More Dice, probability, and expletives.

***Note: there were originally two response videos preceding this one. Ideist basically ignored them and I was forced to repeat myself. After this video he saw no need to respond further. Eventually this one will be taken down as well and I'll take a crack at a better treatment of the subject with something better to look at than my ugly mug.***

iDeist, if I don't misunderstand him, argues that a comparison of a dice roll to the Fine Tuning argument is inappropriate and "disingenuous" because the dice would simply have a given value after the roll whereas the the relationship between the values found in the Fine Tuning argument is ALSO of key import.

I respond on two fronts: 1) merely adding constraints in the form of necessary ratios does not effect the number of permutations; it merely defines those dice rolls we would term "successes" and those we would call "failures." Much like poker; the probability of a royal flush is the same as the probability for ANY hand (again, pNr for simplicity's sake); requiring a particular relationship between all the cards is what makes certain hands valuable and certain hands worthless. Incidentally, this has the potential to make more successful rolls: for instance, if you roll two dice and demand that the ratio of the first die to the second die be 1/2, then there are multiple ways this can be achieved. You can roll a 1 and a 2, a 2 and a 4, or a 3 and a 6. If the ratio is such that there is only one solution (say, 1/6, meaning only one permutation satisfies the constraint) then all you've done is reduced the probability to the probability of any given permutation, and pointed out the only acceptable one. If this is your argument, iDeist, it fails. Probabilities are probabilities. They are comparable and kicking and screaming won't change that.

and 2) That, ignoring the fact that there is no qualitative difference between a particular 25d6 roll and the incredibly more remote probabilities (which, to my knowledge, could just be made up; I don't understand how such probabilities could be determined) associated with the Fine Tuning argument, remote probability does NOT suggest the influence of some intelligence external to the scenario.

That's about it. I've basically given up on insisting on supporting evidence or a proper argument supporting his accusation of a straw man because I don't think such an explanation is forthcoming, no matter how vehemently I insist.

Two goldfish are sitting in a tank, one turns to the other and says, "Do you know how to drive this thing?"

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Jibberflabs
• atheism
• atheist
• secular
• secularism
• theist
• theism
• god
• debate
• first-cause
• theology
• god-debate
• religion
• religiosity
• spiritualism
• deist
• deism
• deity
• spirituality
• skeptic
• skepticism
• disbelief
• reason
• argument
• argumentation
• ID
• I.D.
• Creationism
• Creation-Science
• Improbability
• Improbable
• teleology

[stcmsw102]

I don't think it makes sense to consider the particular values of the physical constants as a probabilistic outcome. (And I think you meant the fine structure constant where you said cosmological constant.) There are no other universes that we can refer to, so surely with only one trial the probability, if it is defined, is unevaluable. Personally I feel that the physical constants probably take their values for a good reason, although I don't know if we as humans will ever discover what it is.

[RobTheMonk8]

I quite agree: I think I say it at least once in each of the videos I made in response to iDeist's videos, but I have absolutely no idea how one would go about determining the probability of a given numerical value turning up as the value for a given constant.

[stcmsw102]

Moreover, though, there is no reason to assume that there exist assignable probabilities in this case. As such, surely any argument (whether for or against ID) from probability is either begging the question or ill-defined?

[RobTheMonk8]

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea. I used to raise the same objection but, after a conversation with a friend of mine, have been persuaded that it's perfectly reasonable to think of the physical constants as completely contingent.

[stcmsw102]

Reasonable or not, the use of an unproveable assertion as an axiom surely cannot lead to solid deductive logic. On the other hand, it's arguably no worse than the reasoning that follows; since an individual trial may have any allowed outcome without regard to probability, the argument along these lines is so weak as to be useless. I enjoyed your parody of the ontological argument, by the way--perhaps a similar video is called for here?

[RobTheMonk8]

Ah, I didn't read you carefully enough the first time. I meant only to suggest that that values of the physical constants could be conceived of as contingent, not that a calculable probability followed from it.

[CarmineFragione]

If you are God and really own the dice you have to throw, then the outcomes are projected by desire and not the aim or throw by chance events. If there was to be a dice before the Big Bang, then they were ruled as set notations of powers by a former universe, or God. But if you were God, and truly owned the dice, they were yours in the most intimacy of existing, they would roll as just blanks and the dots would appear anytime thereafter as you desired to call the shots. It is Authorship

[CarmineFragione]

the way to deal eternally , a pack of cards and always have the same hand, a royal straight flush, is to define things on a higher level of acceptability. The outcome is not dependent of a mindless mechanical system of chance, rather the cards dealt are simply all blanks, and you project out of your mind the hand you have desired. Then Desire is the Intelligent Creator of Worlds, and the Cards are all blank until you call the shots..  God deals Himself cards that become so dealt with

[CarmineFragione]

Can the intelligent person separate themselves from the rest of the Universe to then claim an objective view of what is left, after you dismiss yourself as some random noise ? That seems irrational.  It is impossible to take your own self realization out of the equation of the meaning of the Universe, and then say , you see no evidence of God. If the Universe had one pinpoint of life, and that life required the complicity of the whole Universe, then taken together, It is a Living God.

[RPFS2008]

What was the probablity that I'd buy this computer, this desk, make a YT account, find this channel, watch this video, comment on this video, with these exact words, on this particular day, whilst wearing the exact clothes that I have on now (having bought them from the shops that I did on the day that I did, whilst wearing the clothes that I did) after having a shower at the time that I did, with my hair still wet and a drop of water dripping from the particular strand of hair that it is. etc?

[RPFS2008]

@revo1974

"The fine-tuning argument alone doesn't infer intelligence, however, when applied with other arguments it becomes stronger."

Such as?

[RPFS2008]

@revo1974

"The amount of order and mathematical preciseness in the universe leads me to believe there is an intelligent force behind it. no intelligence... more chaotic."

"Order" is such a general term. Besides if the Universe was chaotic would it even exist at all, or long enough for us to evolve? How you decern chaos from order is also based on time relative to the observer. If a comet hit the earth every 20 years but we only lived for 1 second we'd praise the universe for its order...

[revo1974]

The fine-tuning argument alone doesn't infer intelligence, however, when applied with other arguments it becomes stronger.

The amount of order and mathematical preciseness in the universe leads me to believe there is an intelligent force behind it. I believe if there were no intelligence the universe would be far more chaotic.

The fin-tuning argument becomes more powerful when used within the context of this premise.

[bdf2718]

What is the probability that we live in a universe with constants tuned such that intelligent life can form?

A posteriori: 1. After something has happened, the probability that it happened (however unlikely it might have been a priori) is 1.

A priori: 1. If this universe were such that intelligent life could not develop, we wouldn't be here discussing things.

What is the probability the universe turned out this way? We don't have the theories to tell us (yet).

[stcmsw102]

Well, I would certainly tend to agree with you, although in my reply above I meant to suggest that the argument from probability makes some rather stronger, and less defensible, assertions in that regard. I get the impression that iDeist's response to the original video was similarly intended mainly to call attention to the failings of said argument, i.e. the use of the argument from probability is a straw man of ID proponents' beliefs.