Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.
The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.
Actually, there many-universe theories still can't explain everything. Sure they could explain design features within the universe (hense serve as a counter-argument to design in this respect), it can only go so far for it can't explain why the physical laws it depends upon in order for there to be many universes work as they do. So although many-universe theories may be able to provide a range of alternative universes (including significant ones such as ours perhaps), they cannot explain the underlying laws required to produce these universes.
Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Byblos wrote:
You see, I am a simple man really. I don't like to complicate things more than is absolutely necessary, and that could very well be a limitation I impose unto myself due to my limited ability to comprehend complex matters (therefore, I break them down to their simplest forms). All of these debates/discussions/arguments we're having boil down to a simple idea, and that is one of choice. We can debate and present arguments and counter-arguments until eternity. In the end, it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings. You choose to believe we came to be by chance. To me, that idea is so far-fetched it is simply inconceivable. Neither one of us can prove their point right or the other's wrong with any degree of certainty. It's a matter of choice.
I will break it down for you.
You say the Universe was finely tuned. This implies other possibilities.
How do you know there are other possibilities?
And the Universe is tuned because this is the only one which can support life. This also implies you know all the other possibilities.
How do you know the other possibilties?
I never said we are here by chance. This thread was only an attempt to show what probability really means.
I think most people have a better understanding now.
As August said and I am paraphrasing, probability is a function of our limitation on knowing all the variables.
It is a reasonable way of determining outcome.
But as the many examples in this post attest to, the concept can be helpful but can also be abused.
LOL! Thank you again, BGood for breaking it down for me. Although I tend to like breaking things down for myself. But in any case, what I understood from what you're trying to say is that since we can't be sure there were other possibilities, there may not have been any, and therefore the fine-tuning probabilities actually break down.
That is also quite a possibility, but the way I interpret that (again, after simplifying it) is that things are the way they are precisely because they were meant to be that way (considering there were no other possibilities). That is an even stronger argument for design than fine-tuning. Thank you.
Byblos wrote:
You see, I am a simple man really. I don't like to complicate things more than is absolutely necessary, and that could very well be a limitation I impose unto myself due to my limited ability to comprehend complex matters (therefore, I break them down to their simplest forms). All of these debates/discussions/arguments we're having boil down to a simple idea, and that is one of choice. We can debate and present arguments and counter-arguments until eternity. In the end, it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings. You choose to believe we came to be by chance. To me, that idea is so far-fetched it is simply inconceivable. Neither one of us can prove their point right or the other's wrong with any degree of certainty. It's a matter of choice.
I will break it down for you.
You say the Universe was finely tuned. This implies other possibilities.
How do you know there are other possibilities?
And the Universe is tuned because this is the only one which can support life. This also implies you know all the other possibilities.
How do you know the other possibilties?
I never said we are here by chance. This thread was only an attempt to show what probability really means.
I think most people have a better understanding now.
As August said and I am paraphrasing, probability is a function of our limitation on knowing all the variables.
It is a reasonable way of determining outcome.
But as the many examples in this post attest to, the concept can be helpful but can also be abused.
LOL! Thank you again, BGood for breaking it down for me. Although I tend to like breaking things down for myself. But in any case, what I understood from what you're trying to say is that since we can't be sure there were other possibilities, there may not have been any, and therefore the fine-tuning probabilities actually break down.
That is also quite a possibility, but the way I interpret that (again, after simplifying it) is that things are the way they are precisely because they were meant to be that way (considering there were no other possibilities). That is an even stronger argument for design than fine-tuning. Thank you.
Fine tuning, and multiple universe theory are just two sides to the same coin. They both are based on probabilistic principals.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Byblos wrote:. . . Maybe, I don't know. What I do know is that things most likely MAY have turned out much different; that is what science is telling me.
I understand now. So from one position it could be said that everything that we see is unlikely. That is kind of interesting. One view says of course this is how things should be, and the other is that well this is certianly an unlikely combination.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Fine tuning, and multiple universe theory are just two sides to the same coin. They both are based on probabilistic principals.
How completely true, they are both theories, that propel investigation by offering different hypotheses and areas of investigation.
I don't see chance as an explanation: it is merely a comment on whether a proposed mechanism is considered certain, possible or improbable. It does nothing to describe that mechanism.
How did the universe come to be: I don't know. I do not choose to suspend disbelief on any answer to "why" but do find inspiring proposals for certain "hows".
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
Kurieuo wrote:So although many-universe theories may be able to provide a range of alternative universes (including significant ones such as ours perhaps), they cannot explain the underlying laws required to produce these universes.
Kurieuo
I agree and find myself skeptical about the multi-verse hypothesis, though I am ill-read up on it to be honest. More generally science can suggest how but tells us nothing about why. This, I believe, is why we have both theist and atheist cosmologists; and why both theist and atheist lay people (such as us) show interest in science. But whatever scientific developments made in the next 50 years one thing is for sure: theists and atheists will still be debating it all.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
