RE: Fine tuning argument assessed
February 9, 2014 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2014 at 10:49 am by FreeTony.)
In short: Anyone making this argument probably doesn't understand Bayes Theorem.
Expanded a little:
When dealing with probablity problems like this you have to also assess the probablility of the alternative hypothesis, in this case a God existing and creating a universe. I'm not sure this is even possible (and it's not the only alternative hypothesis).
In the same way imagine someone seeing a flash of light in their car, in the middle of nowhere. This is a pretty unlikely event. However you can't then just conclude that because it is very unlikely, it was therefore an alien visitor. You have to assess the probability of an alien visitor coming along as well.
The probability that the light is not an alien visitor, but something cause by an unknown reason (probability1) is much much greater than that of an alien visitor (probability2). It doesn't matter that p1 is very very small. It is still much larger than p2, which is the important part.
Most of the time you can't even assess these probabilities, which makes any comparison meaningless, and hence the argument is also void. Interestingly a lot of these supernatural type arguments are of this form (e.g. hearing a noise in a haunted house and concluding a ghost).
Sadly probability mathematics is very poorly understood by the majority of people, yet it is crucial to making deductions about reality. Common sense just doesn't cut it on these occasions.
Expanded a little:
When dealing with probablity problems like this you have to also assess the probablility of the alternative hypothesis, in this case a God existing and creating a universe. I'm not sure this is even possible (and it's not the only alternative hypothesis).
In the same way imagine someone seeing a flash of light in their car, in the middle of nowhere. This is a pretty unlikely event. However you can't then just conclude that because it is very unlikely, it was therefore an alien visitor. You have to assess the probability of an alien visitor coming along as well.
The probability that the light is not an alien visitor, but something cause by an unknown reason (probability1) is much much greater than that of an alien visitor (probability2). It doesn't matter that p1 is very very small. It is still much larger than p2, which is the important part.
Most of the time you can't even assess these probabilities, which makes any comparison meaningless, and hence the argument is also void. Interestingly a lot of these supernatural type arguments are of this form (e.g. hearing a noise in a haunted house and concluding a ghost).
Sadly probability mathematics is very poorly understood by the majority of people, yet it is crucial to making deductions about reality. Common sense just doesn't cut it on these occasions.
