I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

Ah, the fine-tuning argument: "If there is no God, then the probability that the universe supports life would be close to 0."

Probability is about experiments that have certain outcomes. These outcomes
have attached certain probabilities to them. In practice, we can determine
these probabilities by repeating an experiment many times, and observing
how often, on average, we have a certain outcome.

If we say that it is not probable that the universe supports life is small, what
do we base such a statement on? There are at least 4 problems with
the fine tuning argument:

1) What are the possible outcomes of the experiment? According to the fine-tuning argument, there should be other possible outcomes. In other words, there are other possible universes that are different from the one we are living in. The possible existence of other universes is not really justified. We have never observed
any other universe except the one that we are living in. So this is PROBLEM 1.
But let's forget about this problem and move on.

2) Where does/did the experiment take place? It cannot be in our universe,
because that would necessitate the existence of THIS universe,
but we assumed that other universes are possible. I suppose the experiment takes place in some "meta-universe". Now, assuming in such a metaphysical reality such as a meta-universe is not really justified by an science or observation. If
you accept such a meta-universe without proof, then we might as well accept God without proof. This is PROBLEM 2. But let's forget about this problem and move on.

3) In such a meta-universe, does probability theory apply? I think not.
For example, in some possible universe, for example the one described in
Douglas Adams' ``the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy'' unlikely events
happen all the time if you are traveling with an infinite improbability drive
(http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infini...lity_Drive).
So if probability theory does not apply to all possible universes, then it
does not seem reasonable to assume that it applies to the meta-universe.
This is PROBLEM 3, but let's ignore this and move on.

4) Even if probability theory would apply to the meta-universe. What are the
probabilities of each outcome? Again, any calculations people have made
about the probability that our universe supports life are based on observations
within our own universe. So these estimates of probabilities do not apply to
the meta-universe. Assuming that a certain constant in physics that is "fine-tuned" has a uniform distribution is not based on any observation. So that is PROBLEM 4.
All we can say that we are only aware of 1 experiment
and the outcome of this experiment is a universe that supports life. Based
on this one observation, which is not much to base any conclusion on,
I would say that it is quite likely the the universe supports life.
Since 100% of the known (real) universes support life, it is more reasonable to assume that the probability that the universe supports life is at least 50%, that it
is to assume that the probability that the universe supports life is less than 50%.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
Are there any longterm experiments going on with
Primordial chemistry evolution. ?

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

Of course it's not solid. Firstly , it's based on the false premise that there is an incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist. There is a large number of factors necessary for a specific life form to exist, but that is completely different matter. Arguing that point is just saying "if things were different things would be different" meaning, if different factors were in effect, different outcomes would be possible, and some of those different outcomes would also be life, just in a different form.

It just like saying that it if you would throw a rock from the top of a skyscraper onto a field is impossible to intentionally hit a specific blade of grass ,therefore when you find the blade of grass that was actually hit u assume there was an intelligent intervention that affected the rock to hit the specific blade.

But that's a wrong way to look at it, because when you threw that rock it inevitable that some blade of grass would be hit by it.

Or as a lottery, chances to win a lottery are incredibly small, but when you spin that wheel , certainty of somebody winning sooner or later is guaranteed.
You don't find a winner and go: well there was incredibly large number of factors that could've influenced this guy not winning, therefore it was a divine intervention.

That's us, lucky motherfuckers who won the cosmic lottery.

Knowing that every necessary ingredient for life is present in the universe , you realize that emergence of life is not a miracle but an inevitability.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 10:49 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
I need you motherfuckers stop necroposting. Big Grin

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-10-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

I think what sinks this argument is the premise that if it wasn't an intelligent creator then it must have been random chance. That is a false dichotomy. Things don't happen randomly or by accident in nature. They happen according to natural laws that are universal. How about life arising from simpler molecules which are abundant and have been found in large quantities in space combining as they have been proven to do into more complex organic molecules that self replicate with every step governed by the laws of nature and in accordance with the background conditions present. If that proposition is plausible then that totally shreds this argument from design. The alternative to a designer is not random accidents but nature.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2013, 01:40 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  It's called irreducible complexity IIRC. Creationist used to claim that the eye 'was too complex to develop naturally' and they have since been disproved time and time again...because the eye has actually evolved independently multiple times.

Anyway it's BS, who determines what is and isn't possible? We used to think a lot of things where impossible...like beaming images and sound through the air, or putting men on the moon....Incredible shit happens in this universe every day.

The first self replicating machine will be irreducibly complex.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2013, 02:30 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2013 01:12 AM by Chippy.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?

No it isn't a good argument because:

(1) Improbably events do occur. People win the lottery and die unusual deaths and major discoveries arise from dumb luck.

(2) Improbabilities are often exaggerated by underestimating the number of concurrent trials that would have likely been occurring when life emerged on Earth. Any given pool of primordial soup will be yielding x trials per unit volume (of primordial soup) per unit time, and the total number of trials would be proportional to the total volume of primordial soup on all planets for all the time the primordial soup existed. We don't accurately know how many primordial soup-bearing planets there were when abiogenenesis occurred on Earth.

(3) Even if life on Earth were engineered we would not arrive at "an eternal, intelligent force", we could argue, like the Raelians, that aliens did it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
27-10-2013, 04:12 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(27-10-2013 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-08-2013 09:15 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  It's called irreducible complexity IIRC. Creationist used to claim that the eye 'was too complex to develop naturally' and they have since been disproved time and time again...because the eye has actually evolved independently multiple times.

Anyway it's BS, who determines what is and isn't possible? We used to think a lot of things where impossible...like beaming images and sound through the air, or putting men on the moon....Incredible shit happens in this universe every day.

The first self replicating machine will be irreducibly complex.

That's just silly. We already have the technology to create self-replicating machines.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 01:08 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(27-10-2013 04:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-10-2013 01:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The first self replicating machine will be irreducibly complex.

That's just silly. We already have the technology to create self-replicating machines.

Do you even know what irreducibly complex means because your comment doesn't make any sense.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 01:16 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(27-10-2013 02:30 AM)Chippy Wrote:  (2) Improbabilities are often exaggerated by underestimating the number of concurrent trials that would have likely been occurring when life emerged on Earth. Any given pool of primordial soup will be yielding x trials per unit volume (of primordial soup), and the total number of trials would be proportional to the total volume of primordial soup on all planets. We don't accurately know how many primordial soup-bearing planets there were when abiogenenesis occurred on Earth.

All life on this planet appears to come from a universal common ancestor. That is a fact that cannot be ignored. If multiple pools of were producing life, then we should expect to see multiple ancestors. If there were multiple pools in which life originated....not seeing multiple ancestors means that in one specific pool life originated that was fittest across ALL environmental conditions in all the different pools and out competed the other lines of life that emerged......and that's kind of a hard pill to swallow.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: