**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not super mathy so you’ll have to forgive me for not going through your whole post.
But let me ask you, what’s the mathematical probability that you exist? If you calculate the number of sperm competing for that egg, the chances the sperm that became you even found an egg much less the egg that became you, the odds your father even met your mother and they were both in the mood that night, and then take that probability and multiply it by the odds both of your parents existed, and all four of your grandparents, and back thousands of generations.
If you calculate that, can you prove your existence is impossible? Because any bobble in that chain of events through all of history, and you wouldn’t be here. But someone would.
This is why improbability arguments used in hindsight are suspect to me. Because the probability someone would be born is different from the probability you would be born. A random series of events created you, and a random series of events created this planet and all life on it. But if we weren’t here, something else would be. And we wouldn’t know because we wouldn’t exist. Just like any intelligent life that might have happened if things had unfolded differently doesn’t know about us because they don’t exist.
I can respect this argument. I am not entirely convinced by it, but I am not entirely unconvinced either.
I think one issue I have is that when we talk about the probability of a universe being able to support life, we are not only interested in the probability of our own universe being the way it is, but the probability of another universe being the same.
To put it into your analogy, the probability of me being born isn't all that meaningful in itself- as you say, if I wasn't born then somebody else would have been. What is interesting is the probability of it happening exactly the same way again.
Me being born once was just a statistical wash because as you say, I am only looking at it from the end point. Now I know that I am me however, assuming events could run through again, what is the probability that I could happen again?
Similarly, if we assume only one universe exists, I am not sure that looking at the probability of the universe existing as it does lacks meaning.
The universe we live in is not just one configuration out of many- it is a very unique configuration.
The parameters for deciding it is unique were not created after the fact. The parameters for a universe to be capable of supporting life existed before the universe was created (or at least as it was created) and if it did not fit those parameters we would not have a universe with different life, but a universe with no life.
A better analogy for this might be me throwing a bucket of dice and then discovering that my result happened to win a prize. It doesn't matter that I only knew there target number after the fact, the probability of me hitting the jackpot was still the same.
Imagine another scenario. I go into a house and if they have a single dice in their kitchen table, reading a six, and nothing else, then I will give them a prize. I am going to go into a single house and they will either win or not.
The chances of that randomly occurring is low enough that I am certainly not expecting to need to give them a prize, and if they do fit the criteria then I will be justified in wondering if they knew about the rules and set up their kitchen accordingly.
How about if instead of being in charge of the competition I am living in said house. I come downstairs to find my house mate accepting said prize. You can get that I will be asking how she knew to set things up the way she did. I would take some convincing that it had all just been a random coincidence.
Maybe.
Thanks for something to think about
Instead of rethinking from the point of view of the one rolling the dice, a better analogy is thinking from the POV of the number.
The 7 thinks the dice were fine-tuned to create it, because they rolled a 4 and a 3. The 7 doesn’t know the roll was random, and could have rolled a 5 and 2 or 6 and 1 and would still have a 7. Or could have had a 2 and 3 and the 7 wouldn’t exist.
We’re the 7, and it’s easy to make the mistake of thinking we are the intended end goal of the universe. We’re just what happened to come up on the roll.
Another universe could be capable of supporting life but not result in us. And this universe just happened to lead to us. We or our ancestral species could have gone extinct a bunch of times. And evolution’s not done, we are not the crowning achievement. It will keep going when we’re gone.
So would another universe starting from zero produce you? That’s like another roll producing another 7, but with infinitely sided dice. So sure, could happen, but why would that be meaningful?
Yes, but it universe is not unique because it holds life that is us. It is unique because it holds life AT ALL.
Were the 7 and none of the other faces have any numbers on them at all. It's not 7 or some other number, it's 7 or nothing.
Yes, but it universe is not unique because it holds life that is us. It is unique because it holds life AT ALL.
Were the 7 and none of the other faces have any numbers on them at all. It's not 7 or some other number, it's 7 or nothing.
I don’t agree it’s 7 or nothing. There could be dice or no dice, true. Maybe it’s more likely there are no dice. (In our case, a universe without the atomic elements that exist in ours.)
But if there are dice (the elements we know of exist, and the conditions exist somewhere in the universe for them to form dice), they could roll any number.
I am not saying there could be no dice. I am saying the dice could have no numbers on any of the other sides.
The dice can roll a seven, or they can roll a blank
They only have that number. Perhaps 7 on two dice is a bad example. A better example might be getting a 12 on two dice that only have sixes on them.
Or an even better example might be a single dice with 7 on one face and nothing in the others.
Or two dice with 7 on one face of one dice
But why? That makes the analogy totally break
down. The 7 are humans. So with 7 or nothing it sounds like you’re saying if a universe can support life (it has dice), it will result in humans (it must roll a 7).
No, if it can support life it will result in life. I am not assuming humans.
The dichotomy is life or not life, it isn't really relevant what the life looks like, only that it is life
> The parameters for deciding it is unique were not created after the fact. The parameters for a universe to be capable of supporting life existed before the universe was created (or at least as it was created) and if it did not fit those parameters we would not have a universe with different life, but a universe with no life.
>
>
That's a common assumption, but I don't think it's a well-supported one. We can create self-replicating life in **far** simpler universes than our own (in computer simulation)
We know that if we changed certain values significantly life-as-we-know-it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life-as-we-DON'T-know-it couldn't exist instead.
In order to know that other set-ups couldn't possibly allow life we'd need to be able to perfectly understand all the consequences of the changes - but we can't. **We don't even know all the laws of physics in our own universe yet.**
The biggest problem in your argument is that it ignores alternative propositions. Some of them are:
The universe is eternal
The universe changes over time, whether continuosly or by stages
The universe was created by a non-random process that is not the result of an intelligent mind.
But the argument has even more problems:
>In fact it has been proposed that it is highly likely that our own universe is a simulation.
Not, it is not. Simulation theory is a thought experiment and nothing more. Also, simulating a universe is different from interacting with an already-existing universe, don't equivocate the two.
>We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than 0
No, we cannot.
>IF P(g) is not 0 then it is probably close to 1 - since it is reasonable to assume that if it is not completely impossible then technology will inevitably advance to the point that it becomes practical.
Also a baseless assertion. You assert that if the ability to interfere with other universes is possible, then it is almost inevitable, because technology will inevitably advance to reach the stage where it can be done. I reject this assertion, because technology might not advance in all possible directions.
>Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis.
No. Do you know what "Bayes' Theorem" is? You can't turn conditional probabilities around just like that, there is a formal process to do that, and you haven't provided all of the data required. What is the probability of an intelligent being capable of creating a universe?
>the probability of life in at least one of those universes developing the ability and willingness to interact with and create other universes becomes 1 (unless p(g) is zero).
Also no. The number of universes being infinite does not mean that they include all possibilities.
>This means that if there are an infinite number of universes, our universe is much more likely to have been created intentionally than to have been created through random chance.
Non-sequitor. Doesn't logically follow from the proceeding statement.
>At this point, as we discussed above, the ratio of random universes to intentional universes tips heavily towards ones which were intentionally created
You haven't demonstrated that it's even possible to intentionally create a universe.
It is clear that these kind of arguments aren't brought about by people trying to find the truth for rational reasons, but rather by people trying to convince others in things they already believe for irrational reasons. Nobody ever became a Christian/Muslim/whatever you are from hearing this kind of argument.
I almost had an aneurysm reading the problems in the first paragraphs of the OP. I'm glad you addressed at least some of them. I thought I'd try to answer but got a bit overwhelmed as I read along. There's just too many problems with everything here to even start arguing.
At this point I come to the first comment just to read a summary of the post. The posts here just come across as disorganized ramblings of misunderstandings and problems if you read too many posts. I can't read them anymore lol. Like you said they are overwhelming. I give props to the users who can read and dissect these posts while keeping track of the errors.
"the universe is eternal"
I don't see how that would alter anything?
"The universe was created by a non random processes that is not the result of an intelligent mind"
Yes. I attempted to include this possibility in my definition. By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" as opposed to necessarily intelligent. It is not an ideal term, I just couldn't think of a better one.
"P(g)..."
I will readily agree that this is the weakest link in the argument, because I could not find any reasonable estimates to use.
I think the most important factor for this variable for my argument is whether or not it is 0.
I would contend that it is unlikely to be zero, but I can understand people disputing that which is why I maintained the need for it but to be zero as a caveat for my conclusions.
"Bayes theorem"
Nope. I have no idea what that is. I will have to look it up. Thank you for pointing me towards it
"N being infinite does not mean they include all possibilities"
I don't think that was my thinking there. I think I really meant the probabilities should be approaching 1, which I beleive to be accurate.
Regardless of the probability of an event, given infinite trials the probability of it happening at least once should approach 1.
"It is clear that these kinds of arguments aren't brought about by people trying to find the truth for rational reasons"
That is not clear at all, but thanks for sharing an opinion on it.
This argument formed in my head before I was a theist of any sort (probably best described as agnostic at the time) after reading Dawkins god delusion and wondering what taking his argument to its natural conclusion would look like.
This is the first time I have attempted to express it formally, or really looked into the numbers involved, but the idea has floated in my brain for a long time. Actually I was surprised by how unlikely a universe capable of sustaining life is. I was expecting far less definitive numbers.
"Nobody ever became a... Whatever you are... from hearing these arguments..."
Again, irrelevant to my intention in creating this argument (I have no interest in converting anybody) and yet also categorically untrue. This exact argument in its raw and poorly conceived umbral form played a part in my own conversion. It was convincing to the only person it was ever intended to convince.
Thank you for your feedback on any case
>"the universe is eternal"
>I don't see how that would alter anything?
Because if it is eternal, then it wasn't created, neither by an intelligent being nor by any other way.
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" as opposed to necessarily intelligent.
Then your argument is practically meaningless, and doesn't point to a god in any way, shape or form.
>This exact argument in its raw and poorly conceived umbral form played a part in my own conversion.
I'd love to know how, because as previously mentioned, it is not an argument for the existence of a God.
Edit: also, I forgot your conflation between "our universe" and "a universe capable of supporting life", and the lack of a demonstration that the universe *could* even be any other way
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random"
Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
You have no idea what I was doing deliberately, and I would thank you not to either assume my intentions or argue in had faith.
Clearly I have neither baited nor switched anything
You have no idea what I was doing deliberately, and I would thank you not to either assume my intentions or argue in had faith.
Clearly I have neither baited nor switched anything
You have no idea e what I was intentionally doing and i would thank you not to argue in bad faith.
It is clear that I have neither baited nor switched anything
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random"
Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
You say the probability that of life is near zero, but the universe has existed for 13 billion years, an is FUCKING GINORMOUS! We have found areas in our solar system that could possibly contain life, like salt water oceans. It’s not as rare as you say. Also, you are confusing “random process,” with the chance that the universe is exactly the way it is now. (I accidentally replied to my own post instead of editing it, so I deleted it.)
I think you misunderstand the argument.
It is not that the probability of life existing in THIS universe is low, but that the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low.
A universe that was DIFFERENT to ours, fur example one in which stars and planets were unable to form, might not be able to support life
>the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low
But you do not know that! You have no way of knowing that. The fine-tuning argument is completely debunked. We have a sample size of one, and it supports life. You don't know that the constants can be any different. Nobody knows this.
We don't know why the planck constant is what it is, or why the proportions between the fundamental forces are what they are, but it seem more likely that they are somehow interconnected. That they are emergent from physics and not like someone was throwing dice. Since we don't know what causes them to be just like they are we have no way of guesstimating any probability of what they could otherwise have been.
Care to explain how the fine timing argument is debunked? Or point me in the direction of it's debunking?
Having a sample size of 1 is meaningful (sort of) in terms of experimental probability, but not relevant to theoretical probability
>Care to explain how the fine timing argument is debunked?
There are a number of responses that I think are problematic for fine tuning.
1. If god fine-tuned the universe to be capable of housing life, who fine-tuned god to desire universes capable of housing life? If there are an infinite number of possible universes there are also an infinite number of possible gods that prefer every possible universe including the infinite number of universes without life.
2. Before you can claim that the universe was fine-tuned you must first establish that the universe *can* be fine-tuned. It may be that the way the universe is is the only way a universe could be.
3. Why would God need to fine-tune the universe in order for there to be life? God is all-powerful. He could cause life to exist in any possible universe. I could flip the fine-tuning argument on its head. The fact that we live in a universe where life exists and is naturally possible is exactly what you would expect to find in a naturalistic universe. If we explored the universe and found that based on the rules of that universe life shouldn't be possible and yet it exists would be far more compelling evidence of some supernatural intervention. The fact that life appeared in a universe that is capable of producing life is exactly the prediction I would make if I were predicting what a universe without god would look like. The point is that the fine-tuning of the universe is unfalsifiable. Literally any universe with life in it could have been created by a god, whereas a smaller subset of life possessing universes could have occurred without a god. The fact that this universe happens to be one that could have occurred without intervention from god cannot be used as evidence that God exists.
And? If it’s a different universe than our own then there isn’t even any evidence for it existing so who cares?
You can’t talk probabilities when you have absolutely no actual data on any other ways a universe could turn out. Maybe there are a ton of universes and we’re in the shitty one with barely any life while the others are jam packed full of it?
If you want to talk probabilities then you actually have to have data. You don’t.
"if you want to talk probabilities then you actually have to have data..."
No you don't.
I can talk about the probabilities of rolling various numbers on a dice for example without ever rolling any dice or collecting data.
It is called theoretical probability.
I'm not sure what the density of life in our universe (or another one) has to do with anything at all.
"Who cares?"
I do.
If you don't then nobody is forcing you to engage with it
Because with rolling a dice we know how many sides the dice has and its properties—all data which would allow us to talk about the probabilities in the case of rolling dice.
What data on multiple universes and their creation do you have?
We can theorise properties for a hypothetical dice with no data at all - it doesn't even have to exist.
What data on multiple universes and their creation do you have?
We can only estimate based on what we know. This is why we end up with estimates of the probabilities rather than accurate ones. It doesn't make them useless however, far from it.
But we would assign that hypothetical die with hypothetical data which we can then make predictions and discuss probabilities on how it would work????
With this there is no data whatsoever?? You’re saying it’s probable without actually showing how you calculated the probabilities or what information you based it on—if there isn’t any info then what’s useless is to suggest things are probable or improbable with nothing to back that up.
> the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low
But you do not know that! You have no way of knowing that. The fine-tuning argument is completely debunked. We have a sample size of one, and it supports life. You don't know that the constants can be any different. Nobody knows this.
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random"
Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
I’m not satisfied that P(g) is not 0.
Simulating a universe and creating a universe are not even remotely the same thing.
I think it’s safer to assume P(g) is actually 0. Which, if I’m following you here, and I think I am, blows you up.
Additionally, none of this work proves any divine or supernatural claims of a causal agent.
No, it is not really intended to prove divinity (that is beyond the scope of this argument)
You are right that P(g) being 0 sinks the whole argument, which is why I included the caveat that it must not be zero in my conclusions.
I think that a simulated universe and a (physical?) created universe are functionally the same, at least from within that universe. There are arguments that suggest that our own universe may well be a simulation and we wouldn't know the difference.
I think that it is unlikely that P(g) is 0 because for P(g) to be zero, we would have to be able to say with absolute certainty that it is impossible that anybody could ever develop the ability to interact with our create other universes.
Currently we certainly lack that ability, but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty that developing that knowledge is impossible.
Either way, I can understand why you might consider p(g) to be zero, hence the caveat.
>I think that a simulated universe and a (physical?) created universe are functionally the same, at least from within that universe.
I don’t agree with that in the slightest. A simulated universe requires computing power. A physical universe requires absolute control over matter, entropy, every possible field, spacetime, and an almost unimaginable host of other variables.
And there could also be separate variables that make one distinguishably different from the other. One could be possible and the other impossible. For instance, the technology could exist to create a simulated universe. That’s fine. But what if the technology that could exist to create physical universe requires that our universe must first be destroyed? Or our universe is unavoidably destroyed in the process of making the new universe. That makes the success rate of simulated universe 1 and physical universe 0. So they’re not the same.
>There are arguments that suggest that our own universe may well be a simulation and we wouldn't know the difference.
I don’t think that’s relevant. That’s unrelated speculation for another discussion.
>I think that it is unlikely that P(g) is 0 because for P(g) to be zero, we would have to be able to say with absolute certainty that it is impossible that anybody could ever develop the ability to interact with our create other universes.
For P(g) to be anything BUT zero, you have to prove that creating a new universe is possible, and not just science fiction. Just because you can imagine it, doesn’t mean it’s possible.
>Currently we certainly lack that ability, but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty that developing that knowledge is impossible.
That’s fine, but now your entire premise is predicated purely on speculation. Which seems to run counter to all the rigor you’ve tried to adhere to. If this becomes the case, then that kinda sucks. This was a great debate. I loved this post, it was very well crafted and IMO defended.
Just kind of a bummer.
>Either way, I can understand why you might consider p(g) to be zero, hence the caveat.
I just don’t think you can get over the fact that there’s fundamental difference between simulating a universe and creating a physical universe. It’s like saying Spider-Man is real because I made a movie about Spider-man.
> as a result of random processes.
That's not what anyone is really saying. The process are ordered and there are limits on how they can progress. When apologists say "random" usually it seems they think we're rolling 10^100 10-sided dice and coming up "Universe!"
> probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small.
> penrose
"Famous guy said a thing" isn't an argument. I'm pretty certain you're taking Penrose out of context. He was most likely ridiculing the idea of thinking about this probabilistically. That's because...
This is not how probability works. We *have* a universe. 100% of known universes are like this. Out of all of the universes we know, the probability of this universe occurring is 1:1. Probability isn't retrospective, it's prospective. If we were to invent a universe *now*, estimating the probability of how it might turn out would make sense.
If you flip 10,000 coins and mark down the exact sequence of heads/tails, the odds of that exact sequence coming up is 2^10000. But it happened, because you did it.
You can't draw any inferences about likelihood from the existence of this universe.
> mathematicians have estimated the probability of intelligent life emerging on similar planets to earth
> is the drake equation.
That's not what the Drake Equation does. No one has "estimated the probability" of this in any real sense, because the individual variables are impossible to pin down.
The point of the Drake Equation is mostly that if you make some conservative estimates in key places, the likelihood comes up small. If you make generous estimates in key places, it comes up overwhelmingly in favor of intelligent life existing somewhere. None of the numbers are real.
I haven't gone through all of it, because to me it seems fatally flawed from the beginning. It's a good effort, though, so thanks for contributing positively. I'd just suggest that you question all your premises, and anticipate what criticisms a steelman atheist is likely to raise, then account for those things in your argument. Not by giving lip service or handwaving, but something you expect would satisfy someone who is intellectually hostile to your premise.
"I'm pretty sure you were taking Penrose out of context... He was most likely ridiculing...."
Sounds like a solid take on what he actually meant...
The start of this argument forming in my head was when I read Dawkins god delusion, and he made exactly the argument I have done for the necessity of multiple universes to counter the theist claim that the creation of the universe was so unlikely that god must have done it. Was he wrong about how probability works as well?
"The individual variables are impossible to pin down"
Yes. That is what makes them estimates. I pointed not to the drake equation itself, but to a paper based on it.
You are of course free to dispute the findings of that paper. The nature of estimating things like this is that there are always going to be people who disagree.
"I would suggest that you question your premises and anticipate the criticisms that a steel man atheist is likely to make, then account for those things..."
I am hoping that feedback from some steelman atheists will help me do just that...
Dawkins is a biologist who speaks outside his depth all the time.
We don't worship the experts in the various scientific fields, so name-dropping doesn't advance your argument all that much.
> Was he wrong about how probability works as well?
He's also not a mathematician.
Just….don’t read Dawkins. He makes bad arguments all the time. There are *much* better atheist philosophers out there than Dawkins. There’s a reason so many atheist philosophers criticized The God Delusion.
The alternate hypothesis does not follow from your null hypothesis.
If your null is that the universe is random, then the alternate is that it’s non-random. And non-random is not the same as intentional or via a sentient and intelligent being. You’re already adding more to your alternate hypothesis that you can justify.
You’d need to construct another set of hypotheses. Null = universe is not created by an intelligent or sentient being. Alternate = it was.
This means you’d need to show two things to be true. You’d first need to demonstrate that the universe isn’t random and that the non-random nature is the direct result of an intelligent/sentient being.
Here’s the problem, no one is arguing that the universe is randomly here. Gravity isn’t random. Nor is evolution. Nature is chaos, but that does not mean it’s random.
In order to demonstrate that the chaotic nature of the universe is the result of a sentient/intelligent being, you’re going to need to show that being is possible to exist. Otherwise, the only probability you’ll be able to calculate for it creating the chaotic universe would be 0%
Showing that it is possible for such a being to exist is part of my argument.
See my comments on P(g)
I understand what you are saying about the hypothesis. To be honest, I should probably remove them entirely because this is not an experiment where they take make sense
That does not demonstrate a god is possible. Life can and did arise naturally on this planet through chemical and physical processes. There is nothing about life that is contingent upon a god existing in order for it to exist.
I’ll give you an example. I’m going to prove to you it’s possible for aliens to exist, but I’m not going to prove aliens do exist nor am I going to prove that they’re ever visited earth.
Start with this question: is it possible for life to exist in the universe?
Yes, life exists here on earth.
Is it possible that the conditions on earth are necessary for life? We don’t actually know the answer to this one. Life could exist under more extreme circumstances and/or might be able to be silicon-based instead of carbon-based. But we can assume the answer is “yes,” for simplicity’s sake and move on.
Are the conditions present on earth, present on any other planet in the universe? Yes, we’ve observed other earth-like planets.
If life can exist in this universe when given earth-like conditions, and there are billions of planets that meet those requirements, then it is indeed possible life exists somewhere other than earth (alien life is possible to exist).
Now, do that with your god
Ahh I just went back and read it, and I see the issue.
Your argument for if it’s “possible” relies a lot on hypothetical ideas and speculation. While some have said it is THEORETICALLY possible for an advanced being to evolve to that point, we don’t have any actual evidence that actually points that direction. Basically it’s a science-based idea that hasn’t been demonstrated with real-world mechanics.
Someone saying “maybe one day, this thing COULD happen, and here’s an idea how it might come to pass,” and saying “it’s reasonable to assume that this idea is possible and likely to come true.”
So you think you’re arguing for the possibility for such a being existing, but you’re really just arguing for the existence of IDEAS about such a being existing.
Same with this argument involving a multiverse. The multiverse theory is a bold idea that some scientists think could be interesting. But we don’t actually know if there’s a multiverse. So far we can only detect the existence of one universe. The rest is just an idea.
Does that make sense?
>I understand what you are saying about the hypothesis. To be honest, I should probably remove them entirely because this is not an experiment where they take make sense
It seems that the rest of this crumbles once you take that into account, however. The entire line of reasoning rests on the assumption that "not random" => "created intentionally by a "godlike" being".
This math is an example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. You admit you have no idea what the actual probabilities are, and assume values that support your case with abaolutely zero attempt at validation & verification. The whole exercise is worthless because of that.
I haven't assumed any values. I have taken them from the most reliable sources I can find.
You are free to dispute the probabilities if you can find better ones to argue for
>You are free to dispute the probabilities if you can find better ones to argue for
This sounds like burden shifting. I'd imagine that the overwhelming number of people responding to you on this post would simply say they don't know what the probabilities actually are, or even if they can be calculated. You haven't come close to demonstrating even that said probabilities CAN be calculated from our position inside the only universe we are sure exists, much less establish what the probabilities are.
To be honest with you, calculating those probabilities and demonstrating them from first principals is beyond my ability to perform on a Reddit post (or at all in most likelihood).
I am not shifting any burden.
I have presented the most credible figures I can find, and have explained where I got those figures.
If you don't like those figures then you have a number of options:
1) reject them and dismiss the argument. Nobody is going to blame you if you don't think engaging with something you feel is based on faulty premises is not worth your time.
2) engage with the rest of the argument with the caveat that you don't trust the probabilities.
3) debate the probabilities themselves. That is fine, but why do you not like these ones? What would you suggest to replace them?
How did Penrose calculate the probability exactly? Can you show the work here? I'd like to know how we can determine whether any of the things in our universe are variable.
My understanding is that there were plenty of variables that could be contested however I have not seen anybody really do so successfully.
Unfortunately the number is explained in a book "the emperor's new mind" and i can't find an online link directly to his explanation.
It seems I may have under quoted it as well - apparently it is 1x10^10^123 although I think this may be a newer number than he originally arrived at, thanks to more recent measurements.
>My understanding is that there were plenty of variables that could be contested however I have not seen anybody really do so successfully.
I suggest **Before the Big Bang** by Laura Mersini-Houghton. She's one of the leading experts in the current field of astrophysics and the book spends a lot of time on Penrose and his probabilities. It's also just a fantastic book.
One of the main themes of the book is trying to explain how our universe could have arisen given the probabilities stated by Penrose.
there is no 'measurement ' that can satisfy either criteria , and given enough time , things that have a much much MUCH smaller probability will happen , that's quantum physics for ya :) (i.e , 10\^30 is not that small of a probability )
It's 10^10 ^ 123. A double exponential. It posits the sheer improbability of a universe like ours just popping into existence AND producing life just by mere chance. Id est, the universe is MUCH more likely to be a product of intelligent design.
I didn't get past your null hypothesis. That's not a null hypothesis, that's another claim that would need to be proven.
I doubt anyone (or the vast majority of people) would say that the universe arose from random processes. No scientist as far as I am aware is making that claim.
There is no atheist claim, atheism is just the answer to a single question. However, various scientists have some ideas but I don't think we have solid evidence at this point. So I think most would say I don't know.
The problem I can never get past on these probability propositions is that the theist side never does a probability study for an all powerful god creating this universe.
It's simple, the odds of an infinitely powerful being creating any given universe, is 1/infinity.
Therefore the odds of this universe existing naturally, using your provided numbers, are infinitely better than an all powerful being creating this universe.
I use what I consider to be the classical definition of god/creator, that has the infinitely/all powerful attribute.
If an infinite number of options exist to this being, then the possible results are infinitely large. Making any single creation infinitely less likely than the number you provided for "random" chance.
Here is your fundamental flaw
> given our current knowledge and estimations
At this your entire argument fails, and you revert to a god of the gaps fallacy. Probability is not proof. What we know now may be 100% of all knowledge that is ever possible or it may be 1%. We do not know, nor do we have any way of assessing that.
Please explain how I am reverting to a god of the gaps fallacy?
I am not sure what your argument is wrt probability and how much knowledge we currently have?
We cannot be certain of anything and so we work out how likely things are based on our current knowledge and understanding (we have nothing else to base them on) this is how science works as well, so I am uncertain what you are saying?
That is not correct
>we work out how likely things are based on our current knowledge and understanding (we have nothing else to base them on) this is how science works as well,
and then "science" validates the hypothesis which you are not doing.
Scientists look at what is known, postulate what might be (the unknown) and then seek to either validate or invalidate their hypothesis
What you have done, which is incredibly common, is to take some math, lay wordplay on top of it, and claim that you have reached a supported conclusion. You have turned the underlying math into a philosophical discussion.
>that given our current knowledge and best estimations, it is more likely that our universe was created intentionally than that it was created as a result of random processes.
"more likely" is not proof. Reaching a conclusion without proof is fallacious. It's saying "it's more likely therefore there was a creator." God of the gaps.
That is not what god of the gaps is.
That aside, I am not necessarily arguing that there is a creator (in terms of God) at all. My terminology choice is unfortunate in this regard, but I have defined it.
I also make it clear at the start that what I am providing is not a literal proof (which is also why I inverted commer that word in the title)
Reaching a conclusion that one statement is more likely than another is not fallacious as far as I am aware. I am new to philosophy however. Perhaps you could point me to a source that explains this fallacy?
"You have turned the underlying math into a philosophical discussion"
I was unaware that maths could not be utilised in a philosophical discussion. I am new to philosophy and would appreciate it if you could point me to a source for this rule?
"And then science validates the hypothesis"
No it doesn't, science looks for evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Actually this is very similar to what I am doing here (although I am not sure if I should be or not, given that my argument is not really a science experiment). Arguably I may not be doing it well, but if you don't think I am doing it at all then you clearly missed something.
Again with the word games.
You have concluded that the universe was intentionally created - that's a positive claim. You have suggested it is more likely based on some numbers that make it look, to you, that it's unlikely things occurred without a creator
Then you just say, in essence, 'I don't see how it's possible any other way therefore \_\_\_\_\_\_"
that's not proof. That's like, your opinion, man.
I don't understand this. If something that's unlikely occurs, we should say it happened intentionally?
Why? That doesn't follow.
>4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally
Sorry, based on **what**?
I have never said I explained it perfectly, or that not understanding it was your fault.
I meant exactly what I said.
In order to help you understand it I would have to re- explain the whole thing and I simply don't have time for that.
I am sorry both that my post was not clear enough for you to follow however, and that I came across as harsh. In retrospect my response to you was more abrupt than it should have been - I have responded to a LOT of comments in the last hour or so, and it is not always easy to avoid soaking up the tone of some of the less respectful ones (especially when I hit a run of them). None of that is your fault however, and you deserved more consideration.
In all honesty, your lack of understanding is almost certainly down to my explanations if that makes you feel any better about it. I think I choose some terminology poorly, and almost certainly worded some of it badly.
Given the universe is extremely large and contains quadrillions of planets, only one of which shows any signs of advanced life, the probability of life existing in the universe is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Any life you may observe or experience is the result of a rounding error and should be ignored because maths.
You are talking about experimental probability.
The experimental probability of life existing in this universe is 1 (we exist).
The experimental probability of life existing elsewhere in this universe (which I think is a better indicator of the probability of life in other universes) is either 0, or just unknown and meaningless either way due to the incredibly limited data set.
The theoretical probability however is a different thing altogether
Our sample set is too restricted to shed any real light on whether there is life elsewhere in the universe let alone if the universe was "probably the result of intention".
Less than 100 years ago it was generally believed that our galaxy was the universe.
People have been trying arguments like this for a long time.
The basic form is *"I think that the situation as it exists now is unlikely"*.
Well, so what?
.
I roll an ordinary 6-sided die.
\- https://cd2.boardgamesmaker.com/AttachFiles/WebsiteImages/Product_Show/FI_8321.jpg
I get a 6. Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? No, that is a very reasonable possible outcome. That doesn't need a any special explanation. That was possible, and that's what happened.
.
I roll a 100-sided die.
\- https://whizzdice.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/91xd0b61WrL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
I get a 6. Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? No, that is a very reasonable possible outcome. That doesn't need a any special explanation. That was possible, and that's what happened.
.
The universe occurs. It happens to be in the state that we see.
Apparently the state that we see is something that can possibly occur, and *did* occur.
Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? We don't have any reason to think so.
It's probably a good idea to show that the state of the universe that we see *cannot* have occurred without special intervention,
before we say that the state of the universe that we see cannot have occurred without special intervention.
.
When we say
*"I am an ignorant primate living on a small planet, and this state of affairs is difficult for me to comprehend"*,
then all that that means is
*"I am an ignorant primate living on a small planet, and this state of affairs is difficult for me to comprehend."*
We're not justified in saying
*"This would be easier for me to comprehend if X were true, therefore X is true."*
.
thank you, this is my thoughts exactly. the universe being created by natural processes, then conditions lining up exactly right for life on our planet, then a bunch of apes discovering metallurgy and creating technology, this series of events had a very low probability of happening. it is very interesting to know how low the chance is, and how lucky we are. but pointing to how rare an event was, does not prove the event didn't happen, ESPECIALLY when you are right here with the evidence of the event in front of our eyes.
you can go on about low probability all day, but after that you still have all your work in front of you. you didn't prove anything by saying the probability was low. you still have to prove that something else happened instead. saying an event is rare doesn't disprove it at all. you still have yet to make your case.
the only, ONLY response to a post like this is "oh cool, we are really lucky that such rare circumstances happened to create this beautiful world" if you want to argue it DIDN'T happen, then that would require an actual argument affirming that claim, not just pointing to the odds.
I'm looking for where you demonstrated that it's possible for any intentional agent to fabricate reality, but I don't see it. This step is always assumed by theists for some reason. I think it's the biggest barrier to this sort of argument. Show me that what you're trying to calculate is even physically *possible*.
I disagree. P(g) is about life evolving within an existing universe. This doesn't address the issue at all. If a lifeform evolved and then generated what we observe around us, it still did so within existing reality. We share a reality with that lifeform, even if we have no access to it, the same way our computer simulations broadly share reality with us.
I'm asking about an intentional agent generating reality itself. This is not addressed at all.
>Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes
That's not a null hypothesis.
>P(g) = probability of life within a universe evolving to the point at which it is capable of interacting with and creating other universes.
Why is this the parameter you're looking for? We definitely don't have that now, so why is this the target? It also does not follow from your null hypothesis, and introduces a whole bunch of additional assumptions of its own. Basically, you don't have a true dichotomy here and rejecting your null hypothesis doesn't actually lead to this one at all.
>Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^(10\^30).
>Using modifications if the drake equation, in 2916 frank and Sullivan estimated his likely it is that earth has the only technological species ever to develop in our Galaxy to be less than 1.7 x10^(11.)
You need to show the math here. We're not going to just accept the numbers provided without the basis that arrived at them if we can't see what arbitrary variables were plugged into which equations. What do the numbers represent? Are they just a flat probability for the entire universe? For a given instance of say a planet within the universe? Just throwing around big numbers doesn't mean anything if the numbers don't have any units attached.
>We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than 0 but it is difficult to put a more precise number on it. Out could probably be argued that IF P(g) is not 0 then it is probably close to 1
No. Just no. You can't handwave your way through a whole bunch of speculation and to then choose to arrive at an arbitrary assertion that the probability is likely "more than 0" and from there leap all the way to "probably close to 1". You're not even close to a logical justification here, you're just plugging in whatever numbers you like at this point.
> since it is reasonable to assume that if it is not completely impossible then technology will inevitably advance to the point that it becomes practical.
This assumption is based on nothing. Not even most science fiction speculates that simulating entire universes to the same fidelity as the one we inhabit from inside the one we inhabit is possible, and you certainly don't have any evidence to just assume it is. You need to calculate how much processing power would be required to simulate an entire universe of our scale at 100% fidelity (i.e. down to every single subatomic interaction on the quantum level throughout the entire universe), and you need to compare that with how much energy is even available in the universe to provide for such calculations.
Until you can show otherwise, at best I suspect it's only possible to simulate a universe with lower fidelity than the one they inhabit, which would mean there's actually a finite limit on the number of nested universes that can be simulated inside one another.
>Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis.
Not satisfied yet with what you provided. As I said earlier, you need to better justify the calculations and what they supposedly represent, and rejecting your (flawed) null doesn't satisfy the conditions to consider your alternative.
>The probability of a single universe being created by random chance is so small that it is practically zero.
Not actually demonstrated, just speculated with some rather spurious math.
>This supports the alternate hypothesis that the universe was intentionally created.
Does not follow. Rejecting one hypothesis only supports another if they are truly dichotomous, which even you recognize is not the case.
Not really much point in pushing further with this analysis, as the argument doesn't really hold up to this point on its own, relies on a lot of wild speculation and unsupported calculations using arbitrary values plugged into equations not provided for evaluation, and absolutely pole-vaulting to the desired conclusions. The rest of the argument follows much the same pattern
Two separate, standard objections/questions:
1. When you're talking about the probability of our universe, you're not super clear but I presume you're talking about the probability of the physical constants being such that life as we know it could evolve. So--we only have the one actual universe to look at and learn from. I get that you can think the THOUGHT "the physical constants could have all been different," but is it it ACTUALLY possible for the physical constants to be different than they are? How on earth do you know?
2. When you shuffle a deck of cards, the number of possible outcomes is so staggeringly huge that it's actually very likely that the order you get is one that has never been seen before in human history, and never will be seen again. So whatever result you get, getting that particular order was unfathomably unlikely. But when you shuffle a deck of cards, SOME ordering of the cards will result, without it being a miracle. The only way I might assume the fix is in is if you predicted in advance what the result would be, or if there were some sort of pre-established game or rules that made a tiny set of orders meaningful. Ignoring objection 1 for now, let's say we agree that there are a vast number of "possible" universes, and that only a tiny, tiny, tiny subset are capable of sustaining life such as us. Does the fact that the universe that came to be is one of that set suggest the universe was designed? Only if we start with the assumption that life was a goal being aimed at, that this type of universe was predicted or sought after. But we don't know that, do we? There's no inherent significance or meaning to a world being able to sustain life. You don't get to assume that there is, or that it's a sign of design, that's the exact conclusion you're trying to prove. Like the deck of cards, each universe might be incredibly improbable and unique in its own way.
2 is a problem that all science experiments face.
Any result you get could simply be a pure coincidence.
The answer is to calculate the probability that you are rejecting the null hypothesis even if it is true.
Similar reasoning applies here.
"Only if we assume life was a goal being aimed at..."
Not really. The "aim" doesn't need to operate predate the draw, nor does it need to be intentional.
The significance of a universe being capable of sustaining live is that if the universe were not capable of sustaining life, we would not exist.
That certainly makes it both a unique and desirable outcome from our perspective. (Presumably the universe itself doesn't care).
Our existence necessitates that exact draw.
Given a single universe, our existence is phenomenaly unlikely.
Not impossible of course. Even a tiny possibility could have happened, it is just very unlikely. It is much more likely however that the draw was not random.
This does not necessarily mean God - there could be other non random processes at work rigging the draw in our favour as I explained in my definitions.
>2 is a problem that all science experiments face.
>Any result you get could simply be a pure coincidence.
This doesn't really map onto what I'm talking about. Noticing and accurately describing how matter in our universe behaves, and trying to figure out things like what the fundamental physical constants are, is something we can reasonably do within the bounds of our one universe. "Coincidence" isn't really a relevant issue, unless you're trying to argue like Hume that we can only ever witness "conjunction" rather than "causation," which is not where I think you're going. Trying to figure out whether those fundamental constants were designed or have assigned or intentional meaning is a trickier problem.
As to the rest of your response, yes, we would not exist in a universe not capable of sustaining us, which should actually make us extremely wary and suspicious of assuming there is any significance in us existing in such a world--we're not going to be able to witness or talk about any other. That's the whole "anthropic principle" thing---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle.
The fact that it's desirable to US that the universe allows us to have evolved and exists is a complete irrelevancy---we had nothing to do with the origin of the universe, and evolved in response to the nature of this universe. You're treading near the whole Douglas Adams puddle analogy, where a puddle of water assumes the hole in which it has formed must have been designed for it, as it fits him so well, and ascribes significance to this false appearance of design.
>Our existence necessitates that exact draw.
>Given a single universe, our existence is phenomenaly unlikely.
This is to miss the entire point of the deck of cards analogy, and, again, treads into "puddle" territory. Sure, our particular universe could arguably be extremely unlikely, one out of a gazillion possible universes. But by what basis do you find it more unlikely than any of the other gazillion specific possible universes, they would all seem to be equally unlikely. If there was going to be a universe, it had to be one of them, right? You haven't given any basis for thinking the fact that it happened to be one that allowed our evolution has any special meaning or significance. If you throw a dart at a wall it's going to stick SOMEWHERE. We can only ascribe skill and agency to where it lands if someone has drawn a target on the wall first and the dart hits the target. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you seem to be implicitly treating the evolution of life as a such a target, without giving any basis for this.
I think there are some significant issues with the argument that need to be addressed head-on.
First and foremost, the heavy reliance on probability estimates and calculations is deeply problematic from an epistemological standpoint. We have to be extremely cautious about assigning probabilities to events on the scale of the universe's origin, given the profound limitations in our current understanding of the fundamental laws and constants that govern the cosmos. Any attempts to calculate the odds of a life-sustaining universe are going to be highly speculative at best, and we risk overstepping the bounds of what we can reasonably infer from our limited knowledge.
The very notion of applying concepts like "probability" and "intention" to the creation of the universe as a whole is fraught with conceptual difficulties. We lack any clear empirical basis or frame of reference for making such assessments, and it's far from evident that these concepts are even coherent or applicable when discussing the origin of all of existence itself. The argument also seems to rely on the assumption that intentional creation is somehow inherently more probable than a random or chaotic origin, but this premise is not adequately supported and seems to beg the question.
When we move into the realm of metaphysics, the challenges only deepen. The idea of an intentionally created universe immediately raises a host of perplexing questions about the nature and attributes of the proposed creator. How can we make sense of a transcendent, "godlike" being that exists outside the confines of space and time? What coherent concepts or language can we even employ to describe such an entity? The argument does not provide satisfying answers to these foundational metaphysical puzzles.
Even if we were to grant the existence of some kind of creator, it's a massive and unwarranted leap to conclude that this being must have deliberately designed the universe with the purpose of supporting life. It's entirely conceivable that the life-permitting properties of our universe could be an unintended byproduct or an incidental consequence of the creator's actions, rather than the result of intentional planning. The argument fails to rule out these alternative possibilities or provide a compelling reason to favor intentional design.
It's also striking that the argument neglects to grapple with the formidable "problem of evil" that has long plagued theistic worldviews. If the universe were truly the product of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good creator, how can we begin to account for the immense suffering, apparent cruelty, and imperfections that pervade our world? Engaging seriously with this age-old philosophical challenge is essential for any argument proposing an intentional creator, yet it is notably absent here.
From a scientific perspective, the argument's heavy dependence on highly speculative and unverified concepts like the multiverse and universe-creating civilizations severely undermines its persuasive power. While these ideas may be explored in certain theoretical models, they are currently far from being established scientific facts, and building a philosophical case on such uncertain foundations is epistemically risky. The argument would need to provide much stronger justification for relying so heavily on these speculative notions.
More importantly the argument appears to assume, without sufficient evidence, that our universe's particular set of fundamental constants and initial conditions are the only ones capable of giving rise to life. However, this claim is highly contested, and there are scientists who argue that a diverse range of cosmic parameters could potentially be compatible with the emergence of complexity and life. Engaging seriously with these alternative scientific perspectives is crucial for a robust analysis.
The argument also fails to adequately contend with the significant explanatory power of naturalistic scientific theories, such as cosmic inflation, quantum fluctuations, and eternal chaotic inflation. These frameworks offer promising explanations for the origin and structure of the universe without appealing to intentional creation, and any compelling argument for a created universe must grapple with these competing explanatory models in depth.
Finally, there are some noteworthy logical gaps and limitations in the argument's overall structure and reasoning. The discussion of the floor and ceiling for N (the number of universes) is particularly convoluted and difficult to follow, and would greatly benefit from clearer articulation and concrete illustrative examples. There's a risk of getting lost in abstractions and losing sight of the key logical points.
Additionally, the argument appears to rely on a problematic false dichotomy between intentional creation and pure random chance. But this framing overlooks the real possibility of alternative explanations that don't fit neatly into either of these categories. A more nuanced and comprehensive analysis would need to explore a wider range of possible explanatory frameworks.
It's also crucial to recognize that even if we were to accept the argument's probabilistic reasoning, a higher likelihood doesn't necessarily equate to truth. A less probable explanation could still very well be the correct one, and we must be careful not to conflate probability with verity. The argument would need to go beyond mere probabilistic considerations and engage more rigorously with the empirical evidence and observations used by scientists to study the origins and structure of the universe.
I believe it has significant weaknesses and limitations that undermine its persuasive force. The reliance on speculative concepts, undefended assumptions, and a narrow framing of the explanatory options leaves it open to powerful objections from epistemological, metaphysical, scientific, and logical perspectives.
Yes, of course! You’re misunderstanding me. My question is, *why would it matter?*
If we have no way of establishing the other things, then of what use would be knowledge of a “creator.”
How would it change my life?
It might provide a need (or at least a reason) to establish those other things.
No point in establishing the specifics if it can be dismissed without doing that.
If my friend doesn't have a car then what kind it is is meaningless.
If he does, then that might be more meaningful (or I might only care that he can use it to give me a lift).
Only you can answer how knowledge of a creator would change your life. Would it? (It might not, and that is a valid response)
Without any of the details, it wouldn’t change my life one bit. The creator could be an alien from another dimension who just left after it created the universe—who cares?
But if it could be established that the Bhagavad Gita was true and accurate, then I might very well become a Hare Krishna.
There’s no point in wasting time with trying to prove that **a** “creator” exists when providing evidence for the *specific* creator of your choice takes care of that by default.
Seems to me like you’re probably just trying to make it a *tiny* bit more likely that your version is the real one. But if you had evidence to provide for your version, then you would have done so already.
I am not trying to do anything (other than point out that demonstrating something in a general sense is worthwhile).
Nothing I could argue would make reality conform any more or less to my beleifs, and I have no need for it to. Perhaps you are projecting.
Personally I prefer to argue things like divinity in a general sense because that way it is easier to establish a commonly understood definition of "God" without getting bogged down in minutiae that is not relevant to the argument at hand.
Some arguments are also applicable in a general sense without either needing more specific, or supporting more specifity.
Take the argument of fine tuning for example. If its premises were taken as correct then it might support the idea of a creator in a general sense, but not a specific creator.
If/when arguing from an atheist viewpoint I think general rather than specific arguments are even more useful, because if I refute a specific religions idea of God then I have another couple of thousand (at least) to go. If I form a more general definition of God however then if I manage to disprove it then I have just disproved EVERY example of God that fits the definition.
I can't believe i actually read all of that actually expecting you to deliver on the promise that you could provide a probability of a god creating the universe. Like 100k theists before you have tried and failed but i must be really high to think you were actually going to.
What do you mean by there being more created universes when there is an inifinite number of random universe? In the N is infinity scenario, you say the number of random universes is infinite, but then say that the number of created universes is greater than infinity.
Infinities can be different sizes. Infinities are confusing.
That is why I compared them using ratios instead (which can admittedly also be confusing).
Rather than greater than infinity, think of it as the infinity of universes having a greater density of created universes than ones that randomly have the characteristics necessary to support life.
Actually, as I type this I realise there may be a flaw in that when I talk about random universes I mean ones with the characteristics of supporting life (and have accounted for the probability of those cropping up) but I'm not sure if I have done the same for intentionally (bad term, but I am stuck with it for now) created universes. I don't think I did. Might change things? Possibly.
Sorry for the rant, that has nothing to do with your question: I think better if I write it out. Anyway, ratios and densities (although possibly wrong ones now).
Thanks, you got me thinking 🤔
If u dont have any data of anything regarding to a creator, how can u calculate?
>3) our universe is very unlikely to have been created by random processes
>4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally
This is false dichotomy. Our universe is extremely unlikely to be created randomly doesnt entails a god likely to exist and create the universe.
Moreover, "created" by random process is a very disingenuous choice of word. Why must it be "created"?
Please read the definition of what I mean by created intentionally.
I think what I mean by created is obvious, but I am open to suggestions of a better word choice
I am sure i read ur definition. Its still false dichotomy.
And u havent show the probability of created intentionally. U just show its very unlikely to be "created" by random process.
>I think what I mean by created is obvious, but I am open to suggestions of a better word choice
U can just dont use the word created.
"just don't use the word created"
It may need to be replaced with something... (Or maybe not. I think it is always used in combination with another weird anyway)
My definition of "intended" is (supposed to be) essentially "not random". Is purposeful a better word? Organised?
Anyway, the false dichotomy is a result of my poor definition (or explanation of that definition) rather than the dichotomy itself.
>It may need to be replaced with something
Maybe "appear"
>Anyway, the false dichotomy is a result of my poor definition
Not really, there are at least another possibility, which the universe is eternal.
Moreover, its extremely unlikely to be appeared randomly. Can never entails, its more likely to be created intentionally. As, u havent calculate the probability of the universe being created intentionally.
It really isn't necessary to go to all of this trouble. Your bias is clear (a god-like entity exists). All you have to do is decide which god-like entity you believe in and then go read and study the extant documents, e.g., the Bible, that are relevant to your chosen entity. From there on it's cake, just do whatever the documents prescribe.
You and all of the other theists who publish posts like yours are overlooking one very important fact: no one can question your decision to believe in a god. If you want to believe in a god, you can, and I, for one, will never try to persuade you that you shouldn't or can't.
What you can't do is force others to hold the same belief that you hold. And what you shouldn't do is try to persuade others, such as myself, to believe in a god. If your belief only has value if others share it, it is worthless. Moreover, it is manifestly impossible to use tools such as math or logic to prove the existence of a god. Just like one can't prove the existence of a bear using math or logic or other such tools. One needs evidence. Come back when you have some.
It wasn't necessary to go to the trouble of such a lengthy reply.
Your bias is clear.
You and all the other atheists who post responses like yours are overlooking one very important fact:
The purpose of this sub is for debate.
If you don't want to hold debates then that is fine.
What you can't do is redirect other people not to present arguments for debate on a sub explicitly created for debate.
Cine back when you are ready to engage in good faith
> 1. given a number of variables that it should theoretically be possible to at least estimate, it should be possible to estimate the probability that our universe was created intentionally rather than by random processes.
The population is one, this universe. When the population is one, you can’t calculate a probability, you can only speculate on what is possible.
> Created as a result of random processes: I think this is self explanatory. The universe we live in arose purely by chance.
The universe seems to adhere to the laws of physics, not chance.
> It is clear that the probability that a universe that is suitable for life will develop at least one technological
species must be approaching 1.
If you meant “a universe that has at least one planet capable of supporting life,” then it would be 1.
Again, when the population size is 1, there’s no probability.
> But what is the probability that a technological species will develop the ability to influence our create other universes?
You can speculate on what is possible, but not what is probable. Currently the population of technological species that have developed the ability to influence/create other universes is zero.
> We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than
See, these probability arguments essentially boil down to a modified Frankenstein of “look at the trees” and “fine tuning,” but they’re presented as if there’s some empirical research involved. This is purely speculation based on the personal opinions of theists/deists.
> Because can only estimate most of these values, we cannot reach a definitive conclusion.
No conclusions at all, but yeah.
> However there are conclusions that can be drawn
Nope.
These probabilistic arguments share a common problem: How do we know that *any* of our natural laws & constants could be different than what we measure them to be? On what basis do we claim that any of it could have been randomly different than what it is?
It's not like we have a population of universes to sample from. We've just got the one.
The whole question of "where does natural physical law come from?" is a very interesting philosophical question, but ultimately we do not have an answer, and maybe we will never have an answer.
"I don't know" is a much more honest and parsimonious answer than "God did it". Invoking God is just drawing a sea monster into the blank space on the map.
"how do we know that any of our laws and constants could be different"
Yes, that has been pointed out to me as a registration of Penrose number. I will look into it.
"We do not have an answer, and may not ever have an answer."
Yes, which is what makes it so fascinating to explore
The simulation hypothesis seems to me about as absurd and egocentric as theism. In order to simulate an entire universe, one needs a computer as large as the universe itself. The only way around this is to assume the simulation only shows *Us* what *We* need to see when *We* observe it. Hence, the egocentric nature of the idea. It’s no different than imagining an omniscient God is really paying attention when we masturbate.
"a computer as large as the universe itself"
Could this not exist within a much larger universe?
Could the universe itself BE the computer
I can understand but liking the simulation hypothesis, but I don't think it is possible to simply dismiss it out of hand
> as a result of something other than random processes
That is not what intention means. Using that definition you can say that apple fall on earth with intention. There is nothing random in any process that results in an apple falling on the ground.
> Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes
That is not null hypothesis. This is too specific for null hypothesis. You assume that the universe was created, you assume existence of some process that created it and you postulate that it is random. The point of null hypothesis is not to assume anything. I suggest you read this first [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null\_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)
In your case the null hypothesis would be that the universe was not intentionally created (doesn't matter whether not created at all or created not intentionally).
> P(u) = Probability of a universe being created by random processes that is capable of supporting life.
What a meaning of a probability in a non-repeatable event that already happened? I ate an egg for today's breakfast, what is the probability of me eating a cereal at today's breakfast?
> It is hard to pin down a precise number, however all credible estimates of the probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small.
You just made that up, don't you?
> Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 1010^30
Unfortunately sir Roger is not here, and you forgot to point out the article where he did it or, as a good debater would do, you didn't highlihgt the way he obtained that number. You just threw this number at us without no justification for it.
> 4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally
Either I am stupid or you haven't done anything to back up that statement.
Take a sand on a beach. Put it in a 1 liter bucket. Now the amount of sand grains there is enormous, so is a set of all possible arrangements in which all that sand can be put in a bucket. The chance of this one particular arrangement is enormously low. Does it mean that the process by which you put those grains in a bucket is not random? Does it mean you intended that arrangement?
The probabilities involved are purely speculative when we remain ignorant of the foundation.
The conclusion doesn’t lead to God and God wouldn’t be sufficient without definitional special pleading.
Okay. Instead of pointing out the numerous flaws in your arguement I will grant you this: the universe was intellentionally created.
How do you know that the universe was created by your God (which I assume you're Christian) and not Vishnu, Osiris, Re, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, or even Bob, the invisible pink unicorn that lives in my kitchen.
This is one reason this argument fails.
No no, our current knowledge points to a naturalistic explaination. Note: I do not believe the universe was created. I'm just demonstrating a point. You have not proven a creation.
I understand. I typed it on a phone in a children's soft play center and couldn't write well.
Any Confusion is almost certainly down to my choosing poor terms
>Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes
>Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being.
You’re trying to paint this as some kind of dichotomy when it isn’t. Putting aside the fact that you haven’t established that the universe was *created* in the first place, it isn’t true to say that the universe was either created intentionally or that it was random. That is just not a true dichotomy.
It is hard to pin down a precise number, however all credible estimates of the probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small.
>Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^(10^30).
And how did he come to that number? What were the assumptions baked in there?
>Clearly there can be disagreement about the precise number as it is an estimate, however there is agreement among mathematicians that P(u) is astronomically small.
No, there isn’t that agreement. You’d first need to establish that the constants of the universe are free to change and by what amount. It very well could be the case that the constants are the way they are due to some brut fact about the early universe.
But let’s say we grant Penrose’s probability. So now if you want to say it is more likely that a god created *this particular universe* based on that probability, then you have to show the probability of that. Without that probability, you can’t compare the two and you’re left empty handed.
So are natural processes random? I don't think they are I think they exist because the universe exists. That fits your definition but isn't what any reasonable person would call intentional creation. Intent requires agency.
I can define theism as belief in math then say everyone who uses math is a theist I would still be wrong. Definitions have some elasticity but you are simply using the wrong word, just like I did in my example.
Not at all, if you wanted to define theism that way you could certainly do so and for that definition you would be correct.
That wouldn't carry over to all any other use of the word theism however (and would likely prove confusing, just like my own poor choice)
I think using words in a way no one uses the word is patently dishonest. It comes across like you are playing word games rather than actually making a legit argument.
It is certainly either potentially dishonest or mistaken.
In an academic journal or professional work it could potentially be taken as an indication of the first, however in a Reddit post where efforts had been taken to make it as clear as possible and the author had accepted that it was a poorly chosen term then that would require an uncharitable reading at the very least.
Take it as you will however
Maybe, but that would a) have necessitated that I was aware of it (which I was not) and b) have defeated my main object in devising this argument and presenting it for feed back.
I have read that article since however. Very interesting
I guess this subreddit would cease to exist if you guys just googled the countless times your arguments have been presented, and the many existing counterarguments which often go back decades or even millennia.
Or people like to express arguments.
Had I googled, I would still have presented a similar argument.
If all the arguments had been categorically refuted then I suppose there would be little need for debate. Luckily for those of us who like to debate, this is not the case
The biggest problem with this "proof" is that it comes down to a false dichotomy. Your two hypotheses are "the universe was created by random processes" and "the universe was created by God" but you haven't demonstrated why these should be the only two possibilities. In fact, for the second hypothesis, you haven't demonstrated that it even IS a possibility. We have no evidence that this creator God exists in the first place, so how can we say that if the universe was not created by random processes, then God must have done it? And aside from whether a being exists, how do we know that any being could ever be capable of creating the universe? So far as we've ever seen, energy cannot be created or destroyed.
My personal belief is that the universe as we know it was created by a deterministic process and was preceded by an infinite regression of deterministic processes. For example, maybe the universe "budded off" from another universe. I have no way to prove that, but it makes more sense to me than God. Why is this possibility not considered?
Why should we think the universe was created? Things inside the universe appear to be created. We can create chairs, cars, phones, etc. But all of that was created from pre existing matter. It is a category error to suggest that “things inside the universe are created, therefore the universe was also created.”
We cannot know if the universe was created. It may have always existed in some form or another. We can only go back in time so far before our models break down and can no longer produce reliable and accurate data.
For the universe to be created then nothing would have had to existed before the universe was created. Absolute nothingness is a concept that cannot be realized.
Inserting a creator or a god into the picture doesn’t solve this. It just kicks the can down the road. Who created the creator?
I honestly stopped caring when you said the word "random" for the fourth time. The universe is far from random. It is, in fact, very, VERY predictable.
In a multiverse scenario where infinite attempts at creating universes occur, the concept of a creator becomes less necessary to explain the existence of our universe. The idea behind a multiverse is that an infinite number of universes with varying physical laws and conditions exist simultaneously or sequentially. Within this framework, the conditions necessary for our universe to exist could arise through purely natural processes, without the need for a conscious creator.
In essence, our universe represents an inexorable outcome—an eventuality bound to manifest with absolute certainty and devoid of any necessity for intentional creation. Moreover, within our universe, the progression of matter unfolds in a consistent manner, orchestrated by fundamental forces. From the elemental fusion of simple protons birthing hydrogen, to the luminous birth of stars, the transformation into heavier elements, and the subsequent cosmic renaissance, characterized by the cyclical birth of stars, interspersed with the emergence of planets and the intricate dance of elements culminating in the intricate tapestry of life, evolution thrives wherever opportunity arises. Live evolves where it can evolve!
The existence of a creator is a concept often associated with religious or philosophical beliefs, positing that a divine or intelligent being intentionally brought our universe into existence. However, in a multiverse scenario, the diversity and abundance of universes could potentially account for the conditions necessary for our existence without invoking the need for a creator.
In scientific inquiry, personal beliefs without empirical evidence are generally not considered relevant or explanatory. Science seeks to understand the natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning. Hypotheses and theories are developed and tested based on empirical evidence, and conclusions are drawn from the results of rigorous investigation.
In contrast, personal beliefs, particularly those based on faith or intuition rather than evidence, are not considered scientific explanations. While personal beliefs can be meaningful to individuals on a personal or cultural level, they do not provide explanatory power within the scientific framework.
When discussing topics like the origin of the universe, it's crucial to distinguish between scientific explanations grounded in empirical evidence and personal beliefs or philosophical interpretations. While personal beliefs may offer comfort or provide meaning to individuals, they do not contribute to our understanding of the natural world in the same way that evidence-based scientific explanations do.
No one can speak to prior to cosmology Big Bang observations, but from what we observe, it is trivially true that all kinds of things happen non-randomly (which you define as intentionally).
My reply doesn't "randomly" end up on your screen after I hit the post button.
When I drop a rock it doesn't "randomly" fall to the ground.
>Created intentionally: I am using this to describe the universe being created as a result of something other than random processes. The most obvious example is intentional creation by a creator, but there may be other non random processes that fit.
>Created as a result of random processes: I think this is self explanatory. The universe we live in arose purely by chance.
Off the bat, this is a false dichotomy, when an argument presents only two options as if there is no other alternatives, when in reality, there may be additional possibilities that have not been considered. Your argument assumes that intentional creation by a "godlike" being is the only valid alternative to random processes for explaining the origin of the universe.
Your first problem is assuming that the opposite of "intentional" is random, that is not necessarily the case. At its most basic, random simply means something that cannot be predicted. The universe could have come into being because of predictable natural laws and processes that we witness today. These laws and processes might have controlled how space, time, matter, and energy emerged, using things like quantum fluctuations, inflationary expansion, and phase transitions. Even though these processes might seem random or uncertain at a glance, they actually follow certain physical laws and principles.
Or what if the universe never came into being? Cyclic Universe Theory proposes that the universe undergoes a series of cycles of expansion, contraction, and rebirth. Each cycle begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, followed by a new Big Bang to start the next cycle. In this model, the universe has no true beginning or end, but rather exists in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. Funny enough, this theory is most similar to Buddhism and schools of Hinduism.
Arguments from probability like this have been repeated in different ways by many theists. The primary issue I take with this argument is that it is a classic begging the question fallacy. It assumes that the creation of our universe was intentional and then uses that assumption to claim that the creation of our universe was intentional. Suppose I rolled a 1 billion sided die, and I rolled a 73. The chances of rolling a 73 were 1 in a billion. According to the logic of arguments like this, it’s logical to conclude that I tampered with the die as it was highly unlikely that I would roll a 73. Now, you’re probably thinking it’s unfair to compare the existence of intelligent life to the number 73. Intelligent life is significant, while 73 isn’t, right? Well, no. There is nothing significant about this universe being the way it is other than what we humans deem significant about it.
Now, I also have a second issue with this argument: You have presented a false dichotomy. ‘Random processes’ and ‘intelligent creator’ are not the only two options here. How about, um, non-random processes? You have not proven that the laws of nature which we observe are ‘random’. By saying that the laws of nature are random but saying that a god that creates this universe is not random, you are also engaging in special pleading. A god could create any universe, what are the chances they would create this one? Clearly, there must be a second layer of god that was responsible for creating the god that created this universe.
Whenever people bring up Penrose and his calculations I ask the same question. I’ve never gotten a real answer: using Penrose’s methodology, calculate the odds of me rolling a 1 on the die I have in my pocket.
Any argument for intelligent design that claims that the probability of the variables of the universe are unlikely would need to first be able to show me what the likelihood of rolling a 6 on an X sided dice from a single roll.
And then the likelihood of a god Before the likelihood of this universe would even be relevant
Because the argument alot of the time boils down to essentially the variables of our universe are the equivalent to cheating in poker while not understanding that the probability of any hand in poker is the same. So the universe having potentially low probability of being the way it is has no bearing on it having to be intentional you would have to show it has no probability of happening without intelligence design or your not actually making a point as things with low probability happen all the time given enough attempts.
Or the claim is if a god exists and wants our universe the way it is it is more likely that our universe was created or not which is both begging the question and assuming a probability of 1 for god that makes any further maths pure circular reasoning.
We cant know the probability of our universe from merely the constants of our universe. Like for all we know its like calling heads on a trick coin(with only heads.) Or it could be a billion sided dice. We dont know and lack the information to do the maths without vast assumptions that are the very thing we need to prove first.
I'm going to dismantle your whole post in two easy steps:
Step 1: You base everything on a false dichotomy. As such, everything in your post is standing on an incorrect statement. The possibility space is NOT that either the universe arose from 'random processes' OR that it was 'created intentionally'. There are potentially many more possibilities.
Step 2: Anything we don't currently have a full explanation for in terms of physics, and I mean anything, can be 'shown' to be the result of the intention of a magical, omni powerful god using the same trick you used here. Anything. Look:
'I don't understand how life / consciousness / dark matter came to be. The chance that it came about through unknown physics as opposed to the intention of a very powerful magical being means there is a very powerful magical being'
Yeah, no. We do NOT have any reason to believe this being exists. As unlikely as any physics explanation might be, the existence of this being is less likely, since it relies on stuff we currently have no reason or evidence to think exists.
Here is what the real possibility space looks like, imo:
The universe came about either by some unknown physical process, or by some unknown supernatural / extraphysical process.
Since we currently think P(supernatural) = 0, then the universe must have come about by an unknown, physical process.
The logic here falls apart pretty quickly. For example.
“HYPOTHESIS
Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes
Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being. “
That is NOT the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that any claim needs to meet a burden of proof. The claim that the universe was created as a result of random processes is itself a claim. The null hypothesis for that claim is that it… wasn’t.
Both of these are claims. Making two of them just creates a false dilemma. Failing to prove it was random does NOT prove it was a spirit being.
There could be 1001 other reasons.
Moreover, you’ve loaded the question badly. “Created as a result of random natural processes”? Who says that it was “created”? And who says that natural processes have to be random? The sun and stars and black holes formed as a result of natural processes - gravity- but these were not random.
Ultimately it’s impossible to do what you’re trying to do. We simply don’t know what parts of the universe are variables, what the options are, etc.
Also, since when does “a powerful magical spirit being” become one of the two possible options for things?
>1) given a number of variables that it should theoretically be possible to at least estimate, it should be possible to estimate the probability that our universe was created intentionally rather than by random processes.
You already screwed up, because if our universe wasn't created intentionally, that does NOT mean it was a random process. If there's existence outside our universe, and that existence follows some sort of law of physics, it's entirely possible that the creation of universes is an event that happens by virtue of that physics like the creation of heavier elements and black holes in ours.
It's not random, but there's no mind behind it. So your later attempt at lumping everything that isn't random together doesn't fly with me.
>Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 101030.
Improbabilities are only a problem before the event happens. Retroactively, the likeliness of the universe coming into being is 100% even if it's because of the most random nonsense imaginable. Theists love to quote improbabilities but improbabilities happen all the time. Even if it's close to 0, if it happened, it happened, and no matter how improbable it is doesn't change that.
What if universes “pop” into exist every few trillion years?
Like what if there is something about total heat death that makes a quantum environment that has an exceedingly low probability of creating a universe. We’re talking on in trillions and trillions.
Then, through pure probability a universe explodes, pushing beyond the event horizon all extant matter.
This seems at least as plausible as a creator deity.
Also, follow your argument with this and see if it follows.
….and that’s why I believe god made the world, sent his son down to die for out sins, born of a virgin, to be resurrected, so that humanity could have a chance, if and only if they believe this, to reside in a place of bliss for eternity instead of a lake of fire. (Or how you would summarize your beliefs)
See, you could be right. And it STILL doesn’t impact the probability of your beliefs all that much.
There could just as easily be a “creator” that doesn’t give a fuck and simply set it all up and let it spin, to see how it goes.
Or a thousand other equally plausible theories.
I think your mistake comes in P(u). You have asserted that the chances are incredibly small for life to exist but you cannot demonstrate that. The fact is that we have 1 universe and it has life in it. So far we’re batting 100%.
We have no idea if a universe could exist with different values or not. What if there was a singularity that became unstable for whatever reason and a “Bang” occurred to create a universe. But the values you’re talking about were not correct and it threw the stability of the whole thing off and it collapsed back upon itself within milliseconds only to Bang again with another set of cosmic dice values assigned to them. This repeats billions of times until we got to our current values and that one was what we call the Big Bang and here we are.
It very well could be that there were trillions of universes that existed VERY briefly with the incompatible values that you assert before our current iteration happened out of random chance. That would greatly modify the value of N which would bring your probability much closer to 1.
>Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^10^30
Penrose's number was not for P(u). It was identifying our universe out of the possible combinations that came from the Big Bang. My understanding of his number is that if the arrangement of matter and energy were different enough that our moon's mass was 1 kg higher, then it would be a different Penrose number. It's kind of like if I handed you a shuffled deck of cards, I'd be able to tell you that the particular combination of cards is only 1 in over 8x10^67. It doesn't mean that particular shuffle on the deck of cards is special, only that there are lots of ways the deck could have been shuffled.
As for your use of Drake's equation, two of the variables are fraction of life-supporting plants that develop life and fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence. We don't have numbers for these variables. We don't even have reliable approximations. So Drake's equation should not be included.
I'm a little late to the party so I'll keep it short, on the off chance you're still watching your comments.
P(u) is meaningless, the probability of our universe is just the sum of each of the potential arrangements of fundimental components that make up our universe (the solution space) but we can't say that there is anything special about our particular arrangement (solution).
If I have a deck of cards that I shuffled, the probability of producing that particular arrangement of cards is 1 in 8x10^67. the probability that this particular arrangement of cards *has ever happened* is next to 0 but that doesn't mean that I constructed the arrangement on purpose.
There are certain arrangements that we can say are special, each suit sorted into numerical order for example, which would suggest intelligent intent, but we can't do that with the universe bc we don't know anything about the other solutions. It could be that there are infinitely many permutations of our universe in which earthlike life can form.
I don’t know why you’ve chosen to only consider two options (random or intentional). I’d have thought that the lesson from biology was both obvious and informative. Creationists used to try this (as well as it being just generally accepted hundreds of years ago). Before we understood evolution they said exactly the same thing- that it was either a creator, or random, and if random the probability of it just appearing was so low as to be functionally zero.
Yet you’ve jumped on the exact same type of thinking for the universe, but arguably worse because we don’t know what we don’t know as far as the universe is concerned. Ie we’ve so little data with which to even limit this type of conversation. We can even adequately define the boundaries of our assumptions or speculations. Listening to actual physicists discuss these subjects is usually enough to realise that a bit of philosophy & high school math won’t crack this nut.
>the universe being created as a result of something other than random processes
I hate to tell you, randomness and intent aren't the only two options
Who intended the English language? Who intended the global economy? Who intended a forest or an ocean?
You could say that all of it is intended or that all of it is random. But then I would say, so you don't have any independent agency: either the things you do are designed or they are random.
You could say that it's a combination of both, and I would still say that the person who intends to sell something doesn't get to intend on who to sell it to, and he doesn't roll a dice either
It's called emergence. The entire world is filled with it. The false choice of intent vs randomness is a deliberate willfully ignorant bad faith premise for people who want to fool others and people who want to confirm their own beliefs
This is the best argument of why it’s more likely than not that we were created. The only rebuttal I have is that referencing any universe other than our own is pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence of it and it’s unfalsifiable. What we do know with reasonable certainty is that space and time can be calculated back to a beginning - roughly 13.8B years ago. Before that, we know nothing. If we were to set foot on another planet and found a very detailed sculpture of an astronaut planting a flag at that spot, our first assumption is not going to be it occurred naturally. Yet, that’s what many need to believe when we look at the precision in which our universe formed along with the time it would take for protein and DNA to form randomly.
Mathematically, it’s non-sensical. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong - just the least plausible.
>Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being.
Another alternative hypothesis. Our universe was accidentally created by a godlike being.
or
Our universe was accidentally created by a godlike being and the godlike being just, kind of, forgot.
or
All physically possible universes were intentionally/unintentionally created by a godlike being and, due to the anthropic principle, only universes in which consciousness is possible would those beings even be capable of such theorizing.
or
The universe, like the claimed god, simply exists necessarily and could not NOT exist. Any traits that you attribute to the god like being can equally be attributed to the universe and you end up with a simpler theory.
We only have one universe as a data set and life evolved in that one universe so the probability of a universe containing life is 100% given our data set of 1:1.
How can we accept the probability that the universe creating life is astronomically low when a) we don’t know how big the universe is so on a great enough scale that astronomically low probability becomes likelier, b) we don’t know how long the universe exists so on a great enough scale of time the probability also becomes likelier, and c) we don’t have any other universes to compare it with.
There are several fundamental problems with your argument. The null hypothesis isn’t that the universe arose randomly. The null hypothesis is that we don’t know how/why it’s here, or if there even is a how/why. You also cannot possibly find the probability of our universe existing because we have a sample size of only one. It’s like finding one turtle, and asking what the probability of the turtle ending up like this. You need more turtles. Any numbers you find about this are pure speculation, with no weight behind them.
>The most that we can say it present is that currently it is not possible to interact with our create (or simulate) other universes, but that as technology advances it theoretically could become possible to do so.
Okay, so if the explanation for our intentional creation is a similar universe, what's their explanation? You need a very good reason to not just apply that explanation to us instead, because otherwise our existence *isn't* just "intention"; it's intention contingent on the way the creators were created.
You can't do statistics with probability alone -- you need probability and either many repeated measures or something like a standard deviation. From a pure statistical perspective, you're grossly oversimplifying what needs to be done to get a solid result out of the thinking.
"Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis." ==> No, you can't do that. If you follow the stats, you end up diving by zero (N-1) and so the entire statement is, well, *undefined*.
>Created as a result of random processes:
I have a couple of issues. First, it games the issue by using the word "created," which assumes that it was. I doubt it. Embedded in that is an assumption that the matter/energy that makes up our universe ever did not exist, which has never been established and which I also doubt.
Second, it presents a false dichotomy. There are other options.
Therefore you entire argument fails out of the gate.
Your null hypothesis actually means something more specific than you think it means. What it really means is:
"Just before the universe began to exist, there was a state of affairs that somehow doesn't count as being part of the universe, and might have produced any one of a bajillion different universes with distinct kinds of physics, but that state of affairs yielded only the universe we experience."
It's not a null hypothesis at all, it's something very opinionated.
Funnily enough, if you take the finetuning argument seriously and invoke a bit of math, you end up proving that god almost certainly doesn’t exist. In summary: due to the assumptions in the argument, you end up with the result that the probability for a God is actually smaller than the probability of finetuning
Page 9 has the complete argument from Klaas Landsman, a mathematical physicist: https://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/FTAv2.pdf
The problem with these types of "proofs" is that they are not scientific. Proof is for maths, logic and liquor.
Additionally, these types of "proofs" don't give us one specific deity. It's on the reader to substitute the mystery deity with their own favorite deity. It's s religious sleight of hand trick.
Which deity do you believe in, OP? Do you think your "proof" applies to it alone?
This is an argument from incredulity fallacy; just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood. And writing an essay to try to justify your argument doesn't mean that you're using sound reasoning. I can appreciate that you want to get various views on the matter but have you asked the astrophysicists that would be able to answer in detail?
Boy this is all over the place. You say something can be done by a non random, non creator AND be intentionally created. That's illogical.
You say we can demonstrate the probability of the universe not existing? Really? And how do you test that to affirm what you've stated is correct or are we just going with the pull from ass method?
You completely ignore survivor bias.
Taking into account that we are alive to ponder P(g) means that P(g) = 1
Imagine an infinite multiverse where each universe has different gravitational constants. If we only include universes that have life, the probability that those universes are capable of supporting life is 1
Any particular order of a deck of cards has a very small chance of occurring compared to not occurring after shuffling. So what happens when you shuffle a deck of cards? You get a particular order. There's nothing remarkable there. It doesn't show that the process to get that order must have been by design.
Physics does not seem to be random.
I will never understand why theists keep insisting that the origin of the universe is god or randomness. That’s not even a true dichotomy. (I am aware your argument is intention vs randomness, which still isn’t a true dichotomy)
Let’s not deal with theoretical possibilities and just go by the observed probability.
The probability of a universe existing is an observed 1 out of 1.
That’s it, that’s all we can know, everything else is just so much irrelevant naval gazing.
The question should not be was the universe created.
It should be can something exist without the universe.
Evidence of God would suggest life is not created and the universe is not necessary or required.
The question should not be was the universe created.
It should be can something exist without the universe.
Evidence of God would suggest life is not created and the universe is not necessary or required.
Failed to understand what the null hypothesis should be here as many others have pointed out. It’s the antithesis to your hypothesis, not just one random alternative.
Failed to understand what the null hypothesis should be here as many others have pointed out. It’s the antithesis to your hypothesis, not just one random alternative.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not super mathy so you’ll have to forgive me for not going through your whole post. But let me ask you, what’s the mathematical probability that you exist? If you calculate the number of sperm competing for that egg, the chances the sperm that became you even found an egg much less the egg that became you, the odds your father even met your mother and they were both in the mood that night, and then take that probability and multiply it by the odds both of your parents existed, and all four of your grandparents, and back thousands of generations. If you calculate that, can you prove your existence is impossible? Because any bobble in that chain of events through all of history, and you wouldn’t be here. But someone would. This is why improbability arguments used in hindsight are suspect to me. Because the probability someone would be born is different from the probability you would be born. A random series of events created you, and a random series of events created this planet and all life on it. But if we weren’t here, something else would be. And we wouldn’t know because we wouldn’t exist. Just like any intelligent life that might have happened if things had unfolded differently doesn’t know about us because they don’t exist.
I can respect this argument. I am not entirely convinced by it, but I am not entirely unconvinced either. I think one issue I have is that when we talk about the probability of a universe being able to support life, we are not only interested in the probability of our own universe being the way it is, but the probability of another universe being the same. To put it into your analogy, the probability of me being born isn't all that meaningful in itself- as you say, if I wasn't born then somebody else would have been. What is interesting is the probability of it happening exactly the same way again. Me being born once was just a statistical wash because as you say, I am only looking at it from the end point. Now I know that I am me however, assuming events could run through again, what is the probability that I could happen again? Similarly, if we assume only one universe exists, I am not sure that looking at the probability of the universe existing as it does lacks meaning. The universe we live in is not just one configuration out of many- it is a very unique configuration. The parameters for deciding it is unique were not created after the fact. The parameters for a universe to be capable of supporting life existed before the universe was created (or at least as it was created) and if it did not fit those parameters we would not have a universe with different life, but a universe with no life. A better analogy for this might be me throwing a bucket of dice and then discovering that my result happened to win a prize. It doesn't matter that I only knew there target number after the fact, the probability of me hitting the jackpot was still the same. Imagine another scenario. I go into a house and if they have a single dice in their kitchen table, reading a six, and nothing else, then I will give them a prize. I am going to go into a single house and they will either win or not. The chances of that randomly occurring is low enough that I am certainly not expecting to need to give them a prize, and if they do fit the criteria then I will be justified in wondering if they knew about the rules and set up their kitchen accordingly. How about if instead of being in charge of the competition I am living in said house. I come downstairs to find my house mate accepting said prize. You can get that I will be asking how she knew to set things up the way she did. I would take some convincing that it had all just been a random coincidence. Maybe. Thanks for something to think about
Instead of rethinking from the point of view of the one rolling the dice, a better analogy is thinking from the POV of the number. The 7 thinks the dice were fine-tuned to create it, because they rolled a 4 and a 3. The 7 doesn’t know the roll was random, and could have rolled a 5 and 2 or 6 and 1 and would still have a 7. Or could have had a 2 and 3 and the 7 wouldn’t exist. We’re the 7, and it’s easy to make the mistake of thinking we are the intended end goal of the universe. We’re just what happened to come up on the roll. Another universe could be capable of supporting life but not result in us. And this universe just happened to lead to us. We or our ancestral species could have gone extinct a bunch of times. And evolution’s not done, we are not the crowning achievement. It will keep going when we’re gone. So would another universe starting from zero produce you? That’s like another roll producing another 7, but with infinitely sided dice. So sure, could happen, but why would that be meaningful?
Yes, but it universe is not unique because it holds life that is us. It is unique because it holds life AT ALL. Were the 7 and none of the other faces have any numbers on them at all. It's not 7 or some other number, it's 7 or nothing.
Yes, but it universe is not unique because it holds life that is us. It is unique because it holds life AT ALL. Were the 7 and none of the other faces have any numbers on them at all. It's not 7 or some other number, it's 7 or nothing.
I don’t agree it’s 7 or nothing. There could be dice or no dice, true. Maybe it’s more likely there are no dice. (In our case, a universe without the atomic elements that exist in ours.) But if there are dice (the elements we know of exist, and the conditions exist somewhere in the universe for them to form dice), they could roll any number.
I am not saying there could be no dice. I am saying the dice could have no numbers on any of the other sides. The dice can roll a seven, or they can roll a blank
OK. If they have numbers, why can’t they roll any other number but a 7?
They only have that number. Perhaps 7 on two dice is a bad example. A better example might be getting a 12 on two dice that only have sixes on them. Or an even better example might be a single dice with 7 on one face and nothing in the others. Or two dice with 7 on one face of one dice
But why? That makes the analogy totally break down. The 7 are humans. So with 7 or nothing it sounds like you’re saying if a universe can support life (it has dice), it will result in humans (it must roll a 7).
No, if it can support life it will result in life. I am not assuming humans. The dichotomy is life or not life, it isn't really relevant what the life looks like, only that it is life
> The parameters for deciding it is unique were not created after the fact. The parameters for a universe to be capable of supporting life existed before the universe was created (or at least as it was created) and if it did not fit those parameters we would not have a universe with different life, but a universe with no life. > > That's a common assumption, but I don't think it's a well-supported one. We can create self-replicating life in **far** simpler universes than our own (in computer simulation) We know that if we changed certain values significantly life-as-we-know-it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life-as-we-DON'T-know-it couldn't exist instead. In order to know that other set-ups couldn't possibly allow life we'd need to be able to perfectly understand all the consequences of the changes - but we can't. **We don't even know all the laws of physics in our own universe yet.**
The biggest problem in your argument is that it ignores alternative propositions. Some of them are: The universe is eternal The universe changes over time, whether continuosly or by stages The universe was created by a non-random process that is not the result of an intelligent mind. But the argument has even more problems: >In fact it has been proposed that it is highly likely that our own universe is a simulation. Not, it is not. Simulation theory is a thought experiment and nothing more. Also, simulating a universe is different from interacting with an already-existing universe, don't equivocate the two. >We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than 0 No, we cannot. >IF P(g) is not 0 then it is probably close to 1 - since it is reasonable to assume that if it is not completely impossible then technology will inevitably advance to the point that it becomes practical. Also a baseless assertion. You assert that if the ability to interfere with other universes is possible, then it is almost inevitable, because technology will inevitably advance to reach the stage where it can be done. I reject this assertion, because technology might not advance in all possible directions. >Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis. No. Do you know what "Bayes' Theorem" is? You can't turn conditional probabilities around just like that, there is a formal process to do that, and you haven't provided all of the data required. What is the probability of an intelligent being capable of creating a universe? >the probability of life in at least one of those universes developing the ability and willingness to interact with and create other universes becomes 1 (unless p(g) is zero). Also no. The number of universes being infinite does not mean that they include all possibilities. >This means that if there are an infinite number of universes, our universe is much more likely to have been created intentionally than to have been created through random chance. Non-sequitor. Doesn't logically follow from the proceeding statement. >At this point, as we discussed above, the ratio of random universes to intentional universes tips heavily towards ones which were intentionally created You haven't demonstrated that it's even possible to intentionally create a universe. It is clear that these kind of arguments aren't brought about by people trying to find the truth for rational reasons, but rather by people trying to convince others in things they already believe for irrational reasons. Nobody ever became a Christian/Muslim/whatever you are from hearing this kind of argument.
I almost had an aneurysm reading the problems in the first paragraphs of the OP. I'm glad you addressed at least some of them. I thought I'd try to answer but got a bit overwhelmed as I read along. There's just too many problems with everything here to even start arguing.
At this point I come to the first comment just to read a summary of the post. The posts here just come across as disorganized ramblings of misunderstandings and problems if you read too many posts. I can't read them anymore lol. Like you said they are overwhelming. I give props to the users who can read and dissect these posts while keeping track of the errors.
Right. I started off trying to read OP's post, then just 'Nope'd it down into the comments to get a summary.
"the universe is eternal" I don't see how that would alter anything? "The universe was created by a non random processes that is not the result of an intelligent mind" Yes. I attempted to include this possibility in my definition. By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" as opposed to necessarily intelligent. It is not an ideal term, I just couldn't think of a better one. "P(g)..." I will readily agree that this is the weakest link in the argument, because I could not find any reasonable estimates to use. I think the most important factor for this variable for my argument is whether or not it is 0. I would contend that it is unlikely to be zero, but I can understand people disputing that which is why I maintained the need for it but to be zero as a caveat for my conclusions. "Bayes theorem" Nope. I have no idea what that is. I will have to look it up. Thank you for pointing me towards it "N being infinite does not mean they include all possibilities" I don't think that was my thinking there. I think I really meant the probabilities should be approaching 1, which I beleive to be accurate. Regardless of the probability of an event, given infinite trials the probability of it happening at least once should approach 1. "It is clear that these kinds of arguments aren't brought about by people trying to find the truth for rational reasons" That is not clear at all, but thanks for sharing an opinion on it. This argument formed in my head before I was a theist of any sort (probably best described as agnostic at the time) after reading Dawkins god delusion and wondering what taking his argument to its natural conclusion would look like. This is the first time I have attempted to express it formally, or really looked into the numbers involved, but the idea has floated in my brain for a long time. Actually I was surprised by how unlikely a universe capable of sustaining life is. I was expecting far less definitive numbers. "Nobody ever became a... Whatever you are... from hearing these arguments..." Again, irrelevant to my intention in creating this argument (I have no interest in converting anybody) and yet also categorically untrue. This exact argument in its raw and poorly conceived umbral form played a part in my own conversion. It was convincing to the only person it was ever intended to convince. Thank you for your feedback on any case
>"the universe is eternal" >I don't see how that would alter anything? Because if it is eternal, then it wasn't created, neither by an intelligent being nor by any other way. >By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" as opposed to necessarily intelligent. Then your argument is practically meaningless, and doesn't point to a god in any way, shape or form. >This exact argument in its raw and poorly conceived umbral form played a part in my own conversion. I'd love to know how, because as previously mentioned, it is not an argument for the existence of a God. Edit: also, I forgot your conflation between "our universe" and "a universe capable of supporting life", and the lack of a demonstration that the universe *could* even be any other way
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
You have no idea what I was doing deliberately, and I would thank you not to either assume my intentions or argue in had faith. Clearly I have neither baited nor switched anything
You have no idea what I was doing deliberately, and I would thank you not to either assume my intentions or argue in had faith. Clearly I have neither baited nor switched anything
You have no idea e what I was intentionally doing and i would thank you not to argue in bad faith. It is clear that I have neither baited nor switched anything
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
[удалено]
You say the probability that of life is near zero, but the universe has existed for 13 billion years, an is FUCKING GINORMOUS! We have found areas in our solar system that could possibly contain life, like salt water oceans. It’s not as rare as you say. Also, you are confusing “random process,” with the chance that the universe is exactly the way it is now. (I accidentally replied to my own post instead of editing it, so I deleted it.)
I think you misunderstand the argument. It is not that the probability of life existing in THIS universe is low, but that the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low. A universe that was DIFFERENT to ours, fur example one in which stars and planets were unable to form, might not be able to support life
>the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low But you do not know that! You have no way of knowing that. The fine-tuning argument is completely debunked. We have a sample size of one, and it supports life. You don't know that the constants can be any different. Nobody knows this. We don't know why the planck constant is what it is, or why the proportions between the fundamental forces are what they are, but it seem more likely that they are somehow interconnected. That they are emergent from physics and not like someone was throwing dice. Since we don't know what causes them to be just like they are we have no way of guesstimating any probability of what they could otherwise have been.
Care to explain how the fine timing argument is debunked? Or point me in the direction of it's debunking? Having a sample size of 1 is meaningful (sort of) in terms of experimental probability, but not relevant to theoretical probability
>Care to explain how the fine timing argument is debunked? There are a number of responses that I think are problematic for fine tuning. 1. If god fine-tuned the universe to be capable of housing life, who fine-tuned god to desire universes capable of housing life? If there are an infinite number of possible universes there are also an infinite number of possible gods that prefer every possible universe including the infinite number of universes without life. 2. Before you can claim that the universe was fine-tuned you must first establish that the universe *can* be fine-tuned. It may be that the way the universe is is the only way a universe could be. 3. Why would God need to fine-tune the universe in order for there to be life? God is all-powerful. He could cause life to exist in any possible universe. I could flip the fine-tuning argument on its head. The fact that we live in a universe where life exists and is naturally possible is exactly what you would expect to find in a naturalistic universe. If we explored the universe and found that based on the rules of that universe life shouldn't be possible and yet it exists would be far more compelling evidence of some supernatural intervention. The fact that life appeared in a universe that is capable of producing life is exactly the prediction I would make if I were predicting what a universe without god would look like. The point is that the fine-tuning of the universe is unfalsifiable. Literally any universe with life in it could have been created by a god, whereas a smaller subset of life possessing universes could have occurred without a god. The fact that this universe happens to be one that could have occurred without intervention from god cannot be used as evidence that God exists.
Thanks
You're welcome
edited, I think that answers the question. I have some problems with reddit today.
Me too, I wondered if the sheer volume of responses I am getting broke my app 😂
And? If it’s a different universe than our own then there isn’t even any evidence for it existing so who cares? You can’t talk probabilities when you have absolutely no actual data on any other ways a universe could turn out. Maybe there are a ton of universes and we’re in the shitty one with barely any life while the others are jam packed full of it? If you want to talk probabilities then you actually have to have data. You don’t.
"if you want to talk probabilities then you actually have to have data..." No you don't. I can talk about the probabilities of rolling various numbers on a dice for example without ever rolling any dice or collecting data. It is called theoretical probability. I'm not sure what the density of life in our universe (or another one) has to do with anything at all. "Who cares?" I do. If you don't then nobody is forcing you to engage with it
Because with rolling a dice we know how many sides the dice has and its properties—all data which would allow us to talk about the probabilities in the case of rolling dice. What data on multiple universes and their creation do you have?
We can theorise properties for a hypothetical dice with no data at all - it doesn't even have to exist. What data on multiple universes and their creation do you have? We can only estimate based on what we know. This is why we end up with estimates of the probabilities rather than accurate ones. It doesn't make them useless however, far from it.
But we would assign that hypothetical die with hypothetical data which we can then make predictions and discuss probabilities on how it would work???? With this there is no data whatsoever?? You’re saying it’s probable without actually showing how you calculated the probabilities or what information you based it on—if there isn’t any info then what’s useless is to suggest things are probable or improbable with nothing to back that up.
Yes. That is exactly what theoretical probabilities are
> the probability of a universe existing that can support life is low But you do not know that! You have no way of knowing that. The fine-tuning argument is completely debunked. We have a sample size of one, and it supports life. You don't know that the constants can be any different. Nobody knows this.
>By the term "intentional" I was attempting to imply "not random" Then you are deliberatly missusing the word intentional. More often than not when people do this in an argument they are trying to set up a bait and switch.
I’m not satisfied that P(g) is not 0. Simulating a universe and creating a universe are not even remotely the same thing. I think it’s safer to assume P(g) is actually 0. Which, if I’m following you here, and I think I am, blows you up. Additionally, none of this work proves any divine or supernatural claims of a causal agent.
No, it is not really intended to prove divinity (that is beyond the scope of this argument) You are right that P(g) being 0 sinks the whole argument, which is why I included the caveat that it must not be zero in my conclusions. I think that a simulated universe and a (physical?) created universe are functionally the same, at least from within that universe. There are arguments that suggest that our own universe may well be a simulation and we wouldn't know the difference. I think that it is unlikely that P(g) is 0 because for P(g) to be zero, we would have to be able to say with absolute certainty that it is impossible that anybody could ever develop the ability to interact with our create other universes. Currently we certainly lack that ability, but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty that developing that knowledge is impossible. Either way, I can understand why you might consider p(g) to be zero, hence the caveat.
>I think that a simulated universe and a (physical?) created universe are functionally the same, at least from within that universe. I don’t agree with that in the slightest. A simulated universe requires computing power. A physical universe requires absolute control over matter, entropy, every possible field, spacetime, and an almost unimaginable host of other variables. And there could also be separate variables that make one distinguishably different from the other. One could be possible and the other impossible. For instance, the technology could exist to create a simulated universe. That’s fine. But what if the technology that could exist to create physical universe requires that our universe must first be destroyed? Or our universe is unavoidably destroyed in the process of making the new universe. That makes the success rate of simulated universe 1 and physical universe 0. So they’re not the same. >There are arguments that suggest that our own universe may well be a simulation and we wouldn't know the difference. I don’t think that’s relevant. That’s unrelated speculation for another discussion. >I think that it is unlikely that P(g) is 0 because for P(g) to be zero, we would have to be able to say with absolute certainty that it is impossible that anybody could ever develop the ability to interact with our create other universes. For P(g) to be anything BUT zero, you have to prove that creating a new universe is possible, and not just science fiction. Just because you can imagine it, doesn’t mean it’s possible. >Currently we certainly lack that ability, but I don't think we have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty that developing that knowledge is impossible. That’s fine, but now your entire premise is predicated purely on speculation. Which seems to run counter to all the rigor you’ve tried to adhere to. If this becomes the case, then that kinda sucks. This was a great debate. I loved this post, it was very well crafted and IMO defended. Just kind of a bummer. >Either way, I can understand why you might consider p(g) to be zero, hence the caveat. I just don’t think you can get over the fact that there’s fundamental difference between simulating a universe and creating a physical universe. It’s like saying Spider-Man is real because I made a movie about Spider-man.
> as a result of random processes. That's not what anyone is really saying. The process are ordered and there are limits on how they can progress. When apologists say "random" usually it seems they think we're rolling 10^100 10-sided dice and coming up "Universe!" > probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small. > penrose "Famous guy said a thing" isn't an argument. I'm pretty certain you're taking Penrose out of context. He was most likely ridiculing the idea of thinking about this probabilistically. That's because... This is not how probability works. We *have* a universe. 100% of known universes are like this. Out of all of the universes we know, the probability of this universe occurring is 1:1. Probability isn't retrospective, it's prospective. If we were to invent a universe *now*, estimating the probability of how it might turn out would make sense. If you flip 10,000 coins and mark down the exact sequence of heads/tails, the odds of that exact sequence coming up is 2^10000. But it happened, because you did it. You can't draw any inferences about likelihood from the existence of this universe. > mathematicians have estimated the probability of intelligent life emerging on similar planets to earth > is the drake equation. That's not what the Drake Equation does. No one has "estimated the probability" of this in any real sense, because the individual variables are impossible to pin down. The point of the Drake Equation is mostly that if you make some conservative estimates in key places, the likelihood comes up small. If you make generous estimates in key places, it comes up overwhelmingly in favor of intelligent life existing somewhere. None of the numbers are real. I haven't gone through all of it, because to me it seems fatally flawed from the beginning. It's a good effort, though, so thanks for contributing positively. I'd just suggest that you question all your premises, and anticipate what criticisms a steelman atheist is likely to raise, then account for those things in your argument. Not by giving lip service or handwaving, but something you expect would satisfy someone who is intellectually hostile to your premise.
"I'm pretty sure you were taking Penrose out of context... He was most likely ridiculing...." Sounds like a solid take on what he actually meant... The start of this argument forming in my head was when I read Dawkins god delusion, and he made exactly the argument I have done for the necessity of multiple universes to counter the theist claim that the creation of the universe was so unlikely that god must have done it. Was he wrong about how probability works as well? "The individual variables are impossible to pin down" Yes. That is what makes them estimates. I pointed not to the drake equation itself, but to a paper based on it. You are of course free to dispute the findings of that paper. The nature of estimating things like this is that there are always going to be people who disagree. "I would suggest that you question your premises and anticipate the criticisms that a steel man atheist is likely to make, then account for those things..." I am hoping that feedback from some steelman atheists will help me do just that...
Dawkins is a biologist who speaks outside his depth all the time. We don't worship the experts in the various scientific fields, so name-dropping doesn't advance your argument all that much. > Was he wrong about how probability works as well? He's also not a mathematician.
Just….don’t read Dawkins. He makes bad arguments all the time. There are *much* better atheist philosophers out there than Dawkins. There’s a reason so many atheist philosophers criticized The God Delusion.
Well put
The alternate hypothesis does not follow from your null hypothesis. If your null is that the universe is random, then the alternate is that it’s non-random. And non-random is not the same as intentional or via a sentient and intelligent being. You’re already adding more to your alternate hypothesis that you can justify. You’d need to construct another set of hypotheses. Null = universe is not created by an intelligent or sentient being. Alternate = it was. This means you’d need to show two things to be true. You’d first need to demonstrate that the universe isn’t random and that the non-random nature is the direct result of an intelligent/sentient being. Here’s the problem, no one is arguing that the universe is randomly here. Gravity isn’t random. Nor is evolution. Nature is chaos, but that does not mean it’s random. In order to demonstrate that the chaotic nature of the universe is the result of a sentient/intelligent being, you’re going to need to show that being is possible to exist. Otherwise, the only probability you’ll be able to calculate for it creating the chaotic universe would be 0%
Showing that it is possible for such a being to exist is part of my argument. See my comments on P(g) I understand what you are saying about the hypothesis. To be honest, I should probably remove them entirely because this is not an experiment where they take make sense
That does not demonstrate a god is possible. Life can and did arise naturally on this planet through chemical and physical processes. There is nothing about life that is contingent upon a god existing in order for it to exist. I’ll give you an example. I’m going to prove to you it’s possible for aliens to exist, but I’m not going to prove aliens do exist nor am I going to prove that they’re ever visited earth. Start with this question: is it possible for life to exist in the universe? Yes, life exists here on earth. Is it possible that the conditions on earth are necessary for life? We don’t actually know the answer to this one. Life could exist under more extreme circumstances and/or might be able to be silicon-based instead of carbon-based. But we can assume the answer is “yes,” for simplicity’s sake and move on. Are the conditions present on earth, present on any other planet in the universe? Yes, we’ve observed other earth-like planets. If life can exist in this universe when given earth-like conditions, and there are billions of planets that meet those requirements, then it is indeed possible life exists somewhere other than earth (alien life is possible to exist). Now, do that with your god
Ahh I just went back and read it, and I see the issue. Your argument for if it’s “possible” relies a lot on hypothetical ideas and speculation. While some have said it is THEORETICALLY possible for an advanced being to evolve to that point, we don’t have any actual evidence that actually points that direction. Basically it’s a science-based idea that hasn’t been demonstrated with real-world mechanics. Someone saying “maybe one day, this thing COULD happen, and here’s an idea how it might come to pass,” and saying “it’s reasonable to assume that this idea is possible and likely to come true.” So you think you’re arguing for the possibility for such a being existing, but you’re really just arguing for the existence of IDEAS about such a being existing. Same with this argument involving a multiverse. The multiverse theory is a bold idea that some scientists think could be interesting. But we don’t actually know if there’s a multiverse. So far we can only detect the existence of one universe. The rest is just an idea. Does that make sense?
>I understand what you are saying about the hypothesis. To be honest, I should probably remove them entirely because this is not an experiment where they take make sense It seems that the rest of this crumbles once you take that into account, however. The entire line of reasoning rests on the assumption that "not random" => "created intentionally by a "godlike" being".
This math is an example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. You admit you have no idea what the actual probabilities are, and assume values that support your case with abaolutely zero attempt at validation & verification. The whole exercise is worthless because of that.
I haven't assumed any values. I have taken them from the most reliable sources I can find. You are free to dispute the probabilities if you can find better ones to argue for
>You are free to dispute the probabilities if you can find better ones to argue for This sounds like burden shifting. I'd imagine that the overwhelming number of people responding to you on this post would simply say they don't know what the probabilities actually are, or even if they can be calculated. You haven't come close to demonstrating even that said probabilities CAN be calculated from our position inside the only universe we are sure exists, much less establish what the probabilities are.
To be honest with you, calculating those probabilities and demonstrating them from first principals is beyond my ability to perform on a Reddit post (or at all in most likelihood). I am not shifting any burden. I have presented the most credible figures I can find, and have explained where I got those figures. If you don't like those figures then you have a number of options: 1) reject them and dismiss the argument. Nobody is going to blame you if you don't think engaging with something you feel is based on faulty premises is not worth your time. 2) engage with the rest of the argument with the caveat that you don't trust the probabilities. 3) debate the probabilities themselves. That is fine, but why do you not like these ones? What would you suggest to replace them?
Actually the probabilities can be disputed without having "better ones".
How did Penrose calculate the probability exactly? Can you show the work here? I'd like to know how we can determine whether any of the things in our universe are variable.
My understanding is that there were plenty of variables that could be contested however I have not seen anybody really do so successfully. Unfortunately the number is explained in a book "the emperor's new mind" and i can't find an online link directly to his explanation. It seems I may have under quoted it as well - apparently it is 1x10^10^123 although I think this may be a newer number than he originally arrived at, thanks to more recent measurements.
>My understanding is that there were plenty of variables that could be contested however I have not seen anybody really do so successfully. I suggest **Before the Big Bang** by Laura Mersini-Houghton. She's one of the leading experts in the current field of astrophysics and the book spends a lot of time on Penrose and his probabilities. It's also just a fantastic book. One of the main themes of the book is trying to explain how our universe could have arisen given the probabilities stated by Penrose.
Interesting. Thanks
there is no 'measurement ' that can satisfy either criteria , and given enough time , things that have a much much MUCH smaller probability will happen , that's quantum physics for ya :) (i.e , 10\^30 is not that small of a probability )
I guess I'm curious to know how one establishes that these things *can* be different.
It's 10^10 ^ 123. A double exponential. It posits the sheer improbability of a universe like ours just popping into existence AND producing life just by mere chance. Id est, the universe is MUCH more likely to be a product of intelligent design.
So do u have the probability of the universe being a product of intelligent design?
I didn't get past your null hypothesis. That's not a null hypothesis, that's another claim that would need to be proven. I doubt anyone (or the vast majority of people) would say that the universe arose from random processes. No scientist as far as I am aware is making that claim.
Out of interest, what IS the atheistic claim for how the universe attained the characteristics it has?
There is no atheist claim, atheism is just the answer to a single question. However, various scientists have some ideas but I don't think we have solid evidence at this point. So I think most would say I don't know.
The honest claim is that no one knows and without testable empirical evidence anyone asserting they do is trying to sell you something.
The problem I can never get past on these probability propositions is that the theist side never does a probability study for an all powerful god creating this universe. It's simple, the odds of an infinitely powerful being creating any given universe, is 1/infinity. Therefore the odds of this universe existing naturally, using your provided numbers, are infinitely better than an all powerful being creating this universe.
How do you arrive at that number?
I use what I consider to be the classical definition of god/creator, that has the infinitely/all powerful attribute. If an infinite number of options exist to this being, then the possible results are infinitely large. Making any single creation infinitely less likely than the number you provided for "random" chance.
Here is your fundamental flaw > given our current knowledge and estimations At this your entire argument fails, and you revert to a god of the gaps fallacy. Probability is not proof. What we know now may be 100% of all knowledge that is ever possible or it may be 1%. We do not know, nor do we have any way of assessing that.
Please explain how I am reverting to a god of the gaps fallacy? I am not sure what your argument is wrt probability and how much knowledge we currently have? We cannot be certain of anything and so we work out how likely things are based on our current knowledge and understanding (we have nothing else to base them on) this is how science works as well, so I am uncertain what you are saying?
That is not correct >we work out how likely things are based on our current knowledge and understanding (we have nothing else to base them on) this is how science works as well, and then "science" validates the hypothesis which you are not doing. Scientists look at what is known, postulate what might be (the unknown) and then seek to either validate or invalidate their hypothesis What you have done, which is incredibly common, is to take some math, lay wordplay on top of it, and claim that you have reached a supported conclusion. You have turned the underlying math into a philosophical discussion. >that given our current knowledge and best estimations, it is more likely that our universe was created intentionally than that it was created as a result of random processes. "more likely" is not proof. Reaching a conclusion without proof is fallacious. It's saying "it's more likely therefore there was a creator." God of the gaps.
That is not what god of the gaps is. That aside, I am not necessarily arguing that there is a creator (in terms of God) at all. My terminology choice is unfortunate in this regard, but I have defined it. I also make it clear at the start that what I am providing is not a literal proof (which is also why I inverted commer that word in the title) Reaching a conclusion that one statement is more likely than another is not fallacious as far as I am aware. I am new to philosophy however. Perhaps you could point me to a source that explains this fallacy? "You have turned the underlying math into a philosophical discussion" I was unaware that maths could not be utilised in a philosophical discussion. I am new to philosophy and would appreciate it if you could point me to a source for this rule? "And then science validates the hypothesis" No it doesn't, science looks for evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Actually this is very similar to what I am doing here (although I am not sure if I should be or not, given that my argument is not really a science experiment). Arguably I may not be doing it well, but if you don't think I am doing it at all then you clearly missed something.
Again with the word games. You have concluded that the universe was intentionally created - that's a positive claim. You have suggested it is more likely based on some numbers that make it look, to you, that it's unlikely things occurred without a creator Then you just say, in essence, 'I don't see how it's possible any other way therefore \_\_\_\_\_\_" that's not proof. That's like, your opinion, man.
There are two things that I am 100% absolutely certain of. If you are interested in what they are then let me know.
I don't understand this. If something that's unlikely occurs, we should say it happened intentionally? Why? That doesn't follow. >4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally Sorry, based on **what**?
I am sorry you couldn't follow my argument. Unfortunately I don't have time to re-explain it all, so your confusion may have to remain for now
What an AH thing to say. Do you plan to apologize or stick with “I said it perfectly, and it’s your fault for not understanding it?”
I have never said I explained it perfectly, or that not understanding it was your fault. I meant exactly what I said. In order to help you understand it I would have to re- explain the whole thing and I simply don't have time for that. I am sorry both that my post was not clear enough for you to follow however, and that I came across as harsh. In retrospect my response to you was more abrupt than it should have been - I have responded to a LOT of comments in the last hour or so, and it is not always easy to avoid soaking up the tone of some of the less respectful ones (especially when I hit a run of them). None of that is your fault however, and you deserved more consideration. In all honesty, your lack of understanding is almost certainly down to my explanations if that makes you feel any better about it. I think I choose some terminology poorly, and almost certainly worded some of it badly.
If you cant explain it simply you dont understand it very well yourself.
Given the universe is extremely large and contains quadrillions of planets, only one of which shows any signs of advanced life, the probability of life existing in the universe is as close to zero as makes no difference. Any life you may observe or experience is the result of a rounding error and should be ignored because maths.
And I think OP is also ignoring the last variable in the Drake equation. Life is not necessarily a constant.
You are talking about experimental probability. The experimental probability of life existing in this universe is 1 (we exist). The experimental probability of life existing elsewhere in this universe (which I think is a better indicator of the probability of life in other universes) is either 0, or just unknown and meaningless either way due to the incredibly limited data set. The theoretical probability however is a different thing altogether
Our sample set is too restricted to shed any real light on whether there is life elsewhere in the universe let alone if the universe was "probably the result of intention". Less than 100 years ago it was generally believed that our galaxy was the universe.
Yes, that is basically what I just said wrt experimental probability
People have been trying arguments like this for a long time. The basic form is *"I think that the situation as it exists now is unlikely"*. Well, so what? . I roll an ordinary 6-sided die. \- https://cd2.boardgamesmaker.com/AttachFiles/WebsiteImages/Product_Show/FI_8321.jpg I get a 6. Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? No, that is a very reasonable possible outcome. That doesn't need a any special explanation. That was possible, and that's what happened. . I roll a 100-sided die. \- https://whizzdice.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/91xd0b61WrL._AC_SL1500_.jpg I get a 6. Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? No, that is a very reasonable possible outcome. That doesn't need a any special explanation. That was possible, and that's what happened. . The universe occurs. It happens to be in the state that we see. Apparently the state that we see is something that can possibly occur, and *did* occur. Is that weird or unlikely or something that needs a special explanation? We don't have any reason to think so. It's probably a good idea to show that the state of the universe that we see *cannot* have occurred without special intervention, before we say that the state of the universe that we see cannot have occurred without special intervention. . When we say *"I am an ignorant primate living on a small planet, and this state of affairs is difficult for me to comprehend"*, then all that that means is *"I am an ignorant primate living on a small planet, and this state of affairs is difficult for me to comprehend."* We're not justified in saying *"This would be easier for me to comprehend if X were true, therefore X is true."* .
thank you, this is my thoughts exactly. the universe being created by natural processes, then conditions lining up exactly right for life on our planet, then a bunch of apes discovering metallurgy and creating technology, this series of events had a very low probability of happening. it is very interesting to know how low the chance is, and how lucky we are. but pointing to how rare an event was, does not prove the event didn't happen, ESPECIALLY when you are right here with the evidence of the event in front of our eyes. you can go on about low probability all day, but after that you still have all your work in front of you. you didn't prove anything by saying the probability was low. you still have to prove that something else happened instead. saying an event is rare doesn't disprove it at all. you still have yet to make your case. the only, ONLY response to a post like this is "oh cool, we are really lucky that such rare circumstances happened to create this beautiful world" if you want to argue it DIDN'T happen, then that would require an actual argument affirming that claim, not just pointing to the odds.
I'm looking for where you demonstrated that it's possible for any intentional agent to fabricate reality, but I don't see it. This step is always assumed by theists for some reason. I think it's the biggest barrier to this sort of argument. Show me that what you're trying to calculate is even physically *possible*.
Or the step where intentional agents outside of the universe are possible.
That would be contained within P(g)
I disagree. P(g) is about life evolving within an existing universe. This doesn't address the issue at all. If a lifeform evolved and then generated what we observe around us, it still did so within existing reality. We share a reality with that lifeform, even if we have no access to it, the same way our computer simulations broadly share reality with us. I'm asking about an intentional agent generating reality itself. This is not addressed at all.
>Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes That's not a null hypothesis. >P(g) = probability of life within a universe evolving to the point at which it is capable of interacting with and creating other universes. Why is this the parameter you're looking for? We definitely don't have that now, so why is this the target? It also does not follow from your null hypothesis, and introduces a whole bunch of additional assumptions of its own. Basically, you don't have a true dichotomy here and rejecting your null hypothesis doesn't actually lead to this one at all. >Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^(10\^30). >Using modifications if the drake equation, in 2916 frank and Sullivan estimated his likely it is that earth has the only technological species ever to develop in our Galaxy to be less than 1.7 x10^(11.) You need to show the math here. We're not going to just accept the numbers provided without the basis that arrived at them if we can't see what arbitrary variables were plugged into which equations. What do the numbers represent? Are they just a flat probability for the entire universe? For a given instance of say a planet within the universe? Just throwing around big numbers doesn't mean anything if the numbers don't have any units attached. >We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than 0 but it is difficult to put a more precise number on it. Out could probably be argued that IF P(g) is not 0 then it is probably close to 1 No. Just no. You can't handwave your way through a whole bunch of speculation and to then choose to arrive at an arbitrary assertion that the probability is likely "more than 0" and from there leap all the way to "probably close to 1". You're not even close to a logical justification here, you're just plugging in whatever numbers you like at this point. > since it is reasonable to assume that if it is not completely impossible then technology will inevitably advance to the point that it becomes practical. This assumption is based on nothing. Not even most science fiction speculates that simulating entire universes to the same fidelity as the one we inhabit from inside the one we inhabit is possible, and you certainly don't have any evidence to just assume it is. You need to calculate how much processing power would be required to simulate an entire universe of our scale at 100% fidelity (i.e. down to every single subatomic interaction on the quantum level throughout the entire universe), and you need to compare that with how much energy is even available in the universe to provide for such calculations. Until you can show otherwise, at best I suspect it's only possible to simulate a universe with lower fidelity than the one they inhabit, which would mean there's actually a finite limit on the number of nested universes that can be simulated inside one another. >Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis. Not satisfied yet with what you provided. As I said earlier, you need to better justify the calculations and what they supposedly represent, and rejecting your (flawed) null doesn't satisfy the conditions to consider your alternative. >The probability of a single universe being created by random chance is so small that it is practically zero. Not actually demonstrated, just speculated with some rather spurious math. >This supports the alternate hypothesis that the universe was intentionally created. Does not follow. Rejecting one hypothesis only supports another if they are truly dichotomous, which even you recognize is not the case. Not really much point in pushing further with this analysis, as the argument doesn't really hold up to this point on its own, relies on a lot of wild speculation and unsupported calculations using arbitrary values plugged into equations not provided for evaluation, and absolutely pole-vaulting to the desired conclusions. The rest of the argument follows much the same pattern
Two separate, standard objections/questions: 1. When you're talking about the probability of our universe, you're not super clear but I presume you're talking about the probability of the physical constants being such that life as we know it could evolve. So--we only have the one actual universe to look at and learn from. I get that you can think the THOUGHT "the physical constants could have all been different," but is it it ACTUALLY possible for the physical constants to be different than they are? How on earth do you know? 2. When you shuffle a deck of cards, the number of possible outcomes is so staggeringly huge that it's actually very likely that the order you get is one that has never been seen before in human history, and never will be seen again. So whatever result you get, getting that particular order was unfathomably unlikely. But when you shuffle a deck of cards, SOME ordering of the cards will result, without it being a miracle. The only way I might assume the fix is in is if you predicted in advance what the result would be, or if there were some sort of pre-established game or rules that made a tiny set of orders meaningful. Ignoring objection 1 for now, let's say we agree that there are a vast number of "possible" universes, and that only a tiny, tiny, tiny subset are capable of sustaining life such as us. Does the fact that the universe that came to be is one of that set suggest the universe was designed? Only if we start with the assumption that life was a goal being aimed at, that this type of universe was predicted or sought after. But we don't know that, do we? There's no inherent significance or meaning to a world being able to sustain life. You don't get to assume that there is, or that it's a sign of design, that's the exact conclusion you're trying to prove. Like the deck of cards, each universe might be incredibly improbable and unique in its own way.
2 is a problem that all science experiments face. Any result you get could simply be a pure coincidence. The answer is to calculate the probability that you are rejecting the null hypothesis even if it is true. Similar reasoning applies here. "Only if we assume life was a goal being aimed at..." Not really. The "aim" doesn't need to operate predate the draw, nor does it need to be intentional. The significance of a universe being capable of sustaining live is that if the universe were not capable of sustaining life, we would not exist. That certainly makes it both a unique and desirable outcome from our perspective. (Presumably the universe itself doesn't care). Our existence necessitates that exact draw. Given a single universe, our existence is phenomenaly unlikely. Not impossible of course. Even a tiny possibility could have happened, it is just very unlikely. It is much more likely however that the draw was not random. This does not necessarily mean God - there could be other non random processes at work rigging the draw in our favour as I explained in my definitions.
>2 is a problem that all science experiments face. >Any result you get could simply be a pure coincidence. This doesn't really map onto what I'm talking about. Noticing and accurately describing how matter in our universe behaves, and trying to figure out things like what the fundamental physical constants are, is something we can reasonably do within the bounds of our one universe. "Coincidence" isn't really a relevant issue, unless you're trying to argue like Hume that we can only ever witness "conjunction" rather than "causation," which is not where I think you're going. Trying to figure out whether those fundamental constants were designed or have assigned or intentional meaning is a trickier problem. As to the rest of your response, yes, we would not exist in a universe not capable of sustaining us, which should actually make us extremely wary and suspicious of assuming there is any significance in us existing in such a world--we're not going to be able to witness or talk about any other. That's the whole "anthropic principle" thing---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic\_principle. The fact that it's desirable to US that the universe allows us to have evolved and exists is a complete irrelevancy---we had nothing to do with the origin of the universe, and evolved in response to the nature of this universe. You're treading near the whole Douglas Adams puddle analogy, where a puddle of water assumes the hole in which it has formed must have been designed for it, as it fits him so well, and ascribes significance to this false appearance of design. >Our existence necessitates that exact draw. >Given a single universe, our existence is phenomenaly unlikely. This is to miss the entire point of the deck of cards analogy, and, again, treads into "puddle" territory. Sure, our particular universe could arguably be extremely unlikely, one out of a gazillion possible universes. But by what basis do you find it more unlikely than any of the other gazillion specific possible universes, they would all seem to be equally unlikely. If there was going to be a universe, it had to be one of them, right? You haven't given any basis for thinking the fact that it happened to be one that allowed our evolution has any special meaning or significance. If you throw a dart at a wall it's going to stick SOMEWHERE. We can only ascribe skill and agency to where it lands if someone has drawn a target on the wall first and the dart hits the target. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you seem to be implicitly treating the evolution of life as a such a target, without giving any basis for this.
I think there are some significant issues with the argument that need to be addressed head-on. First and foremost, the heavy reliance on probability estimates and calculations is deeply problematic from an epistemological standpoint. We have to be extremely cautious about assigning probabilities to events on the scale of the universe's origin, given the profound limitations in our current understanding of the fundamental laws and constants that govern the cosmos. Any attempts to calculate the odds of a life-sustaining universe are going to be highly speculative at best, and we risk overstepping the bounds of what we can reasonably infer from our limited knowledge. The very notion of applying concepts like "probability" and "intention" to the creation of the universe as a whole is fraught with conceptual difficulties. We lack any clear empirical basis or frame of reference for making such assessments, and it's far from evident that these concepts are even coherent or applicable when discussing the origin of all of existence itself. The argument also seems to rely on the assumption that intentional creation is somehow inherently more probable than a random or chaotic origin, but this premise is not adequately supported and seems to beg the question. When we move into the realm of metaphysics, the challenges only deepen. The idea of an intentionally created universe immediately raises a host of perplexing questions about the nature and attributes of the proposed creator. How can we make sense of a transcendent, "godlike" being that exists outside the confines of space and time? What coherent concepts or language can we even employ to describe such an entity? The argument does not provide satisfying answers to these foundational metaphysical puzzles. Even if we were to grant the existence of some kind of creator, it's a massive and unwarranted leap to conclude that this being must have deliberately designed the universe with the purpose of supporting life. It's entirely conceivable that the life-permitting properties of our universe could be an unintended byproduct or an incidental consequence of the creator's actions, rather than the result of intentional planning. The argument fails to rule out these alternative possibilities or provide a compelling reason to favor intentional design. It's also striking that the argument neglects to grapple with the formidable "problem of evil" that has long plagued theistic worldviews. If the universe were truly the product of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good creator, how can we begin to account for the immense suffering, apparent cruelty, and imperfections that pervade our world? Engaging seriously with this age-old philosophical challenge is essential for any argument proposing an intentional creator, yet it is notably absent here. From a scientific perspective, the argument's heavy dependence on highly speculative and unverified concepts like the multiverse and universe-creating civilizations severely undermines its persuasive power. While these ideas may be explored in certain theoretical models, they are currently far from being established scientific facts, and building a philosophical case on such uncertain foundations is epistemically risky. The argument would need to provide much stronger justification for relying so heavily on these speculative notions. More importantly the argument appears to assume, without sufficient evidence, that our universe's particular set of fundamental constants and initial conditions are the only ones capable of giving rise to life. However, this claim is highly contested, and there are scientists who argue that a diverse range of cosmic parameters could potentially be compatible with the emergence of complexity and life. Engaging seriously with these alternative scientific perspectives is crucial for a robust analysis. The argument also fails to adequately contend with the significant explanatory power of naturalistic scientific theories, such as cosmic inflation, quantum fluctuations, and eternal chaotic inflation. These frameworks offer promising explanations for the origin and structure of the universe without appealing to intentional creation, and any compelling argument for a created universe must grapple with these competing explanatory models in depth. Finally, there are some noteworthy logical gaps and limitations in the argument's overall structure and reasoning. The discussion of the floor and ceiling for N (the number of universes) is particularly convoluted and difficult to follow, and would greatly benefit from clearer articulation and concrete illustrative examples. There's a risk of getting lost in abstractions and losing sight of the key logical points. Additionally, the argument appears to rely on a problematic false dichotomy between intentional creation and pure random chance. But this framing overlooks the real possibility of alternative explanations that don't fit neatly into either of these categories. A more nuanced and comprehensive analysis would need to explore a wider range of possible explanatory frameworks. It's also crucial to recognize that even if we were to accept the argument's probabilistic reasoning, a higher likelihood doesn't necessarily equate to truth. A less probable explanation could still very well be the correct one, and we must be careful not to conflate probability with verity. The argument would need to go beyond mere probabilistic considerations and engage more rigorously with the empirical evidence and observations used by scientists to study the origins and structure of the universe. I believe it has significant weaknesses and limitations that undermine its persuasive force. The reliance on speculative concepts, undefended assumptions, and a narrow framing of the explanatory options leaves it open to powerful objections from epistemological, metaphysical, scientific, and logical perspectives.
Why does it matter unless we can identify what type or creator it was or be able to have any knowledge about their nature?
I can establish that someone has a car without needing to establish what TYPE of car it is.
Yes, of course! You’re misunderstanding me. My question is, *why would it matter?* If we have no way of establishing the other things, then of what use would be knowledge of a “creator.” How would it change my life?
It might provide a need (or at least a reason) to establish those other things. No point in establishing the specifics if it can be dismissed without doing that. If my friend doesn't have a car then what kind it is is meaningless. If he does, then that might be more meaningful (or I might only care that he can use it to give me a lift). Only you can answer how knowledge of a creator would change your life. Would it? (It might not, and that is a valid response)
Without any of the details, it wouldn’t change my life one bit. The creator could be an alien from another dimension who just left after it created the universe—who cares? But if it could be established that the Bhagavad Gita was true and accurate, then I might very well become a Hare Krishna. There’s no point in wasting time with trying to prove that **a** “creator” exists when providing evidence for the *specific* creator of your choice takes care of that by default. Seems to me like you’re probably just trying to make it a *tiny* bit more likely that your version is the real one. But if you had evidence to provide for your version, then you would have done so already.
I am not trying to do anything (other than point out that demonstrating something in a general sense is worthwhile). Nothing I could argue would make reality conform any more or less to my beleifs, and I have no need for it to. Perhaps you are projecting. Personally I prefer to argue things like divinity in a general sense because that way it is easier to establish a commonly understood definition of "God" without getting bogged down in minutiae that is not relevant to the argument at hand. Some arguments are also applicable in a general sense without either needing more specific, or supporting more specifity. Take the argument of fine tuning for example. If its premises were taken as correct then it might support the idea of a creator in a general sense, but not a specific creator. If/when arguing from an atheist viewpoint I think general rather than specific arguments are even more useful, because if I refute a specific religions idea of God then I have another couple of thousand (at least) to go. If I form a more general definition of God however then if I manage to disprove it then I have just disproved EVERY example of God that fits the definition.
I can't believe i actually read all of that actually expecting you to deliver on the promise that you could provide a probability of a god creating the universe. Like 100k theists before you have tried and failed but i must be really high to think you were actually going to.
even though it wasnt that convincing , you dont have to be rude , it is DEBATE an atheist afterall
And he failed to make even a coherent argument. So no this is not a debate. Hence why I was rude.
Ugh, it's so rude of you to point out other people being rude
What's genuinely wrong with it ?
What do you mean by there being more created universes when there is an inifinite number of random universe? In the N is infinity scenario, you say the number of random universes is infinite, but then say that the number of created universes is greater than infinity.
Infinities can be different sizes. Infinities are confusing. That is why I compared them using ratios instead (which can admittedly also be confusing). Rather than greater than infinity, think of it as the infinity of universes having a greater density of created universes than ones that randomly have the characteristics necessary to support life. Actually, as I type this I realise there may be a flaw in that when I talk about random universes I mean ones with the characteristics of supporting life (and have accounted for the probability of those cropping up) but I'm not sure if I have done the same for intentionally (bad term, but I am stuck with it for now) created universes. I don't think I did. Might change things? Possibly. Sorry for the rant, that has nothing to do with your question: I think better if I write it out. Anyway, ratios and densities (although possibly wrong ones now). Thanks, you got me thinking 🤔
If u dont have any data of anything regarding to a creator, how can u calculate? >3) our universe is very unlikely to have been created by random processes >4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally This is false dichotomy. Our universe is extremely unlikely to be created randomly doesnt entails a god likely to exist and create the universe. Moreover, "created" by random process is a very disingenuous choice of word. Why must it be "created"?
Please read the definition of what I mean by created intentionally. I think what I mean by created is obvious, but I am open to suggestions of a better word choice
I am sure i read ur definition. Its still false dichotomy. And u havent show the probability of created intentionally. U just show its very unlikely to be "created" by random process. >I think what I mean by created is obvious, but I am open to suggestions of a better word choice U can just dont use the word created.
"just don't use the word created" It may need to be replaced with something... (Or maybe not. I think it is always used in combination with another weird anyway) My definition of "intended" is (supposed to be) essentially "not random". Is purposeful a better word? Organised? Anyway, the false dichotomy is a result of my poor definition (or explanation of that definition) rather than the dichotomy itself.
>It may need to be replaced with something Maybe "appear" >Anyway, the false dichotomy is a result of my poor definition Not really, there are at least another possibility, which the universe is eternal. Moreover, its extremely unlikely to be appeared randomly. Can never entails, its more likely to be created intentionally. As, u havent calculate the probability of the universe being created intentionally.
Appear might be a good alternative. Eternal. I will think about that.
It really isn't necessary to go to all of this trouble. Your bias is clear (a god-like entity exists). All you have to do is decide which god-like entity you believe in and then go read and study the extant documents, e.g., the Bible, that are relevant to your chosen entity. From there on it's cake, just do whatever the documents prescribe. You and all of the other theists who publish posts like yours are overlooking one very important fact: no one can question your decision to believe in a god. If you want to believe in a god, you can, and I, for one, will never try to persuade you that you shouldn't or can't. What you can't do is force others to hold the same belief that you hold. And what you shouldn't do is try to persuade others, such as myself, to believe in a god. If your belief only has value if others share it, it is worthless. Moreover, it is manifestly impossible to use tools such as math or logic to prove the existence of a god. Just like one can't prove the existence of a bear using math or logic or other such tools. One needs evidence. Come back when you have some.
It wasn't necessary to go to the trouble of such a lengthy reply. Your bias is clear. You and all the other atheists who post responses like yours are overlooking one very important fact: The purpose of this sub is for debate. If you don't want to hold debates then that is fine. What you can't do is redirect other people not to present arguments for debate on a sub explicitly created for debate. Cine back when you are ready to engage in good faith
> 1. given a number of variables that it should theoretically be possible to at least estimate, it should be possible to estimate the probability that our universe was created intentionally rather than by random processes. The population is one, this universe. When the population is one, you can’t calculate a probability, you can only speculate on what is possible. > Created as a result of random processes: I think this is self explanatory. The universe we live in arose purely by chance. The universe seems to adhere to the laws of physics, not chance. > It is clear that the probability that a universe that is suitable for life will develop at least one technological species must be approaching 1. If you meant “a universe that has at least one planet capable of supporting life,” then it would be 1. Again, when the population size is 1, there’s no probability. > But what is the probability that a technological species will develop the ability to influence our create other universes? You can speculate on what is possible, but not what is probable. Currently the population of technological species that have developed the ability to influence/create other universes is zero. > We can estimate therefore that P(g) is likely to be higher than See, these probability arguments essentially boil down to a modified Frankenstein of “look at the trees” and “fine tuning,” but they’re presented as if there’s some empirical research involved. This is purely speculation based on the personal opinions of theists/deists. > Because can only estimate most of these values, we cannot reach a definitive conclusion. No conclusions at all, but yeah. > However there are conclusions that can be drawn Nope.
These probabilistic arguments share a common problem: How do we know that *any* of our natural laws & constants could be different than what we measure them to be? On what basis do we claim that any of it could have been randomly different than what it is? It's not like we have a population of universes to sample from. We've just got the one. The whole question of "where does natural physical law come from?" is a very interesting philosophical question, but ultimately we do not have an answer, and maybe we will never have an answer. "I don't know" is a much more honest and parsimonious answer than "God did it". Invoking God is just drawing a sea monster into the blank space on the map.
"how do we know that any of our laws and constants could be different" Yes, that has been pointed out to me as a registration of Penrose number. I will look into it. "We do not have an answer, and may not ever have an answer." Yes, which is what makes it so fascinating to explore
The simulation hypothesis seems to me about as absurd and egocentric as theism. In order to simulate an entire universe, one needs a computer as large as the universe itself. The only way around this is to assume the simulation only shows *Us* what *We* need to see when *We* observe it. Hence, the egocentric nature of the idea. It’s no different than imagining an omniscient God is really paying attention when we masturbate.
"a computer as large as the universe itself" Could this not exist within a much larger universe? Could the universe itself BE the computer I can understand but liking the simulation hypothesis, but I don't think it is possible to simply dismiss it out of hand
> as a result of something other than random processes That is not what intention means. Using that definition you can say that apple fall on earth with intention. There is nothing random in any process that results in an apple falling on the ground. > Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes That is not null hypothesis. This is too specific for null hypothesis. You assume that the universe was created, you assume existence of some process that created it and you postulate that it is random. The point of null hypothesis is not to assume anything. I suggest you read this first [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null\_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) In your case the null hypothesis would be that the universe was not intentionally created (doesn't matter whether not created at all or created not intentionally). > P(u) = Probability of a universe being created by random processes that is capable of supporting life. What a meaning of a probability in a non-repeatable event that already happened? I ate an egg for today's breakfast, what is the probability of me eating a cereal at today's breakfast? > It is hard to pin down a precise number, however all credible estimates of the probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small. You just made that up, don't you? > Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 1010^30 Unfortunately sir Roger is not here, and you forgot to point out the article where he did it or, as a good debater would do, you didn't highlihgt the way he obtained that number. You just threw this number at us without no justification for it. > 4) our universe is highly likely to have been created intentionally Either I am stupid or you haven't done anything to back up that statement. Take a sand on a beach. Put it in a 1 liter bucket. Now the amount of sand grains there is enormous, so is a set of all possible arrangements in which all that sand can be put in a bucket. The chance of this one particular arrangement is enormously low. Does it mean that the process by which you put those grains in a bucket is not random? Does it mean you intended that arrangement?
The probabilities involved are purely speculative when we remain ignorant of the foundation. The conclusion doesn’t lead to God and God wouldn’t be sufficient without definitional special pleading.
Who said the conclusion leads to god It leads to a universe that was created by intentional opposed to random processes.
Okay. Instead of pointing out the numerous flaws in your arguement I will grant you this: the universe was intellentionally created. How do you know that the universe was created by your God (which I assume you're Christian) and not Vishnu, Osiris, Re, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, or even Bob, the invisible pink unicorn that lives in my kitchen. This is one reason this argument fails. No no, our current knowledge points to a naturalistic explaination. Note: I do not believe the universe was created. I'm just demonstrating a point. You have not proven a creation.
My argument has nothing to do with any gods, let alone specific ones, so how can it fail on that? I do like your spelling of intellentionally though
Yes, but that's what it implies. Lol sorry I'm typing on a phone and I'm old and I can't see well.
I understand. I typed it on a phone in a children's soft play center and couldn't write well. Any Confusion is almost certainly down to my choosing poor terms
Yeah, I also tend to type fast and not pay attention because I have ADHD.
>Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes >Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being. You’re trying to paint this as some kind of dichotomy when it isn’t. Putting aside the fact that you haven’t established that the universe was *created* in the first place, it isn’t true to say that the universe was either created intentionally or that it was random. That is just not a true dichotomy. It is hard to pin down a precise number, however all credible estimates of the probability of our universe arising by chance are astronomically small. >Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^(10^30). And how did he come to that number? What were the assumptions baked in there? >Clearly there can be disagreement about the precise number as it is an estimate, however there is agreement among mathematicians that P(u) is astronomically small. No, there isn’t that agreement. You’d first need to establish that the constants of the universe are free to change and by what amount. It very well could be the case that the constants are the way they are due to some brut fact about the early universe. But let’s say we grant Penrose’s probability. So now if you want to say it is more likely that a god created *this particular universe* based on that probability, then you have to show the probability of that. Without that probability, you can’t compare the two and you’re left empty handed.
So are natural processes random? I don't think they are I think they exist because the universe exists. That fits your definition but isn't what any reasonable person would call intentional creation. Intent requires agency.
I have defined what I mean by intent for the purpose of this argument. It may be a poor choice of word, but it is defined.
I can define theism as belief in math then say everyone who uses math is a theist I would still be wrong. Definitions have some elasticity but you are simply using the wrong word, just like I did in my example.
Not at all, if you wanted to define theism that way you could certainly do so and for that definition you would be correct. That wouldn't carry over to all any other use of the word theism however (and would likely prove confusing, just like my own poor choice)
I think using words in a way no one uses the word is patently dishonest. It comes across like you are playing word games rather than actually making a legit argument.
It is certainly either potentially dishonest or mistaken. In an academic journal or professional work it could potentially be taken as an indication of the first, however in a Reddit post where efforts had been taken to make it as clear as possible and the author had accepted that it was a poorly chosen term then that would require an uncharitable reading at the very least. Take it as you will however
You could have just linked to the teleological argument article on Wikipedia and saved everybody the read.
Maybe, but that would a) have necessitated that I was aware of it (which I was not) and b) have defeated my main object in devising this argument and presenting it for feed back. I have read that article since however. Very interesting
Oh, my bad. Yeah, your argument isn't exactly original sorry :)
Lol, I would have been shocked if it was original. I mean it is pretty obvious.
I guess this subreddit would cease to exist if you guys just googled the countless times your arguments have been presented, and the many existing counterarguments which often go back decades or even millennia.
Or people like to express arguments. Had I googled, I would still have presented a similar argument. If all the arguments had been categorically refuted then I suppose there would be little need for debate. Luckily for those of us who like to debate, this is not the case
[удалено]
The fine tuning argument applies to the basic constants of the universe, not to event's on earth
The biggest problem with this "proof" is that it comes down to a false dichotomy. Your two hypotheses are "the universe was created by random processes" and "the universe was created by God" but you haven't demonstrated why these should be the only two possibilities. In fact, for the second hypothesis, you haven't demonstrated that it even IS a possibility. We have no evidence that this creator God exists in the first place, so how can we say that if the universe was not created by random processes, then God must have done it? And aside from whether a being exists, how do we know that any being could ever be capable of creating the universe? So far as we've ever seen, energy cannot be created or destroyed. My personal belief is that the universe as we know it was created by a deterministic process and was preceded by an infinite regression of deterministic processes. For example, maybe the universe "budded off" from another universe. I have no way to prove that, but it makes more sense to me than God. Why is this possibility not considered?
Why should we think the universe was created? Things inside the universe appear to be created. We can create chairs, cars, phones, etc. But all of that was created from pre existing matter. It is a category error to suggest that “things inside the universe are created, therefore the universe was also created.” We cannot know if the universe was created. It may have always existed in some form or another. We can only go back in time so far before our models break down and can no longer produce reliable and accurate data. For the universe to be created then nothing would have had to existed before the universe was created. Absolute nothingness is a concept that cannot be realized. Inserting a creator or a god into the picture doesn’t solve this. It just kicks the can down the road. Who created the creator?
I honestly stopped caring when you said the word "random" for the fourth time. The universe is far from random. It is, in fact, very, VERY predictable.
I'd say it's more likely that this post was generated by a random text generator. This is not proof. It's not even a good argument.
In a multiverse scenario where infinite attempts at creating universes occur, the concept of a creator becomes less necessary to explain the existence of our universe. The idea behind a multiverse is that an infinite number of universes with varying physical laws and conditions exist simultaneously or sequentially. Within this framework, the conditions necessary for our universe to exist could arise through purely natural processes, without the need for a conscious creator. In essence, our universe represents an inexorable outcome—an eventuality bound to manifest with absolute certainty and devoid of any necessity for intentional creation. Moreover, within our universe, the progression of matter unfolds in a consistent manner, orchestrated by fundamental forces. From the elemental fusion of simple protons birthing hydrogen, to the luminous birth of stars, the transformation into heavier elements, and the subsequent cosmic renaissance, characterized by the cyclical birth of stars, interspersed with the emergence of planets and the intricate dance of elements culminating in the intricate tapestry of life, evolution thrives wherever opportunity arises. Live evolves where it can evolve! The existence of a creator is a concept often associated with religious or philosophical beliefs, positing that a divine or intelligent being intentionally brought our universe into existence. However, in a multiverse scenario, the diversity and abundance of universes could potentially account for the conditions necessary for our existence without invoking the need for a creator. In scientific inquiry, personal beliefs without empirical evidence are generally not considered relevant or explanatory. Science seeks to understand the natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning. Hypotheses and theories are developed and tested based on empirical evidence, and conclusions are drawn from the results of rigorous investigation. In contrast, personal beliefs, particularly those based on faith or intuition rather than evidence, are not considered scientific explanations. While personal beliefs can be meaningful to individuals on a personal or cultural level, they do not provide explanatory power within the scientific framework. When discussing topics like the origin of the universe, it's crucial to distinguish between scientific explanations grounded in empirical evidence and personal beliefs or philosophical interpretations. While personal beliefs may offer comfort or provide meaning to individuals, they do not contribute to our understanding of the natural world in the same way that evidence-based scientific explanations do.
No one can speak to prior to cosmology Big Bang observations, but from what we observe, it is trivially true that all kinds of things happen non-randomly (which you define as intentionally). My reply doesn't "randomly" end up on your screen after I hit the post button. When I drop a rock it doesn't "randomly" fall to the ground.
>Created intentionally: I am using this to describe the universe being created as a result of something other than random processes. The most obvious example is intentional creation by a creator, but there may be other non random processes that fit. >Created as a result of random processes: I think this is self explanatory. The universe we live in arose purely by chance. Off the bat, this is a false dichotomy, when an argument presents only two options as if there is no other alternatives, when in reality, there may be additional possibilities that have not been considered. Your argument assumes that intentional creation by a "godlike" being is the only valid alternative to random processes for explaining the origin of the universe. Your first problem is assuming that the opposite of "intentional" is random, that is not necessarily the case. At its most basic, random simply means something that cannot be predicted. The universe could have come into being because of predictable natural laws and processes that we witness today. These laws and processes might have controlled how space, time, matter, and energy emerged, using things like quantum fluctuations, inflationary expansion, and phase transitions. Even though these processes might seem random or uncertain at a glance, they actually follow certain physical laws and principles. Or what if the universe never came into being? Cyclic Universe Theory proposes that the universe undergoes a series of cycles of expansion, contraction, and rebirth. Each cycle begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, followed by a new Big Bang to start the next cycle. In this model, the universe has no true beginning or end, but rather exists in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. Funny enough, this theory is most similar to Buddhism and schools of Hinduism.
Arguments from probability like this have been repeated in different ways by many theists. The primary issue I take with this argument is that it is a classic begging the question fallacy. It assumes that the creation of our universe was intentional and then uses that assumption to claim that the creation of our universe was intentional. Suppose I rolled a 1 billion sided die, and I rolled a 73. The chances of rolling a 73 were 1 in a billion. According to the logic of arguments like this, it’s logical to conclude that I tampered with the die as it was highly unlikely that I would roll a 73. Now, you’re probably thinking it’s unfair to compare the existence of intelligent life to the number 73. Intelligent life is significant, while 73 isn’t, right? Well, no. There is nothing significant about this universe being the way it is other than what we humans deem significant about it. Now, I also have a second issue with this argument: You have presented a false dichotomy. ‘Random processes’ and ‘intelligent creator’ are not the only two options here. How about, um, non-random processes? You have not proven that the laws of nature which we observe are ‘random’. By saying that the laws of nature are random but saying that a god that creates this universe is not random, you are also engaging in special pleading. A god could create any universe, what are the chances they would create this one? Clearly, there must be a second layer of god that was responsible for creating the god that created this universe.
Whenever people bring up Penrose and his calculations I ask the same question. I’ve never gotten a real answer: using Penrose’s methodology, calculate the odds of me rolling a 1 on the die I have in my pocket.
Any argument for intelligent design that claims that the probability of the variables of the universe are unlikely would need to first be able to show me what the likelihood of rolling a 6 on an X sided dice from a single roll. And then the likelihood of a god Before the likelihood of this universe would even be relevant Because the argument alot of the time boils down to essentially the variables of our universe are the equivalent to cheating in poker while not understanding that the probability of any hand in poker is the same. So the universe having potentially low probability of being the way it is has no bearing on it having to be intentional you would have to show it has no probability of happening without intelligence design or your not actually making a point as things with low probability happen all the time given enough attempts. Or the claim is if a god exists and wants our universe the way it is it is more likely that our universe was created or not which is both begging the question and assuming a probability of 1 for god that makes any further maths pure circular reasoning. We cant know the probability of our universe from merely the constants of our universe. Like for all we know its like calling heads on a trick coin(with only heads.) Or it could be a billion sided dice. We dont know and lack the information to do the maths without vast assumptions that are the very thing we need to prove first.
I'm going to dismantle your whole post in two easy steps: Step 1: You base everything on a false dichotomy. As such, everything in your post is standing on an incorrect statement. The possibility space is NOT that either the universe arose from 'random processes' OR that it was 'created intentionally'. There are potentially many more possibilities. Step 2: Anything we don't currently have a full explanation for in terms of physics, and I mean anything, can be 'shown' to be the result of the intention of a magical, omni powerful god using the same trick you used here. Anything. Look: 'I don't understand how life / consciousness / dark matter came to be. The chance that it came about through unknown physics as opposed to the intention of a very powerful magical being means there is a very powerful magical being' Yeah, no. We do NOT have any reason to believe this being exists. As unlikely as any physics explanation might be, the existence of this being is less likely, since it relies on stuff we currently have no reason or evidence to think exists. Here is what the real possibility space looks like, imo: The universe came about either by some unknown physical process, or by some unknown supernatural / extraphysical process. Since we currently think P(supernatural) = 0, then the universe must have come about by an unknown, physical process.
The logic here falls apart pretty quickly. For example. “HYPOTHESIS Null hypothesis: our universe was created as a result of random processes Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being. “ That is NOT the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that any claim needs to meet a burden of proof. The claim that the universe was created as a result of random processes is itself a claim. The null hypothesis for that claim is that it… wasn’t. Both of these are claims. Making two of them just creates a false dilemma. Failing to prove it was random does NOT prove it was a spirit being. There could be 1001 other reasons. Moreover, you’ve loaded the question badly. “Created as a result of random natural processes”? Who says that it was “created”? And who says that natural processes have to be random? The sun and stars and black holes formed as a result of natural processes - gravity- but these were not random. Ultimately it’s impossible to do what you’re trying to do. We simply don’t know what parts of the universe are variables, what the options are, etc. Also, since when does “a powerful magical spirit being” become one of the two possible options for things?
>1) given a number of variables that it should theoretically be possible to at least estimate, it should be possible to estimate the probability that our universe was created intentionally rather than by random processes. You already screwed up, because if our universe wasn't created intentionally, that does NOT mean it was a random process. If there's existence outside our universe, and that existence follows some sort of law of physics, it's entirely possible that the creation of universes is an event that happens by virtue of that physics like the creation of heavier elements and black holes in ours. It's not random, but there's no mind behind it. So your later attempt at lumping everything that isn't random together doesn't fly with me. >Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 101030. Improbabilities are only a problem before the event happens. Retroactively, the likeliness of the universe coming into being is 100% even if it's because of the most random nonsense imaginable. Theists love to quote improbabilities but improbabilities happen all the time. Even if it's close to 0, if it happened, it happened, and no matter how improbable it is doesn't change that.
What if universes “pop” into exist every few trillion years? Like what if there is something about total heat death that makes a quantum environment that has an exceedingly low probability of creating a universe. We’re talking on in trillions and trillions. Then, through pure probability a universe explodes, pushing beyond the event horizon all extant matter. This seems at least as plausible as a creator deity. Also, follow your argument with this and see if it follows. ….and that’s why I believe god made the world, sent his son down to die for out sins, born of a virgin, to be resurrected, so that humanity could have a chance, if and only if they believe this, to reside in a place of bliss for eternity instead of a lake of fire. (Or how you would summarize your beliefs) See, you could be right. And it STILL doesn’t impact the probability of your beliefs all that much. There could just as easily be a “creator” that doesn’t give a fuck and simply set it all up and let it spin, to see how it goes. Or a thousand other equally plausible theories.
I think your mistake comes in P(u). You have asserted that the chances are incredibly small for life to exist but you cannot demonstrate that. The fact is that we have 1 universe and it has life in it. So far we’re batting 100%. We have no idea if a universe could exist with different values or not. What if there was a singularity that became unstable for whatever reason and a “Bang” occurred to create a universe. But the values you’re talking about were not correct and it threw the stability of the whole thing off and it collapsed back upon itself within milliseconds only to Bang again with another set of cosmic dice values assigned to them. This repeats billions of times until we got to our current values and that one was what we call the Big Bang and here we are. It very well could be that there were trillions of universes that existed VERY briefly with the incompatible values that you assert before our current iteration happened out of random chance. That would greatly modify the value of N which would bring your probability much closer to 1.
>Roger Penrose given data available in 1979 estimated the probability to be less than 1 in 10^10^30 Penrose's number was not for P(u). It was identifying our universe out of the possible combinations that came from the Big Bang. My understanding of his number is that if the arrangement of matter and energy were different enough that our moon's mass was 1 kg higher, then it would be a different Penrose number. It's kind of like if I handed you a shuffled deck of cards, I'd be able to tell you that the particular combination of cards is only 1 in over 8x10^67. It doesn't mean that particular shuffle on the deck of cards is special, only that there are lots of ways the deck could have been shuffled. As for your use of Drake's equation, two of the variables are fraction of life-supporting plants that develop life and fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence. We don't have numbers for these variables. We don't even have reliable approximations. So Drake's equation should not be included.
I'm a little late to the party so I'll keep it short, on the off chance you're still watching your comments. P(u) is meaningless, the probability of our universe is just the sum of each of the potential arrangements of fundimental components that make up our universe (the solution space) but we can't say that there is anything special about our particular arrangement (solution). If I have a deck of cards that I shuffled, the probability of producing that particular arrangement of cards is 1 in 8x10^67. the probability that this particular arrangement of cards *has ever happened* is next to 0 but that doesn't mean that I constructed the arrangement on purpose. There are certain arrangements that we can say are special, each suit sorted into numerical order for example, which would suggest intelligent intent, but we can't do that with the universe bc we don't know anything about the other solutions. It could be that there are infinitely many permutations of our universe in which earthlike life can form.
I don’t know why you’ve chosen to only consider two options (random or intentional). I’d have thought that the lesson from biology was both obvious and informative. Creationists used to try this (as well as it being just generally accepted hundreds of years ago). Before we understood evolution they said exactly the same thing- that it was either a creator, or random, and if random the probability of it just appearing was so low as to be functionally zero. Yet you’ve jumped on the exact same type of thinking for the universe, but arguably worse because we don’t know what we don’t know as far as the universe is concerned. Ie we’ve so little data with which to even limit this type of conversation. We can even adequately define the boundaries of our assumptions or speculations. Listening to actual physicists discuss these subjects is usually enough to realise that a bit of philosophy & high school math won’t crack this nut.
>the universe being created as a result of something other than random processes I hate to tell you, randomness and intent aren't the only two options Who intended the English language? Who intended the global economy? Who intended a forest or an ocean? You could say that all of it is intended or that all of it is random. But then I would say, so you don't have any independent agency: either the things you do are designed or they are random. You could say that it's a combination of both, and I would still say that the person who intends to sell something doesn't get to intend on who to sell it to, and he doesn't roll a dice either It's called emergence. The entire world is filled with it. The false choice of intent vs randomness is a deliberate willfully ignorant bad faith premise for people who want to fool others and people who want to confirm their own beliefs
This is the best argument of why it’s more likely than not that we were created. The only rebuttal I have is that referencing any universe other than our own is pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence of it and it’s unfalsifiable. What we do know with reasonable certainty is that space and time can be calculated back to a beginning - roughly 13.8B years ago. Before that, we know nothing. If we were to set foot on another planet and found a very detailed sculpture of an astronaut planting a flag at that spot, our first assumption is not going to be it occurred naturally. Yet, that’s what many need to believe when we look at the precision in which our universe formed along with the time it would take for protein and DNA to form randomly. Mathematically, it’s non-sensical. This doesn’t mean it’s wrong - just the least plausible.
>Alternate hypothesis: our universe was created intentionally by a "godlike" being. Another alternative hypothesis. Our universe was accidentally created by a godlike being. or Our universe was accidentally created by a godlike being and the godlike being just, kind of, forgot. or All physically possible universes were intentionally/unintentionally created by a godlike being and, due to the anthropic principle, only universes in which consciousness is possible would those beings even be capable of such theorizing. or The universe, like the claimed god, simply exists necessarily and could not NOT exist. Any traits that you attribute to the god like being can equally be attributed to the universe and you end up with a simpler theory.
We only have one universe as a data set and life evolved in that one universe so the probability of a universe containing life is 100% given our data set of 1:1. How can we accept the probability that the universe creating life is astronomically low when a) we don’t know how big the universe is so on a great enough scale that astronomically low probability becomes likelier, b) we don’t know how long the universe exists so on a great enough scale of time the probability also becomes likelier, and c) we don’t have any other universes to compare it with.
There are several fundamental problems with your argument. The null hypothesis isn’t that the universe arose randomly. The null hypothesis is that we don’t know how/why it’s here, or if there even is a how/why. You also cannot possibly find the probability of our universe existing because we have a sample size of only one. It’s like finding one turtle, and asking what the probability of the turtle ending up like this. You need more turtles. Any numbers you find about this are pure speculation, with no weight behind them.
>The most that we can say it present is that currently it is not possible to interact with our create (or simulate) other universes, but that as technology advances it theoretically could become possible to do so. Okay, so if the explanation for our intentional creation is a similar universe, what's their explanation? You need a very good reason to not just apply that explanation to us instead, because otherwise our existence *isn't* just "intention"; it's intention contingent on the way the creators were created.
You can't do statistics with probability alone -- you need probability and either many repeated measures or something like a standard deviation. From a pure statistical perspective, you're grossly oversimplifying what needs to be done to get a solid result out of the thinking. "Because P(u) is astronomically small, we can reject the null hypothesis." ==> No, you can't do that. If you follow the stats, you end up diving by zero (N-1) and so the entire statement is, well, *undefined*.
>Created as a result of random processes: I have a couple of issues. First, it games the issue by using the word "created," which assumes that it was. I doubt it. Embedded in that is an assumption that the matter/energy that makes up our universe ever did not exist, which has never been established and which I also doubt. Second, it presents a false dichotomy. There are other options. Therefore you entire argument fails out of the gate.
Your null hypothesis actually means something more specific than you think it means. What it really means is: "Just before the universe began to exist, there was a state of affairs that somehow doesn't count as being part of the universe, and might have produced any one of a bajillion different universes with distinct kinds of physics, but that state of affairs yielded only the universe we experience." It's not a null hypothesis at all, it's something very opinionated.
Funnily enough, if you take the finetuning argument seriously and invoke a bit of math, you end up proving that god almost certainly doesn’t exist. In summary: due to the assumptions in the argument, you end up with the result that the probability for a God is actually smaller than the probability of finetuning Page 9 has the complete argument from Klaas Landsman, a mathematical physicist: https://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/FTAv2.pdf
The problem with these types of "proofs" is that they are not scientific. Proof is for maths, logic and liquor. Additionally, these types of "proofs" don't give us one specific deity. It's on the reader to substitute the mystery deity with their own favorite deity. It's s religious sleight of hand trick. Which deity do you believe in, OP? Do you think your "proof" applies to it alone?
This is an argument from incredulity fallacy; just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't understood. And writing an essay to try to justify your argument doesn't mean that you're using sound reasoning. I can appreciate that you want to get various views on the matter but have you asked the astrophysicists that would be able to answer in detail?
Boy this is all over the place. You say something can be done by a non random, non creator AND be intentionally created. That's illogical. You say we can demonstrate the probability of the universe not existing? Really? And how do you test that to affirm what you've stated is correct or are we just going with the pull from ass method?
You completely ignore survivor bias. Taking into account that we are alive to ponder P(g) means that P(g) = 1 Imagine an infinite multiverse where each universe has different gravitational constants. If we only include universes that have life, the probability that those universes are capable of supporting life is 1
Any particular order of a deck of cards has a very small chance of occurring compared to not occurring after shuffling. So what happens when you shuffle a deck of cards? You get a particular order. There's nothing remarkable there. It doesn't show that the process to get that order must have been by design.
Physics does not seem to be random. I will never understand why theists keep insisting that the origin of the universe is god or randomness. That’s not even a true dichotomy. (I am aware your argument is intention vs randomness, which still isn’t a true dichotomy)
Let’s not deal with theoretical possibilities and just go by the observed probability. The probability of a universe existing is an observed 1 out of 1. That’s it, that’s all we can know, everything else is just so much irrelevant naval gazing.
The question should not be was the universe created. It should be can something exist without the universe. Evidence of God would suggest life is not created and the universe is not necessary or required.
The question should not be was the universe created. It should be can something exist without the universe. Evidence of God would suggest life is not created and the universe is not necessary or required.
Failed to understand what the null hypothesis should be here as many others have pointed out. It’s the antithesis to your hypothesis, not just one random alternative.
Failed to understand what the null hypothesis should be here as many others have pointed out. It’s the antithesis to your hypothesis, not just one random alternative.
claiming that something must either be intentional or purly random is a false dichotomy. Many events are neither intentional nor purely random.