Can the Universe Exist Without God? - William Lane Craig & Kari Enqvist

Подписаться 2,6 тыс.

Просмотров 39 тыс.

50% 1

A discussion between theologian, philosopher William Lane Craig and cosmologist Kari Enqvist at the University of Helsinki, 16/04/2012.
Moderated by Sami Pihlström.
Cameras and editing: Mikael Elmolhoda
› www.veritasforum.fi
› / veritasforumfinland
› / veritasforumfi
› / veritasforumfi
* * *
Support our work:
Veritas Forums are organized by OPKO in Finland. Donations can be made through OPKO's account and reference number:
› Account: FI10 8000 1301 0446 09 (BIC DABAFIHH).
› Reference: 2095
MobilePay: 44074
Fundraising permit:
RA/2020/1574
veritasforum.fi/tue/

Опубликовано:

19 апр 2012

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1,1 тыс.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

49:05 Craig even tries helping poor Enqvist out! LOL. Craig was so bored he debated against HIMSELF!

@edenredeemed 10 лет назад

I am absolutely dismayed by how often I've watched atheist debaters like Enqvist completely ignore the topic at hand and just talk in circles. I mean, he doesn't give even one argument to answer the question, can the universe exist without God? Dr. Craig actually helps him and tells what arguments would be good ones but still.....I am just so shocked by this. Arif Ahmed and Sam Harriss have both done this in debates with Dr. Craig. This is startling! Atheists no longer know how to have scholarly debates. SMH.

@tonypreciado3140 9 лет назад

Wow, that atheist got pounded.

@Volmire1 9 лет назад

Kari, y u no make make arguments?

@majorpain8620 6 лет назад

Out of all of the atheists that Dr. Craig has debated this has got to be the weakest one. Dr. Craig debated himself lol because the athiest kept saying whats the alternative 😂😂😂

@16vt1 8 лет назад

this was sad

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

I appreciate your candor and that you took the time to express your thoughts. I'll let you drop this now, since you've been meaning to for a while. I just wish there were some way (aside from getting you to spend a couple of years actually reading the great philosophers) to open your mind to the broader epistemological world, of which science is only one part. Granted, it's the part that gets the most popular press and has the coolest toys, but that doesn't make it the most important.

@burtpuma 11 лет назад

Thanks Bro! God bless you :)

@brianbailey8653 10 лет назад

Is Dr. Craig arguing with himself? :).

@baszar24 10 лет назад

Blame it on Kari Enqvist :)

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

1:19:16 Awesome question! Craig and the crowd couldn't help but indicate their approval.

@williamstdog9 11 лет назад

"Science can furnish evidence in support of a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance." William Lane Craig BRILLIANT!!

@jvalentif 11 лет назад

There was no debate!

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

There are many good arguments for many things. Arguments do not create reality, although the may be helpful in informing us. There is also an interesting distinction about what we know, and what is true. Some things by there very nature will never allow us more than conjecture as they will always be beyond our ability to experience. For example, how does one experience Dante's inferno apart from at the literary level?

@EnjoiningKnowlege 11 лет назад

I am in complete agreement with you here. However, one cannot dismiss the significance of philosophical orientations, and how they affect the direction and interpretation of scientific models. Firstly, just consider the assumption that material causation is true. This is ascertained via the principle of induction (yet we know there are many problems with it). Further, consider that interpreting 'how things work' is also ripe with philosophical assumptions, which can impact one's conclusions.

@logike77 11 лет назад

Same w/ fine-tuning. The value each constant has is highly improbable, but this improbability alone is not evidence of probabilistic bias. However, each constant of 30-50 of them is fine-tuned to the same result, namely, intelligent life--and also to one another. Like handing out 50 royal flushes in a row to the same player, because independent favorable probabilities converge on a single player is so surprising given chance, the casino security gets involved because they begin to suspect bias

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

You asked why I brought up the proposition of a multiverse. In fact you first introduced this notion, not me - you can follow the threads if you wish to confirm this. I countered the improbable maths that you introduced to support your case for fine tuning, with the suggestion of an infinite array of permutations of possible universes leading to the ONE we have. I did later add that I could conceive these permutations repeating infinitely.

@logike77 11 лет назад

"I clearly used the word "notion", which is an expression related to thought and ideas, and is very separate from feelings." --The point is that a thought not supported by evidence and reason is just as baseless as a feeling.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Your points confirm observations about the universe. If you are suggesting it was "designed", then please explain, as I have asked.

@williamstdog9 11 лет назад

Craig has to do BOTH debaters work!! It's a shame Enqy never turned up for this debate..

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

The ontological argument can only be used to validate the Greatest Conceivable Being (or Maximally-Great Being, as Plantinga puts it). All the parodies have been dealth with quite well. I suggest reading Robert Maydole's contribution to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you're really open to being proven wrong, this will be a great starting point.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

An interesting logical aside of the FTA is that laws that loglike wants to use, such as evidence from Penrose, Davies, Tipler etc., have absolutely no known relationship to the "laws for life and reason" (if at all there are such laws). In other words we CANNOT conclude that if the universe were to be mirrored, the laws that give rise to its structure must always give rise to life.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

The points I made had separate contexts. Energy can translate into matter (your rock), and is also an essential requirement for life. If there is no life, then there is nothing. If there is nothing, how can something exist?

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

1) No one's picking at random. It's the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor). The Cause *does* need an explanation, and while we have good reasons to call the Universe contingent, we have no similar reason to call the Cause contingent. It is therefore the simplest explanation to call it a metaphysically necessary being. 2) I don't mind accepting when we have no clue about something. But I also don't mind accepting the few cases where we DO, even if it requires changes in my life or thinking.

@EnjoiningKnowlege 11 лет назад

Here's an example connected with what I mentioned: some physicists discounted the principle of causality, because QM seemed to break the age-old notion; just didn't seem to hold up. Consequently, many presumed that this applied to causality in general, when it really refers to the notion of material causation. Certain scientists obviously didn't consider that there was no such thing as material causation, because the interference actually comes from 'outside' the system (i.e. God's will).

@orionmyth 11 лет назад

interesting chat

@logike77 11 лет назад

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies also notes, "...a common reaction among physicists to remarkable discoveries of the sort discussed above is a mixture of delight at the subtlety and elegance of nature, and of stupefaction: 'I would never have thought of doing it that way.' If nature is so 'clever' that it can exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the physical universe?" (1984, pp. 235-36)

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

"Fine tuning" is an excellent tool in modelling. However, we are dealt the deck of reality which we experience and are not in a position to alter the natural parameters of the universe we inhabit. I note your reference as well to "natural laws". By the way, if you want to invoke improbable maths for your fine tuning argument there is nothing preventing an assumption that our universe exists with the constants it has) as a result of an infinite array of permutations of possible universes.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

You will need to explain how something which must be material in essence can be known to exist if it can never be seen to exist. I am talking about "seen" in every conceivable context of the word. There are dozens of versions of the AP. The clear implication of them is that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. As I previously put it, there is nothing remarkable about observing the necessary conditions for our existence.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

Well, actually, the position I stated in simplified form is actually the principle of sufficient reason. This is an intuitively obvious principle, but has also been argued for, and I've never seen a defeater for it. It states that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in contingency upon some external cause, or in the necessity of its own nature. Now, since the Universe could have been lots of other ways, it is clearly contingent, and requires a cause.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

You are correct. Logike has jumped on the latest Theistic bandwagon which attempts a logical argument using premises from cosmology. I have no issues with the logical case. However, as a matter of "meaning" it is indisputable that something fine tuned MUST be designed. Elsewise the best we can do is make the observation that "fine tuning" may be at play. So then we are left with 2 options. The first is that our universe is a natural event. The 2nd that external intervention was its cause.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

An inference is well understood to mean a conclusion based on evidence, which was exactly what I meant. On the other hand, you cannot fathom why the FTA is a nonsense argument due to a complete misunderstanding of how "fine tuning" is properly used to convey a sense.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

The principle I stated (again, I just don't see what's so hard about READING my tiny posts before you respond) was that, if the creator of argument X says it proves Y, then we can't just accept X (or fail to disprove it) and yet deny Y without some proof that X wouldn't necessitate Y as its creator intended. And no one said "I think this is weird", Hilbert said "this would produce logical inconsistencies in the Universe which would end all possibility of rational thought about the Universe".

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

The post you question was precise in meaning. Seeing you do not appreciate science, this may help. Quantum cosmology at inflation has no "clock". Such a metric of time only came later in the universe. In determining the possible laws of nature at the outset without a clock is impossible, therefore, except in retrospect. And applying different time metrics to quantum cosmology gave different possible universes. The results question the validity of space-time concepts as we presently know them.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

The answer is not difficult. As a conscious being, blessed with reason, we have two choices. The choice I consider most plausible is that the universe is a natural phenomenon explainable by the same evolutionary principles that have caused life itself. The other option has many variations, but all require the input of beings who can never been knowable. I consider this less plausible as any such beings would surely have the ability to create abundant life from the outset: Flawed greatness!

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Part 2. Moreover, I showed that it was possible for Life Permitting elements to be caused by less constrained cosmic permutations. I showed it was possible, as thought by cosmologists of a stature equivalent to those you quoted, that the Laws may have evolved. This renders the scientific approach underpinning FTA as moot. I showed that it was not possible to draw a causal link between the Laws and Life. A broken link in the forensic chain of evidence requires repair for a case to be valid.

@logike77 11 лет назад

" I note your reference as well to "natural laws". --The difference is there are no known natural laws predicting that the constants we have are the constants we "must" have. And even if there were such laws, this would just push the same question back one step. "Out of all the possible non-life-permitting laws there could have been, why THIS set of laws rather than another set?" Remember....

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Fine tuning exists. It uses quantitative methods to simulate the interactions of known variables which account for "X" to be consistent with *observation* - we usually call this modelling. Fine tuning is reductionist in essence as the variables underpinning the observation must first be well understood, and then must account for ALL previous observations in precise form. The FTA bastardises "fine tuning" into meaning both "forecast" and "designed", rendering the premise of FTA as flawed.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

The question "was there ever truly nothing?" is equivalent to "was it ever the case that there wasn't anything?". If the Universe began to exist, then the answer is obviously "yes". Multiverses have HUGE problems, and do not alleviate the problem of a cosmic beginning (since the multiverse itself is subject to the BGV theorem).

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Interesting you should choose Laplace, who said, "Every event being determined by the general laws of the universe, there is only probability relative to us." [Memoire sur les probabilites, 1781. Reprinted in Laplace's Oeuvres Completes vol. 9] Thus, Laplace would know that you were in fact assuming the unknowable to determine a possibility which he would never venture into on his own reasoning.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I do not deny what is is "possible", never have. Nevertheless, some things appear at this stage of our knowledge absolutely beyond "knowing". For example, what means do we know of which would allow us to experience a different universe. Or, if somehow some unknown galaxies became visible and were heading our way, against all known laws, what would enable us to say that they were from another universe. By the way, nice use of the anthropic principle in your reply.

@logike77 11 лет назад

You are confusing necessary conditions (laws) w/ causal sufficiency (initial conditions). E.g.: One of the conditions necessary to light a match is that the environment be dry. If it were raining, the match would not light. We say the dry conditions are partly responsible for the match to light, but we don't say the dry conditions "caused" the match to light. We also need to strike the match on a rough surface. Dry conditions are necessary, but not causally sufficient for the match to light.

@andrewwells6323 12 лет назад

Even if that were true that doesn't affect the argument. But no you don't, necessary means cannot not exist. How can you account for the existence of something that is self-existent? The Wave-Function of the Universe is necessary, it has a crucial role in things like the Hartle-Hawking model and Vilenkin’s tunnelling model.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Well, at least we know those exist. I am still trying to get an answer from logike as to how he can observe something if he does not exist. I suspect there are philosophers who can happily present their arguments from a state of having no capacity, given they are capable of arguing the existence of square circles. Perhaps if they wonder more about what is achievable and invest more time in worldly practicalities they might have greater relevance. Words exist, but their meanings must be valued.

@r.i.p.volodya 11 месяцев назад

I've been reading the comments below with my head in my hands. People who barely understand a WORD daring to criticize an expert such as Enqvist. Shameful.

@logike77 11 лет назад

Lee Smolin's work rests on the hypothesis of a multiverse (which I have already addressed here), a view which Penrose still dubs as "fantasy." Laws can only evolve if there is a mechanism for that. The mechanisms responsible for the Darwinian evolution of a species is random mutation and natural selection. The problem with the multiverse generator is that there is no mechanism that does that like natural selection. So it itself has to be fine-tuned to generate life-permitting universes.

@beto88keys 11 лет назад

Agree with you man! :)

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Thanks Bob. I enjoy the chance to be human and make a mistake from time to time. No doubt philosophy and logic are great for the mind, and so is theorising and testing the possible against the observable. I am not a student of philosophy so while you and others can construct some interesting arguments, I can side-step these to test what the natural world presents in response. Once simple test for theists is to explain the mechanism that a non-material entity uses to create matter - God willing?

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

I'm not the one attempting a "trick of language". The trick is when you try to say "was there ever really nothing", which treats "nothing" as if it referred to some state of affairs or any such THING. If you mean to ask "was it ever the case that there wasn't anything at all", the answer from the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (and from philosophical arguments showing there cannot be an infinite past series of events) is "YES", as I've already stated before.

@logike77 11 лет назад

More fine-tuning: The range of possible values speculated for the comsological constant alone is at least 10^53 times the range of life-permitting values. If 0 to L is the range of life-permitting values, the range of all values is at least 0 to 10^53L. Suppose we have a dart board extended across the entire galaxy, w/ a target on the dart board of less than an inch in diameter.The fine-tuning is compared to randomly throwing a dart at the board and landing exactly on target--Chance? I doubt it

@logike77 11 лет назад

"As I previously put it, there is nothing remarkable about observing the necessary conditions for our existence." --I am not surprised certain conditions are needed to exist either. But it is still surprising that such conditions exist in the first place.

@Gatorbeaux 7 лет назад

Craig Crushed this guy-- but he does this to everyone

@teknoaija1762 7 лет назад

no he didnt.craig is not really that intelligent.his retorics is really not answering a real question.

@robbiekay8540 10 лет назад

To run this line you MUST set boundaries on your argument. We can only ever know of one universe, although we can conjecture, on other grounds, the prospect of others. If it is your argument that there were other possibilities, then you MUST concede that physics allows for other universes. Conversely, if there could only be ONE, then you cannot seriously put up an FTA as the very best you will get is a life permitting universe. The FTA fails tests of both function and purpose.

@EnjoiningKnowlege 11 лет назад

Correction: a reflection of His Attributes*** in finite degree. The word 'nature' as used above is ambiguous. In Islamic theology, there has been a significant discussion on God's Essence vs. His Attributes that must be understood.

@logike77 11 лет назад

"Arguments do not create reality," --I don't think anyone is saying that here. "although the may be helpful in informing us" --They do more than that. They offer good reasons and evidence for believing something, and therefore, are reliable truth-tracking mechanisms if sound and cogent.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

Any singular substance (entity) which has ability to affect the world, and does so based on desires, beliefs, and purposes.

@bobh2493 11 лет назад

No basis exists for assuming that a random universe would not have some kind of life. Calculations of the properties of universes having different physical constants than ours indicate that long-lived stars are not unusual, and thus most universes should have time for complex systems of some type to evolve. A multi-universe scenario is not ruled out since no known principle requires that only one universe exist.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

There's no point in my trying to convince you on the resurrection one, since it is entirely a matter of what makes for historical veracity + inference to the best explanation (in terms of scope, power, and parsimony). But, just for the sake of clarity, you should really try reading chapter 16 of the earliest gospel (Mark), which specifically mentions that there were angels at the empty tomb who told the women "he was raised up".

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

It doesn't matter if it always existed, it still requires an explanation of its existence, either in contingency some cause (an eternally-sustaining one, in the case of an eternal Universe) or in the necessity of its own nature. The Universe, even if eternal, could have been lots of other ways, and is therefore contingent. Craig is just logically unpacking what a cause of spacetime and matter would have to be. For example, it couldn't be material or spatio-temporal.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

You should try reading the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. There is preciate logic being done there of the highest sophistication (in support of an argument very similar to the Kalam, by the way). More importantly, did you not read my example with regard to Einstein's interpretation of Relativity? This proves that philosophers are still the ones that interpret the ramifications of a theory. The fact that you keep repeating this mantra about "those who understand the theory best"....

@UncannyRicardo 11 лет назад

Although I guess I kinda did give some insight into saying that I thought that "objective" possibly might have meant something along the lines of describing an absolute truth of reality, and not simply a wishful thinking of someone's opinion.

@logike77 11 лет назад

"We can only infer our universe is life permitting," --This is not an inference, but an observational fact.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I find everything about this statement of yours amusing. First you have inferred from my earlier statement that I advocated a multiverse, whereas I indicated that OUR universe may be the result of infinite permutations. Life permitting is a given as we prove that, but to suggest "design" is presumptuous. It really appears the other way around, in that the universe is tuned to death, yet by its very nature cannot prevent the "chance" that life may eventuate.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Part 2. need to satisfy certain conditions or the very fabric of what is material may not be caused. Some science has looked at conditionality and determined that even the "appearance" of fine tuning must be questioned. [Errata - H1 should be Premise 1 as it was the premise I challenged.] I certainly have no concerns about the validity of the logic per se as it makes perfect sense. However I admit no need to indulging in a deductive exercise where the facts had already settled the matter.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

The fine tuning argument you wish to make can be scaled, and as such simply confirms that most things are as they are. A molecule is "fine tuned" and so is a lepton. The principal difference is the complexity of the "fine tuning" of the being one examines. But I do not consider what we are discussing as "fine tuning" at all. I find nothing compelling in the need to present a philosophical argument which can only demonstrate the unique nature of any being.

@bobh2493 11 лет назад

>> known quantities which this discussion does not necessarily have. Exactly, that is why Bayes is the best analytical tool, because it forces honesty. WLC tries to apply Bayes, but I have never seen his equation with actual numbers, At least Carrier gives applicable numbers and reasons.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

Part 1. Bob, I only challenged H1 as we needed only one flaw. This is what underpins H1, as presented to me in a PM from logike. "given the evidence of the Fine-Tuning of the constants that we have, and in the absence of any reason for thinking otherwise ...." There is no such thing as "evidence of fine tuning". Such evidence requires that we know from the outset that some being set the parameters which now "permit" life. What we know is that the parameters are complex and the interrelationships

@logike77 11 лет назад

"Such evidence requires we know from the outset some being set the parameters which permit life" --No. We know the parameters based on the known Laws of the universe. We hold the laws fixed, and then predict the outcome by assigning different values for the constants. We find that the vast majority of these constants are not life-permitting, and a very small range of values are. So, knowing what would happen if we changed these values does not require knowing some being set these parameters

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

That is not an argument you can make. If there is no "observer" what exists? The anthropic principle is actually a necessary tautology if you wish to use that word (ie tautology). It has the same authentication as you trying to deny your own existence.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

According to Alexander Vilenkin, the BGV Theorem proves an absolute beginning of any Universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion. I've looked up the theorem, and also the attempts to get around it. It seems to hold, and it proves the Universe began to exist. If you don't care about philosophical arguments, why do you engage in them? No one is just saying "pick my favorite because it's simple", I am just apply Occam's Razor in a legimitate manner to a serious question.

@robbiekay8540 10 лет назад

You are right, as fools can choose interesting things to argue. FTA is a clever theistic concoction to backdoor god as a viable concept. However there is nothing to suggest that a reasonable concept of god can be coherent. FTA proponents would say chance cannot explain certain events as they are too complex and require a form of intervention to be realised. Assume this is right for a moment: What purpose is ultimately served? Or, should that not be a consideration?

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I am busy reading more on this as I am not familiar, so will ponder and reply late.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

My argument is not from what we don't know, as I've repeated numerous times. It is two simple premises, based on what we DO know. You just don't like where it leads, and would rather support radical skepticism of our own cognitive faculties (a conclusion arrived at by those same cognitive faculties, by the way, which makes it a self-defeater) just to avoid the conclusion.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

The regress of explanations does not apply to Craig's position, since it stops at logical necessity. This is Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. I know you don't like when I reference basic, philosophical knowledge (since you refuse to go out and get some), but that one is rather fundamental. The burden is ALWAYS on the one who says "X is impossible". Why is it impossible? What makes it so?

@jtonna1624 11 лет назад

you know I really can't be doing this all week, you are either going to grasp the subtleties of human reasoning or not.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

The word "relies" was not meant as "uses nothing else". It was meant the way a house relies entirely on its foundation and frame. Lots of things may happen in the various rooms of the house. And these activities may take no notice of the frame or the foundation. But the fact remains that those activities could not take place without the foundation and frame holding things together. Every theory of science requires that logic and math be true (even basic inductive inference requires this).

@logike77 11 лет назад

(1) For any two competing hypotheses H1 and H2, and observation O, if O is much less surprising (or more epistemically likely) given H1 than H2, then O confirms H1 while disconfirming H2. (2) Pr L|G >> Pr L|~G. (Or, "it is much more epistemically likely (less surprising) L given G than ~G.) (3) Therefore, L confirms G while disconfirming ~G. --The argument is valid because it is disjunctive syllogism: If P then Q. P. Therefore, Q. So, which premise is false and why?

@EnjoiningKnowlege 12 лет назад

PS: I haven't 'demanded' anything. I've answered your questions and assertions, pointed out your fallacies, and have furthered my own questions which you have dodged or responded to with tongue-in-cheek remarks. Anyways, I can see you won't return the favour and be mature about this discussion by responding honestly. So, I'll depart, but I thank you for your time and wish you all the best! Peace.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

... (continued) evolution itself! However, if you are using this kind of radical skepticism, then you are much worse off, since you have to doubt the source of the skepticism itself, which makes it a self-defeating argument. And philosophy is NOT a "retreat". The questions we are discussing are philosophical in nature, so it is only appropriate to address them philosophically.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

Special Theory of Relativity requires the assumption that the one-way velocity of light is constant, even though we can only ever test the round-trip velocity. Unfalsifiable, yet necessary in order to go with an Einsteinean version of Relativity.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I am not sure what a "logical" world is or could be if it did not have material existence (real essence). it would seem that your logical world is not necessary as there is no reason for it to exist. You are correct in that I consider any (material) world as requiring energy: Or that energy is necessary. If energy does NOT exist, then beings such as us certainly could not exist. If we cannot exist in your supposed world, what logic are we able to apply to it?

@logike77 11 лет назад

On the contrary, fine-tuning and evidence for design is a fact. Renowned physicist Paul Davies writes, "when looking at the overall structure of the universe, the impression of design is overwhelming" (1988, p. 203).

@logike77 11 лет назад

"Bottom line: life permitting = yes; life generating = likely, but not definitely (necessarily)." --I agree. And the universe is still fine-tuned for life because we know there are many more non-life permitting ways it could have been but is not.

@bobh2493 11 лет назад

Quote the translation with citation. How many laws of thermodynamics are there? And under what conditions to they apply?

@baszar24 10 лет назад

1:34:10 he basicly said that we sholdnt belive in ANYTHING as in the future there might be some other theoris. This just nagetes the purpose of science, logic and any debate.

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I enjoy your examples and their inconsistency with the concepts you are attempting to refute. How about saying. "If a dog never existed, what made it a dog?"

@logike77 11 лет назад

"Advocates of FTA fail to understand that fine tuning allows for the range of parameters to be adjusted simultaneously to replicate a known outcome," --Are not all the parameters adjusted simultaneously? We are talking about all the known laws and all the known constants fine-tuned for life. I am still not sure what your objection is.

@bobh2493 11 лет назад

please symbolize that argument in predicate logic using the extended character set for windows with proper logical notations.

@beto88keys 11 лет назад

well said :)

@logike77 11 лет назад

"If no other universes, later events are statistically trivial" --Exactly. I am not talking about the likelihood of life AFTER the Big Bang. I am talking about the likelihood of a universe fine-tuned for life AT its initial conditions.Those aren't the same. The former is high, and asymptotically approaches 1--a natural consequence of time.The latter is very low, because for all we know there is only ONE universe, yet many more non-life-permitting ways this universe could have been but is not

@UncannyRicardo 11 лет назад

I don't need to prove anything really. I'm simply stating scenario's of such a possibility. "you would need to show that thoughts do not exist in one's mind." Although that is certainly a talked about issue, i'm afraid I don't see any relevance to the topic of morality. "Proposing that someone can is not a particularly useful retort" It is not meant to be useful, it simply states the different possible conclusions one can have on the topic.

@logike77 11 лет назад

"longer arg, more holes it has" --The argument I offered has 2 premises, 1 conclusion. That's pretty parsimonious. The 1st premise is just the principle of confirmation which we use in everyday reasoning, forensic investigations, and trials by jury. I see no reason for thinking the it is false because, as a guiding principle in our empirical investigations, it is incredibly reliable. The 2nd premise should also be uncontroversial, because it just presents the fine-tuning evidence of cosmology

@logike77 11 лет назад

"It's like artists in the louvre saying a painting is so detailed it appears to be a photograph." --And that appearance is valid! It is just countered by other appearances which tell us the painting is NOT a photograph, namely, the close observation of paint strokes, or the fact that the painting is on a canvas. That is why we don't think it is photograph. THINK, man!

@maxp3141 11 лет назад

How odd that he says that the entity which creates the universe must be static and eternal and then he says that it must be some kind of consciousness, which obviously is not static - I mean, the meaningful definition of consciousness entails some kind of current of thoughts, which of course must change in time - which means that they are dynamic, the opposite of static. Must be his argument about past infinity, which would mean that dynamical things would iterate through all possibilities.

@bobh2493 11 лет назад

Thumbs UP!

@robbiekay8540 11 лет назад

I have not argued for a multiverse. There may or may not be other universes - I do not know, and place such a view beyond human knowledge (ie certainty, within the realms of what we can reasonably know). The problem which you have not thought is actually quite different. The very nature of substance within any different universe need not be consistent with our natural laws and, therefore, give rise to live forms and intelligence considerably different to our experience. (to be con't)

@beto88keys 11 лет назад

have it your way buddy, because in your world that's the only thing that matters...

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, so at some point it can't just be a similar Universe spitting out a new one, and therefore, at some point time has to begin. And I don't see any reasoning justifying that it would more likely produce a timeless effect if the cause was conscious and could choose what kinds of effects it wanted.

@logike77 11 лет назад

Life was probable as soon as the universe began for two reasons: (1) because the earliest moments (laws, constants, and initial conditions) determined the evolution of the future galaxies, stars, and planets which are necessary for the emergence of life, and (2) there are billions upon billions of planets, most of which probably are not-life permitting, but because there are so many of them, makes the probability of life somewhere in the universe asymptotically approach 1.

@Mentat1231 12 лет назад

1) Mathematics regularly discovers new numbers and kinds of numbers. Is that not "the actual existence of something"? 2) I don't think we have a full understanding of the breadth and depth of mathematics and logic, but I do think that either everything we discover will be consistent with mathematics (even if new branches have to be formed; they are still consistent at the root), or else all of our rationality will need to be abandoned. 3) Parallel universes don't come from mathematics.

@logike77 11 лет назад

"You need to tell me what laws lead to life." --The Laws that we in fact have (together with the constants and initial conditions at the beginning of the universe). Duh!