ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th October 2017, 03:04 AM   #241
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,250
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I am going to focus on one aspect at a time in the hope of getting away from the tactic of "Use the facts, when the facts fail, use logic, and when logic fails confuse the debate".

The Sub-topic here is The Fine Tuned (for Life) Universe argument.

A point has been made that the probability that the fundamental constants of the universe are what they are is 1.

Which expert atheist presents this argument? Thus avoiding any probability analysis. Please give me references.
The probability that any given truth is true is 1, by definition.

Now, if you'd want to argue that there is a reason for this, and that the reason is our existence... that's your claim to support.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:16 AM   #242
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,876
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Which expert atheist presents this argument? Thus avoiding any probability analysis. Please give me references.
Are you trying to bait someone into making an Argument from Authority?

In which case, the Expert Atheist (one of the most known and vocal of the last century) is Douglas Adams.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:35 AM   #243
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
A point has been made that the probability that the fundamental constants of the universe are what they are is 1.

Which expert atheist presents this argument? Thus avoiding any probability analysis. Please give me references.
You're asking for an appeal to authority, which suggests that you're trying to lay a trap. There doesn't need to be an expert opinion to understand the self-evident, in fact definitive, observation that the a posteriori probability of something that has already happened, given that it has happened, is 1.

It's also worth pointing out that the term "expert atheist" is an absurd one, and that only someone so blinkered by their religious world view, in which everything must be derived by an appeal to authority, could see as defensible. There is no expertise required to lack a belief, nor is there any onus on any particular atheist to adopt wholesale the exact views of another atheist.

If you want to know the a priori probability that the fundamental constants of the universe are within the bounds necessary to be capable of producing life, I suggest you ask half a dozen cosmologists, then spend a long and fruitless part of your life trying to reconcile the seven fundamentally different answers you'll get.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:08 AM   #244
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
I am not trying to bait anyone. No trap.

I did some (brief) research into probability of universal constants and could not find the argument presented. Namely a probability of 1:1.

I thought I would get some clarification of the principles involved.

You already know that I challenge the concept of certainty AFTER the event.

So let me give a simple example of probability and see what answers I get.

A man is sentenced to death by firing squad. There are three scenarios.

1. He is put in front of the squad and is shot dead. Probability before and after is 1:1.

2. He is given a box and told if he chooses to open the box and follow the instructions he may have a better chance than 1:1. He opens the box and told if he rolls anything but a six, he will live. The dice has six sides, each with a six on them. What are the odds before and after?

3. He is given two boxes and told if he chooses to open one box and follow the instructions he may have a better chance than 1:1. Inside box one is the dice with only sixes, and in box two is a dice an ordinary dice with numbers 1 to 6. anything but a six he lives. What are the odds before and after?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:12 AM   #245
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You already know that I challenge the concept of certainty AFTER the event.
Then there is no point in any further discussion with you; whatever you may think you're discussing, it isn't reality.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:16 AM   #246
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Are you trying to bait someone into making an Argument from Authority?

In which case, the Expert Atheist (one of the most known and vocal of the last century) is Douglas Adams.
No argument from authority. I just want principle so I can be precise.

Douglas Adams. He of Puddle-Hole Thinking notoriety. His argument implies a probability of 1:1 but where does he argue that? And thinking puddles - the ultimate in anthropomorphics!
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:17 AM   #247
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Then there is no point in any further discussion with you; whatever you may think you're discussing, it isn't reality.

Dave
Pretend I am six years old and explain your point to me.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:23 AM   #248
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,082
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Pretend I am six years old and explain your point to me.
You dropped my favourite mug on the floor, and now it's broken. There's no point saying "Well, maybe I didn't," when I saw you drop it and you're looking at the pieces. Now go to your room, and next time I'll take the cost out of your pocket money.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 18th October 2017 at 05:24 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:27 AM   #249
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,344
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I am not trying to bait anyone. No trap.

I did some (brief) research into probability of universal constants and could not find the argument presented. Namely a probability of 1:1.

I thought I would get some clarification of the principles involved.

You already know that I challenge the concept of certainty AFTER the event.

So let me give a simple example of probability and see what answers I get.

A man is sentenced to death by firing squad. There are three scenarios.

1. He is put in front of the squad and is shot dead. Probability before and after is 1:1.

2. He is given a box and told if he chooses to open the box and follow the instructions he may have a better chance than 1:1. He opens the box and told if he rolls anything but a six, he will live. The dice has six sides, each with a six on them. What are the odds before and after?

3. He is given two boxes and told if he chooses to open one box and follow the instructions he may have a better chance than 1:1. Inside box one is the dice with only sixes, and in box two is a dice an ordinary dice with numbers 1 to 6. anything but a six he lives. What are the odds before and after?
Really? Are you being serious? Is this the best you've got, because it's ridiculous.

Could you please tell us why you included the word sceptic in your forum title?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:30 AM   #250
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,833
It's a very, very tiny part.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:34 AM   #251
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Against my better judgment...

The lottery drawing is Saturday.

PartSkeptic is deciding on Friday whether the odds - 14,000,000 to 1 - support his buying a ticket. Based on the payout, he buys a ticket.

Naturally, his particular ticket doesn’t win. And assume that’s common knowledge.

Now, on Sunday, he wants to sell his ticket. Would anyone buy it? Could it still be a winner, albeit at infinitesimal odds?

No. At the moment of the drawing the odds of the ticket winning “collapsed” from 1 in 14,000,000 to zero. I put “collapsed” in quotes, because it’s borrowed from the quantum world, but it seems to apply here.

As a thought exercise, run the above - except with a winning ticket - and see where it leads.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 18th October 2017 at 05:35 AM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:36 AM   #252
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,876
I believe the misunderstanding is whether the universe necessarily had to turn out the way it did.
And the answer is, of course - no. Tiny perturbations in the chaotic system that is the cosmos can lead to vastly different outcomes.
No one is saying that Homo Sapiens was a pre-determined outcome of the Big Bang

All we can say with 100% certainty is that, in hindsight, things must have happened in such a way that allows for us to communicate this way, here and now.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:37 AM   #253
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
1. He is put in front of the squad and is shot dead. Probability before and after is 1:1.
You obviously haven't watched Blackadder, the WWI chapter.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:38 AM   #254
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,876
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
As a thought exercise, run the above - except with a winning ticket - and see where it leads.
with PartSkeptic selling his ticket to me at cost?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:49 AM   #255
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
with PartSkeptic selling his ticket to me at cost?
Sorry.

My thought experiment, my ticket at cost.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 06:53 AM   #256
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I am going to focus on one aspect at a time in the hope of getting away from the tactic of "Use the facts, when the facts fail, use logic, and when logic fails confuse the debate".

The Sub-topic here is The Fine Tuned (for Life) Universe argument.

A point has been made that the probability that the fundamental constants of the universe are what they are is 1.

Which expert atheist presents this argument? Thus avoiding any probability analysis. Please give me references.
Well you confused the debate as I don't understand your point. If you wanted to say that earth at this moment in time is fine tuned for life, I agree, but the universe doesn't seem to be or at least the rest of our solar system isn't. But this is not evidence of a creator.

But one cannot honestly calculate odds post hoc. Because it is more accurate to say that the odds of the earth producing intelligent life is not some astronomical number. It is 100 percent because it did.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:03 AM   #257
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Against my better judgment...

The lottery drawing is Saturday.

PartSkeptic is deciding on Friday whether the odds - 14,000,000 to 1 - support his buying a ticket. Based on the payout, he buys a ticket.

Naturally, his particular ticket doesn’t win. And assume that’s common knowledge.

Now, on Sunday, he wants to sell his ticket. Would anyone buy it? Could it still be a winner, albeit at infinitesimal odds?

No. At the moment of the drawing the odds of the ticket winning “collapsed” from 1 in 14,000,000 to zero. I put “collapsed” in quotes, because it’s borrowed from the quantum world, but it seems to apply here.

As a thought exercise, run the above - except with a winning ticket - and see where it leads.
Well said Eddie. The odds that is the winning ticket is 100 percent since it matches the numbers. Post hoc, the odds can only be 0 or 1.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:04 AM   #258
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,761
When I'm explaining prior and after probability to someone I often use Richard Feynman's example
Quote:
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
Or - you see it's starting to rain. You calculate the prior probability that any given set of rain drops can land on any given spot on your lawn as near zero, so you stay outside as the rain can't hit you. Turns out you get wet anyway because you don't understand probability.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:18 AM   #259
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I believe the misunderstanding is whether the universe necessarily had to turn out the way it did.
And the answer is, of course - no. Tiny perturbations in the chaotic system that is the cosmos can lead to vastly different outcomes.
No one is saying that Homo Sapiens was a pre-determined outcome of the Big Bang

All we can say with 100% certainty is that, in hindsight, things must have happened in such a way that allows for us to communicate this way, here and now.
Ahhh, the butterfly effect. I'd agree with this. That said, the game never stops. Play enough poker games a Royal Flush is dealt at some time. Personally, I don't believe life is rare in the universe. Clearly, this seems to be the only planet at this speck of geological time that seems to have life. But even our vast solar system is but a microscopic point in the universe. There is a vast amount of matter and energy in the universe constantly reacting to their conditions.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:21 AM   #260
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
When I'm explaining prior and after probability to someone I often use Richard Feynman's example


Or - you see it's starting to rain. You calculate the prior probability that any given set of rain drops can land on any given spot on your lawn as near zero, so you stay outside as the rain can't hit you. Turns out you get wet anyway because you don't understand probability.
Feynman was an idiot.






(Just in case someone takes that seriously....I'm joking)
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th October 2017 at 07:37 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:27 AM   #261
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
No. Entertainment need not meet an atheists level of expectation of perfection. How boring would that be.

The Cosmic Intelligence is getting a lot of entertainment out of debates about the meaning of perfection.
Tell me: where did you get insight into the cosmic intelligence's intents and feelings?

Stop pulling things out of your ass.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:29 AM   #262
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Explain "collapsed"?
You really should learn some basic statistics and probability.

Quote:
What were the odds of humankind getting to where it is now - BEFORE the odds collapsed to 1 to 1? And at each stage BEFORE each stage?
You can't go back to not knowing what you know now. It was 1:1.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:53 AM   #263
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,842
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I believe the misunderstanding is whether the universe necessarily had to turn out the way it did.
And the answer is, of course - no. Tiny perturbations in the chaotic system that is the cosmos can lead to vastly different outcomes.
No one is saying that Homo Sapiens was a pre-determined outcome of the Big Bang

All we can say with 100% certainty is that, in hindsight, things must have happened in such a way that allows for us to communicate this way, here and now.
Actually we can't say no. It could be that the universe is the only way it could be. We simply have no way of knowing.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:54 AM   #264
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,842
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
with PartSkeptic selling his ticket to me at cost?
Given what he says, he would seem to think even after the draw the chance of his winning ticket being the winning ticket is still 1 in 14 million!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 07:59 AM   #265
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,842
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Well you confused the debate as I don't understand your point. If you wanted to say that earth at this moment in time is fine tuned for life, I agree, but the universe doesn't seem to be or at least the rest of our solar system isn't. But this is not evidence of a creator.

But one cannot honestly calculate odds post hoc. Because it is more accurate to say that the odds of the earth producing intelligent life is not some astronomical number. It is 100 percent because it did.
I would disagree, given the entire volume it really doesn't seem to be fine tuned for life. Life only seems to be able to exist in such a small volume its almost just statistical noise! When you then apply the same to the entire universe it would seem that you could hardly produce a universe that would be less designed for life to exist. If the universe is designed for something it sure doesn't seem to be for life!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:09 AM   #266
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
The point I was trying to get to has been made

That AFTER an event has happened, calculating the probability what actually did happen for an event is meaningless.

So what about the BEFORE?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:12 AM   #267
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
In trying to research this issue some more, I found this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hh/Leslie.html

Oddly it is about a firing squad. Not relevant and not a derail. Just a coincidence.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:15 AM   #268
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Tell me: where did you get insight into the cosmic intelligence's intents and feelings?

(Ass snip)

1. From experiencing it.
and
2. From logical deduction.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:19 AM   #269
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
1. From experiencing it.
Pull the other one or get help.

Quote:
2. From logical deduction.
What makes you so special that your logical deductions, which fly in the face of all human knowledge, are somehow correct?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:25 AM   #270
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,761
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
In trying to research this issue some more, I found this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hh/Leslie.html

Oddly it is about a firing squad. Not relevant and not a derail. Just a coincidence.
Or instead we could actually ask questions. For example, we could ask why giving some of a firing squad blanks leads to better accuracy. Well it turns out that outside of life and death situations most people (even soldiers) don't like killing people so varying numbers will not fire at all or aim to miss. So we have a number of individual events (the choice to aim to kill or not) across a number of actors and we get results.
So we have a choice of assuming a single actor ("God" for suitable values thereof) or we can actually try to find out what happened across a more complex set of events. It turns out the latter is what got us where we are.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:29 AM   #271
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
I will jump ahead a bit. Here is a site that discusses probabilities in detail.


Quote:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/f...veGambFallChar

Proponents of the argument from fine-tuning for design argue that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendly conditions are highly improbable if there is no divine designer. Thus, the conditional probability P(R∣¬D) should be set close to zero. In contrast, it is highly likely according to them that the constants are right for life if there is indeed a designer. Thus the conditional probability P(R∣¬D) should be given a value not far from 1. If a sufficiently powerful divine being exists—the idea goes—it is only to be expected that she/he will be interested in creating, or at least enabling, intelligent life, which means that we can expect the constants to be right for life on that assumption. This motivates the likelihood inequality...
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:31 AM   #272
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Delete
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th October 2017 at 08:33 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:37 AM   #273
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Or instead we could actually ask questions. For example, we could ask why giving some of a firing squad blanks leads to better accuracy. Well it turns out that outside of life and death situations most people (even soldiers) don't like killing people so varying numbers will not fire at all or aim to miss. So we have a number of individual events (the choice to aim to kill or not) across a number of actors and we get results.
So we have a choice of assuming a single actor ("God" for suitable values thereof) or we can actually try to find out what happened across a more complex set of events. It turns out the latter is what got us where we are.
People selected for a firing squad would be volunteers. Many people are more than happy to kill someone. In those US States that used firing squads, how many missed?

You are assuming that they all thought they might have a blank. How does that contrast with those who decide to miss, are going to miss because they assume they have a live round?

At the close range of a firing squad it would take a miracle for all to miss. Has it ever happened?

My father told me of a group of Italian soldiers lined up to be executed by a machine gun. The guy next to him in the field hospital survived the killings despite having 26 bullets in his chest and neck.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:37 AM   #274
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,761
No it discusses arguments from probability in detail. Did you read past the bit you quote? The very next paragraphs:
Quote:
We could not possibly have existed in conditions that are incompatible with the existence of observers. The famous weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Carter 1974) suggests that this apparently trivial point may have important consequences:

[W]e must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. (Carter 1974: 293, emphasis due to Carter)

Our methods of empirical observation are unavoidably biased towards detecting conditions which are compatible with the existence of observers. For example, even if life-hostile places vastly outnumber life-friendly places in our universe, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in one of the relatively few places that are life-friendly and seek an explanation for this finding, simply because—in virtue of being living organisms—we could not possibly have found ourselves in a life-hostile place.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 08:45 AM   #275
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Well you confused the debate as I don't understand your point. If you wanted to say that earth at this moment in time is fine tuned for life, I agree, but the universe doesn't seem to be or at least the rest of our solar system isn't. But this is not evidence of a creator.

But one cannot honestly calculate odds post hoc. Because it is more accurate to say that the odds of the earth producing intelligent life is not some astronomical number. It is 100 percent because it did.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I would disagree, given the entire volume it really doesn't seem to be fine tuned for life. Life only seems to be able to exist in such a small volume its almost just statistical noise! When you then apply the same to the entire universe it would seem that you could hardly produce a universe that would be less designed for life to exist. If the universe is designed for something it sure doesn't seem to be for life!
You would be wrong then. Post hoc analysis of calculating odds is always flawed. The odds of a specific event occurring that did happen is ALWAYS 100 percent. If you calculate the odds against life occurring in some random unknown spot in the universe to be very high you would be right. But the earth is not a random spot. It is the winning lottery ticket and just like in the lottery the odds of life and that the winning ticket is the winning ticket is ALWAYS 100 percent.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th October 2017 at 08:56 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 09:39 AM   #276
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,668
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I will jump ahead a bit. Here is a site that discusses probabilities in detail.
Quote:
Quote:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/f...veGambFallChar

Proponents of the argument from fine-tuning for design argue that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendly conditions are highly improbable if there is no divine designer. Thus, the conditional probability P(R∣¬D) should be set close to zero. In contrast, it is highly likely according to them that the constants are right for life if there is indeed a designer. Thus the conditional probability P(R∣¬D) should be given a value not far from 1. If a sufficiently powerful divine being exists—the idea goes—it is only to be expected that she/he will be interested in creating, or at least enabling, intelligent life, which means that we can expect the constants to be right for life on that assumption. This motivates the likelihood inequality...
Great. The high likelihood of "constants [that] are right for life" is evidence for a designer if you assume the designer that the constants are evidence for.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 18th October 2017 at 09:40 AM.
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:00 AM   #277
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,521
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Great. The high likelihood of "constants [that] are right for life" is evidence for a designer if you assume the designer that the constants are evidence for.
Obviously this is a tautology. But huh?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 10:09 AM   #278
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,876
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I will jump ahead a bit. Here is a site that discusses probabilities in detail.

Quote:
Quote:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/f...veGambFallChar
...it is only to be expected that she/he will be interested in creating, or at least enabling, intelligent life,...
i have no interest in enabling the creation of intelligent life - even though the leftovers in my fridge are making a valiant effort at becoming sentient.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:37 AM   #279
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
No it discusses arguments from probability in detail. Did you read past the bit you quote? The very next paragraphs:
Yes I did read them. Typically "sit-on-fence" stuff. The point is that science discusses probabilities of these constants coming into existence. They do not use the "they exist, therefore the probability that they exist is unity". The unity probability is the definition of an absolute truth.

The discussion opposing fine tuning so far is that "We exist - therefore the probability that the constants would be what they are is unity".

There are two problems with this statement.

Do we exist purely as physical beings, or do we exist purely in the mind of a Cosmic Intelligence?

If there is doubt, then the probability cannot be unity.

The second problem is that in science everything has a cause. When the constants came into being, why did they have "just the right values". Not just one constant but many?

Take the cosmological constant for example. This has to be precise to a very very large number. I seem to read that if it deviates by one part in 10 raised to the power 120 then the universe would either collapse or over-expand. The question to be asked is why that precise number and not a slight deviation.

Keep in mind two problems. Firstly, dark energy and dark matter, what are they apart from scientific fantasy? The unicorns of science.

Secondly, atheist science is so worried about the fine tuning that it has invented another fantasy, namely gazillions of universes so that the law of large numbers can be used in argument.

So how fanciful is my Cosmic Intelligence compared to the fantasies mentioned? At least I have some personal evidence. Atheists only have desperate musings.

As for the fall-back retort of "No-one can Know therefore you cannot Know" is another meaningless fall-back defense. We are talking about probability of one hypothesis versus another for the Ultimate Reality. You say I have NO evidence. Rubbish, I have evidence, but not the evidence atheists are prepared to accept.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:38 AM   #280
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
i have no interest in enabling the creation of intelligent life - even though the leftovers in my fridge are making a valiant effort at becoming sentient.

Better lock your bedroom door at night!
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.