tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post8603422570575524227..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Fine Tuning's Fatal FlawMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-48019287982515392782009-09-06T21:58:36.675-07:002009-09-06T21:58:36.675-07:00I don't understand why some people believe tha...I don't understand why some people believe that life could not have evolved even if the cosmological constants of our universe were not as they are. As an analogy, people used to assume that life required many things, such as sunlight and a specific range of temperatures. Then life was found in all sorts of extreme environments, such as the bottom of the sea, or on meteorites from deep space. Life, it turns out, can arise even if it does not have everything we think it needs. Back to the fine tuning argument, so what if the cosmological constants were not as they are? Subatomic particles could have come together to form matter in a way we've never dreamed of. To say that things would have turned out completely different, I believe is correct. But to say that the universe would not have survived, or that life would not have evolved, is beyond anyone's realm of knowledge.Jeff Irwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-70931711773378815762008-03-17T21:05:00.000-07:002008-03-17T21:05:00.000-07:00Nicely put, Bryan. Very succinct. You've got it ...Nicely put, Bryan. Very succinct. You've got it exactly right. A lot of people are quite impressed with these God arguments throwing around probability claims, but in the end, what the Bayesian account of epistemic probability amounts to is a measure of S's surprise that something is true. So "On the God hypothesis, the fine tuning we observe in the universe is highly probable," amounts to "I would find it very surprising that God doesn't exist in a world with these physical features." And one's subjective measure of surprise, to put it mildly, just doesn't count for jack. Medieval priests would have been exceedingly surprised to find out that the bubonic plague was caused by a bacteria, not by evil demon possession or the corruption of sin. On their view, this sentence seems justified: "On the sinners-are-punished hypothesis, the health problems we observe in plague victims would be very likely." Therefore, the plague is caused by sin. <BR/>Since these authors are using terms like "probability" lots of people who don't understand the Bayesian probability calculus are more impressed with the arguments than they should be. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-67426797324562668452008-03-17T20:01:00.000-07:002008-03-17T20:01:00.000-07:00I find these probability arguments to be absolutel...I find these probability arguments to be absolutely meaningless. Most of the claims are very poor Bayesian conjectures at best. I say conjecture, because there is no data we have or can (most likely) obtain to give any support for one's priors in such a consideration. Not to mention, Bayesian epistemology is inherently subjective. To be clear, if these are where these supposed "probabilities" are coming from, then it is equivalent to "some people subjectively suppose it's a very unlikely probability that the universe is as it is without <I>our</I> God to make it so." Which, of course, this is a BS "argument" we can all outright reject. If someone wants to argue for fine-tuning they clearly need to look elsewhere than statistics they can't even use correctly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32696970288641109682008-03-13T06:57:00.000-07:002008-03-13T06:57:00.000-07:00Million-Dollar Prize Given to Cosmologist Priest"B...<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/science/12cnd-prize.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow">Million-Dollar Prize Given to Cosmologist Priest</A><BR/>"By BRENDA GOODMAN<BR/>Published: March 13, 2008<BR/><BR/>The $1.6 million 2008 Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Polish Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist, and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively, answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”<BR/>..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-48705249098857537722008-03-13T04:36:00.000-07:002008-03-13T04:36:00.000-07:00IS THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNED FOR US?A good piece exc...IS THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNED FOR US?<BR/>A good piece except the part where Occam's razor is turned on its head. More unseen universes dancing on the head of a pin, is simpler than just this one universe, because then you don't need to explain why only one universe exists. With each universe, you increase the odds that some super life form evolved in one of them, and learned how to manipulate universe evolution. Then the supposed fine tuned constants could be explained by the fact that we live in a genetically modified universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17877040476617858962008-03-12T14:25:00.000-07:002008-03-12T14:25:00.000-07:00Is the Universe Fine-tuned for us?by Victor J. Ste...<A HREF="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf" REL="nofollow">Is the Universe Fine-tuned for us?</A><BR/>by Victor J. StengerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52992365330752266982008-03-12T09:26:00.000-07:002008-03-12T09:26:00.000-07:00Also from UT faculty:The Anthropic Principle Does ...Also from UT faculty:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html" REL="nofollow">The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism</A>NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-42954130402230458752008-03-11T08:00:00.000-07:002008-03-11T08:00:00.000-07:00The fine tuning argument may not be intellectually...The fine tuning argument may not be intellectually rigorous, but it is a fine way to win a Templeton prize. The Templeton Foundation has <A HREF="http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html" REL="nofollow">awarded that lucrative prize</A> to a number of physicists who have promoted fine tuning: John Barrow, Charles Townes, George Ellis, John Polkinghorne, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Carl Weizsacker. I think it's safe to say that you have disqualified yourself from consideration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25147295859727600532008-03-11T04:04:00.000-07:002008-03-11T04:04:00.000-07:00So given the choice between an infinite list of po...<I>So given the choice between an infinite list of possible physical worlds where only a narrow range of them are hospitable to life, and a universe that contains a divine being who deliberately devised physics to favor life, the reasonable person must believe in God, concludes the fine tuning argument. </I><BR/><BR/>I always found this argument weak. Even if the chances of this universe is infintely small, has anyone kept track of the failed ones? Who can say if our universe was created on the first try or the trillionth try or the googolth try.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. -Douglas Adams</I>jedipunkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16820188368880482446noreply@blogger.com