by jimwalton » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:53 pm
Regardless of whether or not you accept these particular statistical equations, the odds of life as we know it today evolving by random effects are so abysmal as to be, for all practical purposes, non-existent. "Well," you seem to be arguing, using a deck of cards analogy, "this is what happened." So despite the odds, here we are!
What is still puzzling is that so many physical constants have the values they *do* have, and this fact demands an explanation. It's no use saying, "Well, they just are, or we wouldn't be here to ponder it." I could just as well argue God created me or I wouldn't be here to notice.
Plantinga offers this analogy:
1. I am convicted of treason and sentenced to be shot.
2. I am placed next to a wall, and 8 sharp-shooters take aim and fire, each firing 8 times.
3. Oddly enough, they all miss.
4. I compare two hypotheses: (a) They intentionally missed, or (b) They intended to kill.
5. I note that my evidence is greater on a than on b
6. I conclude a is to be preferred to b.
The problem is that it would not be possible for me to make the observations had I been fatally shot. But my argument looks right and proper. We observe that our universe is fine-tuned. We have two hypotheses:
1. The universe has been designed by some powerful and intelligent being
2. The universe has come to be by way of some chance process that does not involve an intelligent designer.
We note that 1 is more likely than 2; we conclude that with respect to the evidence, 1 is to be preferred to 2. Granted, we could not exist if the universe was not fine-tuned, but how is that so much as relevant?
Even if I take a simple example from your deck of cards analogy: I deal us each a poker hand, just once, and I end up with 4 aces. You would look at me real funny, but you know it's possible. But what if I did it twice? And a third time? You would never be satisfied with my explanation that, "Hey, it happened, didn't it?" But with the natural world we are talking about BILLIONS of components and QUADRILLIONS of possibilities. But you wouldn't even countenance my 4 aces out of 52 cards 3 times in a row, because the chances of just that are so low as to be impossible. The amount of information stored in our phenomenal is immeasurably more complex than any known technology and contains more informational data than all of our paper and digital bytes combined. And yet you believe this has come about in the course of random misspellings and the blind mechanistic natural selection? And yet we know of no such informational data that can come from other than previous informational data. The burden of proof is on you (evolutionists) to show an unguided evolutionary path that is not prohibitively improbable (not mind-bogglingly low). It can't be done.
> I don't think you ever addressed my response to this notion: We have no reason to think that life was the objective of whatever fine-tuning we observe.
Again, Plantinga:
1. Some natural systems (such as the human eye) are mechanically ordered (they exhibit the same sort of order as watches and other machines produced by human beings).
2. Intelligent design is a very good explanation of mechanical order.
3. No other explanation (or no equally good explanation) of mechanical order is available.
4. Every instance of mechanical order has an explanation.
5. Some natural systems were (probably) designed.
In addition:
1. We as humans don’t know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn’t indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it’s safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.
2. There are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks “Why?” We assume purpose in what we observe around us. “Why do the planets spin?” “Why is the earth pitched at an angle?” We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.
3. Therefore, it’s logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design.
4. Everything else we know that exhibits those characteristics was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?
Logic and reason both tell us that theism is more probably than naturalism.
Regardless of whether or not you accept these particular statistical equations, the odds of life as we know it today evolving by random effects are so abysmal as to be, for all practical purposes, non-existent. "Well," you seem to be arguing, using a deck of cards analogy, "this is what happened." So despite the odds, here we are!
What is still puzzling is that so many physical constants have the values they *do* have, and this fact demands an explanation. It's no use saying, "Well, they just are, or we wouldn't be here to ponder it." I could just as well argue God created me or I wouldn't be here to notice.
Plantinga offers this analogy:
1. I am convicted of treason and sentenced to be shot.
2. I am placed next to a wall, and 8 sharp-shooters take aim and fire, each firing 8 times.
3. Oddly enough, they all miss.
4. I compare two hypotheses: (a) They intentionally missed, or (b) They intended to kill.
5. I note that my evidence is greater on a than on b
6. I conclude a is to be preferred to b.
The problem is that it would not be possible for me to make the observations had I been fatally shot. But my argument looks right and proper. We observe that our universe is fine-tuned. We have two hypotheses:
1. The universe has been designed by some powerful and intelligent being
2. The universe has come to be by way of some chance process that does not involve an intelligent designer.
We note that 1 is more likely than 2; we conclude that with respect to the evidence, 1 is to be preferred to 2. Granted, we could not exist if the universe was not fine-tuned, but how is that so much as relevant?
Even if I take a simple example from your deck of cards analogy: I deal us each a poker hand, just once, and I end up with 4 aces. You would look at me real funny, but you know it's possible. But what if I did it twice? And a third time? You would never be satisfied with my explanation that, "Hey, it happened, didn't it?" But with the natural world we are talking about BILLIONS of components and QUADRILLIONS of possibilities. But you wouldn't even countenance my 4 aces out of 52 cards 3 times in a row, because the chances of just that are so low as to be impossible. The amount of information stored in our phenomenal is immeasurably more complex than any known technology and contains more informational data than all of our paper and digital bytes combined. And yet you believe this has come about in the course of random misspellings and the blind mechanistic natural selection? And yet we know of no such informational data that can come from other than previous informational data. The burden of proof is on you (evolutionists) to show an unguided evolutionary path that is not prohibitively improbable (not mind-bogglingly low). It can't be done.
> I don't think you ever addressed my response to this notion: We have no reason to think that life was the objective of whatever fine-tuning we observe.
Again, Plantinga:
1. Some natural systems (such as the human eye) are mechanically ordered (they exhibit the same sort of order as watches and other machines produced by human beings).
2. Intelligent design is a very good explanation of mechanical order.
3. No other explanation (or no equally good explanation) of mechanical order is available.
4. Every instance of mechanical order has an explanation.
5. Some natural systems were (probably) designed.
In addition:
1. We as humans don’t know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn’t indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it’s safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.
2. There are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks “Why?” We assume purpose in what we observe around us. “Why do the planets spin?” “Why is the earth pitched at an angle?” We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.
3. Therefore, it’s logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design.
4. Everything else we know that exhibits those characteristics was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?
Logic and reason both tell us that theism is more probably than naturalism.