Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[Ophiolite]

I walk into a building, in the middle of the building there's a button. I push the button and a man walks over and punches me in the face.

What are the odds of me getting punched in the face when I push that button?

The odds of that happening? Very high and rightly so. You can't expect to walk into someone's building, without so much as a "by your leave", and go around pushing people's private buttons. It's just not on. You should think yourself lucky that nothing worse happens.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This itself seems like a bold assumption. A parameter landscape of all combinations of physical constants? It isn't a conclusion based on anything observed in cosmology. It's just an assumption used to explain how we might be in what appears to be a well tuned space in the universe.

I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear; I'm not assuming or concluding anything.

Going from the (as yet unconfirmed) hint that an important constant may actually vary through space, I was suggesting that IF this is the case, it could be seen as encouraging for the cosmological multiverse, which requires an exhaustive landscape of parameter variations across a very large or infinite space.

Personally, I'm sceptical of the initial report - such tentative observations tend to go away on more intensive and detailed observation; time will tell... but as far as I'm aware, there's no fundamental physical reason why the parameters we think are constant cannot vary over space and/or time. That's not to say that they do, simply that it's a possibility. Similarly, as far as I'm aware, our best observations to date are consistent with an infinite universe (among other possibilities).

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear; I'm not assuming or concluding anything.

Going from the (as yet unconfirmed) hint that an important constant may actually vary through space, I was suggesting that IF this is the case, it could be seen as encouraging for the cosmological multiverse, which requires an exhaustive landscape of parameter variations across a very large or infinite space.

Personally, I'm sceptical of the initial report - such tentative observations tend to go away on more intensive and detailed observation; time will tell... but as far as I'm aware, there's no fundamental physical reason why the parameters we think are constant cannot vary over space and/or time. That's not to say that they do, simply that it's a possibility. Similarly, as far as I'm aware, our best observations to date are consistent with an infinite universe (among other possibilities).

I gave that a winner award because I thought it was an excellent piece of writing that presented a complex issue in clear, simple, direct terms and did so concisely and comprehensively.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I gave that a winner award because I thought it was an excellent piece of writing that presented a complex issue in clear, simple, direct terms and did so concisely and comprehensively.

Thank you! Clear, simple, direct, concise, and comprehensive is the jackpot - I'm usually lucky to achieve any of those

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't look at something merely in hindsight and call the odds of an event 1. It's like a rolling a die, it falls on a 2 then saying that the odds of getting 2 is 1/1. When in actuality it's 1/6 (on a standard 6 sided die).

In an existence where constants change, the number of possible outcomes of constant values for a universe are innumerable. Like a dye with a gazillion sides. Some have suggested scenarios in which there are a gazillion universes, all of different constants or perhaps a single universe which contains a gazillion constants within it, thereby guaranteeing an outcome with us in it. But both of these conclusions sound like extreme stretches of the imagination.

I don't think that you quite understand the argument. The odds of someone eventually winning a lottery is so close to one as to make no difference. The odds of life evolving, once it exists, is also so close to one that it makes no difference. The odds of any one single person winning the lottery is very low. The odds of someone winning is practically one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I walk into a building, in the middle of the building there's a button. I push the button and a man walks over and punches me in the face.

What are the odds of me getting punched in the face when I push that button?

-CryptoLutheran

As much as I appreciate people finding humor in the ridiculous scenario I provide above (and I really do say this sincerely). I really was trying to make a point; there is insufficient data to answer the question I asked; all that can be said is that the odds of it having happened is 1--it did happen. The odds of it happening again? That's unanswerable.

We only have this one universe to observe. It exists, so the odds that our universe did happen is 1, it did happen. Has it happened before? Will it happen again? Has it happened many times? Are there other universes? What are the odds of a universe like ours? Those are simply unanswerable questions.

Speaking of the odds of something happening, when our data set has only one piece of data, we can't say anything more than what is right in front of us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think that you quite understand the argument. The odds of someone eventually winning a lottery is so close to one as to make no difference. The odds of life evolving, once it exists, is also so close to one that it makes no difference. The odds of any one single person winning the lottery is very low. The odds of someone winning is practically one.

This response assumes some innumerable quantity of trials, perhaps universes as opposed to players of a lottery. And as noted above, I think it's a stretch to suggest that countless universes exist or that a single universe has countless different constant values within itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This response assumes some innumerable quantity of trials, perhaps universes as opposed to players of a lottery. And as noted above, I think it's a stretch to suggest that countless universes exist or that a single universe has countless different constant values within itself.

I thought that we were discussing evolution. The failure of the Fine Tuning Argument has already been well explained in this thread.

 

[Job 33:6]

I thought that we were discussing evolution. The failure of the Fine Tuning Argument has already been well explained in this thread.

Like I said, I don't think looking at the universe in hindsight, and saying "well it exists so the odds of it's constants being as they are must be 1/1!" Makes sense.

We can look at a lottery winner in comparison and to suggest that the probability of someone winning is 1/1 is to either suggest that there was only one player, which doesn't really resolve the question of why the universe has constant values that allow for intelligent life (or by analogy doesn't explain how it is that the person won the lottery), or it suggests that perhaps an innumerable quantity of universes exist, or an innumerable quantity of constant values within our universe (or by analogy that an innumerable quantity of people play the lottery and therefore one must win). Both of these alternatives additionally sounding somewhat crazy.

To sum it up, it's either a case of people saying that the universe simply is as it is and that there is no reason nor rhyme as to why intelligent life exists, or it's to say that perhaps multiverse theory is correct.

I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is as it is in a way in which intelligent life can exist, because there is a meaning and purpose for said intelligent life, beyond mere random chance.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can look at it with hindsight or foresight. The odds of an an event are 1. The odds of a specific event are not the same and may be infinite.

We are an event. I'm certain that you believe otherwise. Hence the confusion.

If we are an event and not a specific event, why is it the case that our event has allowed for our intelligent existence? Is mere chance and perhaps even luck the only explanation that non-believers have?

If a lottery player went in and won the mega million jackpot on her first try, and not only that, but consider if she was the only one who played the lottery, personally I would think it were more likely rigged than pure chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, I don't think looking at the universe in hindsight, and saying "well it exists so the odds of it's constants being as they are must be 1/1!" Makes sense.

We can look at a lottery winner in comparison and to suggest that the probability of someone winning is 1/1 is to either suggest that there was only one player, which doesn't really resolve the question of why the universe has constant values that allow for intelligent life (or by analogy doesn't explain how it is that the person won the lottery), or it suggests that perhaps an innumerable quantity of universes exist, or an innumerable quantity of constant values within our universe (or by analogy that an innumerable quantity of people play the lottery and therefore one must win). Both of these alternatives additionally sounding somewhat crazy.

To sum it up, it's either a case of people saying that the universe simply is as it is and that there is no reason nor rhyme as to why intelligent life exists, or it's to say that perhaps multiverse theory is correct.

I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is as it is in a way in which intelligent life can exist, because there is a meaning and purpose for said intelligent life, beyond mere random chance.

Your argument was one that creationists use to try to use against evolution.

As to the universe we merely have unknown reasons for the values of constants that some site. We do not even know if there can be any significant differences in those values. So saying "if value A was different by a smidgeon the universe as we know it would not exist" only merits a "So what?" You are trying to use an argument from ignorance and that always has been and will be a logical fallacy.

 

[Ophiolite]

If we are an event and not a specific event, why is it the case that our event has allowed for our intelligent existence? Is mere chance and perhaps even luck the only explanation that non-believers have?

To your first question: stuff happens. If stuff happens then that stuff has to be something. Why not this?

To your second I would hope that any thinking non-believer would say "I have no idea". And they would then add "But we (our species) are working on it and we have some interesting ideas already, though we only started on the matter seriously very recently."

 

[Bradskii]

If we are an event and not a specific event, why is it the case that our event has allowed for our intelligent existence? Is mere chance and perhaps even luck the only explanation that non-believers have?

Yep.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think this really changes the circumstances. Unless it were the case that the universe in one extreme pole were to have one extreme value of a constant, whole the other pole were to have another extreme.

Demonstrating that these constants could exist in other proportions wouldn't necessarily change the odds of the anthropic principal in a meaningful way. But it would demonstrate that these constants could change or could exist in different proportions.

Nope. If this report holds true, then it only means that we live in the part of the universe where the constants are conducive to forming life, even if the other parts are not.

 

[Occams Barber]

Like I said, I don't think looking at the universe in hindsight, and saying "well it exists so the odds of it's constants being as they are must be 1/1!" Makes sense.

We can look at a lottery winner in comparison and to suggest that the probability of someone winning is 1/1 is to either suggest that there was only one player, which doesn't really resolve the question of why the universe has constant values that allow for intelligent life (or by analogy doesn't explain how it is that the person won the lottery), or it suggests that perhaps an innumerable quantity of universes exist, or an innumerable quantity of constant values within our universe (or by analogy that an innumerable quantity of people play the lottery and therefore one must win). Both of these alternatives additionally sounding somewhat crazy.

To sum it up, it's either a case of people saying that the universe simply is as it is and that there is no reason nor rhyme as to why intelligent life exists, or it's to say that perhaps multiverse theory is correct.

I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is as it is in a way in which intelligent life can exist, because there is a meaning and purpose for said intelligent life, beyond mere random chance.

You cannot rationally talk about the odds of an event happening AFTER it has happened. Since the event has happened the odds are logically equivalent to 1.

We could talk theoretically about the odds of an event happening BEFORE it happens but, once the event occurs our understanding of the odds can only be informed by the fact that it actually did happen.

I am also concerned about an underlying, but unspoken assumption which seems to permeate the Fine Tuning argument. You have used it several times in the above post (bolded by me).

The Fine Tuning argument is often applied as it relates to the existence of life or intelligent life or humans. Embedded in the argument is the unspoken assumption that the existence of life somehow proves the existence of God. Even if we were to establish that the 'odds' of intelligent life existing were bajillions to one this would not prove that God exists. There is no logical connection between the mere existence of life and the existence of a God.

To say, "life exists therefore there must be a God," makes no sense.

OB

 

[Job 33:6]

Nope. If this report holds true, then it only means that we live in the part of the universe where the constants are conducive to forming life, even if the other parts are not.

So let's summarize what we have.

"Stuff happens" (no clear reason nor rhyme, things simply are).
"Yep" in affirmation of stuff happens.
And here we have support for the idea that the universe holds all possible constant values within itself. Which to me sounds no more or less feasible than the idea that there are many universes that similarly contain all possible constant values. If anything, multiverse theory would be more feasible in that independent universes could collapse on themselves without pulling others in, in circumstances where the force of gravitation were too high for the rest of the universe to sustain.

I'll take time to contemplate this position.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cannot rationally talk about the odds of an event happening AFTER it has happened. Since the event has happened the odds are logically equivalent to 1.

This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurance because it already happened".

The odds of such an event occuring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.

 

[Job 33:6]

. Even if we were to establish that the 'odds' of intelligent life existing were bajillions to one this would not prove that God exists. There is no logical connection between the mere existence of life and the existence of a God.

To say, "life exists therefore there must be a God," makes no sense.

OB

For me, I think this question is more directed toward purpose and reason than it is even necessarily a matter of being about God.

Haven't you ever looked at yourself in a mirror and asked yourself the question "why am I here?". Have you not considered the possibility that perhaps you are here for more and aren't merely a product of truly random chance?

The question goes beyond the theory of evolution. Because even evolution itself is subject to the same questions of purpose and meaning. Why are there things such as convergent evolution that drive us to become intelligent to begin with? We don't have to be intelligent (as seen in other life forms), the universe doesn't have to exist in any fashion in which we might live (as we see in much of the universe that isn't hospitable). And yet here we are.

And you think nothing of it. Nothing but...maybe just a stroke of luck. The puddle fills the ditch and that's that. Why the puddle or the ditch are even here nobody knows, they are just here.

It's not even about God. It's a question of where your heart is.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurance because it already happened".

The odds of such an event occuring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.

go back to probability and discrete math. These are two courses available at entry level junior college that are often overlooked that will seem easy at first but will surprise you by the end. Way more interesting than calculus.

ETA I took these after university calculus and probablies and learned more in these than the standard curriculum. But I did have good teachers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This response is like watching someone on tv who bought a lottery ticket, went and won millions and then saying "Since the event has happened the odds of this person winning is logically equivalent to 1 and we can no longer rationally talk about the odds of it's occurrance because it already happened".

The odds of such an event occurring never were 1. If the odds of hitting the jackpot truly were 1, we would all be out buying lottery tickets.

The odds of that guy winning the lottery is 1 because he already did.

If you buy a ticket for the next drawing, your odds will be the same of any other ticket purchaser as calculated before the drawing. It's a separate event and it hasn't happened yet.

On the other hand if I tell you I will sell you my (1,4,9,16,25,36) ticket from last night when the winning numbers are (2,3,5,7,11,13,17) don't buy it as your odds of winning anything with that ticket for yesterday's lottery are 0.