DiscussMormonism.com

I am hoping the participants on the board can help me find the holes in my logic.

I recently was listening to some podcasts of debates regarding ID and evolution. An idea that kept coming up in all cases was the notion of “fine tuning”. In other words, slight changes in our environment would result in our non-existence. The examples given were the position of the sun and moon and the effects of them being in slightly different positions. The argument continues to posit that the probability of the precise conditions necessary for our current existence are astronomically against our emergence, that the logical conclusion is that some divine force directed the whole process.

Setting aside several of the assumptions, such as the one about the changing of the positions of the moon and stars resulting in our extinction, I am confused by the assertions about the improbability of our existence.

I am not a statistician. I took enough in college to get my degree and that is that. However, I thorough confused as to how one assigns a probability to the position of our moon or sun.

If, however, one assumes that such a probability can be calculated, I am also unclear as to how this points to a divine creator that directs the whole thing. I logic (which may be faulty) goes like this: The odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. However, someone always wins. Are we to believe that the winner was chosen by a director since the odds were against him/her.

I accept that the calculated odds may have many more zeros behind them than the lottery odds, but I am not sure how this affects my point. Some condition must exist. Someone must win the lottery. Does the fact that we are conscious of our victory, make the existence of a director logical.

The intent of the creator is another topic for another time.

Flame away.

EDIT: This post contains many typographical errors. I will correct them when I get a moment. Hopefully, any responders can make out my garbble.

Mad Viking wrote:I am hoping the participants on the board can help me find the holes in my logic.

Sorry, but I can't find any holes in it.

The odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. However, someone always wins. Are we to believe that the winner was chosen by a director since the odds were against him/her.

You know, that's by far the best rebuttal to the aforementioned "probability" argument that I've ever seen. Did you come up with it, or did you hear it used in the debate?

If you came up with it, then CONGRATULATIONS, 'cause it's both effective and brilliant.

There is, however, something else that we may be able to address:

An idea that kept coming up in all cases was the notion of “fine tuning”. In other words, slight changes in our environment would result in our non-existence. The examples given were the position of the sun and moon and the effects of them being in slightly different positions. The argument continues to posit that the probability of the precise conditions necessary for our current existence are astronomically against our emergence, that the logical conclusion is that some divine force directed the whole process.

The answer to that may lie in the "vent" ecosystems that lie at the bottom of the ocean. Entire life cycles and food chains exist down there that are based on heat, not photosynthesis. Therefore, we can almost be sure that life will pop up wherever it is possible, not necessarily only when we have an environment that we humans are accustomed to.

Put another way, if the positions of the sun and moon were different, then we'd still be here, but in a different anatomical form.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Mad Viking wrote:I am hoping the participants on the board can help me find the holes in my logic.

Sorry, but I can't find any holes in it.

The odds of winning the lottery are astronomical. However, someone always wins. Are we to believe that the winner was chosen by a director since the odds were against him/her.

You know, that's by far the best rebuttal to the aforementioned "probability" argument that I've ever seen. Did you come up with it, or did you hear it used in the debate?

If you came up with it, then CONGRATULATIONS, 'cause it's both effective and brilliant.

There is, however, something else that we may be able to address:

An idea that kept coming up in all cases was the notion of “fine tuning”. In other words, slight changes in our environment would result in our non-existence. The examples given were the position of the sun and moon and the effects of them being in slightly different positions. The argument continues to posit that the probability of the precise conditions necessary for our current existence are astronomically against our emergence, that the logical conclusion is that some divine force directed the whole process.

The answer to that may lie in the "vent" ecosystems that lie at the bottom of the ocean. Entire life cycles and food chains exist down there that are based on heat, not photosynthesis. Therefore, we can almost be sure that life will pop up wherever it is possible, not necessarily only when we have an environment that we humans are accustomed to.

Put another way, if the positions of the sun and moon were different, then we'd still be here, but in a different anatomical form.

That is what I was getting at when I indicated that I would ignore the assumption that a change in position of the sun would mean our extinction. We may even exist in our current form, just limited to the regions of the earth in which we inhabit.

I did come up with that rebuttal myself. That is why I figured there was a problem with it. Maybe I should refrain from taking credit for it until others have taken shots at it.

Mad Viking wrote:I did come up with that rebuttal myself. That is why I figured there was a problem with it.

LOL!

Maybe I should refrain from taking credit for it until others have taken shots at it.

No, by all means, take credit for it. It's nothing less than brilliant and I have every intention of using it myself whenever I find myself facing that argument.

The problem is that someone will always win the lottery, theoretically. Probability for our existence only works in the multiverse model, for which there is no evidence supporting it.

If the positioning of the sun, moon and stars were the only factors to consider, you might have an argument for the probability of our existence, but the fact is there are dozens upon dozens of things that had to be precise in order for our existence to be possible. For a more exhaustive list, see here. It makes the probability of our existence so improbable that it isn't even worth saying it is possible.

Scientists understand this problem, which is why Stephen Hawking said that if the universe had a beginning, then it was a reasonable to conclude there is a creator. To get around this theistic conclusion he had to propose a theory that the universe always existed. But the vast majority of scientists disagree with that, so what's left is the idea of the multiverse.

This proposal says that there are an infinite number of universes, and therefore it isn't surprising that our universe got everything right, with respect to the inexplicable constants. The universal laws in our universe, their only common value is that they are necessary to be as they are for life to evolve.

Problem with the multiverse notion is not supported by any scientific evidence and hardly anyone accepts it. This is why a good portion of scientists, while they are not religious, believe the universe was in fact designed by an intelligence unknown to us all. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, but he believed an intelligence or the "mind of God" was responsible for writing the laws of the universe so they were mathematically intertwined.

Anyway, I'll get more into this stuff after the election.

dartagnan wrote:The problem is that someone will always win the lottery, theoretically. Probability for our existence only works in the multiverse model, for which there is no evidence supporting it.

If the positioning of the sun, moon and stars were the only factors to consider, you might have an argument for the probability of our existence, but the fact is there are dozens upon dozens of things that had to be precise in order for our existence to be possible. For a more exhaustive list, see here. It makes the probability of our existence so improbable that it isn't even worth saying it is possible.

Scientists understand this problem, which is why Stephen Hawking said that if the universe had a beginning, then it was a reasonable to conclude there is a creator. To get around this theistic conclusion he had to propose a theory that the universe always existed. But the vast majority of scientists disagree with that, so what's left is the idea of the multiverse.

This proposal says that there are an infinite number of universes, and therefore it isn't surprising that our universe got everything right, with respect to the inexplicable constants. The universal laws in our universe, their only common value is that they are necessary to be as they are for life to evolve.

Problem with the multiverse notion is not supported by any scientific evidence and hardly anyone accepts it. This is why a good portion of scientists, while they are not religious, believe the universe was in fact designed by an intelligence unknown to us all. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, but he believed an intelligence or the "mind of God" was responsible for writing the laws of the universe so they were mathematically intertwined.

Anyway, I'll get more into this stuff after the election.

Actually Dart, I am looking forward to your ideas. What you say here appears quite reasonable to me.

dartagnan wrote:The problem is that someone will always win the lottery, theoretically. Probability for our existence only works in the multiverse model, for which there is no evidence supporting it.

Where is the evidence supporting a creator? I can accept a creator that started it all and has stepped away, so to speak. But there is no evidence of that. This sort of god certainly doesn't deserve any sort of devotion or worship.

I am not a statistician. I took enough in college to get my degree and that is that. However, I thorough confused as to how one assigns a probability to the position of our moon or sun.

One would need more data on more planetary systems. However, it is generally accepted in science that having a moon (moderates the earth's wobble and tilt for less extreme seasons) and a Jupiter sized planet (sweeps up many potential asteriod sized impactors) in the positions they are in made conditions for life better.

There is also our position in galaxy as well that contributes to the habitibility of our system.

bcspace wrote:

I am not a statistician. I took enough in college to get my degree and that is that. However, I thorough confused as to how one assigns a probability to the position of our moon or sun.

One would need more data on more planetary systems. However, it is generally accepted in science that having a moon (moderates the earth's wobble and tilt for less extreme seasons) and a Jupiter sized planet (sweeps up many potential asteriod sized impactors) in the positions they are in made conditions for life better.

There is also our position in galaxy as well that contributes to the habitibility of our system.

I didn't intend for the sun and moon example to be the exhaustive list. It seems that those are the favorite examples thrown out during the debates that I have listened to.