Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:39:31 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Paul Filseth" wrote : > > Are you trying to classify the divine will and reasoning of a > > Designer (resulting in life being more likely) as simply "physical > > principles we don't yet know about"? > > Possibility (a) should have been just "Physical principles we don't yet > know about make the values we observe more probable than they look." > Deliberate fine-tuning is one among the many possible forms such a > principle could take. Consider these two propositions: 1) Intelligent fine-tuning makes the physical constants more likely than they appear. 2) Intelligent fine-tuning or some unknown other explanation makes the physical constants more likely than they appear. Your argument appears to be: (2) is more likely than (1), and so one should not believe (1). This argument is not very convincing. :-) > It's like seeing a puddle in the morning and seeing it gone that > evening. You could infer it was a hot day, or you could infer that the > temperature was 96 degrees. It's like seeing a clock displaying noon. You could infer (it is now noon) or you could infer (either it is now noon or the clock is wrong). The latter conclusion may have a slightly higher probability of being true, but this unremarkable fact is not usually a good reason to disbelieve the former conclusion. > > Are you saying that a (perhaps necessarily-existing) > > I find the concept of "necessarily existing" absurd. I too find it unintuitive, but I wouldn't call it absurd. Do you have some demonstration of its absurdity that could reduce the famous Ontological Argument to a historical curiosity such as Zeno's Paradox of Motion? If so, can I co-publish it with you and share your place in the history of Philosophy? :-) -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net