Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Trying to claim that it's not its only purpose denies the whole point of the fine tuning argument as you use it.
However, in raising the spectre of the BBP to "debunk" the possibility of the multiverse, you're throwing this out the window.
If it's only usually - by man - then this does not necessitate design when we see order in Nature.
Examples have already been given elsewhere - such as snowflakes.
Kindest regards,
James
Claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life implies that hosting life is its purpose when all is said and done.leroy said:well no one is saying that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe, no one is saying that the universe is just a life hoster.Dragan Glas said:Greetings,
I'll let HWIN deal with your reply but I thought I'd point out a few things.
Firstly, the pyramids were more than just a cemetery - they linked the heavens and the Earth, effectively reproducing heaven on Earth (the three pyramids at Giza reproduce the arrangement of the stars of Orion's (Osiris') belt.
Secondly, buses aren't "finely tuned for bus drivers" - they're people-carriers: they're intended to carry lots of people.
what HWN has to prove is that containing 1% of something necessarily implies no FT.
Trying to claim that it's not its only purpose denies the whole point of the fine tuning argument as you use it.
I don't believe I'm a BB - that''s what you claim I believe I am.leroy said:well since you believe that you are a BB, then yes under your view FT is just an illusion.Thirdly, if it's possible that what you call FT might be due to chance (or that it's chimaera - you're seeing a pattern that doesn't exist), then that's the default explanation.
I agree.leroy said:my assumption is that the default position should be that our observations represent the real world, until proven otherwise, if our observations tell us that we live in a big universe with low entropy, we most assume that this observation is real until proven otherwise..........I am confident that this is a fare assumption.
However, in raising the spectre of the BBP to "debunk" the possibility of the multiverse, you're throwing this out the window.
You're still assuming a false dichotomy between being a BB and a multiverse - the latter is just one of the many possible undesigned explanations. And the BBP doesn't disprove it, since there's no evidence that BBs exist.leroy said:BBW have you made up your mind yet? what are you going to do, are you going to change your world view or are you going to accept the implications of you world view and accept that you are a BB?
But less probable than a undesigned explanation.leroy said:it doesn't matter, my math works even if there where infinite samplesFourthly, it's clear you still don't understand probability theory: any other explanation isn't a single option - it's potentially infinite
as long as the design hypothesis and the disproven hypothesis had an initial probability of being true grater than 0%, you could have potencially infinit hypothesis, it would still be a fact that disproving a hypothesis makes design more probably true than before.
Emphasis added.leroy said:Like so many creationists and ID-ers, your basic error is to mistake order for design: our visible universe is ordered, that does not mean that it's designed.
well order is usually caused by design, I see no reason why should we make an arbitrary exception with the universe. well obviously it depends on what you mean by order
If it's only usually - by man - then this does not necessitate design when we see order in Nature.
Examples have already been given elsewhere - such as snowflakes.
Kindest regards,
James