Ogee
Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
| Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,15:03) | | But here's where I get stuck: how does this refute the fine tuning argument in any meaningful sense? All they're really saying is, "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with the formation of life makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". |
No they're saying that even infinitesimal values of P(F|N) do not support ~N.
| Quote | | So if P(F/N&L) was meant to describe the probability that the universe is observed to be fine tuned |
There's one of your problems right there. F is not "the universe is fine-tuned"! P(F|N&L)=1 is the weak anthropic principle, that is: if the universe is naturalistic and has life, it must be life-friendly.
| Quote | | But if they mean the looser definition described above, it collapses to the trivial statement that "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with life forming makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design". |
No, no, no. They are making no statement about the relative values of P(N) versus P(~N). They are showing that fine-tuning does not logically support ~N.
|
