Friday, April 16, 2010

Magic: Divine and Human

Shane Hayes

P. Coyle,

This response is to the first comment you made on this blog, under “Does Atheism Break Down Here?”  Welcome to The Believing Agnostic.

You quoted me as saying, "A supremely complex cosmic intelligence, existing from all eternity, does not require a bigger explanation. Nor does it ‘explain nothing.’ In fact, it explains everything about the origin of the universe. It’s the most adequate explanation there can be. It’s where the need for an explanation ends."

Then you said: “I disagree. It does indeed explain nothing, because the ‘explanation’ is, at bottom, ‘It was magic.’ Invoking magic, and leaving it at that, is not an explanation.  To have a genuine explanation, you need to be able to specify how the trick was performed. But this is precisely the kind of explanation that you not only cannot provide, but that you seem to think is rendered superfluous by invoking a ‘supremely complex intelligence, existing from all eternity.’"

Rhetoric Versus Substance

First, Mr. Coyle, we must separate rhetoric from substance. Belittling an idea by expressing it pejorative words is not genuine refutation. For example, on atheist websites I often see God referred to as “the Sky Fairy.” No one wants to admit he buys into fairy tales, so poorly fortified theists may be nudged away from theism, and atheists who use the term feel less threatened by the substance of theistic arguments. This is not a high order of rational discourse.

You said, my first-cause “‘explanation’ is, at bottom, ‘It was magic.’ Invoking magic, and leaving it at that, is not an explanation.”

Throwing the word “magic” at the First-Cause argument is like calling God a Sky Fairy. It may be rhetorically effective, in a superficial way, but it clouds the issue, obfuscates, sheds no light. Magic has a number of meanings associated with superstition, sorcery, casting spells, and trickery. No serious theist, least of all this one, has any time for that, and I think you know it. But Webster also gives this definition:

“magic: (2) an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source.”

Creation and Mystery

Now, that definition of “magic” is not incompatible with rational discourse. The God I believe in, and hypothesize for this argument, is a non-material being, which is to say a spirit, of immense intellect and power, able to conceive of our physical universe – a thing apart from himself -- and then make it real in space and time. The existence of the universe, with its astounding variety, complexity, and inconceivable dimensions, may be seen as manifesting “an extraordinary power… seemingly from a supernatural source.” To the extent that “magic” means wrought by supernatural power, beyond the reach or comprehension of man, yes, there was a magical quality to divine creation.

You also said: “To have a genuine explanation, you need to be able to specify how the trick was performed. But this is precisely the kind of explanation that you not only cannot provide, but that you seem to think is rendered superfluous by invoking a ‘supremely complex intelligence, existing from all eternity.’”

I must point out that science itself often cannot “specify how the trick was performed.” They don’t know what caused the singularity to exist in such extreme densities or temperatures, or to detonate with a big bang when it did, 13.7 billion years ago; they can only speculate. Nor do they know how the singularity became imbued with the DNA, so to speak, the cosmic genetic map, that blossomed into our universe – and ourselves. That is shrouded in mystery, but the big bang is still deemed a valid explanation.

Philosophical Versus Scientific Explanation

I don’t claim to know that God created the universe. I do claim that is a possible, and not irrational, explanation of its origin. A supremely intelligent and powerful Being may have been the First Cause who produced the singularity and all that proceeded from it. If that were the case, the divine intellect might be so vastly superior to the human that we could not penetrate its depths or grasp its methods. (Can divine fiat even be called a “method”?) Nor could we explain how this Divine Reality, which exists outside of time, space, and the material world, could make matter out of nothing.

Our inability to “specify how the trick was performed” in no way invalidates the hypothesis. If the nature of the case prevents a more detailed explanation (a scientific one), a philosophical explanation has to suffice. Some things are beyond the reach of science, galling as that may be. We must take the universe as we find it. If at its root there is a transcendent God who works in mysterious ways, all of us – even scientists – must live with that. To say it can’t be that way, because science demands a universe fully accessible to its methods and explicable by its theories, is puerile. If science can probe and fathom every cause but the First Cause, it still has a very grand portfolio.

It is reasonable to say that you reject the theistic hypothesis, based on any of several arguments. I think it unreasonable to claim that a transcendent power and mind, like the God I describe, cannot possibly account for the origin of the universe. We should be able to reject each other’s explanations – challenge their logic and premises – without denying that they are explanations.

Atheism and Infallibility

As an agnostic I renounce pontificating. I wish more atheists would do the same. To paraphrase an economic proverb: There are two kinds of philosophers: Those who don’t know whether God made the universe, and those who don’t know that they don’t know. The former – both theists and atheists – are content to believe (in God, or in No God). The latter – pontificating atheists -- speak with oracular certainty. How can they be so sure of the unknowable? Have they some… magic?

22 comments:

  1. Shane,

    You suggested that since there's no meeting of the minds, more discussion between us on this was probably not going to be helpful, and I agreed. But I am going to have to protest. P. Coyle's complaint is the same as mine - we're both saying that "God did it" doesn't constitute an explanation - and in both cases your reponse seems to be that that is just a meaningless insult. But both P. Coyle and I aren't just saying "Boo, boo, that's not an explanation - neener, neener." We explain what we think constitutes an explanation, and why "God did it" is not one, and as far as I can tell, you don't respond to that, but rather act like we're throwing out meaningless insults.

    You are certainly right that science cannot always "specify how the trick was performed," and in that respect, I think P. Coyle's statement was not right, or at least, not quite precise enough. But good explanations, such as the ones that science produces, give us means of understanding how they fit into what we see: how to go about investigating them, what sort of observations would fit in well with those explanations, what sort of observations would falsify them, and so one. For example, the "Big Bang" would not have been considered a valid "explanation" if scientists just woke up one day and said, "Hey maybe the universe was formed in a Big Bang. That would be a good pretty cool." It was considered an explanation because it made sense of actual observations in a way that other explanations didn't (e.g. Hubble's law occurs with the Big Bang, but not with its competitor steady-state theory), and made other predictions that allow it to be tested further (e.g. prediction of nucleosynthesis of light elements, isotropy of the cosmic microwave background). On the other hand "God did it" doesn't make any of these sort of predictions or connections to actual observations. It moves these sort of questions to a realm where we can't possibly investigate them, confirm them, or falsify them, and that's why I don't see it as an "explanation."

    I think I could understand your view better if you would be willing to state, like P. Coyle and I have, what constitues an explanation, and what does not, and then I could understand why you consider "God did it" to fit in the explanation category. For example, as I asked before, would "God did it" be a reasonable explanation for why your car has stopped working?

    . . .I think it unreasonable to claim that a transcendent power and mind, like the God I describe, cannot possibly account for the origin of the universe. . . The latter -- pontificating atheists -- speak with oracular certainty. How can they be so sure of the unknowable?

    You make comments like this a lot, but you appear to be attacking a straw man. I can't see the viewpoint you're describing in my comments, or P. Coyle's, or in the thoughts of really any atheist that I know. It's not that it's impossible that a God exists, or that he/she/it created the universe. And it's not that I know with certainty that this didn't happen. It's that there's no evidence for these things. Lots of things are conceivably possible, but unless there's evidence for them, there's no reason to think they exist, and no reason to call them "explanations."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shane:

    I'm rather puzzled that you take exception to the fact that I characterized your first cause "explanation" as resting on the claim that "It was magic." As you yourself make quite clear, that is precisely what you are claiming.

    I have not mischaracterized your position in any way. I simply pointed out that saying "It was magic" explains nothing. It is somewhat akin to the scholastic doctor's "explanation," in Molière's play, The Imaginary Invalid, that the reason that opium is able to put people to sleep is because it has "soporific powers." Your explanation for the question of how God created the universe -- insofar as you even pretend to have one -- is that it was done through the use of extraordinary universe-creating power emanating from a supernatural source -- i.e., "It was magic." That's what I said, no more, no less.

    You write:

    "If the nature of the case prevents a more detailed explanation (a scientific one), a philosophical explanation has to suffice. Some things are beyond the reach of science, galling as that may be."

    OK, fair enough. Can you give me a "philosophical" (as opposed to a scientific) explanation of how God created the universe -- one that cannot be reduced to an invocation of his supposed magical power to create universes? I suppose not.

    You continue:

    "As an agnostic I renounce pontificating."

    And yet you offer, not explanation, but pontification. You offer the vision of "a supremely intelligent and powerful Being (who) may have been the First Cause who produced the singularity and all that proceeded from it," even though you could not "explain how this Divine Reality, which exists outside of time, space, and the material world, could make matter out of nothing." Yada, yada, yada. At the end of your "explanation," one still knows precisely nothing about the mechanism by which the universe came to be, but has been confronted by a whole bunch of further puzzlements: How does this "Divine Reality" manage to exist "outside of time, space, and the material world"? Why did it choose to create the material world? Why did it choose to create a material world at all? Why did it choose to create this kind of material world instead of some other kind of material world? It seems to me that these additional unnecessary puzzlements ought to be eliminated with one good whack from Occam's Razor.

    I'm willing to leave the pontificating to the Pontiff. How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wayne writes:

    "For example, the 'Big Bang' would not have been considered a valid 'explanation' if scientists just woke up one day and said, 'Hey maybe the universe was formed in a Big Bang. That would be a good pretty cool.' It was considered an explanation because it made sense of actual observations in a way that other explanations didn't (e.g. Hubble's law occurs with the Big Bang, but not with its competitor steady-state theory), and made other predictions that allow it to be tested further (e.g. prediction of nucleosynthesis of light elements, isotropy of the cosmic microwave background)."

    This is probably something of an aside, but I'm not sure that it's correct to describe the Big Bang as an explanation of anything. Rather, it's a particular model of the universe at a particular point in time (the moment it all began, and the period immediately thereafter).

    The model is one that promptly raises the question of the CAUSE of the Big Bang. That question has led to a few scientific hypotheses, as well as Shane's preferred non-hypothesis, "It was magic."

    As I have tried to point out elsewhere, some scientists suspect that inquiring about the cause of the Big Bang may be a fool's errand, because there may have been no Big Bang -- they believe that the standard model may be incorrect.

    I'm actually trying to help Shane out here. If he builds his case around the notion that magic was the cause of the Big Bang, and if in a few years the current standard model is rejected and replaced with a new standard model, his argument may come to sound as quaint as an argument that "explains" that the reason why electromagnetic waves are able to travel through the aether is because God put the aether there for them to travel through.

    I would recommend that if Shane really wants to lure atheists away from the Dark Side, he should probably steer clear of God-of-the-gaps arguments, as those gaps have a habit of disappearing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P.Coyle writes:

    Wayne writes:

    "For example, the 'Big Bang' would not have been considered a valid 'explanation' if scientists just woke up one day and said, 'Hey maybe the universe was formed in a Big Bang. That would be a good pretty cool.' It was considered an explanation because it made sense of actual observations in a way that other explanations didn't (e.g. Hubble's law occurs with the Big Bang, but not with its competitor steady-state theory), and made other predictions that allow it to be tested further (e.g. prediction of nucleosynthesis of light elements, isotropy of the cosmic microwave background)."

    That wasn't me, that was Autumnal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Autumnal and P.Coyle
    I agree that simply saying that God did it does not explain how it was done, however, it still is a possible answer for the first cause. Science has pretty much shown that there appears to be evidence that the universe started with a big bang. However, science than tries to explain how this matter that exploded came from nothing. So far, this seems to be more like magic than reality. So, while we are talking magic, then why not the possibility that this so called magical event was brought about by a creator? Seems a bit more likely than this matter coming out of nothing all by itself. Supposedly, we cannot prove or disprove a creator, but Kenneth E. Miller could be onto something when he presents the anthropic principle in which there are several parameters which have to be within a narrow range or life as we know it cannot exist. By looking at something like this, it is possible to state that all of these functions coincidentally ending up in this narrow range would be highly unlikely without a creator bringing it about.
    When an atheist makes the statement that God is a fairy tale, I can’t help asking, how do you know that? Since science can only explain material things, it cannot explain nonmaterial things. Science cannot explain what caused the universe to come into existence nor can it say that evolution/natural selection was not set up by a creator so that He would not have to constantly be intervening to make adjustments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wayne, I don't know that God doesn't exist. And I don't say that it's impossible that the universe was a Creator. I'm saying that there's no evidence for these claims, and that simply postulating magical events without evidence doesn't constitute an "explanation."

    BTW, I finally saw your commment in "Does Atheism Break Down Here?" and replied.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wayne writes:

    "That wasn't me, that was Autumnal."

    Sorry -- my apologies to both of you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wayne writes:

    "Supposedly, we cannot prove or disprove a creator, but Kenneth E. Miller could be onto something when he presents the anthropic principle in which there are several parameters which have to be within a narrow range or life as we know it cannot exist. By looking at something like this, it is possible to state that all of these functions coincidentally ending up in this narrow range would be highly unlikely without a creator bringing it about."

    It seems to me that for such a statement to be justified requires more than just having good reasons to be confident that the probability of such an event happening is very low (if indeed we have such reasons). It would also require that we had good reasons to be confident that the probability of some "entity" (a) actually existing and (b) possessing the capability to make such a thing happen is high enough that it actually raises the odds of it happening.

    What are your good reasons for making such an assessment?

    Of course, as I have pointed out here a number of times, some contemporary cosmologists are starting to reject the entire Big Bang model. If that model is retired, then God's magic is no longer required as the "explanation" for the Big Bang.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Autumnal, You state that there's no evidence of a creator for the universe, and that simply postulating magical events without evidence doesn't constitute an "explanation."

    I am not so sure that there is no evidence. I submit that logic indicates the possibility that a creator might be required. For instance, I mentioned anthropic principle which requires certain functions be within a narrow range or life as we know it could not have occurred. If gravitational constant was a little bigger, then the universe would have collapsed before we could evolve; a little smaller, and the planet upon which we stand would never have formed. If another fundamental force, electromagnetism, were just a little stronger, electrons would be so tightly bound to atoms that the formation of chemical compounds would be impossible. A little weaker, and atoms would disintegrate at room temperature. If the resonance level of electrons in the carbon atom were just 4% lower, carbon atoms themselves would never been formed in the interiors of stars. No carbon, no life as we know it. If the strong nuclear force were just a little weaker, no elements other than hydrogen would have been formed following the big bang. If it were just a little stronger, all of the hydrogen in the universe would be gone by now, converted into helium and heavier elements. Without hydrogen, no sun, no stars, no water.
    As far as creation of the universe from the big bang goes, consider this. There is nothing and suddenly something appears and explodes without anyone directing it. I find that difficult to comprehend without a creator being involved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.Coyle
    You asked what are your good reasons for making such an assessment, i.e.,By looking at something like this, it is possible to state that all of these functions coincidentally ending up in this narrow range would be highly unlikely without a creator bringing it about."

    Please see my detailed comments on anthropic principle in my last comment to Autmnal. I believe that may address your question.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wayne, your wrote:

    "It is possible to state that all of these functions coincidentally ending up in this narrow range would be highly unlikely without a creator bringing it about."

    Yes, it's possible to state that, but in order for the statement to make sense, one has to have in mind some specific naturalistic hypothesis for the origins of the universe which posits that the probable range for said functions would have been wide rather than narrow. Alternatively, one might have in mind only the assumption that the actual outcome was highly improbable. That might be a correct assumption, but an assumption is all that it is.

    You also wrote:

    "I submit that logic indicates the possibility that a creator might be required."

    Nothing in your argument implies that a creator might be required to account for the universe we observe. You have argued that such a universe is improbable, not that it is impossible. A creator would only be required to account for an otherwise impossible universe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. P.Coyle,
    You stated: >Nothing in your argument implies that a creator might be required to account for the universe we observe. You have argued that such a universe is improbable, not that it is impossible. A creator would only be required to account for an otherwise impossible universe.>

    I disgree. The fact that all those parameters have to be in a narrow range does indeed imply that the requirement of a creator is highly likely. It may not be impossible without one, but it sure is close to being impossible. That said, if I was 100% certain, I would be a Theist, not an agnostic, as I claim to be.

    You also said < one has to have in mind some specific naturalistic hypothesis for the origins of the universe which posits that the probable range for said functions would have been wide rather than narrow.>

    I believe that these narrow parameters are accepted scientific theory and not a hypothesis. Therefore, if these narrow parameters are exceeded, life as we know it could not exist and your assumption that Miller's statement, that the actual outcome was highly improbable, is an assumption, is incorrect. Better stated, Miller's statement that the constants for the 4 functions must be in a narrow parameter for life to exist as we know it is Scientific FACT not an ASSUMPTION>

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I disgree."

    Wayne, P. Coyle is making a correct mathematical observation. This isn't something that you can reasonably disagree on, he's making a correct statement about the laws of probability and mathematical inference.

    The fact that an observation is unlikely, given a hypothesis, is not a valid basis for concluding that that the hypothesis is wrong, or even unlikely - that is an incorrect use of probability theory. It's certainly not a vaild basis for concluding that another hypothesis is correct - that, too, is an incorrect use of probability theory. To show that an observation A should lead us to prefer hypothesis Y over hypothesis X, we need to show not just that X and then A given X is unlikely, but that Y and then A given Y is relatively more likely. One way you might think about this, is that given a fair lottery, it's very unlikely that the winning numbers will be "3 9 15 22 35 41," and that the sole winner will be Stephen Putnam of Riverdale, CA. However, the fact that that result is unlikely under a fair lottery should not lead up to infer that that the lottery is rigged - to do that, we would also need to have an argument that these Putnam-results are more likely, given a rigged lottery, as well as at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the a priori probability of a rigged lottery.

    Your response to P Coyle confuses two issues. The narrow paramters may be accepted (sort of), but that does not show that they are unlikely unless you have a naturalistic hypothesis that gives you the probability distribution of parameters, and there is currently no accepted probability distribution of parameters (for example, if there were infinte multiple universes, each with an independent set of fundamental constants, the probability of a universe somewhere falling in the "narrow" band would be one - I'm not claiming that this is the case, just illustrating that the correct probability is unclear). But more crucially, for your argument to be valid, you can't just claim that life is unlikely, given no Creator. You need an independent calculation showing that the probability that a Creator comes into existence, and given that, that a Creator creates life, is more likely. You cannot do that comparison without first specifying your Creator hypothesis more clearly - i.e. specifying the process by which a Creator comes into existence, and by which he/she/it decides to create life. but you haven't done this (and in fact, cannot do this, since the Creator hypothesis, like all supernatural stories, is designed in a way that prevents you from doing these things).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Autumnal:

    Extremely well said. I would add only the following: There might be more than one universe. Indeed, there might be an infinite number of universes. However, the only universe of which we currently have direct and certain knowledge is the one in which we live. Since we live in it, we know, not only that it supports life, but that it supports human life. Therefore, the only empirical data that we have would suggest that the probability of a universe supporting human life is 100%.

    If Wayne wishes to argue that the probability of a universe supporting human life would actually be very low unless it were created specifically for that purpose, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate such a probability holds under any reasonable naturalistic hypothesis for the origins of the universe. It seems to me that he is psychologically inclined to reject any hypothesis that might suggest quite the opposite (such as Smolin's "fecund universes" hypothesis) because it would invalidate one of his two key reasons for believing in a creator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Autumnal Harvest and P.Coyle Part I of II
    I agree that the hypothesis of multiple universes is not necessarily invalid simply because it is a hypothesis. Still, it is an educated guess, and not a scientific fact. I stated that Smolin suggesting that black holes were the birthplace of Universes was successfully rebutted by Kenneth E. Miller when he said the following: “In Dennett’s view, these multiple universes have undergone a kind of Darwinian natural selection – only a few of them had physical constants that were ultimately capable of supporting life, and those are the only ones in which living observers could have evolved. You and I, living in just such a universe, find our good fortune amazing, but Dennett knows it’s nothing of the sort. Though the person with a winning lottery ticket believes himself to be incredibly lucky, the organizer of the lottery knows very well that one person will always win the prize. To the lottery broker, the emergence of a winner is a certainty, not a stroke of luck. The same logic, incidentally explains why evolution is able to “find” a working solution for so many problems of physiology and biochemistry. Looking backwards, the path that evolution has taken to produce any individual result, any protein, organ or species, looks remarkably lucky, but the reason for such great “luck” is the fact that evolution throws so many different variations into the wind for natural selection to sort out. The ability of organisms to generate, shuffle, and test multiple versions of their genetic information is the reason why evolution does not require a programmer to get things right the first time. Dennett figures that he can apply the same approach to account for the pleasant convergence of physical constants that makes life possible. Evolution works on a multitude of genetic variations in population of organisms so he reasons that there could be multitude of universes, each with varying physical constants. The problem, of course is that we know that organisms reproduce. But universes? Dennett knows that we will never be able to find, even in principle, evidence for any of those parallel universes. If they existed, we could neither communicate with them nor observe them. Nonetheless, he is willing to postulate their existence because it relieves us of the need to find another reason for the elegant “anthropic coincidences” OF OUR UNIVERSE.
    To those who doubt, his solution, he writes that a multiplying swarm of universes is at least as good an explanation “as any traditional alternative”, i.e., a creator. The trouble is, he is now admitting that the “traditional alternative” , i.e., God is valid as well.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. Autumanal and P.Coyle Part II of II.

    From what I can see, Miller makes a good argument against multiple universes being the answer to how all the correct constants were achieved. Yes, I agree with you that I and Miller are substituting one hypothesis for another. However, though I may be wrong, I feel that creator hypothesis is the better of the two. Do I believe that this is definitely the case? No, I can’t prove it. That is why I am an agnostic. There could indeed be multiple universes, though I must admit that I find it a bit hard to believe, and for now, since it hasn’t been proven, I, could be the one who is right. That said, Miller also made a statement about creationists falling into a trap when they state that something has not been or never will be proven, therefore, a god did it because science, given enough time, figures it out. For instance, when he was 8, his priest stated that no one could explain how a flower develops and never would, and that it was God who did it. Thirty six years later, science did indeed figure out how a flower was produced. Ironically, Miller and, consequently, I could very well be falling into the same trap and science could prove multiple universes. However, I think Miller makes a good argument against multiple universes. Also, one other thing that bothers me is how matter could have come from nothing and explode into the big bang all by itself. I know that you think supernatural appears to be hard to believe too, and I agree, but matter appearing from nothing all by itself seems to me to be even harder to believe. Funny, I find that both hypotheses are hard to believe, but we are here, so one of them, a creator or by itself, has to have occurred. You reason by itself and I reason by a creator. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like science can ever answer this question since it can only determine things that are physical, not supernatural. No, I cannot prove the probability of a creator no more than you can prove the probability that matter came from nothing by itself or that multiple parallel universes resulted in the needed constants presented by the anthropic principle. If I could, I would call myself a theist instead of an agnostic. Since I can’t prove or disprove a creator, I can only attempt to determine whether or not one exists through reason.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wayne, I'm not sure why so much of your comments is dedicated to multiple universes, since I only made a side comment about them for illustration. My point was that when you "attempt to determine whether or not one exists through reason," the form of "reason" that you're using is probability and mathematical inference, and you're using them incorrectly. The science is secondary if you don't use proper rules for making inferences.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Autumnal,
    You say science is secondary, but I'm not clear how you can apply probability to your example of the existence of multiple universes. The same thing for the existence of a creator. I would think that science finally finding evidence would be the only way of determining the existence of multiple universes. Now, probability would apply to the likelihood of whether not the parameters were within their required ranges for life to exit for all 4 functions. That is Miller’s argument. The main reason, I quoted Miller on multiple universes is because Dennett was using them to counter Miller's argument why a God had to exist. I tend to agree with Miller, but at the same time realize science may eventually prove the existence of multiple universes which could increase the odds by one of many achieving the correct parameters. I just find multiple universes a bit hard to believe. Just as I find it difficult to believe that our universe came about by matter coming from nothing and exploding in a big bang. But, there could be other explanations, I suppose. Perhaps, the highly unlikely did occur and all parameters were achieved or maybe those are the only parameters that could exist. I do believe that whether or not a creator exists is subjective and that probability cannot be applied here. That said, I’m still not sure that I am addressing your point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The science is secondary because I'm not claiming their are multiple universes, I'm saying that you're using invalid logical steps about probability. I'm saying that (1) narrow parameters are not the same as unlikely parameters (2) the fact that an observation is unlikely under a hypothesis does not allow you, absent additional information, to conclude that the hypothesis is false, or even unlikely and (3) the fact that an observation is unlikely under a hypothesis does not allow you, absent additional information, to conclude that a different hypothesis is true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Autumnal,
    You say: “(1) narrow parameters are not the same as unlikely parameters”.
    I agree, in fact I suggested that in my last post. Unfortunately, I cannot ask Kenneth Miller about it. Still, if life could not exist if constants were only slightly higher or lower, I believe it is a reasonable argument. Since I do not know enough about these parameters, it makes it difficult for me to determine the correctness of Miller’s argument. Incidentally, Miller makes ones of the best arguments for evolution I’ve ever seen, but I was disappointed with his arguments for the existence of a creator.
    (2) the fact that an observation is unlikely under a hypothesis does not allow you, absent additional information, to conclude that the hypothesis is false, or even unlikely
    I’m not positive what you are referring to here, but here goes. Miller questions Dennett’s hypothesis for universes being produced like organic offspring. Since it is a hypothesis, he doesn’t have to prove that it is incorrect, just show that it is unlikely, which is what he attempted to do. The universe is not organic, but inorganic, so that tends to indicate it cannot give birth to additional universes. I cannot prove a creator, but I can attempt to show reasons why something could not occur without one. You need a cause to produce matter from nothing. I believe that this cause would have to be a creator.
    (3) the fact that an observation is unlikely under a hypothesis does not allow you, absent additional information, to conclude that a different hypothesis is true.
    I believe it was Dennett who tried to present multiple universes as a way to counteract Miller’s statement that a creator was required for a universe that would support life because, if certain parameters are only slightly higher or lower, life could not exist. Miller already presented his reason why he felt a creator was required. Because he attempted to show that Dennett’s hypothesis was unlikely does not require him to give additional information to conclude a different hypothesis is true, since he had already done that. When I presented my hypothesis that a creator was necessary to produce matter from nothing, I explained that, in order for that to happen, you need a force for it to come about. It cannot happen without one. I submitted that that force was a creator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Again, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up multiple universes, or Kenneth Miller. My statements are about invalid logical inferences that you've made. The inferences are not invalid because of any specific physical theory. They are invalid because probability and inference do not work in the way in which you're attempting to use them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not sure what you are referring too because most of what I state is subjective and can't really use probability. The only thing that can is the probability of certain narrow range of constants that are required for life to exist, and I do not see anything improper in the way I presented them.

    ReplyDelete