[Note: This is post four in the series, Dismantling Implausibility Structures: The Uses of Theistic Arguments.]
"The heavens tell of the glory of God," claimed the Psalmist, "The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship." The ancient musician intuited aesthetically what modern cosmology is able to show mathematically. The arrangement of natural laws and other features provides not only stirring examples of the handiwork of our Creator but provides us with a strong argument for His existence.
Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. One of the most persuasive yet least proffered arguments of this type is the argument based on the "fine-tuning" of the universe for the existence of life forms. At least two dozen demandingly exact physical constants must be in place for carbon-based life to exist (see list at end of post), The slightest variation in any of these conditions -- even to a minuscule degree -- would have rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life.
Such a remarkable set of "coincidences" surely demands an explanation. Indeed, as I hope to show, it can form the basis of one of the most sound teleological argument:
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or design.
Therefore, it is due to design.
The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. Our options, therefore, are between chance and design. While it cannot be established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that design is the most probable explanation.
There is little dispute that probability of this series of "coincidences" occurring is infinitesimally small. Still, it is often argued that since we exist then the probability must be 1. In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler contend that we ought not be surprised at observing the universe to be as it is and that therefore no explanation of its fine-tuning is needed. In other words, we can only observe the need for fine-tuning in universes that support life.
Surprisingly, this dubious argument is often used as if it were a silver bullet that destroys the fine-tuning argument. But philosopher John Leslie (as told by William Lane Craig) provides an illustration of why such reasoning is faulty:
Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that
7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.
Another problem I find with this line of thinking is that it implies that the probability of a stochastically independent event is determined by the existence of an observer. For example, imagine a universe that is exactly like ours yet contains no carbon-based life forms. We could determine the factors required for such an existence and calculate the probability of such constants appearing as they do. The result, of course, would be an infinitesimally small probability. The implication made by opponents of fine-tuning, though, is that the probability suddenly becomes 1 by the mere addition of a human observer. Such a conclusion is exceedingly absurd.
Most critics of fine-tuning have begun to recognize that this approach is insufficient. Faced with scientific evidence that undermines their agnostic assumptions, they turn to metaphysical speculation in the form of the "many worlds" theory.
Briefly stated, the many worlds theory is the hypotheses that if the universe contains an exhaustively random and infinite number of universes, then anything that can occur with non-vanishing probability will occur somewhere. True, the probability that our universe could develop in a way that supports life is incredibly small. But, these critics claim, in an infinite series of universes even the improbable is likely to happen quite often.
(It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence for this view (nor can there be since it is a metaphysical, rather than empirical, claim). and that it is merely an attempt to side-step the obvious implications of a designer by means of addition.)
Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler�s fallacy, which states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple universe do exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe would turn out as it did. Again, to use an illustration by John Leslie:
There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly. Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.
Having reduced the chance hypothesis to a virtual impossibility we are left with the obvious conclusion that the fine-tuning is not only apparent but actual. The fine-tuning implies the existence of a tuner, hence we can conclude that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that God exists.
As I have stated ad nauesum, the uses of such an argument are not to prove that God exists but to highlight the metaphysical and illogical knots that agnostically inclined will twist themselves into in order to avoid having to admit that the existence of God is more reasonable and probable than its alternative.
Sources: J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Notes: According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, more than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. Weak nuclear force constant
If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
3. Gravitational force constant
If larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. Electromagnetic force constant
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. Ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
If larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
If smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
8. Expansion rate of the universe
If larger: no galaxy formation
If smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. Entropy level of the universe
If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
10. Mass density of the universe
If larger: too much deuterium from big bang hence stars burn too rapidly
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
11. Velocity of light
If faster: stars would be too luminous
If slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. Age of the universe
If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
If larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
If smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun�s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
19. ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life�s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form
1
Well, Joe, it's a good thing all these scientists have been digging up all these very interesting physical constants, or you might not have any solid grounds to believe in a creator!
But seriously, this is my favorite "Dismantling Implausibility Structures" post so far. Even if someone (like myself) cannot bring himself to reach the same conclusion you do, you have still raised some fascinating questions that definitely deserve to be explored and answered.
Here's a small start of an answer to your fine-tuning argument.
You present the analogy of someone who has miraculously escaped execution despite the best efforts of a hundred marksmen. This is an excellent analogy, and drives your point across very well.
Let me present a rival analogy.
Put yourself in the shoes of the queen of Great Britain (or king of Great Britain, if you prefer). You have won an unusual lottery by being born into the proper position of the one family which dictates that you will be queen.
While others can only fantasize about having your good fortune, you yourself are driven to contemplate how it is you ended up in your situation.
Only one out of 50 million or so citizens gets to be the royal heir, and then the monarch -- why did it end up being you? Was it luck? Apparently so. But could it also have been your destiny? Well, now that you think about it some more, it does seem that it was your destiny, right?
And didn't it use to be a very popular theory that you hold the crown by divine right? Now, you're not too sure about that last theory, about that divine right business, but you do find it explains a lot of things, nonetheless. Very interesting doctrine, that, in the final analysis... don't want to be too hasty dismissing it, after all.
I feel our situation as intelligent, living beings as you outline it in the fine-tuning argument is very similar. We, and all other living creatures, have won a very unusual lottery, and we want to figure out how it turned out that way.
On the surface, life evolved in an accidental fashion, helped along by natural selection, but not by any intelligent personal intervention. But we then wonder how it could be possible that there is no destiny involved -- look at all the strange coincidences that had to be just right.
Well, anything can be looked at as destiny.
If I enjoy a beautiful sunset one day, I can marvel at the serendipity of all the precise factors that came into play. For example, I can generate astronomical odds against that particular band of clouds over there forming in that particular way. Or I can generate further astronomical odds against those birds over there flying just so, and reflecting the fading sunlight at a particular angle off their wings so as to produce a particular aesthetic effect in my consciousness at a particular moment of my sunset appreciation.
Or perhaps I can generate some astronomical odds from my own end of the sunset experience, by looking at all the other things I might have ended up doing all day long that would have easily led to my not being in the right place at the right time to enjoy this sunset.
That's one of the funny things about life.
Even if you take the tremendous miracle of life on earth for granted, there's still plenty to marvel about just in the most mundane events of our daily lifes. You can get lost in meditation by examining a grain of sand or contemplating a glass of fine red wine.
Joe, you dismiss the possiblility that our universe is fine-tuned by chance. Here's one of my favorite Sherlock Holmes quotes as a reply:
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
posted on 08.02.2005 4:05 AM2
Put yourself in the shoes of the queen of Great Britain (or king of Great Britain, if you prefer). You have won an unusual lottery by being born into the proper position of the one family which dictates that you will be queen.
Matthew--The problem with this analogy is that under the current British political system, there is a requirement that someone be the monarch and the designers of the political system have specified a method for choosing who it will be. There is no requirement that life exist anywhere in the universe, unless of course a designer included it in the design specifications;).
posted on 08.02.2005 7:17 AM3
If I enjoy a beautiful sunset one day, I can marvel at the serendipity of all the precise factors that came into play. For example, I can generate astronomical odds against that particular band of clouds over there forming in that particular way. Or I can generate further astronomical odds against those birds over there flying just so, and reflecting the fading sunlight at a particular angle off their wings so as to produce a particular aesthetic effect in my consciousness at a particular moment of my sunset appreciation.
I will concede that the odds of the your day being in any particular way are great (not a mathemetician so I have no idea what the odds are), but I imagine the odds that there are clouds, the sun, an atmosphere, birds, etc. are several orders of magnitude greater. An accurate comparison might be the odds of a person winning the lotto vs. the odds of the same person winning the lotto every week for a year.
posted on 08.02.2005 8:10 AM4
Matthew: "Even if someone (like myself) cannot bring himself to reach the same conclusion you do, you have still raised some fascinating questions that definitely deserve to be explored and answered."
What are your conclusions?
posted on 08.02.2005 8:21 AM5
Being an evangelical, I am tempted to embrace enthusiastically the argument from fine tuning. Still, while it may seem plausible enough for me, it probably will not convince my neighbor (which, afterall, is the point of apologetics, is it not?).
The problem, it seems to me, is that the very posing of the question itself assumes a miraculous uniqueness of human, or carbon-based, life. From the perspective of an atheistic or agnostic materialist, it would be quite easy to respond to the fine-tuning argument like so: "Yes, but because of the so-called fine-tuning of the universe, what sorts of other matter and materials were not able to exist? What other sorts of things might exist if some of these constants were slightly different. You assume that there is something special about carbon-based life in a universe where there are all sorts of things that are unique and incredibly complex, and you build your objection against the universe forming by chance upon the drama of the question: What if carbon-based life did not exist?"
As for me, I believe human life IS unique and special, but I believe this because it is made in the Imago Dei - but now I've gone and assumed what I am trying to prove! The argument might work if my neighbor were slightly less ignorant, I think, but I am interested in him being converted, not fooled.
posted on 08.02.2005 10:36 AM6
SPEAKING OF IGNORANCE (correction):
"..."The argument might work if my neighbor were slightly MORE ignorant..."
7
Cheesehead,
I've concluded a long time ago that there is no creator. Today's fine-tuning argument raised very interesting questions, but did not change my conlusion about a creator.
Part of me wishes I could reach a different conclusion, because Joe's argument has merit, and I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. And even though I don't accept Joe's conclusion, there is certainly a lot to think about and puzzle over.
For example, just what is the "probablity" that carbon-based life could arise in our universe, and what does it even mean exactly to ask that question? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I would definitely like to find out more.
So my conclusions are that Joe is a good Christian apologist and a great blogger, and that the mystery of life still has many unraveled secrets.
posted on 08.02.2005 11:05 AM8
Bryan,
…it probably will not convince my neighbor (which, afterall, is the point of apologetics, is it not?).
Well, yes and no. It is true that the argument probably won’t convince your neighbor. But the reason it will not is because your neighbor is refusing to be convinced based on his passions rather than his reason. After all, the options could be presented as:
#1 -- A (fine-tuning) is more likely on R (an infinitesimally small number of remarkable coincidences occurring based on pure chance)
# 2 -- A is more likely on S (a Being tuned the constants to achieve a specific goal.)
All things being equal, #2 is the more probale and reasonable option. So it is clear that your neighbor is not basing his belief on reason alone.
The problem, it seems to me, is that the very posing of the question itself assumes a miraculous uniqueness of human, or carbon-based, life.
That man is a miraculously unique carbon-based life form is the conclusion not the assumption. That is not why premises need to explain that particular point.
From the perspective of an atheistic or agnostic materialist, it would be quite easy to respond to the fine-tuning argument like so: "Yes, but because of the so-called fine-tuning of the universe, what sorts of other matter and materials were not able to exist?
That question is very similar to the Leslie’s “fly on the wall” illustration in that whatever materials did not come into existence have no relevance to the miraculous occurrence of carbon-based life. It’s simply a red herring that has no bearing on the argument.
Also, there are numerous other elements in the universe other than carbon. Why do none of them create life?
You assume that there is something special about carbon-based life in a universe where there are all sorts of things that are unique and incredibly complex, and you build your objection against the universe forming by chance upon the drama of the question: What if carbon-based life did not exist?"
I don’t think there is really any question that carbon-based life is unique and special. We are able to discern its specialness from the unique fact that it is the element common to all life forms.
The argument might work if my neighbor were slightly less ignorant, I think, but I am interested in him being converted, not fooled.
I would say that if your neighbor dismissed the argument he wouldn’t be quite as clever as you think he is. ; )
The fact is that many of the cosmologists who understand the nature and uniqueness of life forms take it seriously enough that they have to resort to metaphysical speculations like “many worlds” in order to dismiss the implications.
9
Joe,
Thanks for the post - it defined some stuff that people throw out assuming everyone knows what they are talking about.
Bryan,
If there are an unlimited number of people who fail to see God's existance and wonder, then the need of this particular argument with one of them approaches 1.
Every tool is good
posted on 08.02.2005 11:09 AM10
It is true that the argument probably won’t convince your neighbor. But the reason it will not is because your neighbor is refusing to be convinced based on his passions rather than his reason. After all, the options could be presented as:
#1 -- A (fine-tuning) is more likely on R (an infinitesimally small number of remarkable coincidences occurring based on pure chance)
# 2 -- A is more likely on S (a Being tuned the constants to achieve a specific goal.)
All things being equal, #2 is the more probale and reasonable option. So it is clear that your neighbor is not basing his belief on reason alone.
Joe, are you really saying that someone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable? That reason forces us to conclude that your argument is correct?
Immodest assertions do not lend credibility to your arguments!
posted on 08.02.2005 11:30 AM11
Matthew,
He said you're not using "reason alone". That's not immodest. You bring to the table a lot of baggage, just like everyone else. Therefore, your willingness to accept any argument from reason alone is biased by a lifetime of collected experiences (negative and positive) and information (true or untrue). We are all subject to this, and as such, reason alone (I suspect) will not get us reach out to our creator. It is something that we must will and allow, not just be convinced of one day by a sentence on a page..
12
Matthew,
Joe, are you really saying that someone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable? That reason forces us to conclude that your argument is correct?
Actually, the point of the entire series is that reason doesn’t force us to choose any beliefs. Is it “unreasonable” to accept the argument as presented? That depends on if “A is more likely on R” truly is more probable than “A is more likely on S.”
Now keep in mind that probability does not necessitate truth; probabilities are not certainties. But if faced with the choice of a more probable explanation, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to accept that one over the other?
To show that the choice is not based merely on reason, substitute the variables with something else:
A is more likely on R (My writing this email is more likely on the fact that I am alive.)
A is more likely on S (My writing this email is more likely on the fact that I am dead.)
Because we tend to be believe that is more likely for someone who is alive to write emails that a person who is dead, the first choice would be more “reasonable.”
Immodest assertions do not lend credibility to your arguments!
I don’t think it is immodest. I think that many people are just under the false assumption that it is equally as rational to reject arguments for the existence of God as it is to accept them. Philosophically speaking, most of these arguments are stronger than their objections. But people assume that if they can be doubted at all then it is reasonable to reject them. I’m merely saying that this is a case of special pleading.
If the same probabilities were attached to other uncertain events, we would normally choose the more probable explanation. Add the term “God” to the conclusion, though, and people think that they can reject the more probable conclusion and believe that in doing so they are being perfectly rational.
This is not to say that someone is stupid or irrational for rejecting such arguments. But it does show that the reasons for rejecting them have little to do with reason and a whole lot to do with a person’s will.
posted on 08.02.2005 11:53 AM13
Matthew, may I jump in and suggest that you are a man with wisdom. I personally disagree with your conclusions (well, I agree with you that Joe is a great apologist and blogger!), but the attitude you have in seeking the truth, and debating its nature, is exemplary.
Please know from another (not nearly as good) apologist and blogger that I sincerely appreciate your honesty and respect.
posted on 08.02.2005 12:21 PM14
Joe:
This is not to say that someone is stupid or irrational for rejecting such arguments. But it does show that the reasons for rejecting them have little to do with reason and a whole lot to do with a person’s will.
This may be nit-picky, but I don't think that we can really will ourselves to believe things in the face of good reasons. Rather, we simply want things to be other than they are to the point of living as if they are that way. This is how most everyone is at least a little bit insane.
posted on 08.02.2005 12:22 PM15
Matthew Goggins wrote:
"On the surface, life evolved in an accidental fashion, helped along by natural selection, but not by any intelligent personal intervention."
This is not an organic belief. For you to believe this is true you have to be taught & accept that ultimately reality is made up of things can't be described in terms of the senses -- wave packets of different energy levels being emmitted in random directions by the hierarchy of particles that make up atoms.
I think it's more accurate to say that on the surface, we and the universe around us are the results of creation.
16
Rob B and Joe,
Thanks for the qualifications of Joe's remarks.
He said [Bryan's neighbor is] not using "reason alone". That's not immodest.
Well nobody uses reason alone.
Why bring this point up unless the implication is that it's unreasonable, or somehow less than reasonable, to reject Joe's argument?
I don’t think it is immodest. I think that many people are just under the false assumption that it is equally as rational to reject arguments for the existence of God as it is to accept them.
Philosophically speaking, most of these arguments are stronger than their objections. But people assume that if they can be doubted at all then it is reasonable to reject them. I’m merely saying that this is a case of special pleading.
You're making a big assumption, Joe. You're assuming that everyone who rejects the arguments agrees with you that the arguments are stronger than the objections, and rejects the arguments anyway.
This assumption can be challenged on several different levels. Let me challenge it by giving a counter-example: myself. I personally do not agree that your arguments have been stronger than the objections to your arguments.
If the same probabilities were attached to other uncertain events, we would normally choose the more probable explanation. Add the term “God” to the conclusion, though, and people think that they can reject the more probable conclusion and believe that in doing so they are being perfectly rational.
Two problems here.
First, many people, such as myself, don't agree with your calculations of the probabilities in the first place.
Second: You're comparing the naturalistic probablities to the probability that God is responsible. Therefore, anyone who is weighing the appropriateness of your probabilities is going to have an assign a probability to the possibility that God in involved.
If someone's "God is responsible" probability doesn't match your "God is responsible" probability, that does not mean he is being less rational than you. It just means he is using a different probability, which may in fact be either more or less rational than yours.
This is not to say that someone is stupid or irrational for rejecting such arguments. But it does show that the reasons for rejecting them have little to do with reason and a whole lot to do with a person’s will.
I think you're trying to have it both ways here: someone is not being irrational, but his decision [to reject your argument] has little to do with reason.
I think the underlying problem here is that you are trying judge people's arguments before they have actually made them!
In other words, you know someone is likely to come along and disagree with you -- but you also know, before you have heard that person out, why he is going to disagree with you and why he is wrong.
I guess you are right to say you are not being immodest -- you just have foreknowledge of all the possible objections to all your arguments!
posted on 08.02.2005 12:44 PM17
This is not to say that someone is stupid or irrational for rejecting such arguments. But it does show that the reasons for rejecting them have little to do with reason and a whole lot to do with a person’s will.Indeed. Someone paraphrased CS Lewis as saying that when he was an agnostic he sought God like a mouse seeks a cat.
I usually avoid scripture in discussion with non-believers; but this has to be here (it is offered not as a "religious" statement but as a "philosophical" one):
Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God [this says God is so apparent, that everyone indeed does know him, but in their will . . .], they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man"posted on 08.02.2005 12:47 PM
18
The firing squad analogy is useful to examine this question. Suppose the marksmen all miss. What could explain this?
1. Even the best marksmen miss. There is always a chance that all of them will miss at once rather than just a handful. You are indeed correct that the probability of this happening is very tiny so we are right to question this explanation but that in itself does not prove it couldn't have happened. Just as there are people who have won the lottery twice extremly unlikely things have been known to happen.
2. They missed by design. Perhaps their commanding officer ordered them to miss on purpose. Perhaps they choose to disobey orders and miss on purpose. This would be analogous to the explanation you perfer, that God intervened and ordered the universe to 'miss' so life could develop.
3. They had no choice. Some unknown element altered the chance of all of them missing. Perhaps your friends secretly put blanks in all their guns the night before. Perhaps an invisible bullet proof wall was constructed the night before. Perhaps an arcane optical illusion caused them to aim for the wrong spot. Likewise with the universe perhaps the 'fine tuning' only is a surface illusion. For example, the strong nuclear force holds atoms together and makes fusion possible. While it may appear to be set at just the right level perhaps other physical laws left the universe with no real choice in the matter. Instead of being fine tuned there simply were no other options for the universe to really take. The dials on the Big Bang machine have only one setting.
Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler’s fallacy, which states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple universe do exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe would turn out as it did. Again, to use an illustration by John Leslie:
I disagree. I suggest you give a careful reading to the wikipedia entry for gambler's fallacy:
Here is a parallel example that might tempt you more: Another similar 1–100 random number generator is hooked up so that, if 17 results, it gives the observer fifty dollars. You are allowed to see one run, and you still don't know whether there have been other runs. Lo and behold, 17 is the result. Can you reason like so? "Wow! What do you know! I got 17 – the $50 result! That's one in a hundred odds, how do you like that! I'll bet they've run that machine a lot of times; otherwise, it's too incredible that I happened to get the money". No, you still cannot. The hypothesis of many runs makes it no more likely that 17 would result for that run. It's still one in a hundred.You might object: "But if there were many runs, somebody or another was bound to get that money, and it might as well have been me. If there was just one run, it's quite unlikely that I would happen to get the money." But this reasoning commits the same error as above. The many runs hypothesis makes it probable that some result or another would be 17. But it doesn't affect the probability that your run would result in 17. It's one in a hundred, regardless of how many runs there were.
This does not mean that the casino mannager would be wrong to conclude that if hundreds of people played this machine each day he should expect payouts. If there are multiple universes then it is reasonable to expect at least one of them would be 'improbable'.
19
Were he just to stumble upon it, my unbelieving neighbor would be so curious to know why he is at the center of such an interesting discussion.
Joe,
"I don’t think there is really any question that carbon-based life is unique and special. We are able to discern its specialness from the unique fact that it is the element common to all life forms."
...To all life forms in the universe as it now exists, right? I suppose I'm still a bit hung up on the fact that the only thing one can say with certainty is that carbon-based life is "special" in this universe only because carbon is common to all life in THIS universe. If some of these constants were slightly altered, is it not possible that other forms of life could exist? I realize that this is rather unknowable, but contrary to your presupposition, I think that there is really a question about whether human life should be considered "special" (that's not a very descriptive word, I'll admit) by a mere materialist.
jchfleetguy,
I do not doubt that this sort of argument can be helpful in prompting people to honestly ask important and puzzingly questions, as Matthew admirably does, I'm simply saying that we should not use any teleological, cosmological, or ontological argument that does not convince ourselves. If I am not convinced by a given argument, then it would be unethical to try to use it to convince an unbeliever (which would essentially amount to trying to get them to buy something that you wouldn't buy). However, if you find the argument convincing, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to use it. So long as we remember that no one gets 'argued' into the Kingdom.
posted on 08.02.2005 1:20 PM20
Brandon,
Rather, we simply want things to be other than they are to the point of living as if they are that way. This is how most everyone is at least a little bit insane.
I am not 100% sure that everyone is insane (maybe there's one person out there who is perfectly rational and sound of mind), but I otherwise totally agree with you.
Terry,
[Naturalism] is not an organic belief. For you to believe this is true you have to be taught & accept that ultimately reality is made up of things can't be described in terms of the senses...
I agree up to a point. But even though many things aren't perceived directly through the senses, they may have a physical presence that can be measured in a fairly straightforward, though still indirect manner.
For example, if I wake up and my bedroom is suffused with the light of day, I can reliably conclude that it is in fact daytime, and that the sun is currently tracing out its path across the sky, even though I am not directly looking at it through the walls of my bedroom.
Jchfleetguy,
Let's look at Romans 1:18 too,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Now if ungodliness refers to immorality, I guess I can live with that. But if it refers to unbelief, then it looks like I'm in serious trouble!
Mark Hunsaker,
I sincerely appreciate your kind words and generous compliments. Thanks!
I do try to be honest and respectful. If for no better reason than that it allows people to be honest and respectful towards me.
Good luck with the blogging!
posted on 08.02.2005 1:24 PM21
Matthew,
I actually intentionally left out the wrath of God part to avoid the religious, as opposed to the philosophical, argument.
And yes, as much as I like you, unbelief will indeed give you trouble.
posted on 08.02.2005 1:34 PM22
Were he just to stumble upon it, my unbelieving neighbor would be so curious to know why he is at the center of such an interesting discussion.
Joe,
"I don’t think there is really any question that carbon-based life is unique and special. We are able to discern its specialness from the unique fact that it is the element common to all life forms."
...To all life forms in the universe as it now exists, right? I suppose I'm still a bit hung up on the fact that the only thing one can say with certainty is that carbon-based life is "special" in this universe only because carbon is common to all life in THIS universe. If some of these constants were slightly altered, is it not possible that other forms of life could exist? I realize that this is rather unknowable, but contrary to your presupposition, I think that there is really a question about whether human life should be considered "special" (that's not a very descriptive word, I'll admit) by a mere materialist.
jchfleetguy,
I do not doubt that this sort of argument can be helpful in prompting people to honestly ask important and puzzingly questions, as Matthew admirably does, I'm simply saying that we should not use any teleological, cosmological, or ontological argument that does not convince ourselves. If I am not convinced by a given argument, then it would be unethical to try to use it to convince an unbeliever (which would essentially amount to trying to get them to buy something that you wouldn't buy). However, if you find the argument convincing, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to use it. So long as we remember that no one gets 'argued' into the Kingdom.
posted on 08.02.2005 2:18 PM23
Were he just to stumble upon it, my unbelieving neighbor would be so curious to know why he is at the center of such an interesting discussion.
Joe,
"I don’t think there is really any question that carbon-based life is unique and special. We are able to discern its specialness from the unique fact that it is the element common to all life forms."
...To all life forms in the universe as it now exists, right? I suppose I'm still a bit hung up on the fact that the only thing one can say with certainty is that carbon-based life is "special" in this universe only because carbon is common to all life in THIS universe. If some of these constants were slightly altered, is it not possible that other forms of life could exist? I realize that this is rather unknowable, but contrary to your presupposition, I think that there is really a question about whether human life should be considered "special" (that's not a very descriptive word, I'll admit) by a mere materialist.
jchfleetguy,
I do not doubt that this sort of argument can be helpful in prompting people to honestly ask important and puzzingly questions, as Matthew admirably does, I'm simply saying that we should not use any teleological, cosmological, or ontological argument that does not convince ourselves. If I am not convinced by a given argument, then it would be unethical to try to use it to convince an unbeliever (which would essentially amount to trying to get them to buy something that you wouldn't buy). However, if you find the argument convincing, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to use it. So long as we remember that no one gets 'argued' into the Kingdom.
posted on 08.02.2005 2:18 PM24
Sorry for the double posting, folks - browser problems.
posted on 08.02.2005 2:21 PM26
Jchfleetguy,
If my unbelief doesn't provoke your wrath, then why in the world would it provoke God's?
posted on 08.02.2005 2:59 PM27
Matthew,
(Sorry to butt in, Jchfleetguy). Because your unbelief is not an offense (pardon me for using such a strong word) again Jchfleetguy, it is an offense against God himself.
If I was your brother, and you rejected our parents' authority over you when you were young, I would probably urge you to listen to them because you owe them your obedience, but I would not be offended in the same way they would. I would, however, hope that your rejection of their authority would provoke their wrath. If they were not angry, it would be a sure sign that they simply cared neither about their own honor or about you.
God cares very much about both his own honor and you.
posted on 08.02.2005 3:23 PM28
I am not the party of harm. I am not not to judge; or I will be judged by the same standard. I do not want to be judged by my standards.
It is not in my job description to be wrathful. First of all, the judgement thing. Romans 2:
1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?". Second, in that verse from Romans 1 you posted there may be an out:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"Do I think you suppress the truth in unrighteousness? What grounds do I even have to answer that question? Also, this section was written in an historical kind of language; and not directed at individuals. Finally, while I know people can only come to God through the person of Jesus Christ; and I know the Biblically revealed manner for doing so - does this mean that there are not other roads through Christ?
No, and therefore I do not judge. God/Jesus know who is on the invitation list, and the reasons they are there - I will not presume to know.
I actually mispoke - I should have said unbelief *may* give you trouble. However, that is a very large may in my mind.
29
Hi Bryan,
If a child rejects his parents' authority, they may or may not get mad.
However, if a child refuses to believe that his parents exist, then getting mad is probably not the proper response.
I certainly wouldn't imagine God taking any offense. How could he? You can't accept the authority of someone you don't believe exists.
posted on 08.02.2005 3:35 PM30
Is there some type of Godblogger conspirarcy that I am a part of that I didn't know about? I wrote about Intelligent Design and the anthropic principle this morning, then I check EO and there it is again.
What spurred me on that path to posting about it was my current reading (Case for a Creator) and the news that President Bush supports teaching ID in the classroom along side evolution.
In the story about Bush's backing of ID being taught, the writer added the throw-away line that reveals the bias:
Christian conservatives have pushed for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists generally have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into education.
Ignoring so many facts, the writer plows ahead with the ignorant stereotypes, full steam ahead.
posted on 08.02.2005 3:43 PM31
Jchfleetguy,
I know you would never presume to judge the unbelief of an unbeliever.
I just don't think a Christian God would condemn an unbeliever either.
And not because I am concerned about my own particular fate. It just doesn't make any sense that he would.
posted on 08.02.2005 3:44 PM32
I just don't think a Christian God would condemn an unbeliever either.
Based on what, a thorough reading of the Bible or your own personal feelings? My reading of the Bible would not support such an assertion. Maybe you are looking in the Book of "Emanations and Penumbras".
posted on 08.02.2005 4:00 PM33
Aaron,
I got a little excited when you told us that President Bush supports schools teaching ID theory (Intelligent Design theory) alongside evolution theory.
I support President Bush to such a degree that I am always on the lookout for some policy of his with which I can actually disagree.
But the story of Bush's actual comments turns out to be disappointing. He didn't advocate teaching ID theory in public school science classrooms, which would be a policy I could proudly disown.
He just said,
I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. [If] [y]ou're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.
So I actually agree once more with President Bush -- false alarm!
posted on 08.02.2005 4:03 PM34
Rob,
Well obviously I disagree with the Bible.
It based upon the fact that an honestly-held belief can in no way be considered sinful.
posted on 08.02.2005 4:06 PM35
Matthew,
You may or may not be right in that last thought. I like you so I hope you are. I do believe the Bible so I doubt you are.
Nevertheless, I think it is dangerous to assume we know what, or even how, God thinks - or to presume it must make sense to us. Do the creations ever really understand what created them?
posted on 08.02.2005 4:15 PM36
Oh, the most common definition of sin is: that which by commission or omission separates us from God.
Does your honestly held belief separate you from God?
posted on 08.02.2005 4:38 PM37
Jchfleetguy,
Good question.
If God exists, and if he/she is a good guy, then I wouldn't have any problem with him/her.
I would have a lot of questions for him/her, along the lines of "You've got a lot of explaining to do, God -- here's an abridged version of my want-to-know list -- have at it!" But if I were convinced that God is good, then that's fine.
Now, would God have a problem with me? Would he be separating himself from me because of my beliefs? Well, once again, if God is good, I don't see how that could be the least bit possible.
God only knows :)
I think the biggest difference between myself and someone who interprets the Bible literally and fundamentalist-ly is that I insist on knowing (or trying to know) not only what God says is good or bad, but why God says something is good or bad. And if I don't think God has a good answer to the why question, then I won't accept that something is good or bad just because it's in the Bible.
38
Matthew,
I think the problem you're bumping into is that you're redefining sin. Without a God there is no such thing as "sin," so I tend to think that statements such as "God would not condemn non-belief in him as sinful" are nonsensical. God defines what sin is, and as far as the Bible is concerned, sin is prefering anything over God and his will. His will is to be glorified in us by satisfying us in Him (which requires belief in him), thus not believing in him is sinful.
But, I know you do not believe in the Bible, so we can set that aside.
Back to your statements about the "parent" analogy:
"If a child rejects his parents' authority, they may or may not get mad."
They certainly ought to get mad! I have a pretty hard time conceiving of a parenting model in which the children are permitted to reject their parent's authority at will. Is this a serious objection that you've raised? Did you not have to worry about your parents getting upset when you disobeyed them? You seemed awfully well-thought and reasonable until that comment, friend.
"However, if a child refuses to believe that his parents exist, then getting mad is probably not the proper response."
Perhaps. But there are still only two options: First, the parents could seek treatment for the child because he/she is probably insane not to believe they exist. Are you trying to infer that you are insane not to believe in God? Or second, if it is clear that the child is refusing to believe in his parents simply out of stubborness, then they certainly should get mad!
"I certainly wouldn't imagine God taking any offense. How could he? You can't accept the authority of someone you don't believe exists."
If God does exist, and has provided for you (which he has) all the evidence that anyone who has ever believed in Him has received, then he is certainly justified in taking offense. From his perspective (I'm trying hard not to put myself on the Judge's bench), you have rejected his attempts to enter into a relationship with you by persisting in unbelief.
You might answer, "Well, He could have done more to convince me." Perhaps. But He will be accepted on His terms only, not ours. That's your prerogative when you're God!
Thanks for chatting today, friend.
39
"The slightest variation in any of these conditions – even to a miniscule degree – would have rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life."
Wow. So did God tell you this, Joe? Or some idiot like David Heddle? Or did you read it in some creationist apologist book?
I had no idea that scientists had proved that objects capable of reproducing themselves could only exist if at least 24 "physical constants" were exactly as scientists have measured them in our universe.
In what scientific journal was this amazing research and conclusion first published? What sorts of life forms were envisioned prior to the proof that they could not exist in any other universe except our own?
This sort of hard precise science really excites me. I'd hate to discover it wasn't just a bunch of pseudoscientific bullcrap intended to persuade religious rubes that there is "evidence" proving the existence of their deity or deities.
posted on 08.02.2005 5:07 PM40
"Add the term “God” to the conclusion, though, and people think that they can reject the more probable conclusion and believe that in doing so they are being perfectly rational."
What if we add the term "Gorzinkodoinks" which refers to a group of invisible undetectable space shrimp which defecate billions of universes every day, each one with a different set of physical constants and each one with its own myriad life forms?
Is that still perfectly rational.
I guess it must be if you can invoke an invisible petulant bearded guy in the clouds to make your "rational" argument.
posted on 08.02.2005 5:10 PM41
Larry,
In what scientific journal was this amazing research and conclusion first published?
--Brandon Carter, "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 63 (1974)
--Barrow, John D., and Tipler, Frank. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press (1986)
--Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. M. S. Longair (Boston, MA: Reidel Publishing, 1974)
--John D. Barrow, "The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 22 (1981), pages 404-420
--"On the Origin, Evolution, and Purpose of the Physical Universe," Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, ed. John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990)
--R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, 334 (1991)
--Hubert Reeves, "Growth of Complexity in an Expanding Universe," in The Anthropic Principle, ed. F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
42
Joe,
Re: your response to Dr. Lord: Bravo!
Bryan,
I agree with you that if a child rejects his parents' authority, a normal, natural parental response is to get angry.
However, that is not the only response, by any means.
Depending on the situation, I am actually sometimes pleased when my son rejects my authority on a particular matter -- after all, I am trying to teach him to think for himself by the time he's grown up.
But you're right, that piece of my remarks was not meant as a serious objection. I was just trying to be meticulously precise, and you happened to pick up on it.
Without a God there is no such thing as "sin," so I tend to think that statements such as "God would not condemn non-belief in him as sinful" are nonsensical.
When I say unbelief in God is not sinful, I am assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. I believe that if God exists, there is no way he/she would judge unbelief in God to be sinful. But you're right: discussing God with an atheist does tend to produce a few logical pretzels!
From his perspective [ ... ], you have rejected [God's] attempts to enter into a relationship with you by persisting in unbelief.
You might answer, "Well, He could have done more to convince me." Perhaps. But He will be accepted on His terms only, not ours. That's your prerogative when you're God!
Well, if God is good, then that puts certain limits on the nature of what his/her terms could be. A good God could not insist on terms that are not just or right.
Thank you, friend, for taking my points in the spirit in which I made them: respectful dialogue.
43
I don't think we can be certain that all life in this universe is Carbon-based. As far as we know, all life on earth is, but I'm don't think we can even be absolutely certain of that.
Great post, and discussion!
posted on 08.02.2005 6:07 PM44
Matthew,
Certainly, it has been enjoyable and challenging to banter with you today, friend.
"Well, if God is good, then that puts certain limits on the nature of what his/her terms could be. A good God could not insist on terms that are not just or right."
Well, now we're into an entirely different discussion. I would submit that God (as He reveals Himself in Scripture) defines goodness and justice. Justice and goodness, even philosophically, cannot be principles that govern how God acts or else they would, by definition, be "God's god," or simply "God." Justice is not the god of God; God is the god of justice (yikes, that sounds confusing).
I would say that what we observe to be "just" or "fair" or "right" or "good" are just or fair or right or good because God has ordained that they be so (oh, but now we're into the moral argument for God's existence, aren't we?!)
In other words, God's actions to make himself known to you have been both good and fair, because God defines what is good and fair. Maybe a more "Christian" answer would be to say that God is by his very nature omnibenevolent, and logically, he cannot act contrary to his very nature.
posted on 08.02.2005 6:39 PM45
A lot of people have been asking about precisely how unlikely a life-bearing universe is, considering the possibility that life might not need to be carbon-based. I think that's a fair question; we don't want to merely calculate the probability of our own universe existing; we want to calculate the probability that any universe could come to exist by chance that contained intelligences capable of asking this question. I think the best way to answer it is to back up a little and establish an upper bound -- consider all of the universes that are capable of supporting stellar formation. The fine tuning required for that is still inconceivably high (I apologise that I wasn't able to find my original reference; the calculation is simple enough, but it's based on tons of prior work). The probability of it just happenning is so low that responsible science must reject any theory that fails to attempt to find a more precise explanation, an explanation that has a higher chance of arriving at the observed outcome.
For example, one theory is that 'inflation' caused multiple universes to spin off from an initial one. The problem is that inflation randomises the constants we're looking at -- so we're still depending on phenominal coincidence. That theory doesn't explain anything -- it may be true, but something else had to have some input.
Another theory is that universes reproduce through black holes (when a black hole forms, it extends across dimensions and forms another universe, related to but almost unreachable from the first, and itself unable to reach the first). This comes out better -- most of the constants we're looking at get slightly tweaked by black holes, not randomized. It's not a complete explanation, and in particular there's some evidence against it -- in particular, it now looks like black holes do NOT form singularities, which means that they don't form child universes after all (but we can't be sure yet).
Another explanation is that a designer did it.
-Billy
46
Bryan,
If God is good by nature, then the goodness and the justice that he would define must be good and just.
He cannot insist that something good is bad, or that something bad is good. If he did, then God would no longer be good.
So if I believe something is good, then I also believe that God would agree with me that it is good, provided, of course, that I am not mistaken.
posted on 08.02.2005 6:53 PM47
William,
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does.
The prospect of everlasting life is a challenging concept. It's hard to imagine what heaven would be like, never mind hell.
You know, after a couple of billion years, I would just forget everything that I had done way back when, so I could just start all over again! It would be like reading a book again after 20 years :)
posted on 08.02.2005 7:00 PM48
For the record, Goggins and Carter, are you claiming that if I look in any one of those references I will find detailed descriptions of each type of conceivable alternate life form that could exist FOLLOWED by the proof that such life forms could not exist in any other universe except our own?
Without such proof, the entire "fine tuning" analysis is pure garbage, the sort of circular reasoning that most twelve year olds can sniff out. I assume you realize this.
Why pretend otherwise? Is empty sophistry for its own sake a virtue? I missed that chapter in the Bible.
"Another explanation is that a designer did it."
Another explanation is that a goirbolonink defecated a zillion universes, including this one, and put a virus in your brain that you made believe in deities.
Isn't that a clever explanation?
Where's my Nobel prize.
Oh, you say that they don't give Nobel prizes for anyone who sits around and dreams up excuses for believing in deities?
Say it isn't so! That's discriminatory. But what else can we expect from those hot-blooded Swedes.
posted on 08.02.2005 7:06 PM49
"I would just forget everything that I had done way back when, so I could just start all over again!"
It's called reincarnation, Goggins. Get used to it.
posted on 08.02.2005 7:07 PM50
Dr. Lord,
You'll get a Nobel Prize for discovering our Lord's eleventh commandment: Thou shalt broach not any idea nor polemic that doth intermingle the domains of religion and science.
posted on 08.02.2005 7:42 PM51
First post: Goggins concludes his well written argument against intelligent design by quoting Sherlock Holmes, " When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
This reminded me of another quote that I will paraphrase.
"Is it more probable that an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent God created everything out of nothing -- or that nothing created itself into everything?"
Of course given the choice between the two, any rational person
would go with a creator as opposed to nothing -- particularly a blind deaf and dumb nothing. Therefore the Holmes statement, I think, is more of a referendum on the improbability of time and chance, rather than the improbability of creation by fiat.
Hup . . . I've had my say.
posted on 08.02.2005 9:25 PM
52
Terrance and Everyone,
"Is it more probable that an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent God created everything out of nothing -- or that nothing created itself into everything?"
Hmph. I had to quibble with Joe's fine-tuning argument because I didn't buy it, despite the fact that I'm an evangelical Christian. But for the life of me, I can't think of a way around Terry's (if I can presume that he would allow me to call him Terry) astoundingly concise argument.
He (or someone he read or heard) has found a catchy way of stating the fact that scientists are still boggled by the question: Where did the singularity (that exploded into the so-called "Big Bang" come from).
I'm gonna go see what my neighbor thinks.
posted on 08.02.2005 9:56 PM53
Hey! I'm Terry! It's on my birth certificate! I otta sue I tell's ya . . .
posted on 08.02.2005 10:15 PM54
Larry wrote:
"Is empty sophistry for its own sake a virtue?"
Sophistry is empty by definition. I can forgive you for insulting humanity, Christianity, and all the saints, but your misuse of the idiom requires that I take drastic measures.
You are off my prayer list.
55
in my crude attempts at apologetics i've noted the apparent fine tuning of the universe and have heard in reply the parallel universe hypothesis, there are lots of lifeless parallel universes and that this is one that merely "got lucky."
The atheist's analogy is that the universe is like a winning lottery ticket and even if the odds of winning the lottery are very small, there is nevertheless a winning ticket. My reply was "where's the cosmic convenience store whose floor is littered with lotto tickets?" To wit, the parallel universes hypothesis posits an uncountable-infinite (aleph-one) number of unobserved parallel universes instead of one creator. What necessity causes this multiplication of entities (except a faith-commitment to the non-existence of aforesaid creator)? It feels good to shave an atheist with Ockham's razor.
posted on 08.02.2005 11:00 PM56
What are the odds of my being born exactly as I am?
If this strikes you as a "deep" question, you might be interested in a fine wool sweater.
Along with a pipe, a roaring fire, a glass of cognac, some reading glasses and long sideburns, nothing completes the image of deep thinking philostopher like a fine wool sweater.
What came before the earliest thing that scientists have evidence for?
Answer: the same thing that comes after our universe "ends" : whatever you can dream up.
I'm hoping for a universe where cats don't get irritable bowel syndrome.
57
"What necessity causes this multiplication of entities (except a faith-commitment to the non-existence of aforesaid creator)? It feels good to shave an atheist with Ockham's razor."
Not so fast. The evidence that at least one universe exists is solid. The evidence that at least one extra-universal deity exists is weak.
Multiple universes as a theory is certainly no less parsimonious than an extra-universal deity! And again: the scientific evidence for a universe is about as solid as evidence gets.
posted on 08.03.2005 1:13 AM58
Larry,
Not so fast. The evidence that at least one universe exists is solid. The evidence that at least one extra-universal deity exists is weak.
Multiple universes as a theory is certainly no less parsimonious than an extra-universal deity!
Okay, the evidence for God is weak. Fine. The extra-universal deity hypothesis is not parsimonious. All well and good.
Yet you yourself believe in God. You have very strong faith in God.
If God did not take special pains to design the universe in a life-friendly way, if God does not intervene in any verifiable way in our day-to-day lives, then just what is it exactly that you believe God to be doing? What is his/her/its role in the universe? Does God have any role? And if he/she/it doesn't have a role, they why do you believe in God at all?
posted on 08.03.2005 1:40 AM59
H'mm
Seems current events here in Montserrat have made me miss out on the first day fireworks on the argument from Cosmological Design to an INtelligent, Supernatural Designer!
(BTW, if you are a praying person, do pray that the mountain will keep to more optimistic scenarios, and/or that wisdom and prudence will at long last prevcail with the authorities, the media, the scientists [with their never-ending debates] and the public.)
I think a few brief remarks are in order:
1. Joe's Post:
JOE, ANOTHER GREAT -- PROVOCATIVE AND WELL RESEARCHED -- POST! Keep em coming! (Plantinga has about 2 dozen arguments out there, and several of the arguments have multiple forms. We need to think about this issue.)
2] Joe: I think that many people are just under the false assumption that it is equally as rational to reject arguments for the existence of God as it is to accept them . . . . If the same probabilities were attached to other uncertain events, we would normally choose the more probable explanation. Add the term “God” to the conclusion, though, and people think that they can reject the more probable conclusion and believe that in doing so they are being perfectly rational . . . it does show that the reasons for rejecting them have little to do with reason and a whole lot to do with a person’s will.
--> Bingo, and that leads to the fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism: the claim is, doubt reigns by default, so if in doubt one may freely reject. Here is DesCartes:
It is now some years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis . . . [So I] must once for all seriously undertake to rid myself of all the opinions which I formerly accepted, and commence to build anew from the foundations, if I wanted to establish any firm and permanent structures in the sciences . . . . reason already persuades me that I ought no less carefully to withhold my assent from matters which are not entirely certain and indubitable than from those which appear to me to be manifestly false, if I am able to find in each one some reason to doubt, this will suffice to justify my rejecting the whole. [ Meditations on First Philosophy, 1640. http://www.cola.wright.edu/DesCartes/Meditation1.html ]
--> Sounds wonderful, rational and scientific doen't it? But, there is a fatal flaw: are our sense impressions, memories, reasoning faculty etc absolutely certain? PLainly not, so the argument self-destructs in self-referential absurdity.
-> In short, we have the root problem of radical skepticism revealed: it destroys the possibility of knowledge and rational discourse. Cf my further discussion, http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/Modernity.htm
--> However, the rhetorical power of the claim cannot be denied, and so it is often selectively used to dismiss arguments one does not wish to accept; whilst being quietly put back on the shelf when one comes to what seems plausible or desirable ot one -- thus the force of Joe's comment that the issue is one of will in the end.
--> In turn, that takes us back to WIlliam James' comments on forced, momentous choices across live options. WE all have to have first plausibles, which are not subject to further demonstration, so the issue is to use comparative difficulties ant to fairly critique the alternatives: cf http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Intro_phil/toolkit.htm
3. But then, what about that fine-tuning issue?
--> AS I have discussed back and forth over the past 4 months, we have empirical astrophysical data -- however many assumprions are embedded in the observations, there is some empirical control -- and it substantiates a cosmos of age something like 13.7 BY, and as a reasonable estimate, ~ 10 E 80 atoms. cf:
The Hubble Space Telescope surveys report that the observable Universe contains approximately 125 billion (1.25×10E11) galaxies. Assuming that they are, in average, similar to our own Galaxy, then each would contain around 100 billion suns (10E11). The weight of our Sun, which is a typical star, is around 2×10E30 kilograms. Making the gross approximation that our Sun is composed of hydrogen, which weighs approximately 1.67×10E−27 kilogram, then the last figure is equal to 1.2×10E57 atoms (write the number 12 and then 56 zeros). The total number of atoms in the visible Universe is then approximately 1.5×10E79. [ Wikipedia article on Baryon genesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis . SOrry on the exponentials.]
--> Of course, as Joe highlighted, this does not leave a lot of room for the argument that the finetuned observed cosmos originated by chance, or that life could emerge by chance [starting with the highly informational macromolecules required, cf. http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/ , nb Dean Kenyon, who wrote the intro tot he book, was originally of a very different opinion and was in part persuaded by the arguments summed up in it. Fair warning: there is some statistical thermodynamics in this, though a good 1st year college student should be able to follow. The recent shift in some quarters to the hydrothermal vents does not materially affect the issue of the need to inject information into the macromolecules, and indeed, it seems that a lot of people are inclined to view the vent hyp as setting an environment that is more likely to destroy than to create such molecules, not least because evidently the ocean as a whole recirculates through them across time, subjecting the water and dissolved molecules to intense heat. BTW, there is a very good reason for privileging C in the search for life: the same reason why organic -- C -- chemistry is the dominant wing of that discipline: C has the propensity to form very useful macromolecules, and not even its neighbour, Si, comes close.]
--> The alternative proposed is the many worlds hypothesis, which as Joe notes, is speculative and ad hoc metaphysics, not physics. Cf WLC's peer reviewed critical review: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html
ABSTRACT: The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.
Source: Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740
--> Indeed, it is worth excerpting a lead to another WLC article:
In several fields of contemporary science -- in particular, in cosmology and cosmogony -- the boundary between science and philosophy has become radically blurred. Scientific discussion in these areas is permeated with philosophy and metaphysics. As the philosopher of science George Gale writes, "it seems clear...that we are entering a phase of scientific activity during which the physicist has out-run his philosophical base-camp, and, finding himself cut off from conceptual supplies, he is ready and waiting for some relief from his philosophical comrades-in-arms."1 Since metaphysics has entered scientific debate, the theistic scientist can, without apology (though, perhaps, not without explanation), introduce theistic explanations which are as plausible as, if not superior to, naturalistic explanations.This is a controversial thesis. But those who dispute it in the name of methodological naturalism need to explain why naturalistic hypotheses, which are no less metaphysical than theism, are to count as legitimate explanations whereas theistic hypotheses are not. In what follows, I examine three areas of current scientific debate (the Big Bang origin of the universe, the "fine-tuning" of fundamental physical quantities for intelligent life, and quantum physics and cosmology) where theism can contribute positively to the discussion. [ http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm ]
--> THat tells me that the time has come to put all live option worldviews on the table, instead of exerting selective hyperskepticism to beg the question.
GRace to all
Gordon
posted on 08.03.2005 7:23 AM60
PS to Dr Larry Lord: SIr, you are a Biologist or Biochemist, near as I can figure. The issues in COsmology ase in Physics and Astronomy. There, you will see that in fact there has been a very lively debate surrounding the various forms of the Anthropic Principle based on the implications of GTR in a cosmos that has galaxies and is evidently expanding in accord with some version of the Hubble law. Teh WLC argicle excerpted and linked above gives an idea of just how serious the issues are.
Frankly, though it may sound like boosting my own discipline - it is not, I think I can safely take statistical thermodynamics and astrophysics far more seriously than I do the now deeply troubled paradigm of the NDT: the empirical controls, extent of observation and quality of theory are a LOT better; this I have known ever since my very first public presentation on any topic, on stellar distance measurement, as a 6th form student in Barbados. (Of course, if you have been lurking, you will see that I am ewell aware of limitations in say volcanology, based on the issues of abductive reasoning: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Straight_Thinking.pps
posted on 08.03.2005 7:41 AM61
Larry has a good point. The 24 constants simply show what was necessary for self-reproducing organisms like us to exist in the universe. While many variations can be shown to be so radical that nothing like life could arise I doubt anyone has the ability to show that things that are living but radically different from what we know as life could not arise in many variations of those 24 constants.
The atheist's analogy is that the universe is like a winning lottery ticket and even if the odds of winning the lottery are very small, there is nevertheless a winning ticket. My reply was "where's the cosmic convenience store whose floor is littered with lotto tickets?" To wit, the parallel universes hypothesis posits an uncountable-infinite (aleph-one) number of unobserved parallel universes instead of one creator. What necessity causes this multiplication of entities (except a faith-commitment to the non-existence of aforesaid creator)? It feels good to shave an atheist with Ockham's razor.
Actually wasn't the multiple universe idea proposed initially not to explain how this universe got so lucky but rather as an explanation for what happens in quantum theory where sub-atomic particles appear to behave according to probabilities rather than set rules of motion? Anyway it isn't unclear that there is no way to access 'alternate universes'. In fact don't some ideas about quantum computers require part of the computation to happen in an alternate universe?
BTW, we should note that multiple universes prove nothing about the existence of God or his lack of existence. God can exist perfectly well in a multi-verse universe as well as a single universe one.
--> AS I have discussed back and forth over the past 4 months, we have empirical astrophysical data -- however many assumprions are embedded in the observations, there is some empirical control -- and it substantiates a cosmos of age something like 13.7 BY, and as a reasonable estimate, ~ 10 E 80 atoms. cf:
This will set off a little vulcanic eruption of its own but Gordon opens up a can of worms here. There may be 10E80 atoms in the observable universe. However we have no idea how big the true universe is. If we were sitting in Andromeda you might see an extra 2M LY or so of atoms that we cannot see from our galaxy...likewise there will be 2M LY or so of atoms visible from Earth that are not visible from Andromeda.
An analogy I've used before is a person confined to a building of 100 people who play the lottery every day. One week a person wins two times in a row. What are the chances of that happening? Well if the whole universe is just that building of 100 people its very unlikely to see two wins happen in a row and you might conclude the game was fixed. On the other hand, if the true universe contains several million players every day it very well be less improbable that a double win happens somewhere. Before you make any statement of probability about something happening in our universe you must deal with the fact that you are making an assumption about something that is unobserved (the atoms that may or may not exist beyond our visible range).
So while the observable universe may have 10E80 atoms the actual universe may have 10E85, 10E100, or even an infinite number of atoms. This says nothing about the 'probability of fine tuned physical constants'. As far as we can tell all 10E80 atoms in our universe exist under the same physical constants everywhere. A proton 10BLY away is the same as proton in your pocket.
--> THat tells me that the time has come to put all live option worldviews on the table, instead of exerting selective hyperskepticism to beg the question.
True but this has always been the case. There has never been a point where science 'explained everything entirely'. What should be pointed out here is that deeply speculative theories in cosmology are not scientific proof for the existence of God. They are simply theories that may be consistent with the existence of God.
posted on 08.03.2005 10:37 AM62
I hope that what I will say does not simply repeat what has been said before. But it seems to me that Joe has given the many-worlds hypothesis short shrift.
On the versions of the many-worlds hypothesis that are relevant here, it simply is not the case that the existence of our world is improbable. Thus the inverse gambler's fallacy has not been committed. Let me explain.
What the many-worlds hypothesis will have us say is that there exists a blind, i.e. unguided by intelligence, mechanism whereby very many, or perhaps an infinite number, of universes are created in such a way that the distribution of values to the set of constants enumerated by Joe is random, or nearly so. If such a mechanism were to exist, then the existence of our universe would not be in any way improbable. Rather it would be inevitable, or nearly so. This, it seems to me, is sufficient to rebut the charge that the inverse gambler's fallacy has been committed.
I expect that at this point Joe would say that the many-worlds hypothesis is guilty of metaphysical absurdity, or some other metaphysical sin. But it seems to me that if we limit ourselves to the phenomena that are at issue here, i.e. the universal constants and how their values lie within a very narrow range that would allow for the possibility of life, it is no worse than the theistic hypothesis. Either we posit a mechanism for universe creation, or we posit God. Either is surely metaphysical. Is either more economical than the other? It's not obvious to me that either is. Does either provide a better explanation than the other of the appearance of fine-tuning? No, each does its explanatory work as well as the other. Of course they do it differently. The theistic hypothesis says that the appearance of fine-tuning is not mere appearance but is also a reality. The many-worlds hypothesis says that the appearance is a mere but inevitable appearance of the operation of a blind universe-creation mechanism. But that difference to the side, they explain the apperance equally well.
It seems to me that if we limit ourselves to the phenomena on which the fine-tuning argument draws, the theistic and atheistic hypothesis come to a stand-off. With respect to those phenomena, neither is to be preferred over the other. Of course, it might well be the case that if we widen our view to take in phenomena not considered in the fine-tuning argument, one hypothesis will fare better than the other. But the fine-tuning argument, by itself, does not do this. So then we end in a stand-off.
posted on 08.03.2005 12:25 PM63
Franklin,
But it seems to me that Joe has given the many-worlds hypothesis short shrift.
Really? I thought I was being rather generous. Personally, I find the entire concept to be so absurd that I can’t think that anyone would consider it a consider it a serious explanation. It appears to me to be on the level of stoner metaphysics. “Dude, imagine if, like, there were an infinite number of universes and on some of them weed was legal…” ; )
What the many-worlds hypothesis will have us say is that there exists a blind, i.e. unguided by intelligence, mechanism whereby very many, or perhaps an infinite number, of universes are created in such a way that the distribution of values to the set of constants enumerated by Joe is random, or nearly so. If such a mechanism were to exist, then the existence of our universe would not be in any way improbable. Rather it would be inevitable, or nearly so. This, it seems to me, is sufficient to rebut the charge that the inverse gambler's fallacy has been committed.
I’m not so sure. Take away the special pleading that this hypothesis deserves a unique metaphysical status and what we have is an explanation that says:
If there are an infinite number of universes then the probability that any event could occur is 1.
So in an infinite number of universes the probability that I am you and you are me and the universe is made of cheese is 1. This may be an interesting thought experiment but as an explanation it is quite useless. It also has no effect on the probability of any unique event so I think it still commits the inverse gambler’s fallacy.
Is either more economical than the other? It's not obvious to me that either is.
I’m confused. Are you saying that claiming the necessity of one Creator is as economical as claiming the necessity of an infinite number of creation mechanisms?
But that difference to the side, they explain the apperance equally well.
So I take it that you are not a big proponent of Okham’s razor. ; )
posted on 08.03.2005 1:26 PM64
Joe,
I'll take your points in reverse order. I didn't posit an infinite number of creation mechanisms. Rather I posited one, and I said of that one that it creates very many, or an infinite number, of universes. So, from the metaphysical point of view, we have one basic entity on the many-worlds hypothesis and one basic entity on the theistic hypothesis. Thus I say again that it's not at all clear that one is more economical than the other.
I couldn't be you, and you couldn't be me. And I find it highly unlikely that there could be cheese and nothing else. For if there is cheese, there are mammals from whose milk it is made. And if there are mammals, there are the worlds on which they live, the air that they breathe, the food that they eat, etc.
The many-worlds hypothesis most certainly does have relevance to the probabilty of certain events. It makes the probabililty of the event:
The universe of which Joe and I are part comes to exist
very nearly 1; and it does this as well for the coming to be of every possible universe that corresponds to some member of the set of possible values for the universal constants you enumerated.
As for the claim that the many-worlds hypothesis is absurd on the face of it: I can think of no reason why this should be so, if we adopt a point of view that is metaphysically neutral between various possible explanations of the appearance of fine-tuning. Imagine a being that holds no metaphysical beliefs but comes to wonder about the appearance of a fine-tuned universe. If it is intelligent, it will realize that various possible metaphysical explanations of this appearance are possible. One is that there is a being like itself, but much more powerful, that did in fact fine-tune the universe so that it would be a suitable abode for life. Another is that there is a blind, purposeless mechanism, like other mechanisms with which it is familiar, but of much greater power and scope, indeed of such great power and scope that it can create whole universes. So, then, the first kind of explanation is intelligence writ large; the other is mechanism writ large. It has first-hand experience with both intelligence and mechanism. To a being with no prior metaphysical opinions, I can think of no reason to assume that it would prefer one over the other.
posted on 08.03.2005 1:59 PM65
Larry Lord,
Your name has gone to your head, man. It's funny, because a person doesn't have to be a psychic to know what you are going to say in every post. There is no evidence, the evidence is weak, deficating gorbalinks-- blah, blah, blah.
You reject the evidence, that is very true.
But the fact that you boldy state the evidence for God to be weak and/or non existent, surely doesn't make it so. Twelve jurors rejected the evidence that O.J. sliced up his wife and her boyfriend, does that mean O.J. didn't do it??
I think to try and keep a little humility and perspective in this post, I'd like to offer that even in all of our collective vast knowledge (myself emphatically excluded) in religion, the arts, and the sciences - us trying to explain God to one another is a lot like a couple of ants trying to explain humans to each other; there is also a rumor that 10% of the ants don't believe humans exist. The other 90% believe that they look like checkered blankets with pot bellies, while some are conviced they look like the soles of a New Balance tennis shoes.
But, Larry, your discussion is just too darn much like Clinton's old play book; deny, deny, deny. What blue dress? No way. It's a vast right wing conspiracy run by all those religious zealots.
I have this suspicion that if your cat has IBS, it might be from listening to you all day. I say that lovingly, of course.
posted on 08.03.2005 2:34 PM66
Franklin,
I didn't posit an infinite number of creation mechanisms. Rather I posited one, and I said of that one that it creates very many, or an infinite number, of universes.
Okay, I see what you are saying now. Essentially, you are saying that we have a God-entity (whether personal or impersonal) that can either create one world or many worlds. I’ll agree that this is equally economical. But all it really does is claim that instead of a theistic concept of a being that creates one world they posit a deistic one that creates many worlds.
I couldn't be you, and you couldn't be me.
Why not? In an infinite number of universes it should be possible for us to be each other.
And I find it highly unlikely that there could be cheese and nothing else. For if there is cheese, there are mammals from whose milk it is made. And if there are mammals, there are the worlds on which they live, the air that they breathe, the food that they eat, etc.
But you are basing that assumption on the way this world works. If we allow for infinite possibilities, then there can be worlds where cheese does not have to be made from milk. It could simply be the mo