You don’t think a universe fine-tuned for life is more probable on theism than naturalism?
Probabilities? There is the perception of increased probability. But I do not think it can be quantified enough to make it a deduction.
1 Like
I don’t think that deduction is necessary for it to be quantifiable
So how do you attach a QUANTITY to it?
Any science fiction writer worth his salt can write an amazing book about a rare life form, or a once-in-a-million-like occurrence.
But the vast majority of such science fiction stories don’t end with the discovery of God.
By assigning the conditionals reasonable numbers based on what we would expect, given the hypothesis and other background information.
There can be reasonable disagreement about what numbers to attach, but I’m not really aware of anyone who works with fine tuning who thinks that you can’t quantify the probability of the evidence according to different hypotheses (including theism or naturalism).
To use an analogy . . .
I have a giant bag full of little tiles. I pull one of the tiles out and it has the number 54482902 on it. From that information alone, what is the probability that I would draw a tile with that number on it? How would you calculate that probability?
1 Like
That assumes sequential numbering which can’t be determined in the given problem.
It can’t be determined in the German Tank Problem either.
(What has PS got against fast typists?)
1 Like
True, but it’s one assumption made in setting up the problem. You can’t make that assumption for @T_aquaticus’s analogy, and of course you can’t make that assumption for the universe either. Which means we can’t determine the probability that the universe is fine-tuned.
It isn’t, but you can’t derive a solution without assuming sequential numbering. The Bayesian and frequentist solutions assume sequential numbering.
In addition, the methods for thwarting solution involve not using sequential numbering.
Best,
Chris
1 Like
If the Christian you are asking is clear about his categories of knowledge, he would say it was his/her faith that allows him/her to know that.
Can I just decide to have faith in some proposition and then claim to know it? Or is it only the Christian god?
If I were a cosmologist I imagine I’d be pretty unhappy if this was the case
Beg pardon?
If you find conviction in a book or books, then conviction becomes your starting place.
[If you had specified @gbrooks9, I would have answered this long ago.]
I think the fine tuning meta look thread will be a good place to discuss more of the particulars of fine tuning.
Perhaps science classes should be changed to feature questions about the relationship between science and other disciplines.
For example, while evolution and its supporting evidence is taught, perhaps the classes could be amended to make students aware that there are non-scientific challenges to certain tenets of evolution. Some of which are
- Pseudoscience (E.g. YEC)
- Others which are anti-science (E.g. We should not trust the science)
- And a third type which we could call non-science (E.g. Science says this, and is generally a reliable means to knowing truth, but there are non-scientific reasons for thinking that science is wrong in this particular case about X specific tenet).
Such a module could begin with an assessment of claims by YEC organisations that the science supports a rejection of these tenets, with the learning outcome being to highlight the deficiencies in this view. Then it could move on to discuss some Phil of Science and touch on questions including: What is sciences relationship to philosophy, history and theology? What is the role of science in generating knowledge?
The unit could be kept short and concise and fit around discussions of climate change and vaccines and be a means to end the curriculum.
The benefit would be that it may increase student appreciation for the relevance of non-scientific disciplines in the scientific endeavour, and present people with a means of learning about the existence and relevance of other disciplines. I spent most of my high school not even knowing that Philosophy was a formal subject of study, for example. I may be strange - but I found it pleasant to learn of its existence and relevance to science in my undergraduate degree.
What are others thoughts?