Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do I need to prove what scientists already agree to?
Scientists agree that slight variations in various constants would make this a life-prohibiting universe. I've already provided you citations for this.
P1 is more plausibly true than not
I need clarification concerning premise 2:
The fact that Mr. A won the lottery last week - is that due to chance or physical necessity or design?
However, many scientists believe that there is an acceptable range of possible settings for these constants in possible alternative universes
Kinda back to square one.
Yes.I'm actually curious why design is automatically separated from physical processes? Seems like the other categories should be physical contingency, non-physical necessity and non-physical contingency. Design could be the result of any number of these - even chance, if you're looking at the end result as in "the hole in the ground looks like it was designed for the puddle".
I did not put words in his mouth, you did. You interpreted the following:I am asking the same of you.
This demonstrates that you do not understand what is being communicated in p1. Fine-tuning in p1 means that if slight variations had occurred in certain constants (see (a) in Hawking's statement), this would be a life-prohibiting universe (see (b) in Hawking's statement).What has that to do with tuning? The weak anthropic principle is a tautology.
If so, please quote the specific passage in my OP.You, by all appearances.
Thanks for confirming that Hawking agrees that the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity. And we all know he rules out design a priori. From this article, we can gather that Hawking agrees with p1 and p2. It is p3 (as I said earlier) that is the controversial premise of the argument. So Hawking believes that the fine-tuning is due to chance. I'm curious as to why you left out the last paragraph:So... how do cosmologists (Hawking in particular, because you keep citing him) feel about the universe being "designed"? You examine the first two explanations, and discover that scientists don't seem to like either very much. Okay. But when we're talking about "best" (or, as I'd refer to call it in this case, "least bad"), we need to examine all of the options. After all, if our options are A, B, and C, and A has a probability of 1:10^20 and B has a probability of 1:10^30, we do not get to conclude that C is the most likely option without examining it. C could have a probabilty of 1:10^4, or a probability of 1:10^40*.
And the fact of the matter is that the option you want to offer as the "best explanation" is not even considered an explanation. It's not considered a valid explanation for why the universe is the way it is, any more than it is considered a valid explanation for why we see such diversity of life on the planet. It might technically be possible. It's also unscientific, unfalsifiable, and fundamentally useless. I mean, Hawking, the scientist you are basing most of your citations on, quite obviously doesn't think that design is the most reasonable answer - he's an atheist. He wrote an entire book attacking this argument. In fact, reading an excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal, it seems that he in fact endorses the "chance" option, and the multi-universe hypothesis:
Again, we run into exactly the same problem as the cosmological argument. You appeal heavily to very complex theoretical physics that basically require a post-grad course just to understand the mathematics involved, but the scientists just keep not following through to your conclusion for some reason. If your argument for the existence of god depends on cosmology and something like 80% of cosmologists are atheists, you've got a honkin' big problem.
...Yes, and this is why "supernatural design" belongs in a bin. It has no explanatory power or scope, its plausibility is incalculable, and it is not falsifiable. It, like all supernatural explanations, makes no testable predictions and as a result is completely worthless.
*If they were a mutually exclusive, complete set of options, then yes, P(C) would necessarily be P(U) - P(A) - P(B), but this is part of why I find the trichotomy so problematic here. Neither of the two naturalistic options are universally accepted, and the supernaturalistic one is by definition useless.
what objection are you referring to?You don't have to provide any backing for your random claims - if you don't want to be taken seriously, that is.
If you do, though, now's the time to come up with an actual answer to my objection rather than pretending you already answered it when you obviously haven't.
So there's no scientific consensus on this, but rather just various different opinions? Weird you'd claim there was earlier when I asked about this.
Even Hawking, though he chooses to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe was by chance, recognizes that it is a low probability.Anyway, this means that the remaining scientists disagree with P3. So why are you going against the beliefs of those scientists to further your argument? Doesn't it matter to you what actual scientists believe about this problem, or do their opinions only count when they agree with your attempts to rationalize a reason for believing in your god?
See post #132. Hawking himself confirms the trichotomy.Yes.
I´m actually curious how the three criteria became a trichotomy. In my understanding they aren´t even in the same category, they aren´t mutually exclusive and - seeing how randomly they appear to be chosen - they aren´t complete.
You see, this is why "fine tuning" is misleading. It implies that there are a lot of different constants that could be changed by just a bit to make the universe not exist, when in actuality only one has that much importance: the rate of expansion. So the premise should be "if the rate of expansion wasn't what it was..."."If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
as Hawking saying "we got lucky".
Low probability? That isn't really how probability works.Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.
I do wonder if you read any of this stuff in context.I did not put words in his mouth, you did. You interpreted the following:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
as Hawking saying "we got lucky".
I'm saying that what he said was:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.""
Joshua260: He is saying that if that particular constant had varied just a bit, the universe would not exist.
Where did I say it was in this particular OP?This demonstrates that you do not understand what is being communicated in p1. Fine-tuning in p1 means that if slight variations had occurred in certain constants (see (a) in Hawking's statement), this would be a life-prohibiting universe (see (b) in Hawking's statement).
Hawking:
"[If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million = (a)], [the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.= (b)]"
Hawking's statement above matches the definition of fine-tuning as used in p1.
Joshua260:Who's talking about God?
If so, please quote the specific passage in my OP.
Joshua is consistently appealing to Hawking; Hawking thinks that the laws of nature we observe are due to chance.So how 'bout premise 3? How's that one gonna work?
So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.
If you are trying to say this;I'd like to discuss and explore the Teleological Argument, so I offer the following version:
1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.
No, that's not what it means. Physical necessity (in regard to this argument ) simply means that the physical constants could not have been set to any other level. In other words, it would be impossible that there could have been a universe with slightly different settings for the constants in question. However, many scientists believe that there is an acceptable range of possible settings for these constants in possible alternative universes (so they reject that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity), but then the question is how many of them would support life (chance)? That is the subject of Hawking's comment here:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.
Well, this argument is an "inference to the best explanation". So this argument doesn't rule out chance totally, but it can be shown that the odds of creating a life-permitting universe is extremely slim. Although there is a range of possible settings for many constants to support the existence of a universe (live or dead), the range required for life is much more narrow and when you begin to consider all of the constants that would have to be set just right for life, it only adds to the unlikelihood that a life-permitting universe would exist. Note that Hawking in the quote above also indicates that he recognizes that same unlikelihood in the phrase "our universe is picked out".
Is Hawking God now, or something?See post #132. Hawking himself confirms the trichotomy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?