Why the Universe Cannot Have Arisen by Chance

[Jim Cross]

Jim Cross wrote:

So you have fooled yourself into believing in design.

Merely argumentative, without basis.
Have you fooled yourself into believing that I have fooled myself?

This seems no way to have a mutually respectful conversation.
Perhaps that is by design?
.
.

Robert, it's just my opinion that this is a topic you are obfuscating about. You made the claim that you deliberately omitted any consideration of a "Designer" but the word "design" itself implies a designer. Otherwise, you could just be talking about some kind of natural order. You're trying to sneak God in by the back door in your arguments which are similar to those of Intelligent Design. I would rather you just state your agenda upfront.

[Robert Arvay]

Jim Cross:
Robert, it's just my opinion that this is a topic you are obfuscating about. You made the claim that you deliberately omitted any consideration of a "Designer" but the word "design" itself implies a designer. Otherwise, you could just be talking about some kind of natural order. You're trying to sneak God in by the back door in your arguments which are similar to those of Intelligent Design. I would rather you just state your agenda upfront.

Me:
For crying out loud, Jim, how much clearer could I make it?
Why so sensitive? Why this adamant refusal to simply look at the facts and let them lead where they may?
The OP states some obvious logical steps, to which you replied with what seems to be an anti-logic rebuttal,
that I am using logic to fool myself? Really? So are we to abandon logic?
There is no back door here. What? Did you think you found a hidden trap?

Here is what I said regarding my "upfront" position:

There is no proof of God. There cannot be. Just as there is no proof of consciousness. The experience of it, is its own proof, but one cannot logically extrapolate this to other people. I believe you are conscious, but I cannot prove it. I believe in God, based on ineffable experience, but I cannot extend this to others.

Where did I obfuscate?

Is it me? Am I the one who is not being upfront and clear?

I am happy to engage in an honest discussion, but I am beginning to sense that that is a hopeless wish.
Let's keep our egos out of this, and restrict further discussion to facts and reason, not accusations of
"fooling" oneself.
.

[Jim Cross]

Robert,

You wrote:

No matter how hard we may try to avoid design, we cannot. We cannot substitute chance for design. Design just will not go away. The universe is (or the universes are) designed.

If it was designed, there was a designer. Your choice of words matters.

You could have written for example:

No matter how hard we may try to avoid order, we cannot. We cannot substitute chance for order. Order just will not go away. The universe is (or the universes are) ordered.

That is completely neutral to the question of whether there is designer. The order could be inherent in the universe or could come from a designer.

But I'm pretty sure nobody would disagree with a statement about order. Without some degree of order, nothing in human life would be possible. Evolution would not be possible. Day to day existence wouldn't be possible. Rational discussion would not be possible. It would be completely uncontroversial. But you choose the word "design."

[Robert Arvay]

Jim wrote
If it was designed, there was a designer. Your choice of words matters.
You could have written for example:
No matter how hard we may try to avoid order, we cannot. We cannot substitute chance for order. Order just will not go away. The universe is (or the universes are) ordered.

Now we are arguing semantics.
"Design" is a commonly used term, even by atheist/agnostics. Whether that "designer" is nature, God, or an unknown principle, is certainly a matter that can be discussed on a mutually respectful basis.

The term, "order," is exactly as subject to interpretation as "design." From whence comes that order? Is it a coincidence? Is it random? Is there One Who orders the structure of reality? Is there even any structure of reality?

I "designed" my original post to open the discussion step by step, with logic that seems to me irrefutable, but if you have a counter argument that is perfectly fine with me. Refute it.

You seem not to. You seem instead to focus on accusing me of "fooling" myself with logic, but without specifying any fallacy in the logical progression.

I have found some of your previous threads to be perfectly reasonable, but this time, I feel that I have hit a raw nerve. Some people take the dispassionate attitude, I don't find any reason to believe / disbelieve in God. I will follow the facts and logic. I will rely on my experience with metaphysical perceptions, or whatever route they take.

Some other people take a very passionate attitude, pro or con. If you do NOT believe in God you are evil, or, if you DO believe in God you are either a fool or a charlatan. Such positions do not lend themselves to reasoned discussion.

I prefer to think that you are a reasonable person, and look forward to your addressing the actual points I made, pro or con, rather than brushing them off with, **you are fooling yourself**

That accusation can go both ways, and is therefore counter-productive.

Perhaps a "reset" is in order.
-

[Jim Cross]

Robert,

designed
planned or conceived in detail or for a specific purpose.

ordered
marked by regular or harmonious arrangement or disposition

Quite different between something planned for a purpose and something with a regular arrangement.

What's more your last statements in the original post even speculate about the purpose - "precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization".

[Robert Arvay]

I wrote:
Designed for what? Since our universe seems to be precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization, it is most likely that that is what it is designed to do.

If we must parse every word, and not follow the logical steps, then allow me to parse by quoting

Designed for what? Since our universe seems to be precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization, it is most likely that that is what it is designed to do.

Seems to be, Jim. Seems. Our universe does seem to be precisely designed (fine tuned) to support life, technology and civilization.
That unavoidable appearance has been noted by nearly all cosmologists of any stripe, religious or not. Most of them cite chance and probability as explanations, and IMO that explanation is deeply flawed, and for the reason I stated, that in order for chance to operate, it must do so within designed parameters.

Yes, it is speculation, and was not presented as anything more than that, (as I used the term, "likely") but so is the assertion of "chance" as an explanation. I find the logic to fall far more favorably on the side of design and intent.

Returning to an earlier point that I made,

There is no proof of God. There cannot be.

Even so, I feel no need to steer around confessing my faith. I have not dissembled about that. Nor do I feel that science undermines that faith. On the contrary, I believe that the perspective of faith increases my appreciation of science. It provides a basis for the Golden Rule, something on which physics (taken alone) has nothing to say.
-

[Jim Cross]

Robert,

You see "design". I see a natural order and no need to invoke purpose or a designer. Your "logic" doesn't persuade me.

Basically your argument is the anthropic principle.

See some objections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic ... troversies

I particularly like this quote: "In its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation".

[Eugene I]

I particularly like this quote: "In its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation".

Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies—that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying, "If things were different, they would be different," which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.

I actually don't agree with such critics. It's not a tautology "If things were different, they would be different,". It's a statement, ""If things were different, they would be unobservable, therefore the fact that hey are observable means that the thigs could not be different". So, it does make a claim of some factual alternative over another: the fact of the observability excludes the alternatives where the observability would not be possible.

I think the anthropic principle is a valid argument, not only in a metaphysics, but in physical science too. It restricts the physical models of the world to those that cam make prediction/explanation of how/why exactly the universe functions in such a way that observability becomes possible. For example, there is experimental fact that sun shines, so physics is challenged to explain why/how it shines and why it could not be otherwise. Similarly, observability of the world by conscious live beings is a fact, and so physics is due to explain why it could not be otherwise. If physics is unable to provide such explanation, it is left with an explanatory gap.

Regarding the discussion in this thread, the anthropic principle by itself does not exclude natural order and does not require origin by design. Origin by design is only one possible way to account for the anthropic principle. Yet, if one wants to present arguments in favor of the design hypothesis (which Robert is doing here), the anthropic principle becomes one of the arguments in favor of it, because the design hypothesis closes the abovementioned explanatory gap.

[Robert Arvay]

Restating my argument, it is that, of all the plausible explanations for the universe as it is,
the "chance" hypothesis is not only weak, it is fatally flawed.

Random chance can explain why a die lands as it does, but it first requires that
the "die" be specified as having X number of sides.

From this imperfect analogy I offer the principle that chance can operate only within
parameters that define the chance as "Y" chances among "Z" possibilities.
So then, one must ask, what determines Y and Z ?

The answer could be, some "unknown" factor. If so, then end of discussion.

X divided by infinity is essentially zero.
Therefore, if the parameters are infinite and arbitrary, we would be MORE likely to live in a universe
inhabited by clowns on unicycles, than one like ours.

IOW, we are more likely to be inhabitants of an ocean world than ours, one in which intelligence could arise,
but not fire.

As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible fact of our universe is that it is comprehensible.
It is orderly, and in so many ways, Earth is the privileged planet.

Therefore, we are left with binary possibilities:
either the universe is governed by randomness, (which is implausible), or else, by design (intent, purpose).
Design could mean some impersonal, unconscious agent, yes indeed, but our observations strongly
favor a conscious one--not conclusively, but favorably.

Which is the more plausible?
Since there is no proof of either, we must choose based on evidence and reason.

Idealists use as evidence, the fact of their own consciousness.
Christians use that, and posit a conscious God.

The implications are enormous, and should be carefully considered,
especially when making social policies, the system of justice, accountability,
capital punishment, abortion, and how we each direct our personal lives, etc etc.

The wrong course of action could lead to unimagined horrors of
technological barbarism. We need to get this right. If we err,
let us err on the side of a universal, empiric standard of justice.
-
-

[AshvinP]

Restating my argument, it is that, of all the plausible explanations for the universe as it is,
the "chance" hypothesis is not only weak, it is fatally flawed.

Random chance can explain why a die lands as it does, but it first requires that
the "die" be specified as having X number of sides.

From this imperfect analogy I offer the principle that chance can operate only within
parameters that define the chance as "Y" chances among "Z" possibilities.
So then, one must ask, what determines Y and Z ?

The answer could be, some "unknown" factor. If so, then end of discussion.

X divided by infinity is essentially zero.
Therefore, if the parameters are infinite and arbitrary, we would be MORE likely to live in a universe
inhabited by clowns on unicycles, than one like ours.

IOW, we are more likely to be inhabitants of an ocean world than ours, one in which intelligence could arise,
but not fire.

As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible fact of our universe is that it is comprehensible.
It is orderly, and in so many ways, Earth is the privileged planet.

Therefore, we are left with binary possibilities:
either the universe is governed by randomness, (which is implausible), or else, by design (intent, purpose).
Design could mean some impersonal, unconscious agent, yes indeed, but our observations strongly
favor a conscious one--not conclusively, but favorably.

Which is the more plausible?
Since there is no proof of either, we must choose based on evidence and reason.

Idealists use as evidence, the fact of their own consciousness.
Christians use that, and posit a conscious God.

The implications are enormous, and should be carefully considered,
especially when making social policies, the system of justice, accountability,
capital punishment, abortion, and how we each direct our personal lives, etc etc.

The wrong course of action could lead to unimagined horrors of
technological barbarism. We need to get this right. If we err,
let us err on the side of a universal, empiric standard of justice.
-
-

Although I think Jim and Eugene are still very far off from the domain of any consistent logic here, I take issue with the above bolded statement as well. First, divorcing "proof" from evidence and reason makes no sense to me, perhaps because of lawyerly sensibilities, but I don't think one needs to attend law school to see the error there. You may mean proof that establishes with "absolute certainty", in which I case agree, but would say there is no proof for anything with absolute certainty, EXCEPT:

That I am conscious willing-feeling-thinking being-in-becoming. What flows from that one absolute certainty is A LOT, including that the phenomenal world is consciously designed. Which is the second part of my issue with your post - it is implicitly adopting a quantitative assessment of a fundamentally qualitative Reality (at least as far as we can know with certainty). It assumes a good proof for design over chance is a probability assessment of how likely our Reality would be ordered vs. not ordered. You point out such an assessment would itself rely on design of the parameters, which I agree with, but then you seem to still move forward with it.

I disagree any such probability assessment can be done - the best and perhaps only reasonable and consistent proof for such things is what philosophers generally call "phenomenological", i.e. one that starts from my experience of the world and reasons out from there. Eugene calls this is "solipsistic" and I respond that it is solipsistic, but that fact does not make it any less valid of an argument. And, as you say the "implications are enormous", I say is even more true for this distinction between a fundamentally flawed method to derive conclusions about underlying Reality and the properly philosophical-scientific method.

(and I trust you do not take any of the above as a personal attack, just my perspective on the issue)