Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?

You need some sort of context to make talk of probabilities meaningful.  We can calculate the probability of pulling a card or a sequence of cards from a card deck because we know the context, we know the card deck.

When it comes to the universe, we can make no such calculations as we do not know the extent of the possibility space; it is open-ended, unknowable, undefined.

With no maths to guide us, people tend to fill the knowledge vacuum with their own personal biases.

[Gordon]

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?

Alan

That you don't understand something, would prefer not to or that you reject theories that are 'God-free', does not imply improbability or randomness, and does not lead to the conclusion of 'intention'. You've employed a false dichotomy that is rooted in the fallacies of ignorance and incredulity - yet again.

[SteveH]

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?

The fine-tuning argument, as BHS says, is circular. Given that a universe exists, why shouldn't it have the set of constants that allows intelligent life to emerge? You are assuming that intelligence is objectively important, but if so, it can only be because it's important to God, so the argument assumes what it's trying to prove, the existence of God.
It is hardly surprising that when we, intelligent organisms, look at the universe, we see one suited to the evolution of intelligent organisms. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to observe it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fine-tuning argument, as BHS says, is circular. Given that a universe exists, why shouldn't it have the set of constants that allows intelligent life to emerge? You are assuming that intelligence is objectively important, but if so, it can only be because it's important to God, so the argument assumes what it's trying to prove, the existence of God.
It is hardly surprising that when we, intelligent organisms, look at the universe, we see one suited to the evolution of intelligent organisms. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to observe it!

Not sure it is circular since the question “How come these values?” is scientific and reasonable where as your suggestion seems to me to be like “The universe just is” an argument which shuts down science and reason.

[Gordon]

Not sure it is circular since the question “How come these values?” is scientific and reasonable where as your suggestion seems to me to be like “The universe just is” an argument which shuts down science and reason.

You mean just like 'God just is'?

[jeremyp]

Not sure it is circular since the question “How come these values?” is scientific and reasonable

I agree but the answer "because God" is not a scientific and reasonable answer.

where as your suggestion seems to me to be like “The universe just is” an argument which shuts down science and reason.

People only use that line to point out that your "because God just is" shuts down science and reason. If you are going to say "God just is" you might as well say "the Universe just is" and eliminate the unnecessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree but the answer "because God" is not a scientific and reasonable answer.

People only use that line to point out that your "because God just is" shuts down science and reason. If you are going to say "God just is" you might as well say "the Universe just is" and eliminate the unnecessary entity.

Agree it’s not scientific since science doesn’t do God. It is reasonable though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People only use that line to point out that your "because God just is" shuts down science and reason. If you are going to say "God just is" you might as well say "the Universe just is" and eliminate the unnecessary entity.

That is wank.

[SteveH]

That is wank.

Playground insults are a poor substitute for reasoned counter-arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Playground insults are a poor substitute for reasoned counter-arguments.

The universe just is is not a reasoned argument. It ignores the reasonable and scientific question how come it has these values?

To then defend it by talking about God just is arguments is mere diversion and whataboutery.
The argument from contingency has been given time and time again. Disagree with it if you will but it’s wAnk to accuse it of being a God just is argument.

[jeremyp]

That is wank.

Nevertheless, it is true. Nobody here is proposing "the Universe just is" as a scientific idea, they are just using it to show that "God just is" is wank.

[jeremyp]

The universeGod just is is not a reasoned argument. It ignores the reasonable and scientific question how come it has these values?

To then defend it by talking about GodUniverse just is arguments is mere diversion and whataboutery.
The argument from contingency has been given time and time again. Disagree with it if you will but it’s wAnk to accuse it of being a GodUniverse just is argument.

Fixed it for you.

[Gordon]

The universe just is is not a reasoned argument. It ignores the reasonable and scientific question how come it has these values?

To then defend it by talking about God just is arguments is mere diversion and whataboutery.
The argument from contingency has been given time and time again. Disagree with it if you will but it’s wAnk to accuse it of being a God just is argument.

I think that the point you are trying to make, albeit rather clunkily, is that to compare 'the Universe' with 'God' is a category error because, as far as we know, the former is a naturalistic entity (with observable and measurable empirical processes) and the latter is a supernatural claim (about which any claimed attributes are presumptive and not empirically verifiable). If that is indeed what you are saying then I'd be inclined to agree with you.

However, since it seems that you see this 'God' as a necessary precursor of 'the Universe' then the category error, as noted above, still applies: so you remain up the creek without a proverbial paddle.

[SteveH]

The universe just is is not a reasoned argument. It ignores the reasonable and scientific question how come it has these values?

That looks like a reasonable question, but it isn't. Given that the universe exists, it has to have some set of vales, so why not the ones it does have? Your question is like watching the lottery and asking "Why did those six numbers come up, and not another six?". If you win a double-rollover jackpot, you may well think something other than chance is operating, but it is still pure chance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?

I suggest you try to comprehend the argument before replying like this. If you posit a god to have intended little old you to exist a priori, then the chances of you existing effectively unguided are indeed very remote. That’s your circular reasoning mistake though – you need god as your premise and as your conclusion. Take away god as your initial premise on the other hand and your existence is no more unlikely than the existence of anything else.

Imagine a lottery with a bajillion tickets sold and designed so that someone must win. Is that person entitled to infer god because the chances of him winning were so remote? Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is reasonable though.

No it isn't. To be "reasonable" the claim must be justified with reasons that are sound. So far, you haven't produced any.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe just is is not a reasoned argument.

It's not an argument at all - rather it's just a statement of all we can say when we run out of knowledge. It's a recognition of human ignorance, not an explanation for the universe. 

The difference between "the universe just is" and "god just is" by the way is that the universe observably exists, whereas "god" is just a speculation (epistemologically equivalent to leprechauns) at best.     

[Outrider]

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?

There is no degree of perceived improbability which is less likely than an explanation that has no evidence and makes no sense.

That's even before you ask questions about how you intend to try to calculate the probability of events which we've only seen happen once out of one opportunity for which we have evidence.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I suggest you try to comprehend the argument before replying like this. If you posit a god to have intended little old you to exist a priori, then the chances of you existing effectively unguided are indeed very remote. That’s your circular reasoning mistake though – you need god as your premise and as your conclusion. Take away god as your initial premise on the other hand and your existence is no more unlikely than the existence of anything else.

Imagine a lottery with a bajillion tickets sold and designed so that someone must win. Is that person entitled to infer god because the chances of him winning were so remote? Why not?

I am not talking about a single improbable event.  There will be countless improbable events needed to bring intelligent, self aware beings into existence.

I see nothing circular about the simple observation that numerous improbable events which bring about the specific complexity needed to achieve certain functionality is evidence of conscious intention.

For example, we know the complexity we observe in computer software is evidence of the programmer's conscious intention to achieve a desired result.  However, intense examination of the inner workings of the computer may well reveal that every event in the process will have physical explanations, but no amount of internal investigation will reveal the true source of the process which emanates from the conscious intention of the programmer.  We only know this because we are all capable of using our conscious minds to create the complex functionality needed to achieve intended results.

So we observe something far more complex than any human creation in our own DNA - a molecule which contains all the information needed to create and maintain a complete human being, and instead of seeing this as evidence of a creative force beyond our understanding - we try to use our intelligence to think up reasons why it could have come into existence by a countless series of highly improbable, unintended events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not talking about a single improbable event.  There will be countless improbable events needed to bring intelligent, self aware beings into existence.

I see nothing circular about the simple observation that numerous improbable events which bring about the specific complexity needed to achieve certain functionality is evidence of conscious intention.

For example, we know the complexity we observe in computer software is evidence of the programmer's conscious intention to achieve a desired result.  However, intense examination of the inner workings of the computer may well reveal that every event in the process will have physical explanations, but no amount of internal investigation will reveal the true source of the process which emanates from the conscious intention of the programmer.  We only know this because we are all capable of using our conscious minds to create the complex functionality needed to achieve intended results.

So we observe something far more complex than any human creation in our own DNA - a molecule which contains all the information needed to create and maintain a complete human being, and instead of seeing this as evidence of a creative force beyond our understanding - we try to use our intelligence to think up reasons why it could have come into existence by a countless series of highly improbable, unintended events.

Try to focus here. When you insert “god” to intend your outcome to begin with, and then infer that the outcome “you” is so unlikely that it must have been guided therefore you have a proof for “god”, then you’re indulging in circular reasoning: ie, your premise and your conclusion are the same.

Think lottery winner if that helps, and let me know when it sinks in.

[SteveH]

AB,

Try to focus here. When you insert “god” to intend your outcome to begin with, and then infer that the outcome “you” is so unlikely that it must have been guided therefore you have a proof for “god”, then you’re indulging in circular reasoning: ie, your premise and your conclusion are the same.

Think lottery winner if that helps, and let me know when it sinks in.

Are you actually capable of conducting a debate without being sarcastic or insulting?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Are you actually capable of conducting a debate without being sarcastic or insulting?

Ask my wife ; - )

Oh, and as AB consistently ignores the explanation for why fine tuning is a crap justification for "god" (and then repeats the same crap argument as if it hadn't been rebutted) my reply in the face of his obduracy doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.   

[Alan Burns]

Think lottery winner if that helps, and let me know when it sinks in.

As I inferred previously,
We are not just considering one highly improbable event.

The initial fine tuning of the universe to allow the formation of stars and planets is just the beginning of the preparations required before many more improbable events are needed to bring life into existence.
You may claim that bringing the unfathomable complexity of life into existence requires no intentional guidance and that it can all be achieved by the unintended consequences of random events.
My own intelligence tells me that our existence is evidence of a creative force beyond our comprehension, and that human creativity must be inherited from this force.

Try thinking of the probability that I could win the lottery every week for the rest of my days, and that my offspring continue the winning streak for the next few thousand years if that helps.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I inferred previously,
We are not just considering one highly improbable event.

The initial fine tuning of the universe to allow the formation of stars and planets is just the beginning of the preparations required before many more improbable events are needed to bring life into existence.
You may claim that bringing the unfathomable complexity of life into existence requires no intentional guidance and that it can all be achieved by the unintended consequences of random events.
My own intelligence tells me that our existence is evidence of a creative force beyond our comprehension, and that human creativity must be inherited from this force.

Try thinking of the probability that I could win the lottery every week for the rest of my days, and that my offspring continue the winning streak for the next few thousand years if that helps.

Oh dear. OK, imagine that we give the unlikeliness of the series of improbable events necessary for your existence the value n (n being an unfathomably vast number). Now imagine just as a thought experiment that we design a lottery in which the chance of winning is equally improbable – ie also value n. To put it another way, imagine the chance of you existing are a bajillion bajillion bajillion to one, and the chance of winning our lottery is also a bajillion bajillion bajillion to one.   

Still with me? Good.

Now imagine that the lottery winner inferred that there must therefore have been some sort of intervention for little old him to win. Would he be right about that, or would he just be the lucky recipient of an outcome-blind process that neither knew nor cared who would win?   

Can you see now why your existence – no matter how unlikely – does not imply that there was therefore a guiding hand to make it so unless your existence was also the plan all along – ie, unless your conclusion “god” also had the same premise “god”?

And can you see too how an argument in which the premise and the conclusion are the same thing is a false argument?

Something?

Anything?   

[torridon]

I am not talking about a single improbable event.  There will be countless improbable events needed to bring intelligent, self aware beings into existence.
..

How do you calculate 'improbable' ?  You can only measure probabilities if you know the extent of the possibility space to begin with.  Easy enough with a card deck or a lottery but that doesn't work where you don't know the possibilities. Our universe may be infinite, in which case every seemingly improbable event becomes not just probable, but inevitable.  We just don't know.