Ford Pinto was designed through evolution of cars for the environment. This was done intelligently obviously but the environment wasnt designed for FordPinto it was vice versa. This is what evolution has done through natural means for life on earth.
askeggs argument in that video was that Dr WLC is commiting a logical fallacy.... how does your example address that? Dr WLC's argument is like throwing a dart at a wall blindfolded and saying "did you see where that dart hit?! What are the odds it was gonna hit there?! That's a Miracle!!"
You can even pull the dart out of the wall and see the hole that is perfectly formed to recieve the tip of the dart, and wonder what are the odds of that.
Because there are perfectly reasonable explainations for the design we see in the universe that don't require a designer. You don't think there's a 'snow-flake god' that designs all the snow-flakes, do you?
It depends on which examples of design one is interested in. In the case of snowflakes, it's the Wegner-Bergeron-Findeison process. In the case of organisms, it's evolution. In the case of markets, it's the principles of economics. In the case of stars and planets, it's gravity.
There are some things we can't yet explain, of course. But that doesn't mean we just shrug our shoulders & say 'goddunnit.' We continue with the same process that led to the explanations we have discovered: science.
With due respect, it doesn't seem that you know very much about evolution. The god hypothesis is simply an argument from ignorance. People have used it as an explanation for anything they didn't understand. Evolution, by contrast, is not a default assumption. We have copious lines of independent evidence attesting to its truth. If you think the best evolution can do is 'survivaldunnit' then you clearly have no familiarity with the theory, or the evidence that backs it up.
Number one, I am not espousing a God of the gaps argument at all. I feel it suffice to say that God explains what we DO have knowledge of, not what we don't. I look at what we see, what we experience. God explains THIS
But are you telling me that there are NO gaps in evoltuionary explanation?
By your argument, ANY gap, by definition, would be a gap of ignorance. So any explanation to fill that gap would be an explanation from ignorance
Is gravity the FORMAL cause for stars and planets?
And does gravity even explain itself, for that matter?
If it does, then the best explanation you can give for the universe is either, "I don't know" or "All of this JUST happens, there is no explanation for it."
So everything we see, no matter what it is, God explains it? Doesn't such a catch-all seem a little cheap? Why consider Y an adequate explanation of X if Y would also be an adequate explanation of the exact opposite of X? If non-zero masses started repelling, rather than attracting each other, we wouldn't say gravity explained it. We'd look for another explanation. That which explains everything can explain nothing.
being that you don't know the full extent of reality I can't see how you think one explanation for the whole of reality is more fitting than the other.. because you don't know its full extent.. like ive heard a million times, hiding in that ignorance could very well be god.. or not.
And yes, frankly, the gaps in evolution are better than the gaps in theology. Gaps in evolution fit on a clear trajectory, and when we look to fill one of the gaps, we can do so with a modest amount of effort, and it almost always fits exactly where the theory predicted it would. Theology offers us no such predictive success.
vbf "I feel it suffice to say that God explains what we DO have knowledge of, not what we don't. I look at what we see, what we experience. God explains THIS"
I think you owe us an explanation of exactly how God explains the known universe. Science explains all the known phenomenon to a much greater (and more logical) extent than just saying "God".
You are substituting a supernatural (non)explanation, for an already existing scientific theory. If you are indeed not using "God of the Gaps".
Even tho im making no supernatural claim and u are, u think i need to explain?
Well I already said science explains all known phenomenon, to a greater extent than god (of course we don't know everything) - this is the universe explaining itself through man. We are after all composed of material found in the Universe and are therefore, a part of it.....unlike god. Do i need to start going thro all the fields of science and their theories? Or can i assume you can look that up yourself?
Because I'm tired of hearing how snowflakes compare in nature and complexity to DNA, which further gives rise to conscious beings who UNDERSTAND all of this.
1. It presupposes that a life supporting universe is unprobable. I know all the claims of WL Craig. However, science is questioning these numbers and pointing out that the actual probability is unknown and Craigs numbers are pretty much made up.
2. Unprobable and unique alone is not sufficient to establish intelligent design. See:
2: I understand why you would infer a conspiracy if say... someone were to roll a six 100 times in a row. But how does that exactly translate to inferring a conspiracy if someone rolls a six just once?
In your lottery example, there is an analogue for god - an existing person who would be able to cheat the system.
In a life supporting universe, we do not know that god exists - we can't readily point to design without making a leap of faith (believing that god exists).
We know that people exist and could tamper. We do not know that god exists; therefore we do not know that design had a hand in all this.
Thanks for posting this - it made me think thoroughly.
(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldnt say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.
(continued from previous post) Suppose I was an engineer building a car, and in the process of doing so I created several BILLION cars that would not even start (i.e. billions of lifeless planets), and I, from this very wasteful process produced only one functional car that was susceptible to early rust and malfunction (i.e. one planet with life that is replete with pain, suffering, and defects) (continued).
It is interesting that theists will only use the flawed design analogy just to prove their God, but they won't be honest about the inferences made by the design analogy, and they won't let those inferences play out to their fullest extent. If they did they would realize that if the universe is the product of design, then it demonstrates a designer that is cruel and wasteful (continued)
(continued from previous post) So just as we WOULDT be right in assuming the lottery was rigged if a person only one ONCE, we wouldnt be right in assuming that design has anything to do with our existence because life is so rare, and therefore within the realm of
(continued from previous post) So far, we know of no other planet in our galaxy or in our universe that sustains life, and most of the universe is inhospitable to life. Hence the fact that we DO have life is a RARE occurrence, well within the realm of chance, such as in a lottery were a person only wins once (continued).
The lottery analogy, that you are using, is self-defeating. Yes, we would be well within our rights to assume that someone manipulated the lottery if one person kept winning over and over again, against overwhelming odds. However, life on this planet represents the exact opposite (continued).
I've seen mathematical calculations that figure there may be about 7 quintillion grains of sand on earth. Let's say each grain represents a planet in the universe. One day I come along and pick up one grain at a beach. If the grain contained intelligence, would it think it was placed there especially for me (the Christian reasoning)? Or is it more likely just a matter of chance that I happened to walk to that particular spot on earth and chose that one grain? There's no magic in the universe.
Because it has only happened once, that we know of. If something is very unlikely it still may happen but for it to happen over and over again it is best to say the probabilities are not that we first thought.
If we knew of other universes with life then the probability for a creator designing universes for life increases.
More like the sole winner of a Texas Hold'em tournament that involved hundreds of players, who then declares that his victory must be divine intervention, as the odds, all strategy aside, of him winning so many poker hands were statistically incredibly unlikely.
You are already presupposing the game, the building in which the game is being played in, the pieces and cards for the game. And this is without taking into account you or the other players.
The teleological argument takes ALL of those other things into account, on up to the local parameters in which the earth ITSELF, allows human life.
Seeing what it takes for a planet to allow life in this universe, in addition to the universe itself, this could be likened to you finding yourself at a Texas Hold'em tournament with hundreds of 5 year old children as your only competition.
Inexplicably, you ALREADY have a better chance at winning than they do.
'The design argument is adhoc due to its' development. It explains the afterward conditions of an effect (development of carbon life in the universe) by the cause, and then determines probability. What reasons have we to reason that other forms of life are impossible? The argument revolves around carbon based life. '
^^This is really the only substantial rebuttal that you'll get to the anthropic principle.
I absolutely agree with your points. I'd add one more.
There's a massive selection-bias implicit to the very question. A probability we can know with confidence is: Intelligent beings, wondering about the odds of their universe having properties necessary for their existence, will find themselves in a universe that has the properties necessary for their existence, with probability 1
There are no philosophers native to Venus pondering how they came to exist on a non-life-sustaining planet
The initial probability of someone winning the lottery 100 times in a row while not cheating is low, but if you cheat the probability is high.
Now, how do we figure out the probabilites with cosmic design? I have no idea. Evidential arguments from surplus evil face the same problem since they are design arguments as well.
(Irritated sigh) Now you just backtracked and changed the goal posts. First you were claiming there could be NO POSSIBLITY ANYWHERE for life, if the constants were changed.
Now, you've moved the goal posts to, "there would be LESS CHANCE.
If you watched his video, and learned anything from it, seems to me, YOU should be able to defend your position on this.
Further, if he claims that life is barely possible on only a few places on Earth, that means the Earth and the Universe is not fine tuned for life; it means life is fine tuned to Earth and the Universe.
And your mathematical, or logical, or empirical, or observational, or experiential, or scientific evidence to prove that there would be NO POSSIBLITY ANYWHERE, of lfe if the fundamental constants were changed is.......??
The answer is simple you simple minded christian retard. In an infinite universe, there is an infinite possible "tries", so we shouldn't be surprised if in one section of the universe this actually happens. What an idiot. <--Note satire.
The fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed?
It's not a proof, but at least we have some basis for our assertion.
However, it's asinine for theists to claim that the universe was created without stating any evidence. Where is your evidence that the universe is finite, and that it requires a beginning and a creator?
The second law of thermodynamics and the fact that time can be affected by gravity gives some weight to the universe being finite. Also, if you hold to the big bang theory, the expanding bit of matter has to come from somewhere. Obviously it had also had to have come from somewhere as well.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that the universe has to be finite. It merely states that entropy in a closed system will increase until it reaches stable equilibrium. You clearly do not understand it
The fact that gravity bends space-time doesn't have anything to do with the universe being finite.
Regarding the Big Bang. How about this: the singularity was once a remnant of the universe that undergoes infinite contracting and expanding cycles? It's a possibility
It's a shame people keep abusing the term Infinity and throwing it around like confetti. The Universe can't undergo infinite contracting and expanding, since that asserts and infinite regression which is self-refuting.
It's wonderful that you can't even come up with a proper response when someone debunks your misuse of scientific facts. How is infinity self-refuting? Time is just another dimension just as height, width, or length. Besides, the concept of infinity is both mathematically sound (calculus) and has practical applications in physics.
Simply asserting that infinity is self-refuting is nothing more than argument from incredulity and unsupported claim.
Besides, atheists are not the ones asserting the infinity of the universe. We are just responding to the theist claim that the universe can only be finite. We are just stating a possibility.
However, it's fallacious for theists to claim that the universe is finite without any empirical evidence. I mean, all you have is "I personally don't believe that infinity is possible."
Well good for you. You are just making unsupported claims.
This is standard knowledge in educated philosophy and epistemology that an Infinity in actuality is self-refuting, as it is impossible to traverse the infinite.
The problem of traversing the infinite is one of about THREE reasons why an infinity in actuality, is self-refuting.
You do realize that that philosophy is at best based on common sense, and that our common sense can only tell us so much about the reality?
Quantum & relativistic physics have shown us that the reality defies our common sense. That's because subatomic world and the universe at cosmological scales are so removed from our daily experience.
You can't use philosophy to derive anything about the physical reality, especially when mathematics and science completely contradicts it.
It's natural for us, human beings, to assume that things are finite. It's natural for us, as third-dimensional beings, to perceive things in sequential orders. However, time, just like any other dimensions, is merely a dimension. If you were to look at this universe from the 4th dimensional being, then everything is happening at the same time. Just as if we were to look at 2-dimensional world.
There is only so much we can get from logic and reasoning.
And I have clearly explicated that I am referring to things that exist in ACTUALITY. Math is not a concrete(actual existence). Math is a conceptual integration(abstraction).
Only in the perspective of third dimensional world. Time is just like any other dimensions. There is no boundary to time.
Besides, infinity does exist in actuality. Asymptotes actually exist. There are number of things that are actually represented by infinity. Just because you don't know them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
You are constantly arguing that math is not a part of reality. That's just blatant assertion, but also dead wrong.
Math may be abstract, but it's the language of this physical reality. Physical laws can be mathematically modeled. In fact, the reality is conveyed mathematically.
Asymptotes are important practical phenomena in physics. There are situations when mathematical models of the physical laws approach infinity.
Unless you can disprove mathematics, then you are out of luck.
The claim you made that "I am constantly arguing that math is not a part of reality", fails since it's a strawman argument fallacy.
I didn't say math is not part of reality. I said math is a conceptual integration, not an actual existent. You are confusing the conceptual with the concrete.
If you are asking for an example of something infinite that you can physically see, then that's fallacious.
Second of all, it's your incredulity that prevents you from understanding the fact that asymptotes are ACTUAL physical phenomena.
Let me give you an example of something infinite: length (a dimension). You can't draw boundaries on the dimension itself. And time is just like any other dimension.
It is a concrete concept that has real physical consequences. Again, if you are asking for something that you can physically touch or see, then you are asking for the impossible. Humans cannot see or experience something that is infinite.
However, you are constantly insisting that because we can't humanly experience infinity, infinity do not exist. That's fallacious logic and irrational.
Also, you still haven't proven why it is self-refuting.
Just because we can't directly experience it, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Gravity is an abstract concept that we can't directly experience. We can only experience the effects of gravity. Space and time is an abstract concept that we can't directly experience, but they have actual physical consequences.
I don't understand your juvenile insistence on asking for an example of infinity that you can hold it in your hand.
I give you an example of something infinite. Then you say that math isn't "actual." Then I explain that math is a model of reality that can model real and actual physical consequences. Then you go on saying that math isn't "actual" again.
It's really asinine debating you. You really need to keep track of your arguments and see where you fail. Dimensions (length, width, height, and time) are something that are infinite. Asymptotes manifests as real life consequences. You chose to ignore them.
Length, width, height, math and time are all conceptual integrations, not actual existences. You are confusing concepts with concretes, and subsequently committing the fallacy of hypostatization.
After all, the whole point of this discussion was to figure out whether time can possibly be infinite. You have to admit that time, despite being conceptual, is infinite. Now that you finally realizing admitting to it, you now have to resort to your dogmatic faith based assumption.
Unless you can mathematically demonstrate to me that time inherently differs from other dimensions (you can't, theoretical physicists have worked up to 11th dimensions), time is just like any other dimensions like length.
You still can't even come up with an argument that refutes it other than "I personally believe that time isn't infinite." Assertion doesn't automatically validate your claim.
Prove that time is somehow different from other dimensions.
I'm not positing that time is somehow different from other dimensions. That it is or isn't has nothing to do with the fact that time is not infinite. It can't be as that instantiates an infinite regress.
Infinite regression has yet to be shown to be incoherent, see Wes Morriston's critique of the Kalam Cosmological argument or read Joshua Rasmussen's paper "Kalam Calamity".
Sure it's been shown to be incoherent. As an infinity is an unlimited dynamic.
So, for instance, one cannot have a temporal infinity, as there would be an unlimited amount of time from one moment to the next, meaning one would never reach this moment. Since one has reached this moment, time is necessarily finite.
Nonsense. Any point in the past is only a finite amount of time away from this one. An infinite past is one with no beginning at all, rather than a beginning that is infinitely far away.
The fact that the universe has its own level of entropy would seem to indicate Especially since the energy of enclosed systems had to come from somewhere as well.
How does something that can be bent or modified involuntarily be a "weak" force such as gravity?
Regarding the big Bang, the consensus regarding that is it is still expanding. The physical rule "things in motion tend to stay in motion" applies.
Wow. Just lots of incredulity. What if I were to tell you that infinity is coherently expressed mathematically? I mean, do you know anything about Calculus?
Cosmologists do not ignore this "fact." Merely asserting things do not make it true. I mean, what's your background education regarding cosmology?
Inflationary models explain the origin of energy and matter like this:
At the beginning, there was empty space. This is an unstable state, so quantum fluctuations created positive and negative energy, the total sum being zero. That's all the first law of thermodynamics says - the sum stays the same.
No, that's not what it states. There was space, it's just that space was singularity. All the energy (matter is interchangeable) is stored as vacuum energy that is used to bend the space. For instance, gravitational potential energy is stored in the form of gravitational field (alters space and time).
You really need to get your facts straight first. I don't have time to correct every one of your mistakes.
Life is very rare and hard to come by unless conditions are just right. Not only do you need a universe tuned for life, but also you need rocks to form at just the right size and at just the right distance from a sun with the accumulation of liquid water present. You've done nothing but play right into their hands with your question.
So how many billions of planets are there in the universe that can sustain vastly different forms of life that all have "people" that claim the odds of that particular race coming into existence is so remote, that there must be a god?
When someone holds onto an argument so bad, you know there are emotional reasons behind it.
Cdk007 made a video recently on this subject and he gave two articles that seemed to suggest that the universe is not fine tuned to begin with. I havent read the articles yet to be honest but I have seen other scientist suggest as well that there is actually not this immense precision and that the chance of having a LPU is quite high.
That would actually attack the argument at its root rather than suggesting necessity or a multiverse
Whether or not there are some scientists who claim the universe was fine-tuned, none of those claims are grounded in scientific basis. I mean, factual evidence directly from this universe disagrees with their assertion. Not only that, there is no way for those scientists to figure out if this state of the universe is the only possible state for the life to form. Physical constants may change, but "life" may arise in different forms than what we know.
haha well I see what you mean. As I said I havent actually read the articles, my point was just that the position that there is no actual fine tuning becomes a position I hear more and more. And its not a matter of popularity ofcourse. If it is true that in 25% of all possible universe there would arise stars, then it means that it is quite probable that life could emerge. I ofcourse dont know if the took into account all variables or if they took into account how this would affect the big bang
"I ofcourse dont know if the took into account all variables or if they took into account how this would affect the big bang"
I've been told (my math skills aren't yet good enough to check everything for myself) that, in his paper, Adams already assumes a cosmological constant that allows the formation of stars.
I've then read the paper (at least cdk007 puts them online, which is cool) and he does in fact ignore the cosmological constant. So yeah.
You would be 100% justified to assume that I had fixed the lottery in my favor. To accept otherwise would be to accept the complete and total failure of probability. However, as far as this applies to the LPU, how many probabilities permit an LPU? Just one? Billions? Sure, our type of life requires the universe to be as it is, but what other kinds of life could evolve under different conditions?
Suppose the lottery game managers only announced who won the lottery after the same person it won it everyday for 100 years. If you were ever in a knowing-the-winner state, would it come as a surprise that the same person won it everyday for 100 years?
Or more directly:
What's the probability that a beings asking "why is it that the universe has the properties necessary for our existence?" will find themselves in a universe that has the properties necessary for their existence?
As I have stated - you are making a prediction ahead of time. WLC's argument is round the other way - he has the lottery results and says that the chances of this particular sequence occurring is so remote it's virtually impossible, thus requires a God to solve.
If you're getting at how we could've gotten this far by succeeding every time in our evolutionary path then obviously natural selection is the answer. That is he system that ratchets out any defections and allows us to take the path that most suits our survivability.
Because we know the mechanism by which a lottery should work and can thus adequately calculate the probability of winning the lottery every day for 100 years if the lottery were fair.
On the other hand, we have only access to this (our) universe and we don't know if its "parameters" are free to vary or are somehow tied. In addition, even if we knew that *some* parameters are free to vary, we have no idea as to which "settings" are more probable.
thanks darktango, but that kind of misses the point of my video. I (and the author of the video to which I am responding) am assuming that the conditions necessary for an LPU are spectacularly improbable.
You're free to question whether an LPU is improbable, but once again its irrelevant to this video.
Though Paul Davies, Michael Ruse, and Robin Collins have some great writing on that particular question.
I went and watched Askegg's video, and I see why you say my comment is not on point wrt your argument with him.
However, I still think it's a valid reply to your question, which can stand on its own.
As a point of clarification, I'm not only questioning whether a LPU is improbable, I'm questioning your warrant for applying probabilistic reasoning to something of which you only have one instance and no knowledge of what the free variables are, let alone their distributions.
"thanks darktango, but that kind of misses the point of my video."
Perhaps you should make the point of your question more clear then, because this was not apparent to me either.
As it stands your question is only relevant if someone believes that a life sustaining universe is improbable.
I really don't see how it would be an issue for a Christian though since most Christians believe we actually can exist without any physical universe at all.
Chose the correct lottery numbers everyday for 100 years ?
well, it's quite improbable, but NOT impossible. In Fact if the lottery continues for long enough and enough people play it's actually INEVITABLE.!
1 in a Million doesn't mean it WON'T happen, it means IT MUST happen ! (Every Nine hundred ninety nine thousanth nine hundred ninety ninth time !)
BUT seeing as you need to be 18 to play the lottery, and the average life span is 80 years, I'd call BULLSHIT ANALOGY!
AsDeadAsDillinger 9 months ago
There is no inherently insurmountable odds against evolution. The only way creationists manage to calculate those odds is by assuming this one specific outcome out of the nearly infinite number of paths evolution could have taken.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ur arguments are bullshit. compatibilism is true! accept the facts, Natzi.
grandslam841 1 year ago
My goodness i cant believe you posted that with a straight face.....I mean seriously?
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Premise 1: Extreme improbability implies design.
Premise 2: Life in our universe is extremely improbable.
Premise 2 = fail.
Failtroll is fail.
flamingmonkey923 2 years ago
@flamingmonkey923
"fail"
"Failtroll is fail"
STFU you retarded parrot sheep.
observer75 2 years ago
Right back at you. At least I actually addressed the issue in the video. Life in our universe is NOT extremely improbable.
Next time respond to the point, not the person.
flamingmonkey923 2 years ago
What an idiot... if a guy kept winning the lottery every time for a hundred years, I might be suspicious but I would not "infer" it was an unfair lottery, it's called probability buddy, look up what that is
YourRoadToHell 2 years ago
I don't have anything to add to this video, really. I think ToolTime9901 did a good job answering it, and all the rest of the comments cover anything else that I could say.
I just wanted to say that I really like this guy's voice. I feel like he should be an announcer or radio host or something. Voice actor, maybe. Nothing profound to say; I just like his voice.
SpaceAndrew 2 years ago
It's a good question from our human point of view.
That's the problem though.We think we're special and extremely important but what reason is there to think that?
It seems like a modern version of the theistic human centric view of the universe that used to believe the earth was central.
You haven't shown that life is improbable but it is shown that winning the lotto 1000 times is improbable.
That's why it's fallacious to assume intelligent design of the universe from probability.
smellarm 2 years ago
what makes you think that LIFE is the top prize?
SilentD1 2 years ago
Every planet around every star in every galaxy is a lottery ticket. There are plenty of 'losers'. In hindsight, we can say we are the winners.
As for what is the probability the universe could sustain life at all, it is inapplicable, because there's no way to know for sure if it is possible that it could have turned out another way.
Raptor302 2 years ago 3
You're good friend Victor Stenger is actually writing a book solely dedicated to this topic to be released next year.
Happy reading.
TheLeetPiper 2 years ago
*Your.
Sloppy grammar. oh well.
TheLeetPiper 2 years ago
I really think this is a bad analogy. This universe is the only outcome that we know of. So a better analogy would be you winning the lottery and then looking at all the conditions that came into play for you to win, then saying they were fine tuned for you to win. It is very unlikely that Joe Blow will win the lottery, but when he does, it was only chance. Also, we have endless time spans, so many dice rolls occur, which makes improbable things likely to happen eventually.
loveisallneed 2 years ago 5
Because the analogy doesn't hold. In the Lottery Example, you have a probability distribution for elements in the sample space - i.e. an individual winning the lottery, whereas no such probability distribution is known in the case of physical parameters. Secondly, while winning the lottery is a phenomenon pre-specified in some stochastic model, in what sense could life ever have been pre-specified in some stochastic model? You'd need life to pre-specify it in the first place!
Rayndeon 2 years ago
@Migkiller:
Well my problem is: How do you know that a LSU is like predicting the lottery ? It may as well be like playing the lottery 150.000.000 times and winning once. Under these circumstances an LSU still remains unprobable but does not require justification despite that. It is like assuming I have magic powers because I can throw sand in a way that is astronomically unprobably (any specific order of a hand full of sand is astronomically unprobable).
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago 5
@Migkiller:
Another problem:
How do you know that the existence of God is more likely than the universe popping up randomly ?
This would require you to be able to know God's probability beforehand. However, the design argument is supposed to establish God's probability when you first have to know God's probability in order to make sense of the argument. Seems kind of circular to me.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago 3
FGB I am sorry if I am catching MK2 and your discussion in middle but I wanted to comment on a statement you made: "This would require you to be able to know God's probability beforehand." This would be the case if he was making the claim from perspective of Designer > Design. But as far as I understand he is making the claim/argument from Design > Designer
ahmarsidd 2 years ago
@ahmarsidd:
What I meant is this: Maybe God is equally unlikely as a universe that randomly supports life. In this case God would not be a more plausible explanation than it happening randomly.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago 2
Imagine that you play the lottery for one hundred years and NOT win one single time. Would it be fallacious to infer that the lottery was somehow fixed against you?
jrev37 2 years ago
how is the universe designed for life?
surely if it was designed for life it would contain more life than it seems to do.
iamtheVitor 2 years ago
Could I therefore say that the Ford Pinto wasn't designed?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
No because thats not the same thing. You would have to say the environment was designed for the Ford Pinto not the other way around. We know this is not true, the Ford Pinto was designed through evolution of cars for the environment. This was done intelligently obviously but the environment wasnt designed for FordPinto it was vice versa. This is what evolution has done through natural means for life on earth.
tobyeo 2 years ago
It wasn't designed by a single person. Why don't you look at the (much more complicated) universe and conclude poly-theism?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Im not gonna tell you what you can or can't do. But I would advice claiming that the universe is designed for the Ford Pinto.
But if thats what you want to do. Go right ahead. Im sure it would be a really fun video.
iamtheVitor 2 years ago
askeggs argument in that video was that Dr WLC is commiting a logical fallacy.... how does your example address that? Dr WLC's argument is like throwing a dart at a wall blindfolded and saying "did you see where that dart hit?! What are the odds it was gonna hit there?! That's a Miracle!!"
You can even pull the dart out of the wall and see the hole that is perfectly formed to recieve the tip of the dart, and wonder what are the odds of that.
TZ3k 2 years ago 3
That is an awesome response.
kamijk 2 years ago
@Danheg
I was being sarcastic.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
FAIL!!!
Mr0bombastic 2 years ago 2
Because there are perfectly reasonable explainations for the design we see in the universe that don't require a designer. You don't think there's a 'snow-flake god' that designs all the snow-flakes, do you?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
And what are those "explanations" for the design we see?
A universe that JUST has such properties, is the explanation?
vbfl920 2 years ago
It depends on which examples of design one is interested in. In the case of snowflakes, it's the Wegner-Bergeron-Findeison process. In the case of organisms, it's evolution. In the case of markets, it's the principles of economics. In the case of stars and planets, it's gravity.
There are some things we can't yet explain, of course. But that doesn't mean we just shrug our shoulders & say 'goddunnit.' We continue with the same process that led to the explanations we have discovered: science.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Well first off, naturalists most certainly shrug their shoulders and say 'evolutiondunnit', covering WAY more ground than it's scope implies.
Another favorite of mine is 'survivalldunnit'.
"We are endowed with X cause 'survivaldunnit.'"
I mean, this can go both ways.
But I don't think you answered my question.
Gravity would be the FORMAL cause for stars and planets?
How did matter and energy KNOW to take the form of stars and planets in the first place?
vbfl920 2 years ago
With due respect, it doesn't seem that you know very much about evolution. The god hypothesis is simply an argument from ignorance. People have used it as an explanation for anything they didn't understand. Evolution, by contrast, is not a default assumption. We have copious lines of independent evidence attesting to its truth. If you think the best evolution can do is 'survivaldunnit' then you clearly have no familiarity with the theory, or the evidence that backs it up.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
No problem Sisyphus
Number one, I am not espousing a God of the gaps argument at all. I feel it suffice to say that God explains what we DO have knowledge of, not what we don't. I look at what we see, what we experience. God explains THIS
But are you telling me that there are NO gaps in evoltuionary explanation?
By your argument, ANY gap, by definition, would be a gap of ignorance. So any explanation to fill that gap would be an explanation from ignorance
So your gap is better than mine?
vbfl920 2 years ago
And postulating "intelligence" is NOT an argument from ignorance, when there indeed is evidence that suggests we were meant to be here.
Too many "coincidences" imply a plot. A plot implies a plotter.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So back to my question.
Is gravity the FORMAL cause for stars and planets?
And does gravity even explain itself, for that matter?
If it does, then the best explanation you can give for the universe is either, "I don't know" or "All of this JUST happens, there is no explanation for it."
vbfl920 2 years ago
So everything we see, no matter what it is, God explains it? Doesn't such a catch-all seem a little cheap? Why consider Y an adequate explanation of X if Y would also be an adequate explanation of the exact opposite of X? If non-zero masses started repelling, rather than attracting each other, we wouldn't say gravity explained it. We'd look for another explanation. That which explains everything can explain nothing.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago 2
Again, it depends on WHAT you are trying to explain.
The NATURE of existence, I feel, can be best explained by God.
I don't feel that the nature of existence is matter and energy that JUST does what it does, and bam, we pop out of it, realizing all of this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
being that you don't know the full extent of reality I can't see how you think one explanation for the whole of reality is more fitting than the other.. because you don't know its full extent.. like ive heard a million times, hiding in that ignorance could very well be god.. or not.
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
And yes, frankly, the gaps in evolution are better than the gaps in theology. Gaps in evolution fit on a clear trajectory, and when we look to fill one of the gaps, we can do so with a modest amount of effort, and it almost always fits exactly where the theory predicted it would. Theology offers us no such predictive success.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Depends on the ENTIRETY of the thing we are trying to explain Sisyphus.
It's one thing to explain the scope of life on our planet, and another thing to explain the ENTIRETY of reality itself, with humans in it.
What is the clear trajectory of reality itself, what predictions can you make about it as a whole?
vbfl920 2 years ago
vbf "I feel it suffice to say that God explains what we DO have knowledge of, not what we don't. I look at what we see, what we experience. God explains THIS"
I think you owe us an explanation of exactly how God explains the known universe. Science explains all the known phenomenon to a much greater (and more logical) extent than just saying "God".
You are substituting a supernatural (non)explanation, for an already existing scientific theory. If you are indeed not using "God of the Gaps".
TZ3k 2 years ago 2
I think you owe us an explanation for HOW the universe explains itself.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And the fact that we exist in the universe, and the universe exists, says nothing about the nature of it's explanation.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Even tho im making no supernatural claim and u are, u think i need to explain?
Well I already said science explains all known phenomenon, to a greater extent than god (of course we don't know everything) - this is the universe explaining itself through man. We are after all composed of material found in the Universe and are therefore, a part of it.....unlike god. Do i need to start going thro all the fields of science and their theories? Or can i assume you can look that up yourself?
TZ3k 2 years ago
Anyways, now your turn - tell us how God explains all things we have knowledge of.
TZ3k 2 years ago
Actually, yes, I happen to do so. Although I'm not a Christian. Omnipresence kind of implies these things. Peace
forestloves 2 years ago
Are you familiar with the Wegner-Bergeron-Findeison process?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Does this apply to anything more than snowflakes?
Because I'm tired of hearing how snowflakes compare in nature and complexity to DNA, which further gives rise to conscious beings who UNDERSTAND all of this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@Migkiller:
There are several problems with your argument.
1. It presupposes that a life supporting universe is unprobable. I know all the claims of WL Craig. However, science is questioning these numbers and pointing out that the actual probability is unknown and Craigs numbers are pretty much made up.
2. Unprobable and unique alone is not sufficient to establish intelligent design. See:
watch?v=KhmWT71dgUs
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago 2
1: I updated the video description. I'm curious, did you watch askegg's video beforehand?
2: My question still stands; why would the people in the lottery example be justified to infer conspiracy, but we not justified to infer design?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
2: I understand why you would infer a conspiracy if say... someone were to roll a six 100 times in a row. But how does that exactly translate to inferring a conspiracy if someone rolls a six just once?
infinit888 2 years ago
@migkillertwo
In your lottery example, there is an analogue for god - an existing person who would be able to cheat the system.
In a life supporting universe, we do not know that god exists - we can't readily point to design without making a leap of faith (believing that god exists).
We know that people exist and could tamper. We do not know that god exists; therefore we do not know that design had a hand in all this.
Thanks for posting this - it made me think thoroughly.
Pichounator 1 year ago
(continued from previous post) What would you say about me as an engineer? Either you would say I was incompetent, or that I was purposely wasteful and malicious. You wouldnt say that I was good or perfectly intelligent.
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) Suppose I was an engineer building a car, and in the process of doing so I created several BILLION cars that would not even start (i.e. billions of lifeless planets), and I, from this very wasteful process produced only one functional car that was susceptible to early rust and malfunction (i.e. one planet with life that is replete with pain, suffering, and defects) (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
It is interesting that theists will only use the flawed design analogy just to prove their God, but they won't be honest about the inferences made by the design analogy, and they won't let those inferences play out to their fullest extent. If they did they would realize that if the universe is the product of design, then it demonstrates a designer that is cruel and wasteful (continued)
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) So just as we WOULDT be right in assuming the lottery was rigged if a person only one ONCE, we wouldnt be right in assuming that design has anything to do with our existence because life is so rare, and therefore within the realm of
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) So far, we know of no other planet in our galaxy or in our universe that sustains life, and most of the universe is inhospitable to life. Hence the fact that we DO have life is a RARE occurrence, well within the realm of chance, such as in a lottery were a person only wins once (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
The lottery analogy, that you are using, is self-defeating. Yes, we would be well within our rights to assume that someone manipulated the lottery if one person kept winning over and over again, against overwhelming odds. However, life on this planet represents the exact opposite (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
I've seen mathematical calculations that figure there may be about 7 quintillion grains of sand on earth. Let's say each grain represents a planet in the universe. One day I come along and pick up one grain at a beach. If the grain contained intelligence, would it think it was placed there especially for me (the Christian reasoning)? Or is it more likely just a matter of chance that I happened to walk to that particular spot on earth and chose that one grain? There's no magic in the universe.
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago
Because it has only happened once, that we know of. If something is very unlikely it still may happen but for it to happen over and over again it is best to say the probabilities are not that we first thought.
If we knew of other universes with life then the probability for a creator designing universes for life increases.
AnimetedMe 2 years ago
why are you wearing headsets? dont u have speakers?
brace110 2 years ago
It sounds like you're one of those people who thinks that a Royal Flush is any more improbable than any other five card poker hand.
rhettboy 2 years ago
More like the sole winner of a Texas Hold'em tournament that involved hundreds of players, who then declares that his victory must be divine intervention, as the odds, all strategy aside, of him winning so many poker hands were statistically incredibly unlikely.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Comment removed
vbfl920 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, that's not it at all.
You are already presupposing the game, the building in which the game is being played in, the pieces and cards for the game. And this is without taking into account you or the other players.
The teleological argument takes ALL of those other things into account, on up to the local parameters in which the earth ITSELF, allows human life.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Seeing what it takes for a planet to allow life in this universe, in addition to the universe itself, this could be likened to you finding yourself at a Texas Hold'em tournament with hundreds of 5 year old children as your only competition.
Inexplicably, you ALREADY have a better chance at winning than they do.
vbfl920 2 years ago
The probability of life occuring when life has occurred is exactly one hundred percent.
The probability of life occuring, sometime, on a planet whose conditions are life-permitting, is exactly one hundred percent too.
It would be substantially more improbable for life to not occur on a planet that has the right conditions for life.
rhettboy 2 years ago
Because a the probability of a life permitting universe is completely unknown whereas the chances of winning the lottery are known.
kamijk 2 years ago 2
@Pumbaelo
Why did you erase your comment?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I'll bite, and play devil's advocate.
'The design argument is adhoc due to its' development. It explains the afterward conditions of an effect (development of carbon life in the universe) by the cause, and then determines probability. What reasons have we to reason that other forms of life are impossible? The argument revolves around carbon based life. '
^^This is really the only substantial rebuttal that you'll get to the anthropic principle.
Theologica37 2 years ago
Hi Theologica,
I disagree that it's the only substantive rebuttal.
My objection is the application of probabilistic inference in the first place since:
- we only have one observable instance (our universe)
- do not truly know which variables are free and which are tied (determined by) other variables
- do not know the distributions of the free variables even if we did know which ones they are.
darktango78 2 years ago
dark
I absolutely agree with your points. I'd add one more.
There's a massive selection-bias implicit to the very question. A probability we can know with confidence is: Intelligent beings, wondering about the odds of their universe having properties necessary for their existence, will find themselves in a universe that has the properties necessary for their existence, with probability 1
There are no philosophers native to Venus pondering how they came to exist on a non-life-sustaining planet
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
The initial probability of someone winning the lottery 100 times in a row while not cheating is low, but if you cheat the probability is high.
Now, how do we figure out the probabilites with cosmic design? I have no idea. Evidential arguments from surplus evil face the same problem since they are design arguments as well.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
Where are you getting these numbers for comparison of the odds of life arising to somebody winning the lottery every day for 100 years?
antybu86 2 years ago
@Frank
(Irritated sigh) Now you just backtracked and changed the goal posts. First you were claiming there could be NO POSSIBLITY ANYWHERE for life, if the constants were changed.
Now, you've moved the goal posts to, "there would be LESS CHANCE.
That dog don't hunt Prof Meth.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Frank
If you watched his video, and learned anything from it, seems to me, YOU should be able to defend your position on this.
Further, if he claims that life is barely possible on only a few places on Earth, that means the Earth and the Universe is not fine tuned for life; it means life is fine tuned to Earth and the Universe.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Correction:
Life; not lfe...
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Frank
And your mathematical, or logical, or empirical, or observational, or experiential, or scientific evidence to prove that there would be NO POSSIBLITY ANYWHERE, of lfe if the fundamental constants were changed is.......??
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The answer is simple you simple minded christian retard. In an infinite universe, there is an infinite possible "tries", so we shouldn't be surprised if in one section of the universe this actually happens. What an idiot. <--Note satire.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
prove the universe is infinite.
danheg 2 years ago
The fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed?
It's not a proof, but at least we have some basis for our assertion.
However, it's asinine for theists to claim that the universe was created without stating any evidence. Where is your evidence that the universe is finite, and that it requires a beginning and a creator?
JaMoond 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics and the fact that time can be affected by gravity gives some weight to the universe being finite. Also, if you hold to the big bang theory, the expanding bit of matter has to come from somewhere. Obviously it had also had to have come from somewhere as well.
danheg 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that the universe has to be finite. It merely states that entropy in a closed system will increase until it reaches stable equilibrium. You clearly do not understand it
The fact that gravity bends space-time doesn't have anything to do with the universe being finite.
Regarding the Big Bang. How about this: the singularity was once a remnant of the universe that undergoes infinite contracting and expanding cycles? It's a possibility
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
It's a shame people keep abusing the term Infinity and throwing it around like confetti. The Universe can't undergo infinite contracting and expanding, since that asserts and infinite regression which is self-refuting.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
It's wonderful that you can't even come up with a proper response when someone debunks your misuse of scientific facts. How is infinity self-refuting? Time is just another dimension just as height, width, or length. Besides, the concept of infinity is both mathematically sound (calculus) and has practical applications in physics.
Simply asserting that infinity is self-refuting is nothing more than argument from incredulity and unsupported claim.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Besides, atheists are not the ones asserting the infinity of the universe. We are just responding to the theist claim that the universe can only be finite. We are just stating a possibility.
However, it's fallacious for theists to claim that the universe is finite without any empirical evidence. I mean, all you have is "I personally don't believe that infinity is possible."
Well good for you. You are just making unsupported claims.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
This is standard knowledge in educated philosophy and epistemology that an Infinity in actuality is self-refuting, as it is impossible to traverse the infinite.
The problem of traversing the infinite is one of about THREE reasons why an infinity in actuality, is self-refuting.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You do realize that that philosophy is at best based on common sense, and that our common sense can only tell us so much about the reality?
Quantum & relativistic physics have shown us that the reality defies our common sense. That's because subatomic world and the universe at cosmological scales are so removed from our daily experience.
You can't use philosophy to derive anything about the physical reality, especially when mathematics and science completely contradicts it.
JaMoond 2 years ago 2
It's natural for us, human beings, to assume that things are finite. It's natural for us, as third-dimensional beings, to perceive things in sequential orders. However, time, just like any other dimensions, is merely a dimension. If you were to look at this universe from the 4th dimensional being, then everything is happening at the same time. Just as if we were to look at 2-dimensional world.
There is only so much we can get from logic and reasoning.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
You conveniently left out another word I used which was epistemology, and you just attacked philosophy.
Further, how does science contradict the fact that infinity does not exist in actuality?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I explained earlier that infinity is a valid concept in mathematics (Calculus).
It isn't "fact" that infinity does not exist. You never substantiated it. You merely asserted without any empirical evidence.
Where is your scientific evidence that the universe is finite?
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
And I have clearly explicated that I am referring to things that exist in ACTUALITY. Math is not a concrete(actual existence). Math is a conceptual integration(abstraction).
Nothing that actually exists, is infinite.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Only in the perspective of third dimensional world. Time is just like any other dimensions. There is no boundary to time.
Besides, infinity does exist in actuality. Asymptotes actually exist. There are number of things that are actually represented by infinity. Just because you don't know them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
(Irritated sigh) Asymptotes is a dynamic that has to do with geometry.
Geometry is math.
Math is not an actual existent. It is an abstraction. Therefore, Asymptotes is not an example of something that is infinite in actuality.
Nothing can exist in actuality, and be infinite.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
No asymptotes cannot be expressed geometrically. It's actually a value that is approaching infinity.
There is no point discussing if you are just going to say that "infinities are impossible" without any justification.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
I didn't say anything about whether asymptotes can be expressed geometrically. i said they have to do with geometry.
Are you saying asymptotes are not math related?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You are constantly arguing that math is not a part of reality. That's just blatant assertion, but also dead wrong.
Math may be abstract, but it's the language of this physical reality. Physical laws can be mathematically modeled. In fact, the reality is conveyed mathematically.
Asymptotes are important practical phenomena in physics. There are situations when mathematical models of the physical laws approach infinity.
Unless you can disprove mathematics, then you are out of luck.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
The claim you made that "I am constantly arguing that math is not a part of reality", fails since it's a strawman argument fallacy.
I didn't say math is not part of reality. I said math is a conceptual integration, not an actual existent. You are confusing the conceptual with the concrete.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Yet math models this reality. Math is language of the physical universe. Asymptotes are part of this reality that is modeled by math.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
You have failed to come up with a single example of something that exists in actuality, that is infinite, so I guess I'll bid you au revoir.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
If you are asking for an example of something infinite that you can physically see, then that's fallacious.
Second of all, it's your incredulity that prevents you from understanding the fact that asymptotes are ACTUAL physical phenomena.
Let me give you an example of something infinite: length (a dimension). You can't draw boundaries on the dimension itself. And time is just like any other dimension.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
(Irritated sigh) Time and length are CONCEPTS, not concretes.
You are constantly confusing the two, and thereby committing the fallacy of hypostatization.
Let it go. Noting can exist in actuality and be infinite as it instantiates infinite regress, which is self refuting. Let this debate go.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
It is a concrete concept that has real physical consequences. Again, if you are asking for something that you can physically touch or see, then you are asking for the impossible. Humans cannot see or experience something that is infinite.
However, you are constantly insisting that because we can't humanly experience infinity, infinity do not exist. That's fallacious logic and irrational.
Also, you still haven't proven why it is self-refuting.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Just because we can't directly experience it, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Gravity is an abstract concept that we can't directly experience. We can only experience the effects of gravity. Space and time is an abstract concept that we can't directly experience, but they have actual physical consequences.
I don't understand your juvenile insistence on asking for an example of infinity that you can hold it in your hand.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
I don't understand your juvenile insistence on indulging in strawman arguments.
This is your SECOND TIME. I didn't "insist" that because we can't humanly experience infinity, infinity does not exist.
That's another strawman on your part.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I give you an example of something infinite. Then you say that math isn't "actual." Then I explain that math is a model of reality that can model real and actual physical consequences. Then you go on saying that math isn't "actual" again.
It's really asinine debating you. You really need to keep track of your arguments and see where you fail. Dimensions (length, width, height, and time) are something that are infinite. Asymptotes manifests as real life consequences. You chose to ignore them.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
Length, width, height, math and time are all conceptual integrations, not actual existences. You are confusing concepts with concretes, and subsequently committing the fallacy of hypostatization.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
So you at least admit that time is infinite.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
No, time is not infinite.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
But you just said it. It may be conceptual, but it falls in accordance with the concept of infinity.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Checkmate.
After all, the whole point of this discussion was to figure out whether time can possibly be infinite. You have to admit that time, despite being conceptual, is infinite. Now that you finally realizing admitting to it, you now have to resort to your dogmatic faith based assumption.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
This is now the THIRD TIME you have committed a strawman argument fallacy.
As I did not say that "time is conceptual, BUT IT FALLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPT OF INFINITY"
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
5 posts up. Read what you've said.
Unless you can mathematically demonstrate to me that time inherently differs from other dimensions (you can't, theoretical physicists have worked up to 11th dimensions), time is just like any other dimensions like length.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
Five posts up? Read what you've said?
Hahaha! No where have a I said "time is conceptual, but it falls in accordance with the concept of infinity".
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You still can't even come up with an argument that refutes it other than "I personally believe that time isn't infinite." Assertion doesn't automatically validate your claim.
Prove that time is somehow different from other dimensions.
JaMoond 2 years ago
@JaMoond
I'm not positing that time is somehow different from other dimensions. That it is or isn't has nothing to do with the fact that time is not infinite. It can't be as that instantiates an infinite regress.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You know what, there is no way I'm going to convince you otherwise.
Good discussion.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Infinite regression has yet to be shown to be incoherent, see Wes Morriston's critique of the Kalam Cosmological argument or read Joshua Rasmussen's paper "Kalam Calamity".
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Pumbaelo
Sure it's been shown to be incoherent. As an infinity is an unlimited dynamic.
So, for instance, one cannot have a temporal infinity, as there would be an unlimited amount of time from one moment to the next, meaning one would never reach this moment. Since one has reached this moment, time is necessarily finite.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Nonsense. Any point in the past is only a finite amount of time away from this one. An infinite past is one with no beginning at all, rather than a beginning that is infinitely far away.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Pumbaelo
Then you just asserted by implication that time is finite. Since you are saying that any point in the past is only a finite amount of time away.
In no way did you show how Infinite regress is not self-refuting.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Comment removed
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Jamoond
The fact that the universe has its own level of entropy would seem to indicate Especially since the energy of enclosed systems had to come from somewhere as well.
How does something that can be bent or modified involuntarily be a "weak" force such as gravity?
Regarding the big Bang, the consensus regarding that is it is still expanding. The physical rule "things in motion tend to stay in motion" applies.
danheg 2 years ago
"The fact that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed?"
Cosmologists who propose inflationary models seems to ignore this "fact".
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
Wow. Just lots of incredulity. What if I were to tell you that infinity is coherently expressed mathematically? I mean, do you know anything about Calculus?
Cosmologists do not ignore this "fact." Merely asserting things do not make it true. I mean, what's your background education regarding cosmology?
JaMoond 2 years ago
Inflationary models explain the origin of energy and matter like this:
At the beginning, there was empty space. This is an unstable state, so quantum fluctuations created positive and negative energy, the total sum being zero. That's all the first law of thermodynamics says - the sum stays the same.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
No, that's not what it states. There was space, it's just that space was singularity. All the energy (matter is interchangeable) is stored as vacuum energy that is used to bend the space. For instance, gravitational potential energy is stored in the form of gravitational field (alters space and time).
You really need to get your facts straight first. I don't have time to correct every one of your mistakes.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Gravitational potential energy is negative energy.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Frank
What's up Prof Meth? If the Universe is fine tuned for life, why is there no life on Mars?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Brilliant Dhorptatan. Not.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
@Tyrant
ZZZzzzz
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Life is very rare and hard to come by unless conditions are just right. Not only do you need a universe tuned for life, but also you need rocks to form at just the right size and at just the right distance from a sun with the accumulation of liquid water present. You've done nothing but play right into their hands with your question.
FlowCell 2 years ago
So how many billions of planets are there in the universe that can sustain vastly different forms of life that all have "people" that claim the odds of that particular race coming into existence is so remote, that there must be a god?
When someone holds onto an argument so bad, you know there are emotional reasons behind it.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
Cdk007 made a video recently on this subject and he gave two articles that seemed to suggest that the universe is not fine tuned to begin with. I havent read the articles yet to be honest but I have seen other scientist suggest as well that there is actually not this immense precision and that the chance of having a LPU is quite high.
That would actually attack the argument at its root rather than suggesting necessity or a multiverse
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
well I've seen more scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
Whether or not there are some scientists who claim the universe was fine-tuned, none of those claims are grounded in scientific basis. I mean, factual evidence directly from this universe disagrees with their assertion. Not only that, there is no way for those scientists to figure out if this state of the universe is the only possible state for the life to form. Physical constants may change, but "life" may arise in different forms than what we know.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Two articles? That totally convinces me as a devout sceptic that the universe isn't fine-tuned and everyone who says otherwise is a bigot.
It's not like the consensus among scientists is a different position or anything.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
haha well I see what you mean. As I said I havent actually read the articles, my point was just that the position that there is no actual fine tuning becomes a position I hear more and more. And its not a matter of popularity ofcourse. If it is true that in 25% of all possible universe there would arise stars, then it means that it is quite probable that life could emerge. I ofcourse dont know if the took into account all variables or if they took into account how this would affect the big bang
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
"I ofcourse dont know if the took into account all variables or if they took into account how this would affect the big bang"
I've been told (my math skills aren't yet good enough to check everything for myself) that, in his paper, Adams already assumes a cosmological constant that allows the formation of stars.
I've then read the paper (at least cdk007 puts them online, which is cool) and he does in fact ignore the cosmological constant. So yeah.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
You would be 100% justified to assume that I had fixed the lottery in my favor. To accept otherwise would be to accept the complete and total failure of probability. However, as far as this applies to the LPU, how many probabilities permit an LPU? Just one? Billions? Sure, our type of life requires the universe to be as it is, but what other kinds of life could evolve under different conditions?
h8uall66 2 years ago
Suppose the lottery game managers only announced who won the lottery after the same person it won it everyday for 100 years. If you were ever in a knowing-the-winner state, would it come as a surprise that the same person won it everyday for 100 years?
Or more directly:
What's the probability that a beings asking "why is it that the universe has the properties necessary for our existence?" will find themselves in a universe that has the properties necessary for their existence?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Do the beings that evolved on Mercury complain about how lucky Earthlings are for getting the life-sustaining planet?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
what beings?
danheg 2 years ago
exactly
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Thanks for your reply, and private messages.
As I have stated - you are making a prediction ahead of time. WLC's argument is round the other way - he has the lottery results and says that the chances of this particular sequence occurring is so remote it's virtually impossible, thus requires a God to solve.
askegg 2 years ago
If said lottery tickets were you winning them 100 times in a row, would we not have to therefore conclude design or some other teleology?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
You are predicting a particular result before the draws occur.
If you manage to predict the results of the next 100 years of lottery then you have predictive powers, but this does not explain their origin.
So tell me, where are the predictions you are using to verify these specific outcomes, and how do you know them to be made ahead of time?
askegg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Natural Selection seems to be the answer to your question.
rba718 2 years ago
how so?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
If you're getting at how we could've gotten this far by succeeding every time in our evolutionary path then obviously natural selection is the answer. That is he system that ratchets out any defections and allows us to take the path that most suits our survivability.
rba718 2 years ago
Perhaps, but what about the fine-tuning argument?
DonusAmbrose 2 years ago
What about it? I'm discussing natural selection.
rba718 2 years ago
Because we know the mechanism by which a lottery should work and can thus adequately calculate the probability of winning the lottery every day for 100 years if the lottery were fair.
On the other hand, we have only access to this (our) universe and we don't know if its "parameters" are free to vary or are somehow tied. In addition, even if we knew that *some* parameters are free to vary, we have no idea as to which "settings" are more probable.
darktango78 2 years ago 4
thanks darktango, but that kind of misses the point of my video. I (and the author of the video to which I am responding) am assuming that the conditions necessary for an LPU are spectacularly improbable.
You're free to question whether an LPU is improbable, but once again its irrelevant to this video.
Though Paul Davies, Michael Ruse, and Robin Collins have some great writing on that particular question.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
I went and watched Askegg's video, and I see why you say my comment is not on point wrt your argument with him.
However, I still think it's a valid reply to your question, which can stand on its own.
As a point of clarification, I'm not only questioning whether a LPU is improbable, I'm questioning your warrant for applying probabilistic reasoning to something of which you only have one instance and no knowledge of what the free variables are, let alone their distributions.
darktango78 2 years ago
"thanks darktango, but that kind of misses the point of my video."
Perhaps you should make the point of your question more clear then, because this was not apparent to me either.
As it stands your question is only relevant if someone believes that a life sustaining universe is improbable.
I really don't see how it would be an issue for a Christian though since most Christians believe we actually can exist without any physical universe at all.
smpunditz 2 years ago