Bloggist plagiarizes me

[_Sethbag]

I'm still waiting for someone to post details of why they think that a universe could even possibly come out any other way than this one.

One can quote-mine all they want, but I'd challenge Keven and CypressChristian both to explain to me, in their own words, and not just toss quotes from various people at me, on what basis they assert, or at least assume, that the constants of a universe are variable, and that a universe may come about with different constants than the ones that exist in this universe.

It seems that a lot of argumentation seems to rest on the asserted low probability of a universe coming into existence with constants amenable to life like ours developing. Even many respected scientists have indulged in this sort of speculation. But it's all speculation without a basis in good science, because there's not enough known about the mechanisms of universe creation to support or disallow the idea of constants coming out any other way.

[_Sethbag]

One might well ask, if we had a 100-sided die, what would be the likelihood of rolling, say, a 67?

The first impulse is to say "that's easy, it's 1 in 100 chance!"

But the problem is, does this answer not presuppose information that has not been given? For example, what numbers are on those 100 sides. Is 67 even one of the possibilities?

What if each and every one of the 100 sides had a 67 on it? Then the likelihood would be certainty.

We can speculate anything from literally impossible to absolutely guaranteed, and it all hinges on what the values are on that 100-side die. Without knowing that, you can't really say anything at all about the likelihood of rolling a 67.

With this universe, we know what the physical constants are, and that they supported an Earth-like planet and life like us, because we're here. These constants are like the 67 in my hypothesis, and by our very existence we can at the very least say that the value on at least one side of the die is 67. But without knowing anything more than the fact of our existence in this universe, we don't know squat about the other values on the other sides.

Are they all different? Are they random? Did an intelligent being have to "decide" what values to put on them? Is this even really a 100-sided die after all? Might it be a gajillion-sided die, with a gajillion different random numbers, and the likelihood of a 67 was only one in a gajillion? Might it be a 1-sided die, and 67 is the only value on it?

My point is that we simply don't know. Until we learn more about the process of universe creation, we simply have no useful information about the constants of the universes that result from it, other than the fact of the constants of our particular instance of the universe being as they are.

[_EAllusion]

I'm still waiting for someone to post details of why they think that a universe could even possibly come out any other way than this one.

For Cypress's argument, it doesn't matter. His is about what makes sense of induction.

For Kevin's argument, this is one of the classic objections to the fine-tuning argument. One of the premises of the fine-tuning argument is that it is unlikely our universe would exist as it does if it was not designed. How do they determine that? Well, they look at all the logically (in the modal sense) possible configurations of the universe (the various values fundamental constants could take in this case) and note the one we have is 1 / a large number. They declare our universe unlikely. But what is logically possible isn't necessarily what is actually possible. For all we know, our universe might be a necessary consequence of the rules of reality. The actual odds of the fundamental constants being what they are is anything from infintesimal to one.

Ted Drange makes this point here:

Objection #1: Other Values for Physical Constants May Not Be Physically Possible

This attacks FTA's premise (P1). In my previous essay, I suggested the possibility of some physical theory that would explain why our universe had to have GPC [global physical constants], the particular values for the physical constants that it has. It may be that scientists of the future will come up with a "theory of everything" (TOE for short) that will show why values for physical constants other than GPC (though conceivable) are not physically possible. No one has ever proven that such a theory will never be developed.

Advocates of FTA sometimes dismiss TOEs as "pipedreams," never to be realized. However, such dismissals are premature. First of all, it should be noted that the God Hypothesis and IDH are each themselves a kind of TOE, for they are appealed to by their advocates to explain just about anything that anyone might bring up as a phenomenon to be explained. As such, they are inadequate, to be sure. But their structure and the intention behind them is nevertheless that of a TOE. For that reason, it would be inconsistent for advocates of FTA to simply dismiss all TOEs out of hand. Another consideration is that the burden of proof is upon the one who is putting FTA forward as an argument. Such a person needs to provide some good reason to think that values for physical constants other than GPC are indeed physically possible, i.e., not ruled out by some more basic law. And, so far, no such reason has been given.

One reply that advocates of FTA might make here is that even if a purely naturalistic TOE were to be developed, it would be making appeal to some fundamental law from which all of our present laws of nature, which contain GPC, can be derived. And the question could then be raised why that fundamental law obtains and is the way it is. For example, suppose the TOE were to show that, given the initial conditions of the big bang, no other values for physical constants other than GPC could possibly have emerged. The advocates of IDH would then still press for an explanation why the initial conditions of the big bang were the way they were and not some other way. So, the pressure for an explanation would still be there.

Despite this pressure for an explanation, the burden of proof is still on the advocates of FTA to show that the alternate hypothetical worlds to which they are appealing are indeed physically possible, as claimed in premise (P1). Whether those alternate worlds involve values for physical constants other than GPC or whether they involve initial conditions for the big bang other than the ones which actually obtained, there is still some need for support here. Why should we believe that the given worlds, whatever they may be, are not ruled out by some more basic law? Advocates of FTA have not adequately addressed this challenge, and so that is a place at which their reasoning is weak.

Objection #2: Other Values for Physical Constants May Be Highly Improbable

Premise (P2) claims that for at least a large number of the various hypothetical groups of values for the fundamental physical constants of our universe mentioned in (P1), the probability of their existence is not considerably less than that for GPC. What this means is that even if a correct naturalistic TOE is ever worked out, it will not only retain the alternate groups of values as physically possible, as claimed in (P1), but also, it will not render their existence considerably less probable than the existence of GPC itself. Such a claim is needed in FTA, for if all the groups other than GPC were, though physically possible, nevertheless shown by some TOE to be much more unlikely than GPC, then step (C4) of the argument could not be derived.

However, what reason is there to proclaim this proposition regarding probabilities? Physicists do not have any data on the basis of which such probability computations could be made, whether it is the existence of GPC itself that is being considered or the existence of some group of values other than GPC. The burden of proof is on the advocate of FTA to show that claims about the probabilities of values for the fundamental physical constants of our universe have some sort of basis. So far as I know, there is nothing in physics at present that would allow such computations to be made. It may be that, in the future, a TOE will be developed that would allow them, but we have no basis now for speculating about what form such a theory will take. To suggest that it will not show alternate groups of values to be considerably less probable than GPC is mere assumption, totally unsupported. Thus, (P2) is another premise that lacks support and can be doubted.

As for why multiverses get brought up, he continues:

Objection #3: There May Be an Ensemble of Other Worlds

We now come to premise (P3).

[(P3) It is not the case that there exist a great many worlds (or regions of spacetime), separated from our observable universe, each with its own group of values for fundamental physical constants.]

It was suggested in my previous essay that, once we assume that values for physical constants different from GPC are physically possible, there may in that case actually exist other worlds (or regions of spacetime) which are completely outside our observational field and which contain just such values for physical constants (i.e., ones different from GPC). It is therefore illegitimate to assume that the only values for physical constants that exist at all are the ones that we have observed. If there were to exist a great many such other worlds, totally separated from us, then there would be nothing improbable in the fact that GPC exists somewhere or other. But why does it exist in our universe? It could simply be chalked up to coincidence. It would be just a brute fact that our universe has the particular features that it has, and there would be nothing surprising about that if indeed there were many other actual worlds with other features. First, there is nothing at all surprising about the fact that we live in a world that permits our existence, and second, that there should somewhere exist such a world at all would not be surprising if there did actually exist the many different worlds as described.

Consider the firing-squad analogy that some writers use. Suppose you are a prisoner to be shot by a firing squad composed of fifty expert marksmen. There is a finite though infinitesimal chance that all fifty would miss their target. The guns are fired, and lo and behold, you find yourself still alive. That would indeed be unexpected and surprising. The hypothesis that you just happened to be lucky would be a poor explanation of the fact of your survival. But suppose you later find out that at the same time that your execution was scheduled to occur there were a great many other executions occurring, each by a firing squad of fifty expert marksmen. In practically all of them, the prisoners died and the number of prisoners actually surviving was just an infinitesimal proportion of the total. Given that new information, the fact that you were one of the very few survivors should no longer seem surprising and inexplicable. You should feel exceedingly lucky (as the winner of a lottery feels), but there would in that case be nothing in the situation that could not be explained, quite plausibly and reasonably, simply by an appeal to chance. In a similar way, if there really are a great many other worlds, each with its own set of physical constants different from GPC, then the fact that we happen to exist in one of the very few worlds capable of sustaining life as we know it would not be unexpected or surprising or incapable of being reasonably explained simply by an appeal to chance. Another way to put the matter is to point out that step (C4) of FTA does not follow from premises (P1) and (P2) alone. Premise (P3) is needed because [assuming the truth of (P1) and (P2)], if there were a very large number of actual worlds (or separated regions of spacetime) with different groups of values for physical constants, then, just by the law of averages, GPC should occur in at least one of them. One standard way of attacking FTA has been to call its premise (P3) into question. The denial of (P3) is sometimes called the "World-ensemble Theory."

Advocates of FTA, such as William Lane Craig, often criticize world-ensemble theories as totally unsupported by any evidence. However, as the saying goes: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because we do not have evidence for the existence of other worlds (or separated regions of spacetime), that does not entail that they do not exist. As mentioned above, the burden of proof is always upon the one who is putting forward a proof, and in this context that person is the advocate of FTA. He has not provided any good reason to accept premise (P3), and so, that is still another basis for doubting the soundness of FTA.

Notice that he isn't positing any multiverse theory is true. He doesn't need to. It just needs to be a live option. The onus is on the Fine-tuning supporter to explain why one must in principle reject other worlds with other physical constants, because they are the one asserting the unlikeness of our universe. Kevin, like many Fine-tuners, turns it around and claims that in order to reject fine-tuning atheists go ahead and believe multiverse theory despite the lack of a solid positive case for one. That's preposterous. In defense of Kevin, his repeated pattern of behavior suggests that he's just reading about what atheists think according to what anthropic argument apologists and websites tell him, but that's only slightly better than distorting the nature of the objection.

Edit: The existence of other worlds with different constant values is logically possible just like the existence of our universe with different constant values is logically possible. If you think different worlds isn't actually possible (or is unlikely), but that is not true of different values for our universe, let's hear your case.

[_CypressChristian]

Man, I can't keep up with you guys. Thanks Kevin for picking up where I left off, you're doing a great job. I will formulate responses to Schmo and Sethbag though.

[_dartagnan]

My point is that of all the possible desires that different versions of gods could have, you are a priori picking the one defined as desiring this universe.

I am simply refusing to attribute characteristics to an intelligent source that aren't supported by the evidence. The anthropic principle tells us nothing about this intelligent source other than he/it/she/they are intelligent and responsible for writing the laws of the universe. That's it. I don't need to defend the God of Islam, Mormonism, or whatever theistic bent is out there.

This has a couple consequences, but the point being made when you criticized me for saying it is that you are just tailoring your explanation to whatever it is we observe.

Well, observation is a key point in the scientific method, so I can't see how making arguments based on observations would be looked down upon, especially from a scientific perspective.

You have defined your God to desire and have the ability to obtain what it is you are seeking to explain.

No, it is better said that I am merely accepting the evidence and allowing it to define God for me. Scientists do this all the time. Observation is what verified Einstein's theory of relativity. Likewise, observing evidence for an intelligent source of the cosmos, verifies the theory of God.

Calling it this observation a "trick" is just polemic-based rhetoric.

Now you said, "All we know is that if things are exactly as they were, then life would develop."

I responded: "There is no guarantee life would have developed. If that were true, then we'd expect to find life elsewhere in the universe."

You now say,

Dear lord. Kevin, exactly as they were means just that. Exactly. Let me repeat that. Exactly. No where in the universe, especially the universe we've actually looked at, were conditions exactly as they were on earth, atom by atom, motion by motion, bond by bond.

I know what exactly means, but I assumed you were referring to a time before life emerged (Wasn't that what we were talking about??). There is some ambiguity with the word "develop." Are you speaking of "things are exactly as they were" before or after life had already came into being? I thought we were discussing the cosmos and its fundamental constants before the existence of life on earth. I understood your use of the word develop to mean to "bring into being." If you're now saying you meant it as to "bring to a more advanced or effective state" then I missed your point.

[Guest]

Schmo

"When did I say I represent "the atheist world view?" And as far as I know, "the atheist world view" is that god is something made up by man. That's it."

What I mean by "atheistic worldview" is the basic beliefs that come with being an atheist. For our purpose, I am talking about the atheistic belief that since God did not create the universe then it came about by pure chance. I showed this quite conclusively.

Now, of course not all atheists agree with eachother, nor did I ever suggest such a thing. But the general academic consensus of Big Bang researches and evolutionary biologists is that the universe came about randomly. I was able to show this. If you disagree with them, then that's fine but you're going against the scientific consensus, which is ok (obviously, since I'm a Creationist) but you must have a reason for doing so. So far your reason is "well we don't know", and I don't think they'd except that.

Also either you must believe the universe came about by pure chance or an infinite regress of natural causes. Those are your two choices.

"Well, I suppose this might be the difference between you and me: I tend to think for myself."

Ah, yes, the ol' "Christians are brainwashed" canard. As if I haven't been giving you rational, coherent arguments this whole time and as if your academic indoctrination is any different.

"But here's the thing... you can quote a bunch of scientists talking about the element of randomness in evolution all you want, but it betrays your lack of understanding of the subject,"

The beginning of the universe and our conversation about what explains the uniformity of nature has nothing to do with evolution. But for the record: I know that Natural Selection isn't entirely random, although it requires random genetic mutations, and I also know that Natural Selection is happening everyday all around us.

"and I suspect (without checking all your sources) that you're quote mining and taking what these people have to say out of context."

Accusation by assumption, is that the kind of arguer you want to be?

"I have read much and watched several documentaries on the subject of evolution, and I understand how it works. Forgive me if I don't take very seriously the claim of someone who doesn't understand it himself."

Wait . . . you haven't taken any evolutionary biology classes?

" It would be more accurate to paraphrase what I said by saying the idea of magical gods is very improbable, as far as I'm concerned. There are better explanations. Computer simulations, more advanced (yet still natural) species, whatever... are better "explanations" than supernatural or magical beings."

Aliens??? You're going with ALIENS over God? Man, you read too much Dawkins. But to actually answer the assertion . . . uber-powerful aliens just beg the question of the uniformity of nature and computer simulations do the same thing. But honestly, Schmo, if you're willing to take begging the question irrationalities and aliens over God, then we have nothing left to talk about.

And this quote is STILL saying, "I don't know what caused the universe but I know it wasn't God!"

"As for what came before the big bang, I'm not foolish enough to go down the path of infinite regress. What's the point? It's not a matter of apathy. It's a matter of practicality. There are more immediate mysteries with a higher probability that I'll understand their natural explanations."

Exactly. You don't want to follow out the assertion to it's logical conclusion. You want to say, "It was a natural cause...that is all" without thinking about what this assertion means. This is naturalistic dogma at it's best and most obvious.

"Or were you born with all that stuff working naturally, by well established natural processes?"

You are attempting to give me an example of natural laws being outside of the universe with things that are IN the universe. It's ridiculous, you just keep begging the question.

"Are you trying to tell me that there's a well-established theory on Intelligent Design or Creationism? I'd love to see that."

Actually, yea, there is a lot the Creationist Model. But you don't' want to hear any of it because "natural processes did it, they just did" right?

"I hate to tell you this, but you could likely poll 100 different creationists, or even 100 different Christians, asking them "What is ID?" or "How has the Earth changed since god created it?" and you'll get 100 different answers (whatever their pastor happened to tell them, most likely), because all this crap about creation is made up, with nothing to back it up."

This "nothing to back it up" coming from the guy that doesn't want to know where the natural constants came from and "just knows" that natural processes created it all. And this after you claim that no atheists agree with eachother either. Don't you see how you switch things around to suit your argument? "No atheists agree with eachother so it's ok that I disagree with the scientific consensus, but no Christians agree with eachother so therefore Creationism is false! Ha! See what I did there?" Yea, Schmo, I see it, and it amazes me the irrationalities you subscribe to and the lengths you will go just so you can deny God.

[_CypressChristian]

Sethbag

"One can quote-mine all they want, but I'd challenge Keven and CypressChristian both to explain to me, in their own words, and not just toss quotes from various people at me, on what basis they assert, or at least assume, that the constants of a universe are variable, and that a universe may come about with different constants than the ones that exist in this universe."

You are asking us to prove a negative, "show that a universe could NOT come about this way." It's a ridiculous challenge. It would be like me saying, "Show me that God does not exist."

This is not the question at all. The question I'm asking is, "Nature is uniform, what explains this uniformity?" and Kevin's is, "What explains the fine-tuning of the universe?". This has nothing to do with wether or not the universe could have come about another way, you are attempting to distract.

Also, this challenge is implying that the constants of the universe exist outside of the universe and apply to all universes possible. This is begging the question of where those constants came from in the first place.

"But it's all speculation without a basis in good science, because there's not enough known about the mechanisms of universe creation to support or disallow the idea of constants coming out any other way."

You seem hung up on the notion of being able to empirically verify the mechanisms of universe causation. How could this be possible? Do you have a time machine with which to go back and observe and test the beginning of our universe?

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not sure how I got sucked into a conversation that the person I'm talking to considers an "argument" or a "debate." It's long been my preference not to debate people on matters of faith, because the subject of faith itself is a debate ender. Faith itself is irrational, so that makes conversations about it irrational (if one of the parties is trying to defend it, that is).

I'm not interested in trying to convert anyone to atheism, or to my way of thinking at all, for that matter. In the odd times that I have had these conversations, I've always tried to stick to a "here's what I think about it; take it or leave it" attitude, because quite frankly, there's little chance of convincing people of anything once they've made their minds up about something.

All I will say is that there is evidence for natural occurrences, there is no evidence for supernatural occurrences, so the idea that god (something supernatural) is an explanation for this natural universe seems absurd, and I'll leave it at that.

I was about to respond to each of your points, but I've already noticed a pattern in this conversation of going round and round the same things, and I'm not interested in going on with it. Cypress, your mind is made up. Good luck with that. In the end, you're free to believe what you want, and I'm free to be indifferent that you believe what you do. It's all good.

[_mikwut]

It seems quite clear that both positions concerning the anthropic position - ideological criticisms aside for the moment, are at least, constructible. I don't think one needs be irrational or intellectually irresponsible to accept either side, in fact empirically we know that rational and responsible intellectual people accept both sides of the anthropic discussion.

For me then either one side needs more or we simply cannot decide. What I find to turn the tide toward the theistic position is moving from the circular theistic and atheistic inference conclusion divide and start from a more fundamental position. In 1885 the Duke or Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin a year before his death it was as follows:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature - I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, "Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times it seems to go away."

What is worth noting is that there is no evidential or inferential processes concerning the swings that Darwin mentions take place, there is no decisions, acts of the will or intellectual debating. The belief is simply one that overcomes him, it happens to him and he seems to have little say in the matter.

This is important towards the discussion because the vast majority of the populace is not familiar with Leslie, Stenger, Davies, Rees, Sober or others - they believe in design not through inference to conclusion but rather through perception, apprehension - their cognitive faculties simply form "through overwhelming force" that mind, intelligence, God - is behind the universe.

My regards,

Mikwut

[_CypressChristian]

Schmo

By argument I merely mean a discussion between two people with opposing viewpoints.

"It's long been my preference not to debate people on matters of faith, because the subject of faith itself is a debate ender."

This is an interesting statement because we all have faith. I showed you quite clearly the things you have faith in and I'll freely admit that I have faith in things.

Code: Select all

"Faith itself is irrational, so that makes conversations about it irrational (if one of the parties is trying to defend it, that is..."

This coming from the guy that has faith that "one day" we'll know the answer to all the unanswerables.

I'm also not trying to convert you, just attempting to show you the irrationalities you must subscribe to deny God. I did so clearly.

"All I will say is that there is evidence for natural occurrences, there is no evidence for supernatural occurrences, so the idea that god (something supernatural) is an explanation for this natural universe seems absurd, and I'll leave it at that."

And yet, in order to deny the supernatural you must subscribe to irrationalities such as begging the question and circular fallacies. Not to mention the alien assertion! But this clearly shows your dogma, just as you did on the last post. You've made up your mind that naturalism is everything and explains everything, this is your belief and you're sticking to it. In fact, you believe almost ANYTHING in order to keep this belief, including that aliens could have started this earth or universe.

"I was about to respond to each of your points, but I've already noticed a pattern in this conversation of going round and round the same things, and I'm not interested in going on with it."

Actually, what was going on is that I was repeating my arguments because you were not refuting them or you were attempting to distract from them. I understand your frustration to the transcendental argument, because, as an atheist, you just have no argument against it except "It is because it is", which, obviously, isn't an argument at all.

"Cypress, your mind is made up. Good luck with that. In the end, you're free to believe what you want, and I'm free to be indifferent that you believe what you do. It's all good."

Yes it is, and so is yours. You've shown that clearly. However, with my position, I'm able to be rational consistent AND have an explanation for the universe, you can do neither. We are both free to do and believe what we will, no one said any different, but, Schmo, it's not all good, Pascal's Wager makes this all too serious.