Looks like a blizzard of quotes about what is not in dispute, so as to provide cover and distraction from answering the basic questions that have been asked. Not unexpected, but still disappointing.
Upvote
0
if it's true that man evolved from an ape then apes would have same dna as man.
I don’t understand what you mean. It is the only argument for fine tuning that can be supported logically. Because we cannot verify a creative agent directly the only way to provide any support is through arguments based on supposition and indirect evidence like how support is given for a multiverse and other ideas that prove hard to verify directly.You claim to understand it but you can't or won't support that.
I thought I had already explained why it is more reasonable especially as opposed to magic. For example, despite saying the probabilities for fine tuning have not been establish I disagree, and a logical case can be made. Many academics propose a creative agent as one of the options for fine tuning along with a multiverse (support already posted). Why would they do this if it was not a reasonable thing to do. The evidence I posted showing belief in a creative agent is natural even form birth in looking for agency behind things points to belief being more than just imagination. A creative agent behind things is based on ID and and can use the processes of nature.We can't (yet) judge the probabilities for reasons already explained.
You have not explained how a 'creative agent' is a better explanation than 'Magic', and you have not explained why you don't accept my criticism of the agent proposal.
The argument that a creative agent is responsible for fine tuning is based on supposition. If we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe, then we should expect that this universe would have evidences of design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with a creative agent’s design. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that a creative agent exists.That's a circular argument - you can't use the observations your hypothesis is supposed to explain as evidence that your hypothesis is correct.
If I suggested that the appearance of fine-tuning is due to magic pixies and then say that the evidence of magic pixies is the appearance of fine-tuning, you'd rightly cry foul.
If that logic is used then the fact that life was produced contradicts that claim and shows that the universe despite its appearance of being hostile to life is conducive for life. The right conditions for life were there at the very instant the universe was created to enable the right type of stars that could produce the right elements for life. Therefore it supports the hypothesis.You still haven't explained why you'd 'conclude' (hypothesize, surely - how can you conclude without conclusive evidence?) that a creative agent is involved, when the same models that give us the physical constants, tell us that the big bang was inimical to any form of life conceivable within the framework you are claiming supports your 'conclusion'?
There is additional support already posted on another post on this thread showing how the physical parameters could have ended up with other values that were not suitable for life. So, there is some support for specific fine tuning which supports a creative agent hypothesis. For exampleYou already used fine-tuning just above - you don't get to use it twice; the Weak Anthropic principle is all we can say for sure about why we see a universe that supports life - if it didn't, we wouldn't be here!
As mentioned above we cannot prove a creative agent directly so scientific verification in that sense is impossible simple because any observation is beyond our material world. But this is not different to a multiverse which is also given as a reasonable explanation. So therefore, we must use supposition and indirect evidence.The fine-tuning argument for God is dismissed because it's an unsubstantiated assertion that replaces a single unexplained question with a whole ontology of unanswerable questions, and for the reasons I've already mentioned - IOW it explains nothing. If you want to propose it in a science forum and claim it's reasonable & logical, you should expect to be asked to support your claim.
I would have thought that something that comes naturally and is a natural part of being human would be a reasonable thing to have. When I say that belief is a natural thing it is not because of any evolutionary cause. It is something beyond this as though we have an innate belief in us that we were born with there is a creative agent/God. That does not mean that there is a creative agent or God but taken together with other indirect support such as fine tuning it builds a case for a creative agent hypothesis.This is precisely the point I just made - but I also explained that there's a difference between it being reasonable and logical for people with a natural tendency to believe in hidden agencies to have such beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs themselves are reasonable and logical. You appear to have ignored this when repeating my point. If you think the the beliefs are reasonable and logical, you are expected to explain why.
According to Paul Stienhardt one of the founders of inflation theory because one of the consequences of inflation is a multiverse this invalidates the theory as it introduces many outcomes and undermines its predictability which is a fundamental requirement for scientific verification.That's plain stupid. Almost all well-established theories make unverified predictions; that doesn't make them invalid
Fair enough and I understand that we must provide scientific verification which will be hard to do directly. That is why I am making the case that a creative agent can be a reasonable hypothesis through indirect support. The problem we are having now is that none of the ideas with areas like cosmology and how things began can be scientifically verified because things are stepping beyond the standard models.I don't really care what beliefs you have, but if you claim they're reasonable and logical in a scientific context in a science forum, you are expected to be able to support your claim with a reasonable and logical argument.
I said the support comes from theoretical physics, experimentation, test and research in the form of computer simulations and mathematical calculations. These are accepted forms of scientific verification and are used in areas such as biology and physics. Many of our theories are based on computer and math calculations. Theoretical physics is used with the verified science so is not used in isolation. Besides not all the links I posted were based on theoretical physics. A lot of our current theories are based on theoretical physics to some extent. Are you saying they are all invalid."Empircal support from theoretical physics" lol. Do you really believe a simulation constitutes theoretical physics?
Well done doing some research, but, as Speedwell pointed out, you are not addressing the point being disputed.
As far as I could see it was something people were disputing. It started with the puddle analogy and went on from there. The first part of the argument is to establish that the universe if fine tuned and this was being disputed for various reasons. One of those reasons was that there was no support that the values for our physical constants could vary in the first place. So I have been trying to establish this which has taken most of the time with the debate. But I am happy to know that you think this is not under dispute as it allows us to move on.Yes, if things were not the same as they are now, they would be different. Do you really not understand, why this is not the part of your argument which anyone is contesting?
As far as I could see it was something people were disputing. It started with the puddle analogy and went on from there. The first part of the argument is to establish that the universe if fine tuned and this was being disputed for various reasons. One of those reasons was that there was no support that the values for our physical constants could vary in the first place. So I have been trying to establish this which has taken most of the time with the debate. But I am happy to know that you think this is not under dispute as it allows us to move on.
I appreciate that the next phase of the debate gets harder and as mentioned we cannot verify a creative agent directly. So this is where I have been trying to make a case for indirect evidence. As other scientific ideas are also based on indirect support I cannot see why a hypothesis for a creative agent is a big deal as there is just as much indirect evidence for this. I have provided some but there is more if we consider areas like biology, culture, psychology and sociology. Taken all together we cannot just put it all down to myth, evolution, imagination and delusion and can build a case for a creative agent behind things.
Why not. As posted with the links showing that the physical constants can vary. If scientists can calculate the exact values of our current physical constants and give orders of magnitude then they have also calculated the extent they can vary.These odds cannot be calculated since we don't have complete information to make such a calculation in the first place.
Not that things could have been different but that you knew the parameters of the probability space and could calculate the odds against a life-supporting universe..As far as I could see it was something people were disputing. It started with the puddle analogy and went on from there. The first part of the argument is to establish that the universe if fine tuned and this was being disputed for various reasons. One of those reasons was that there was no support that the values for our physical constants could vary in the first place. So I have been trying to establish this which has taken most of the time with the debate. But I am happy to know that you think this is not under dispute as it allows us to move on.
Yeah, a creative agent is no big deal, but it's a long way from a creative agent to the magic Bible-God of the creationists. How are you going to get there?I appreciate that the next phase of the debate gets harder and as mentioned we cannot verify a creative agent directly. So this is where I have been trying to make a case for indirect evidence. As other scientific ideas are also based on indirect support I cannot see why a hypothesis for a creative agent is a big deal as there is just as much indirect evidence for this. I have provided some but there is more if we consider areas like biology, culture, psychology and sociology. Taken all together we cannot just put it all down to myth, evolution, imagination and delusion and can build a case for a creative agent behind things.
You need to read more carefully: he said there was no support for gods. And your reply was a non-sequitur; the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition.How do you know. Can you verify there is no God/s.
Why not. As posted with the links showing that the physical constants can vary. If scientists can calculate the exact values of our current physical constants and give orders of magnitude then they have also calculated the extent they can vary.
When I say you can't or won't support it, I'm referring directly to what you said: "rather than I trying to support this..."I don’t understand what you mean. It is the only argument for fine tuning that can be supported logically.
You say that, but I must have missed where you explained it. I think you're mistaken - but show that I'm wrong by posting a link or reference to that explanation.I thought I had already explained why it is more reasonable especially as opposed to magic. For example, despite saying the probabilities for fine tuning have not been establish I disagree, and a logical case can be made.
I don't know what their reasons are, and I don't particularly care - I was asking for your reasons. If you just find quotes from people who appear to agree with your preconception and then assume it's reasonable & logical because they think it's reasonable and logical, then your claim that you think it's reasonable and logical is clearly misleading.Many academics propose a creative agent as one of the options for fine tuning along with a multiverse (support already posted). Why would they do this if it was not a reasonable thing to do.
The predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency is what leads to beliefs like creative agents. I've explained why a tendency for such beliefs is not any indication that the beliefs are likely to be true. Why do you think we don't attribute earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, or floods to the direct actions of gods any more? Because we know that's a false attribution. ID is a pseudoscientific wrapper for God beliefs which are illogical and irrational - believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational.The evidence I posted showing belief in a creative agent is natural even form birth in looking for agency behind things points to belief being more than just imagination. A creative agent behind things is based on ID and and can use the processes of nature.
On the contrary, magical thinking is as fundamental in human psychology as the attribution of agency, and is also common in religious beliefs.This is compared to magic which people are not born to believe in or see that magic is behind the way existence and life has come about.
You haven't justified how it "points to a mind" - The only minds we have evidence for are produced by animal brains. I suspect you're trying to invoke some kind of hand-wavy magical mind that can do anything, but by all means support your claim clearly and concisely with logic and reason.Because there is a case for unlikely odds of all the physical parameters having specific values this points to a mind behind things and magic does not give that same inference.
That sounds like the circular argument again. Why should we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe? and I've already explained why fine-tuning is a good argument against design.The argument that a creative agent is responsible for fine tuning is based on supposition. If we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe, then we should expect that this universe would have evidences of design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with a creative agent’s design. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that a creative agent exists.
You completely missed the point. You asserted that a 'creative agent' was present at the big bang when we know that the conditions at that point were inimical to life. This makes it illogical and irrational to suppose that any intelligent agency could be present (the simulation hypothesis would allow it, but that's a different idea). I was asking you to justify why it isn't illogical or irrational - without using fallacies like special pleading.If that logic is used then the fact that life was produced contradicts that claim and shows that the universe despite its appearance of being hostile to life is conducive for life. The right conditions for life were there at the very instant the universe was created to enable the right type of stars that could produce the right elements for life. Therefore it supports the hypothesis.
Nobody has argued that the parameters don't have specific values; the Weak Anthropic principle and the puddle parable explain why that doesn't support any particular explanatory argument. Simply asserting that it does is not an argument.There is additional support already posted on another post on this thread showing how the physical parameters could have ended up with other values that were not suitable for life. So, there is some support for specific fine tuning which supports a creative agent hypothesis.
I've already told you the significant difference in logic and reason between those two hypotheses.As mentioned above we cannot prove a creative agent directly so scientific verification in that sense is impossible simple because any observation is beyond our material world. But this is not different to a multiverse which is also given as a reasonable explanation. So therefore, we must use supposition and indirect evidence.
Now you're repeating yourself, and in the same post...If we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe, then we should expect that this universe would have evidences of design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with a creative agent’s design. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that a creative agent exists.
Again, there's a difference between finding it logical and reasonable for someone to hold a belief and the belief itself being logical and reasonable; if you know about cognitive biases it's logical and reasonable that people often have mistaken beliefs - and you do know about the relevant cognitive bias, yet you try to claim it as support for your assertion...I would have thought that something that comes naturally and is a natural part of being human would be a reasonable thing to have. When I say that belief is a natural thing it is not because of any evolutionary cause. It is something beyond this as though we have an innate belief in us that we were born with there is a creative agent/God.
Repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. It's almost as if you keep repeating it just to avoid having to acknowledge you have no substantive argument for it.That does not mean that there is a creative agent or God but taken together with other indirect support such as fine tuning it builds a case for a creative agent hypothesis.
I explained the error you're making here the last time you made this claim.According to Paul Stienhardt one of the founders of inflation theory because one of the consequences of inflation is a multiverse this invalidates the theory as it introduces many outcomes and undermines its predictability which is a fundamental requirement for scientific verification.
The multiverse has been put forward as a logical and reasonable option and so has a creative agent. If it is good for one it is good for both as they have about the same indirect support. Ideas can be put forward as reasonable it is just whether they stand the test of time. You cannot rule either out and nor can you fully rule them in. I posted support for this more than once so I don't know what else you want. PS I have linked the previous posts where I included support below.When I say you can't or won't support it, I'm referring directly to what you said: "rather than I trying to support this..."
You can't know that it's the only logical argument for fine-tuning unless you know that there can be no other logical arguments - and both previously and later on in this very post(!), you say you accept that the multiverse is a possible argument. The fact is that we don't know the answer, or even what the possibilities are, so it's fallacious to make an absolute statement like yours.
But you made the claim, so tell us the logic that supports it and why no other logical explanation is possible.
I am going to finish on this point for the moment as it is the most relevant to our debate.You say that, but I must have missed where you explained it. I think you're mistaken - but show that I'm wrong by posting a link or reference to that explanation.
The point is I post the quote only because it represents an entire paper or article that goes into great detail about the reasons so I have briefly outlined this such as probability, supposition and indirect evidence arguments which is too long to include. As I said there are associated reasons why belief is something more than magic and therefore lend support to valid reasons why people believe in a creative agent. This adds to the case of indirect evidence. It is not so black and white.I don't know what their reasons are, and I don't particularly care - I was asking for your reasons. If you just find quotes from people who appear to agree with your preconception and then assume it's reasonable & logical because they think it's reasonable and logical, then your claim that you think it's reasonable and logical is clearly misleading.
I happen to disagree with your conclusion that belief is just a predisposition to attribute agency and therefore render belief as unfounded and have supplied support for this. That is the point of what I was saying above. If you don't read the papers then you are not understanding them. I am not going to lay out what the entire paper is about with all its references.The predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency is what leads to beliefs like creative agents. I've explained why a tendency for such beliefs is not any indication that the beliefs are likely to be true. Why do you think we don't attribute earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, or floods to the direct actions of gods any more? Because we know that's a false attribution. ID is a pseudoscientific wrapper for God beliefs which are illogical and irrational - believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational.
On the contrary, magical thinking is as fundamental in human psychology as the attribution of agency, and is also common in religious beliefs.
I can refer you to the short video with Professor Lennox. The same logic we use to describe everything in the world and universe through things like math, laws, codes etc is the same logic for how we can attribute a creative agent/mind behind how it came about. Seems pretty logical and reasonable to me. But we tend to want to not admit this.You haven't justified how it "points to a mind" - The only minds we have evidence for are produced by animal brains. I suspect you're trying to invoke some kind of hand-wavy magical mind that can do anything, but by all means support your claim clearly and concisely with logic and reason.
I don't get what you mean. It is because the initial values for the big bang were set from the beginning to ensure a universe for life that makes the fine tuning argument. It is still through a natural process which will include hostile events. But when the dust had settled there was a place for intelligent life to come about. This can be traced back to the initial start of things where there was some influence that ensured a place for life. In that sense the universe has not obstructed or been harmful for life but accommodated it.You completely missed the point. You asserted that a 'creative agent' was present at the big bang when we know that the conditions at that point were inimical to life. This makes it illogical and irrational to suppose that any intelligent agency could be present (the simulation hypothesis would allow it, but that's a different idea). I was asking you to justify why it isn't illogical or irrational - without using fallacies like special pleading.
Those arguments don't address or explain the complexity of fine tuning but rather make assumptions. There are explanations that go into greater detail about how the physical parameters of our universe were fine tuned beyond a chance or accidental event which gives the fine tuning argument more power. I have already posted these explanations.Nobody has argued that the parameters don't have specific values; the Weak Anthropic principle and the puddle parable explain why that doesn't support any particular explanatory argument. Simply asserting that it does is not an argument.
Yes you claimed this but never gave any support whereas I have. As I stated when anyone discusses this topic the two most mentioned ideas are a creative agent and the multiverse and they are usually regarded with equal support either way. Sometimes one is pitted above the other but they are usually seen as having little evidence regardless of how someone can rationalise a case through indirect support. For exampleI've already told you the significant difference in logic and reason between those two hypotheses.
I claim it as one piece of a number of indirect supports. What I disagree with is the assumption that all belief is irrational and has no basis because some belief has been found to be irrational which is a logical fallacy. Like I said there is new research showing belief is more sophisticated than that. If rational people look beyond the material world because they have some innate reason to do so this cannot just be attributed to irrational thought all the time. It is a bit like when people say that consciousness maybe something beyond their physical bodies being made out to be irrational. The evidence keeps coming up that it is more than that and it cannot be fobbed off.Again, there's a difference between finding it logical and reasonable for someone to hold a belief and the belief itself being logical and reasonable; if you know about cognitive biases it's logical and reasonable that people often have mistaken beliefs - and you do know about the relevant cognitive bias, yet you try to claim it as support for your assertion...
I disagree and think that I have made a reasonable argument for it. As mentioned I am not saying conclusively that there is a creative agent just like people are not saying conclusively that there is a multiverse. But we can at least include these ideas as possibilities because there is some indirect evidence.Repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. It's almost as if you keep repeating it just to avoid having to acknowledge you have no substantive argument for it.
Gee if I would have read this at the beginning I may not have gone to so much effort lol. Anyway fair enough we will have to agree to disagree.I'm not seeing reasoned discussion or argument from you, just the same old errors, assertions, and evasions. I don't want to repeat what I've already posted, so I'll leave it there.
If you read some of the articles I posted on how the constants can vary they talk about a very slight difference in values being enough to not allow the type of stars for example that would produce the elements needed for life. So we don't even have to have any great variables of space possibility but just a tiny fraction will be enough to change things.You don't have the necessary information. How many different possible scenarios could result in a viable universe? You don't know. How many could support life? You don't know that either. How many chances are we talking about (e.g. how many universes exist, have existed or will exist). Nobody knows that either.
I don't but the scientists who have written the papers do. Just like scientists can simulate what has happened at the beginning of our universe with the large Hadron Collider and computation which is accepted as science can also simulate events around physical constants. If you read the papers they had verified the simulations by replicating how the constants work and then made adjustments to values accordingly.You basically don't have any of the pertinent information to even begin calculating the odds of our universe.
Yes and we are lucky to be here. If the possibilities were against it happening though doesn't it make it rare even after the fact. Remember the probabilities for fine tuning have been calculated at odds that go beyond chance so therefore impossible. So if someone said they won a lottery that had impossible odds you would think something fishy was going on.(And this is still ignoring the fact that after-the-fact probabilities of specific events is 1 anyway because the event has already occurred. E.g. the probability of the existence of our own universe is always going to be 1 because it already exists.)
Even if you have, I fail to see what good it does you.I disagree and think that I have made a reasonable argument for it. As mentioned I am not saying conclusively that there is a creative agent just like people are not saying conclusively that there is a multiverse. But we can at least include these ideas as possibilities because there is some indirect evidence.
Right. Once upon a time I thought we were debating whether a contingent process like evolution can be a vehicle of divine providence.Your right what good does it do. I forgot why we were even debating the issue.
I've already explained why they don't have the same indirect support.The multiverse has been put forward as a logical and reasonable option and so has a creative agent. If it is good for one it is good for both as they have about the same indirect support.
No, I didn't. Prove me wrong, quote me.In a previous post you said that the universe is made up of physical laws and math...
What's the difference?... they can't tell us what happened, they can only describe what has happened...