diversity and tolerance

[rusmeister]

But if there's a million-to-one chance of something happening, there's still that one chance. So the thing's not impossible, just extremely unlikely. There's no need to go looking for extra-natural solutions.

I think you haven't understood the distinction I'm making between the impossible (according to the laws of the natural universe as we know them - which can allow for extra-natural causes of the impossible claim) and the incredible (claims of behavior contrary to the laws of how we know things behave).
I posted this somewhere here recently, but here it is again:
In “The Curse of the Golden Cross,” Father Brown is made to declare, “I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.” The Byronic young American Paul T. Tarrant asks, “That’s what you call a paradox, isn’t it?”

“It’s what I call common sense, properly understood,” replied Father Brown. “It really is more natural to believe a preternatural story, that deals with things we don’t understand, than a natural story that contradicts things we do understand. Tell me that the great Mr. Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr. Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing-room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible, it’s only incredible.”

[SoulBiter]

But if there's a million-to-one chance of something happening, there's still that one chance. So the thing's not impossible, just extremely unlikely. There's no need to go looking for extra-natural solutions.

Then you are discounting science as well as spiritual or extra-natural solutions. Science explains many things by eliminating what isnt the cause and finding the most probable cause. As with my example above. If you stumbled across Mount Rushmore and didnt know it was going to be there, does your quote still hold up? Since there is a trillions to one chance that this could occur naturally should we assume that this pattern on the mountain occurred naturally? By your standard there is no need to look toward someone(s) carving these because there is still a chance that it occurs naturally (no matter how far fetched that possibility is).

Thats what Im getting at. People are so ready to discount God without a second thought but will still take a trillions to one possibility as a cause.

Don't think I agree with this. If the odds of something happening are millions to one against, and it happens, it doesn't mean it was by design. Nor would science say so. It's simply that that one chance came about.

But you are leaving out an important part of the equation of science... if the event is highly unlikely and it happens AND is a recognizable pattern, then it is thought to be by design. When improbable (recognizeable patterns) events happen more than once then the odds (mathematically) tend to show design is involved become more and more probable rather than random natural chance.

[Fist and Faith]

As I've said many times, it would seem impossible that the universe could exist without cause. Simply anything existing without cause seems - to our perceptions, which are entirely immersed in cause & effect - impossible. Various balancing factors, as SB mentions, might make it seem even more impossible. Forget about the "odds" of it happening. How do we calculate such a thing? Could be a few google to 1. Could be infinity to 1.

The thing is, it would seem at least as impossible for a being capable of designing all of this to exist without cause.

So one of two things is without cause. Either the universe, or its creator. Since there's no evidence to support the existence of a creator, but the universe is a fact in every conceivable sense of the word, I believe the uncaused thing that exists is the universe.

[SoulBiter]

That is very close to what the the 'anthropic principle' says.

It refers to any of a collection of philosophical perspectives that argue that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life observing it. As a result, proponents of such a perspective believe that the Universe having age and fundamental constants taking on values in such a narrow range is not or should not be remarkable.

or in other words:

We shouldnt be surprised that the universe is so fine tuned for us to exist because if conditions weren't right for us to be here, we wouldn't very well be here to remark on the fact.

[rusmeister]

As I've said many times, it would seem impossible that the universe could exist without cause. Simply anything existing without cause seems - to our perceptions, which are entirely immersed in cause & effect - impossible. Various balancing factors, as SB mentions, might make it seem even more impossible. Forget about the "odds" of it happening. How do we calculate such a thing? Could be a few google to 1. Could be infinity to 1.

The thing is, it would seem at least as impossible for a being capable of designing all of this to exist without cause.

So one of two things is without cause. Either the universe, or its creator. Since there's no evidence to support the existence of a creator, but the universe is a fact in every conceivable sense of the word, I believe the uncaused thing that exists is the universe.

Unless that being, like Q of Star Trek TNG, is something from completely outside this universe - yet we have no problem with suspension of disbelief regarding Q. We admit it something quite possible, if beyond our science.

Also, you're saying that because both seem equally impossible, I am choosing (B).
The universe is a fact in both worldviews, dude! There is no special logic that makes it any more likely that the universe is the uncaused thing.

[Fist and Faith]

Q is sci-fi. I have great problem believing they really exist.


The reason it's more logical to believe the universe is the uncaused thing is that the universe exists. Having no reason to believe there is a creator makes it highly illogical to assume said creator is the uncaused thing.

[Avatar]

But the odds of all this balancing out are literally trillions and trillions to 1...

The odds are the odds. Even a trillion trillion to 1 chance will come up given a trillion, trillion chances.

In this country, the odds are a million to one that you'll be murdered every day. And every day, that million to one chance comes up for 50 people.

The fact that our birth, or our existence as a species or planet is, in the words of the song, amazingly unlikely, in no way makes it somehow less amazing. If anything, I think the opposite is true.

While theoretically true, it ignores Occam's razor.

I dispute that. I dispute it most strenuously in fact.

Ockham's razor is defined as the principle of ontological economy. That entities not be needlessly multiplied. (Although in fact he never wrote those actual words, which is beside the point.)

The answer "God did it" does not represent the simplest possible explanation, but the reverse. "God" is a needlessly multiplied entity. If the world can have come into being by some other means than a god, then god is an unnecessary complication.

Indeed, rather than simplifying things, answering "God" simply postpones the complications. If God did it, then we need to ask who it is, why it did it, and by what means it was accomplished. It's not an aswer, it's a deferment. Perhaps even an evasion.

Bertrand Russell interpreted this ontological economy by stating that if one can explain a phenomenon without assuming a hypothetical entity, then there are no grounds for assuming it.

Correctly applying Ockham's razor to the existence of the world and life and the motivations of people would suggest that, since there is no need to assume a god, (being that phenomena are explained without relying on such assumption), then there are no grounds for making that assumption.

In other words, because it is possible to explain these things without reference to a god, the simplest (and theoretically most likely according to Ockham's razor) explanation is that they exist without the need for a hypothetical entity.

--A

[aliantha]

That's what I was getting at with the million-to-one analogy. When the weather guy says there's a 50% chance of showers, it doesn't mean it's going to rain on 50% of the region, or that it's going to rain for half the day. It means that you can pick a point anywhere in the forecast area, and there's a 50-50 chance that it will rain there that day -- and a 50-50 chance that no rain will fall at all. And that's true for *every* point in the forecast area.

So if there's a million-to-one chance of something being true, it's very likely that it's not -- but this might be the time that the odds are in your favor. (Which is what keeps people playing the lottery I guess...)

[SoulBiter]

But the odds of all this balancing out are literally trillions and trillions to 1...

The odds are the odds. Even a trillion trillion to 1 chance will come up given a trillion, trillion chances.

In this country, the odds are a million to one that you'll be murdered every day. And every day, that million to one chance comes up for 50 people.

The fact that our birth, or our existence as a species or planet is, in the words of the song, amazingly unlikely, in no way makes it somehow less amazing. If anything, I think the opposite is true.

However, given the explanation that you have, you deny the existance of anything outside of nature because ....... well just because.

Again I keep going back to my example because its such a great way to point out that you are discounting just because you dont want to believe it could be.

Lets go a step further. If we found a carving that so perfectly reflected a humanoid likeness (face with eyes, mouth, nose) but in a place where people from earth had never been (say on Pluto)... would you assume that it was by design or just a freak cooindence of nature? It would be obvious to you that it was by design. Why? Remember the odds are trillions and trillion and trillions to one against it being nature...but even with those odds it could be nature. You said so yourself.. even with the odds being astronomical it could still happen.

Thats why I am so surprised that people discount that a 'supreme' being that can design the universe that is so finely tuned for existence that the odds of it not being by design are astronomical but can make that same leap of faith for something as little as a sculpture.

[Fist and Faith]

However, given the explanation that you have, you deny the existance of anything outside of nature because ....... well just because.

No, not "just because." Because nothing that might conceivably exist outside of nature can be perceived in any way. If it was visible, it would be within nature. If it had mass, it would be within nature. If it gave off radioactive or electromagnetic energy, it would be within nature. Since, by definition, anything outside of nature must be undetectable by any and all means that exist (even means we have yet to discover)... Do you see what I mean? It's not unreasonable to not assume such things exist without remarkably good reason.

Again I keep going back to my example because its such a great way to point out that you are discounting just because you dont want to believe it could be.

I think everyone arguing against you position agrees that it could be. It's just that that's a far different thing from it is a fact.

Lets go a step further. If we found a carving that so perfectly reflected a humanoid likeness (face with eyes, mouth, nose) but in a place where people from earth had never been (say on Pluto)... would you assume that it was by design or just a freak cooindence of nature? It would be obvious to you that it was by design. Why? Remember the odds are trillions and trillion and trillions to one against it being nature...but even with those odds it could be nature. You said so yourself.. even with the odds being astronomical it could still happen.

Thats why I am so surprised that people discount that a 'supreme' being that can design the universe that is so finely tuned for existence that the odds of it not being by design are astronomical but can make that same leap of faith for something as little as a sculpture.

It's certainly not impossible that, somewhere in the universe, a hunk of rock happens to be human-shaped. Heck, every potato in the world looks like Nixon, right? But I wouldn't, and I doubt Av would, assume that such a formation, especially as close to Earth as Pluto, must be natural. I would assume it was not natural, and would not change that assumption unless very extensive tests were done on it that ruled out the possibility that it had been intentionally made in that shape.

[SoulBiter]

It's certainly not impossible that, somewhere in the universe, a hunk of rock happens to be human-shaped. Heck, every potato in the world looks like Nixon, right? But I wouldn't, and I doubt Av would, assume that such a formation, especially as close to Earth as Pluto, must be natural. I would assume it was not natural, and would not change that assumption unless very extensive tests were done on it that ruled out the possibility that it had been intentionally made in that shape.

Exactly! And thats what Im saying. Why is it so easy to take that leap of faith for design for something that isnt proven (formation on pluto) but nearly as easy to make the same leap to design of the universe? Is it because the universe is so large? Is it that the idea is too large?

Im not trying to convince anyone.. I just think its an anomoly of sorts that for people there are some leaps of faith that seem somewhat intuitive and they make them every day but other leaps of faith are discounted without a second thought. Still no proof for either but one is considered but the other is not.

[Vraith]

I don't know that I believe these odds. If it's trillions to one...perhaps "unworkable" ones kept happening, and failing, until the one that works worked.

Or maybe the chances are exactly 1 in 1. It's that way cuz it's the only possible way it can be.

Same goes with guesses about chances of life evolving...it's not like there's only one time, one place, one chance where it could, there are billions and billions of all of those...so many, I'd be surprised if it didn't happen...and probably more than once, and not just on earth [though I doubt we've had any visitors].

[Fist and Faith]

It's certainly not impossible that, somewhere in the universe, a hunk of rock happens to be human-shaped. Heck, every potato in the world looks like Nixon, right? But I wouldn't, and I doubt Av would, assume that such a formation, especially as close to Earth as Pluto, must be natural. I would assume it was not natural, and would not change that assumption unless very extensive tests were done on it that ruled out the possibility that it had been intentionally made in that shape.

Exactly! And thats what Im saying. Why is it so easy to take that leap of faith for design for something that isnt proven (formation on pluto) but nearly as easy to make the same leap to design of the universe? Is it because the universe is so large? Is it that the idea is too large?

Im not trying to convince anyone.. I just think its an anomoly of sorts that for people there are some leaps of faith that seem somewhat intuitive and they make them every day but other leaps of faith are discounted without a second thought. Still no proof for either but one is considered but the other is not.

The problem has been discussed often. I don't mean here, although it has a bit.

Every single one of us has seen many, many, many things with humanoid likeness. Every single one of them is a human, or has been made by a human. Nobody disputes this. And nobody has ever made a claim to have seen anything with humanoid likeness come into being by means other than by being born to, or made by, a human.

All of that being the case, it is not unreasonable to expect things we find with humanoid likeness to be born of, or made by, humans. If asteroids looked humanoid... If other planets... If rock formations scattered around the world... If you cut an apple in half and found a face looking at you... But none of that is the case. We do not know of any means, other than being born to, or made by, a human that makes things look human.

So one showing up on Pluto would be suspicious. Might be we'd find some odd marks, or radioactive energy, or something, that would suggest it's not a naturally occurring rock. Are there chisel-like marks on it, and nothing looking like that on the other rocks of Pluto? Is the surface sorta melted, as though a laser or something carved it out? It's all worth looking into. Especially since it's not far from us. I'd be surprised if we didn't find something like that. Could be somebody had some bizarre means of getting things off-planet, and it got that far. Or maybe an extraterrestrial saw us, and made it. If we found the object in another galaxy, I'd be less surprised if it was a bizarre coincidence that a rock looks human without signs of having been made that way, but I'd still expect to find the manipulation.

[Avatar]

However, given the explanation that you have, you deny the existance of anything outside of nature because ....... well just because.

Not just because. Because I've seen no evidence of anything outside of nature, and because, given that we can explain it without resorting to some supernatural cause, there is no need to imagine some supernatural cause.

--A

[SoulBiter]

However, given the explanation that you have, you deny the existance of anything outside of nature because ....... well just because.

Not just because. Because I've seen no evidence of anything outside of nature, and because, given that we can explain it without resorting to some supernatural cause, there is no need to imagine some supernatural cause.

--A

Then explain how the universe is so finely tuned for our existance?

The statistics of all these things being in such a perfect balance are staggering. Not just one thing but every thing is very finely tuned. A bit more gravity one way or the other and we dont exist. A bit further from the sun and we dont exist, a bit closer and we dont exist. A little more atmosphere and we dont exist, a bit less and we dont exist. If the Earth rotated even a little faster, fierce cyclones would stir over the Earth like a kitchen food-mixer. If the Earth turned slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot or cold. A bit more speed in the expansion of the universe and we dont exist. A bit less expansion and we dont exist. Big bang ripples..if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before a life-site could form. Decay rate of protons.. if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life.

etc etc etc.... Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe from the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy—is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. "

Richard Dawkins

[Vraith]

I still think you're looking at it the wrong way around.
For all we know, other kinds of universes have before, or will after this one, exist[ed]. For all we know, there are 2 or 10 or 10 billion possible universal constant mixes that could spawn life.
Granted it wouldn't likely be us/our kind...but the universe isn't fine-tuned for us, we are fine-tuned to it.

[Fist and Faith]

The thing is, SB, if the odds are trillions to one against it, there are several times as many opportunities. Check out the size of the universe, eh? How many stars are out there? Is it really unlikely that, in the unimaginably - literally, unimaginably - huge vastness of reality, the odds couldn't work this way?

And if things were different, the sentient lightrays that were zipping around the universe might be thinking, "Wow! The odds of things being just right for our existence are so tiny that it MUST have been done on purpose. NO kind of life would be possible if it wasn't exactly like this." But it's not necessarily the case.

Besides, how could things be so perfect as to allow the existence of the creator you're thinking of? What are the odds of that happening? Significantly less than the universe?

[Fist and Faith]

the universe isn't fine-tuned for us, we are fine-tuned to it.

That's a remarkably good way of viewing and saying it!!

[SoulBiter]

I don't disagree with what you and Vraith are saying. Even saying we are fine tuned to the universe is staggering odds. What Im pointing out is that with all the vastness of the odds you are willing to take a leap of faith to say "even though I have no proof that life exists based on random chance I still accept random chance as the explanation" but are not willing to think in terms of design in which the odds are also astronomical. (since we also have no solid proof of design).

Either is equally possible (or impossible) but only one is accepted in todays classrooms as 'science'.

[Avatar]

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. "

Richard Dawkins

I think we view blind chance differently. Everything didn't just magically fall into place in one busy day in just such a way to make us be here. Things changed over millions of years as natural processes occurred which changed other things and so on.

The universe, and us, didn't just pop into existence overnight, fully formed and functioning. We're the (current) end product of millenia of change and adaptation to that change.

There isn't oxygen simply because we happened to need it. We need it because it was what was here to use, as it were. (Oh...Vraith put it better. )

Either is equally possible (or impossible) but only one is accepted in todays classrooms as 'science'.

Either may be equally "possible" in terms of proof, but only one has tested and repeatable evidence to support its claims.

--A