@Spyman: Why couldn't math be different in another universe.
I am not sure if I am qualified to answer that. My feeling is that if math were fundamentally different in another universe then it would not be math (not as we know it).

Of course it wouldn't. And I'm sure that if there was another universe with different math, the people in it (if there are people) would think that the idea of 2+2=4 is absurd.

I suppose the presence of other dimensions could be a major difference. But really maths is fundamentally deductive, that is the conclusion is implicit in the premises. For example 2 + 2 = 4. if the math is not deductive then it is not math.

In that CM the other unverse would have to have a different definition of 2 or 4. In which case they would be talking about something different.

Looked at another way: 2+2 does equal 4 in this universe. We cannot comment about what is possible outside of our universe being that we have no vantage point in which to meaningfully imagine such a place. We can all wave our arms and speculate - and we do - but that doesn't mean that we have any realistic chance of knowing whether a universe outside of our own exists or should exist and what its properties are. ...And, the fact that we cannot know, is in no way proof that a universe where 2+2=5 exists or is at all likely or is even possible. The fact that we can imagine something does not mean that it therefore could have been true.

Way to ignore most of my post. Your response hardly lets you off the hook... also, it's clear you failed to read my post in full, or you'd have done what I asked you to do in the last sentence of the post.

I'm wasting my time because it seems we cannot have a meaningful dialogue.

Not exactly. In another universe, 2+2 could equal 5 because 5 is 3 more than 2, and that logic would make perfect sense to the people of that universe. (Although it would probably be a bit better logic that we wouldn't even understand.)

That was a spyman, btw

@Chrisp: The quote at the beginning of your last post was not said by me.

@Chrisp again: "You could turn the entire observable universe into a gigantic computer, and I don't think you could calculate the permutations of fundamental forces that would produce life." I believe Sir Martin Rees already has calculated that. I'm going to look for a source that confirms that.

I wrote two full paragraphs of which your Moses deal was only half an example, and in the last sentence I left a test to see if you actually come here to learn and debate or simply do so in gesture and use this forum as a place to dispense your personal views without any real interest to what others have to say. OP is not a podium, get down from there.

I also don't think we're getting anywhere useful. Imagining universes where 2+2=5 and living in universes where holy books are both inerrant and full of mistakes loses its interest for me after a while. Is there a thread to this that is more productive that we can return to? I don't see it.

CM now you are talking gibberish

@Chrisp: I do come here to debate. I just dislike reading really long posts. (That's why my posts are short). Anyway, I think I had an argument on the previous page regarding the Moses Typo, you must have missed it.

@Chrisp: Yeah, I replied to you at the bottom of the last page.

Enough with the Moses Typo, I saw that you admitted it was a weak argument, but that doesn't refine your view at all does it? It's ancillary to my argument, and only one example of your loopholing. You're dodging the real argument.

I believe Sir Martin Rees has broken down many fundamental constants into something like six basic constants, but I would be absolutely astounded if you found a source where he claimed to know an actual magnitude of improbability of the existence of life with respect to the fundamental constants. Most people agree that life is improbable. My issue was that he supplied a number and he said he had it from numerous unbiased sources. The anthropic principle fully dispenses with the fine tuning argument regardless of the probability.

@Chrisp: I can't find a source (not even the place where I originally read it), so discount that argument.

But I don't consider the Moses Typo a loophole, because really, which would you rather do, disregard something that is 99.9% true, or assume there was a typo?

@spyman: A better way to say it would be that in the other universe, they automatically add one when doing a calculation, but it's not really adding one, it's just a law of math. Just like you could say we add zero when doing a calculation, but it's not really adding zero, it's just a law of math.
Does that make more sense?

"I just dislike reading really long posts. (That's why my posts are short)"
No one here is writing Obiwan length posts... buck up.
Please realize that sometimes ideas take a bit longer to explain... by avoiding the longer posts you are also selecting out any complex or subtle argument (not that all long posts are of value anymore than short posts)... but without a long post you definitely won't see a line of reasoning fully explored. You are cheating yourself by taking this shortcut. ...and you are frustrating some of your colleagues here. If you are fine with that, then so be it... but you can expect less participation over the long run as we realize that you want twitter sized responses rather than fully formed thoughts. (I realize that am exaggerating a bit) Kids these days. :-)

"they automatically add one when doing a calculation, but it's not really adding one"
Just like 2 is not really 2 and 5 is not really 5.
But this would make your original statement about 2 + 2 = 5 meaningless. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

@dave bishop: "I've heard from numerous, un biased, sources, that the chances of the fundamental forces produces conditions in which life is remotely possible are about 1 in 10*10 with 135 zeros behind it. Surely a creator is needed to fine tune the figures...?:

Statements about probability are meaningless unless the situation under examination is properly understood (I am pretty sure you know this too Dave). If I draw a card from a freshly shuffled deck of cards there is 4 in 52 chance I will draw an Ace. The more cards I draw the higher the probability. But it this case we know how many cards there are, and what type of cards there are. We could also factor in how many times I get to draw a card.
With life we are talking about molecules arranging themselves into the first replicators (and not necessarily as life was we currently understand it).But to assess the probability of this event we would need to know what those replicators were, and what the components they were made of, and what the concentration of those components were, plus other factors in the environment such as the presence of other chemicals, the temperature etc. And then factor in the timescale (which is analogous to how many goes I get at drawing a card from the deck).
I cannot conceive how some one could said to be able to come up with an unbiased probability figure for the probability of life. There are just too many unknown variables.
However improbable the event of life occurring it is obviously not impossible since we are here to observe it. At any rate saying that it is too improbable therefore there must be a God does not help because the same principle of improbability applies to God (a fact which seems to escape theists who claim a rational basis for their beliefs, and a fact which they ignore).

it occurs to me that mentioning prions might be useful at this point. Prions are proteins. They are considered on-living... but they replicate, mutate, and naturally select.

that should read "non-living"

OK.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Think-Compelling-Introduction-Simon-Blackburn/dp/0192854259
This book- really great read and very critical of religion- gives that statistic in the chapter on God, arguments for and against.

Another book that argues strongly for Christianity if called "God's Undertaker" Read from p 69 and you are given many quotes from respected scientists on the matter.
e.g. Sir Fred Hoyle found that for carbon atoms to be formed in starts the nuclear ground state energy levels have to be fine-tuned with respect to each other- a phenomenon called resonance. If the variation were more than a percent either way the universe couldn't support life.


Theoretical Physicist Paul Davies tells us that if the ratio of nuclear strong force to the electromagnetic force had been different by 1 part in 10^6, no starts could have formed.

There are other relations between these fundamental forces (fundamental as far as physicists know) that must be even more fine tuned to allow the right size and variation of stars to form, to allow elements to form, allowing life.

What becomes clear is that, given our system of quarks and zarks (or whatever) that make up atoms, we could easily have a universe not allowing stars or life. It is true that many specific claims are debated, but the overall picture seems clear.


I do accept spyman's point though that we simply don't know enough about the universe to make these judgements so strongly (meaningless is too strong a word), but would urge all atheist readers not to dismiss this argument, and become the very thing you normally rally against.

@Chrisp
Explain how the anthropic principle dispenses with the argument, thanks.

Wow, I honestly can't follow this conversation at all...

CM, were my concerns answered by someone else, or do they still need to be addressed?

@Abge: What were your concerns?

You stated that God came before the Universe. I disputed it. I want to know what brings you to such a conclusion.

@Abge: God created the universe. If God created the universe, he would have had to have been there before it to create it.

And what proof do you have that God created the Universe?