RE: Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning.
June 17, 2023 at 6:42 am
(June 17, 2023 at 4:36 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Obviously, if physical constants were different, the Universe would be different. This doesn't mean that intelligence, life, genetic codes, etc wouldn't exist. It means they would look different. It also doesn't explain why the number of places inimical to life vastly exceed the number of places conducive to it, or why nature operates in a rather sloppy fashion.
Well, let's take the 2nd point first, Brian. Does the fact that "the number of places inimical to life vastly exceed the number of places conducive to it" really favor chance? Rather, it seems to show that, even given the existence of a Planet, on chance alone, the probability of intelligent life just forming by itself, even given numerous trials (different planets), is infinitesimally small. Otherwise, why is not the whole Universe, and virtually every Planet that we can observe beside Earth, teeming with intelligent life, as in fact some expected/predicted before what we now know?
1st point, next. Hope I can cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The global cosmic energy density \(\rho\) in the very early universe is extremely close to its so-called critical value \(\rho_c\). The critical value \(\rho_c\) is defined by the transition from negatively curved universes (\(\rho<\rho_c\)) to flat (critical density \(\rho=\rho_c\)) to positively curved (\(\rho>\rho_c\)) universes. Had \(\rho\) not been extremely close to \(\rho_c\) in the very early universe, life could not have existed: for slightly larger values, the universe would have recollapsed quickly and time would not have sufficed for stars to evolve; for slightly smaller values, the universe would have expanded so quickly that stars and galaxies would have failed to condense out (Rees 2000: ch. 6; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 5)." (Published Aug 22, 2017, bolding mine). And that's just one constant. It had to be "just right" (neither slightly larger nor slightly smaller), otherwise planets, stars or galaxies would never have formed in the first place. That's where the Fine Tuning Principle comes from.
Deese: "intentionally or not, i dont care if you are insanely ignorant or just dishonest"
In future, if you're just going to abuse/insult me, I'm not going to respond to you. Nothing I said is dishonest or ignorant; if you think it was, quote that part and prove it. If you disagree with some premise, name that premise and give your own reasons why the opposite is true or the conclusion doesn't follow. I notice you Atheists often excuse yourself from the obligation of giving evidence/constructing syllogisms/logical proofs for what you believe, while demanding we Christians/Theists do all this and more, then refusing to acknowledge it when we do provide them.
"Prove me wrong by showing your probability calculations for universes with life vs those without with reference to the (variations of) natural constants."
Answered above in response to Brian. Consult the source I mentioned, a scholarly Encyclopedia and secular publication.
"And even IF you could demonstrate that our universe is rather improbable....have you heared of people winning the lottery?"
Non sequitur. Because the numbers drawn in the lottery are numbers on tickets that have already been distributed, the probability of SOMEONE winning the Lottery is 1 (assuming all tickets have sold out; and the winner claims it). The probability of YOU PERSONALLY (or any random individual) winning the lottery is small.
Let's assume there are 5 numbers from 1 to 100 drawn in the lottery. You have to have all 5 correct to win. All tickets, including the winning ticket has been distributed.
Chances of you personally winning the lottery = (1/100)^5=10^-10. [Therefore, you ought not to assume this will be true, much less bet your life on it.]
Chances of someone winning the lottery (in most cases) = 1 or 100%. [This will certainly be true. Someone or the other will win, the game is made that way]
Someone will win, but it would be illogical for you to assume (much less bet/wager your life or house on it) that you will be that person who wins.
The probability of life forming by chance is not like this, because there is no guarantee that "the winning ticket has been distributed", i.e. that intelligent life will form on chance alone. We are assessing two mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive probabilities, i.e. that given that Life has formed (L), whether it did so by Chance (C/L), or Design (D/L). The less likely it is that life formed by chance, the more likely it is that life formed by design. This is not true in your above lottery analogy. Since P(C/L)+P(D/L)=1, the smaller the former is, the higher, or closer to 1, or more probable, the 2nd term in the equation is.
Why don't you respond to the analogy I gave? If 10 people were shooting at you, and it was extremely unlikely all of them would miss together, and yet you find yourself alive, what would you logically conclude? That all of them missed by chance? Really? Most of us would conclude that, since all of them almost certainly couldn't have missed by chance, they did not kill you by design. It's that simple. Design, not Chance, is the logical inference from fine-tuning. Here, the competing probabilities are, given that you survived (S), whether you did so by Chance © or Design (D). Since once more P(C/S)+P(D/S)=1, the inference is logically valid. Since P(C/S) is vanishingly small, therefore P(D/S) is nearly equal to 1, or 1-an infinitesimal amount. Stated in words, one can have 99.99999+% confidence, i.e. nearly 100% confidence that the event that came about, your survival (S) is explained by Design and not by Chance.
The above is analogous.
Other responses later. God Bless.
