Maybe I haven’t read closely enough, but I don’t think it is a logical fallacy. The numbers seems accurate enough; the problem comes from what conclusion one draws from the available data. (Wonderfully apropos typo, BTW)
As TimeWinder puts it:
I’m guessing that every possible bridge partner in history would be pretty unhappy if every time you get a hand you bid One God… or even One No-God.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that no one has tried to address this. To me it seems like a bit of a dodge to simply replace “Nothing” with “God” and call it a day.
I think that is part of the nature of the OP. If there was an Intelligent Designer, where did said Designer come from?
Saying that this Designer could exist outside of spacetime simply means that Human comprehension is limited by our experience of the Universe. If those same limitations lead us to posit the existence of an ‘Intelligent’ ‘Designer’ (traits that Humans are familiar with) how does that help us better understand the question of how the something we experience came from something beyond our ability to comprehend?
Before we discuss the possibility of a being living outside space and time, don’t we first have to establish that “outside space and time”, what ever the hell that could possibly mean, actually exists?
To elaborate-If I told you that I can solve the housing problem by having people move into round-square subterrainian tunnels that exist in the clouds, would your first question be:
A. How much is this going to cost?
B. Where are we going to build these?
C. What the fuck are you talking about?
And yet, I remember when typing that, thinking to myself “be sure to use the right homophone.” Almost Freudian, indeed.
I suppose what I was saying is better summed up in the ‘playing cards’ example. Looking at the freshly dealed hand of cards you’re holding, and being in awe at because the chances of being delt a six of hearts, a six of diamonds, an ace of spades, and a king and queen of clubs are so astronomical.
It would only be true if that’s what you were expecting to get that specifically delt hand.
To parlay that into the origins of our universe / ID, you’d have to assume we needed to be delt such an astronomical hand, this one time around.
But this is also assuming we did, indeed, only had this one time, and that hat delt hand is the hand we needed, and that there aren’t any other poker games going on, with differing rules that can lead to poker games as playable as the one we find ourselves playing, etc.
When I hear someone say where is the evidence I can’t help but shake my head. A truly moronic question! Do the math, oh wait, the math is far far beyond the calculable ability of humans. The odds of life just happening on its own are simply too great. This is all the evidence I need.
An example of the sort of logical fallacy I’m talking about. badger5149, presumes to know what the “odds” are for intelligent life to arise. He assumes, also, the variables he finds so miraculous are the only viable ones for intelligent life.
And also of the fallacy I was mentioning: he emphasizes the denominator, but doesn’t make any assessment of the numerator. We’d have to know the number of all of the possible ways life could arise before we can start to calculate the odds.
The odds which are “simply too great” are the odds of one of Thomas Jefferson’s pancreatic cells arising out of some random process. But Thomas Jefferson had lots of other cells; there are lots of other people; there are and have been lots (and LOTS) of other possible living organisms! The fallacy is insisting on a calculation of only one possible living thing, not of all possible living things.
(Plus, of course, the additional fallacy of imagining that life arose in one single step, rather than via gradual phases, from partially replicating chemicals, to fully replicating chemicals, to living chemicals.)
i.e., it isn’t the Boeing 747 that is swept together from pieces in a junkyard, nor even the Wright flying machine, but a curved piece of material that lifts a little when the wind catches it.
Yes, but can’t you see? He only shakes his head, because we’re so moronic to question the intricately knitted universe God made for him, like a perfectly fitting wool sweater (repleat with little dancing reindeer and falling snowflakes).
Precisely, which is a great way to frame the fallacy. I’ll be adding the numerator/denominator argument to my arsenal. Thanks!
ETA: Which also makes me think of the old cliche, “You’re one in a million!” but that means there’s 7,000 other people just like me. And that’s only counting the people currently alive (not past or future).
I simply put forth a my position concerning cause and effect and what I believe is the best and simplest explanation. As for having the answers to all mysteries of the Universe. Your asking the wrong person. No humans knows those answers. Infinite regression doesn’t seem to be a big issue for those who till this day still entertain the possibility of an eternal universe in spite of the counter evidence e.g. Victor Stenger etc. And again, many are perfectly willing to accept the big bang theory even though we may never know what caused the singularity. Just because we dont or may never know all the mysteries of the universe does not mean we throw out all human reason as limited as that human reason may be. I propose that knowing these deeper questions are not required for us to make a reasonable inference of design based on the observable evidence. I also propose that your questions concerning “traits that Humans are familiar with) how does that help us better understand the question etc” is more problematic concerning a nothing dunnit paradigme.
You clearly don’t get the concept of dependent variables. If the constants are dependent, setting one forces the value of others, which drastically increases the odds of a life-sustaining universe.
If hell were in the center of the earth, as it is in Dante, moving Earth into orbit around the sun affects this view of things falling not at all. I’ve read a bit of Copernicus, but don’t recall much on gravity - please point me to a specific reference.
Galileo, actually, agreed with Aristotle that bodies fell because of a physical inclination to motion. Source, Ferris, “Coming of Age in the Milky Way,” p. 93 of the paperback edition.
Math, of course, does not tell us if the variables are dependent or independent. You need empirical data to help build your models, otherwise you can choose any model at all with equal validity.
BTW, as for AP, it doesn’t pretend to explain why the universe is like it is, just that any universe with life is suited to life. You don’t seem to address any of the arguments for AP, which makes me think you don’t really understand it.
Do you understand why we accept the Big Bang theory? Do you realize that perhaps nothing caused the singularity? If the net energy in the universe is zero, then no physical laws are broken if the universe just popped into being. You also should know at “nothing” is unstable. In our universe nothing does not exist, but is filled with quantum foam.
I don’t quite understand you saying that we believe in an eternal universe while also believing in the Big Bang, which is a universe with a beginning. If you mean a meta-universe, we have no evidence against it being eternal. Not that this term means much without time.
Saying “nothing did it” is indeed problematic, but it’s not a problem of physics or philosophy, it is a problem of language.
Consider the tree metaphor. One sees a crabapple tree, and has to look up to see the top, so one assigns the quality ‘tall’ to that tree. Next to it, is a Larch, which is taller, so one assigns the quality ‘tall’ to that tree and the quality ‘short’ to the crabapple. Now we add a Sequoia and a Bonsai Tree to the mix. Now one can assign qualities like ‘tallest’ and ‘shortest’… superlative qualities.
None of those qualities are inherent in those trees. Humans see behaviors and their results and assign a quality of intelligence to them, and to the person who acted.
Humans compare a rock to a clock and assign a quality: ‘designed’ to one and not the other. By extrapolation we say, “complex things are designed and simple things are not.” (or somesuch).
In the same way that ‘tall’ is not a quality that is inherent in a tree, ‘intelligently designed’ is not an attribute that is inherent in the Universe; it is something humans project.
It doesn’t matter if the Universe was created or if it sprang from nothing–Intelligent Design is a description of a smudge on the goggles of human perception.
I would never suggest that God made the universe for me, or for that matter that the design is anywhere near completion. The perfect design is likely based on an “almost” infinite amount of time to develop it by human standards. All dynamic things such as “life” for instance are seeking a ballance. Until that ballance is reached the design will continue to be a work in progress. The evolving nature of life will continue to elevate the life forms even if that means occassional setbacks where 99% of the existing life is wiped out and the process has to start over. Humans may not turn out to be the latest greatest thing before it is all over.
In the case of “Dover v. Kitzmiller” ID was conclusively shown to be a form of Christian creationism and as such, not allowed to be taught as science in US science classrooms because it violated the US Constitution’s “Establishment Clause”. If we go by that, then by definition, Intelligent Design’s designer HAS to be the god of Christianity.
That is IF (and that is a big if) ID were given as being factual.
What empirical evidence do you have that quantum foam existed before the BB? Do you know that QF is regarded as a concept? Secondly you said
“If the net energy in the universe is zero, then no physical laws are broken if the universe just popped into being”
First off, there is no physical law that says things just pop into being from nothing. Secondly and again, according to Penrose and others, there is a conflict with the laws of Entropy as cited in his books & lectures, again (see Penrose entropy) Another problem is that “Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy” which refutes your 0 energy claim and lastly, you still have the question of where did this quantum foam come from? You are not saying, and to put in your own words, this stuff is “eternal” are you? It also ignores Fine tuning for which I have already made an argument for and which no one has been able to dispute based on empirical evidence, although there seems to be a lot of philosophical banter on the subject.