Archived

Teleological Argument

Read 17706 times
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2016, 09:03:28 pm »
No need to apologize. I still think Miles Donahue has responded to your argument. And I can't find where you offered another alternative? Maybe I just missed it.

1

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2016, 10:56:17 am »
For instance, M' is a chance hypothesis:

M': all possible physics are instantiated in some universe.

P(LPU|M') = 1, which constitutes a substantial and direct objection to Craig's P2 on top of the objection in the OP.

From my...second post in this thread, I think?
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

2

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2016, 04:34:41 pm »
I have either heard or read where Craig addresses M-theory. I cant remember that much about it, except that there was some aspect of the theory that depended upon fine tuning itself, that the theory does not account for.

Is M theory credible?

3

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2016, 05:50:50 pm »
I didn't propose M theory, but rather a specific hypothesis of my own, which has (at least) more evidence than fine tuning provides for theism.

If fine tuning is enough to lend theism credibility, then, trivially, my hypothesis is credible as well.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 09:42:57 am by cnearing »
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

4

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2016, 09:05:54 am »
I didn't know propose M theory, but rather a specific hypothesis of my own, which has (at least) more evidence than fine tuning provides for theism.

If fine, tuning is enough to lend theism credibility, then, trivially, my hypothesis is credible as well.

I think some typos are preventing me from fully understanding what you meant to say, first 6 words of what you wrote especially.

5

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2016, 09:43:16 am »
Two typos fixed.  It is now typo free.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

6

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2016, 11:36:47 am »
So how did you arrive at M?

7

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2016, 12:46:54 pm »
I didn't arrive at M.  I simply developed a superior hypothesis to Theism as a thought experiment.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

8

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2016, 12:48:17 pm »
I thought to myself, "theism is such a laughably bad hypothesis, it should be pretty easy to come up with one that is both very simple and much better.". So I thought about it for all of about ten minutes and came up with M.

Is M a good hypothesis?  Not particularly.

But it's better than theism.

P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

9

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2016, 02:15:58 pm »
I thought to myself, "theism is such a laughably bad hypothesis, it should be pretty easy to come up with one that is both very simple and much better.". So I thought about it for all of about ten minutes and came up with M.

Is M a good hypothesis?  Not particularly.

But it's better than theism.


"P(LPU|M') = 1, which constitutes a substantial and direct objection to Craig's P2 on top of the objection in the OP."

Unless you can point to some physical evidence for the existence of a mechanism that exists in all possible worlds, which accounts for "all possible physics are instantiated in some universe", then M' is really unfounded and nothing more than conjecture. Given naturalism, something physical has to account for the instantiation, merely positing that it "is", and moreover that is does so by chance (or maybe necessity), is just a fiction until you can account for its evidence.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 02:34:30 pm by Dogbyte »

10

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2016, 02:19:08 pm »
I think you've demonstrated a misuse of Bayes' Theorm if you cant account for the background information of M'.

11

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2016, 02:37:55 pm »
You don't need to include any options besides the three categories listed.  You just have to acknowledge that what you're left with is a space of "chance" hypotheses that is huge.

For instance, M' is a chance hypothesis:

M': all possible physics are instantiated in some universe.

P(LPU|M') = 1, which constitutes a substantial and direct objection to Craig's P2 on top of the objection in the OP.

upon further consideration....

Im not sure what you are guessing at here, is not actually a function of necessity. Since you'd have to have the same necessary mechanism in every possible world, that instantiates a different mix of possible physics, since no possible world could exist without being a result of the mechanisms existence. The result may be chance, the mechanism that actually does the work would have to be necessary. A tough row to hoe either way once you get to talking about supporting evidence.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 02:40:06 pm by Dogbyte »

12

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2016, 01:46:28 am »
You really have no idea what the argument is even about.  Sorry.  Read the book I recommended to you.  Once you are capable of actually using the terminology without revealing that you have no idea what any of it means, much less how the logic behind it works, feel free to come back so that we can have an adult conversation.  This is like talking to a six year old. 
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

13

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2016, 11:15:59 am »
haha man cmon.

Just respond to the objections. I understand that when someone uses pseudo code to pitch an idea, that has little to no apparent support, then the result needs some sort of reasonable defense, not what you just did there.

14

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2016, 01:19:37 pm »
You didn't post objections.  There is nothing to respond to.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1