Is the anthropic appeal invalid?
Hello Rabbi. A friend presented to me the anthropic argument that there have been infinite attempts to create universes, and therefore one should not be surprised by the fine tuning.
So I showed him this paragraph of yours:
"In fact, in this way any argument about an improbable event can be rejected. For example, someone who sees the fragments of our shattered flowerpot reassemble themselves into a whole flowerpot, or the miraculous rescue of the doomed man, or Fred Hoyle's storm assembling an airplane from its fragments, can always say that there must have been countless attempts that failed (although we know of none), and we are simply watching the one of them that succeeded. We have nothing to be surprised by such events."
But then, to my astonishment, he refuted it and said that regarding the attempts to create the plane and the flowerpot, we would expect to see all these attempts, and since we didn't see them then, there probably weren't any such attempts, but regarding the universes, it's clear why we didn't, because we can't exist there. In other words, when I see a plane created from scrap metal, I assume that someone is responsible for it because there are two miracles: 1. An event with a low probability happened. 2. I actually observed it, and I never saw the infinite number of other attempts. It's likely that there aren't two coincidences here (the rare event happened, and I happened to observe it). But regarding the universe, there is only one miracle (precise laws), and there's no wonder why I observe it, because by definition I couldn't observe the other universes.
In conclusion: Regarding the flowerpot and the airplane, "I have not seen (the infinite number of attempts) - I have seen (that there are none)."
Regarding the universe and its laws, "I have not seen - it is not sight" because there is an excellent explanation for why I have not seen, because it is impossible to exist there.
Anyone who makes a positive argument about reality, that there is a God, must prove that this is indeed the only experience.
What do I answer him??
This "surprise" is old and trite, and all atheists repeat this nonsense as if there were supreme wisdom here. I addressed it in my book and in the third notebook, as well as in the article (see here at the end).
In short, he says this. Bertrand Russell, one of the famous atheists of the twentieth century, claimed that belief in God seems to him like someone who comes and says that a small celestial teapot is constantly revolving around the planet Jupiter. And when I ask him why I don't see it, he replies: Simply, because it is small and therefore impossible to see it. Should I treat it as if it were a 50-50 chance that such a pot exists? Russell rightly claims that absolutely not. When I have no reason to assume that such a pot exists, and even those who claim its existence have no tools to know it, there is no reason to assume that it exists. To say that it cannot be seen because it is small is an evasion that does not allow us to refute this claim, and it puts it under a greater question mark. In short, we would reject it out of hand. This is what atheists often claim against those who believe in God. It is a small teapot that cannot be seen, and in fact it is an invention that has no basis and no reason to accept it.
And now, surprisingly, the atheist comes along and, as an alternative to the religious "teapot" (which is not a teapot at all), invents a multitude of teapots that no one has seen and cannot see (because they are small, transparent, etc.). And this is his attack on believers! After all, he himself is the greatest believer in nonsense that has no indication that it exists, simply because the claim of its existence cannot be refuted.
There are more arguments, if any, against this nonsense. You can see the rest in the books God Plays Dice and in the article here:
A systematic look at the relationship between evolution and faith
And also in the third notebook here on the site.
Wow, what an investment! Thank you.
But now he tells me that in the past they also thought there were no other stars besides the solar system, and today we know that there are billions of billions…
According to this common sense, one can claim that there are demons and flying camels without proving it, because in the past they thought there weren't many stars, and now they know there are.
Maybe also claim that there is a God even though he thinks there isn't, because in the past they were also wrong about the number of stars.
And maybe our logic is worthless because we have been wrong many times in the past.
Basically, in front of my house are legions of aliens, each with a backpack with ten universes on their backs.
How come I don't see them? In the past, they also thought there were few stars.
By the way, although in the past they did not know about galaxies, they understood that there were multitudes of stars. Already in the Torah, God, the Almighty, tells Abraham that there is blue on the shore of the sea.
In Deuteronomy we see that they thought the number of stars was about six hundred thousand stars: "And you are today as the stars of the sky for multitude" (Deuteronomy 10). I am still waiting for us to get closer to the true number of stars.
But flying camels and fairies are not like different universes. After all, we know a universe with laws, so why shouldn't there also be universes with different laws?
It's more like life on another planet, which we don't know exists, but it's not right to deny that it exists, right?
14, so what?
Yosef, why would they be? Why do you assume that the laws of nature in the stars are the same as here? Maybe these are universes with different laws? And in general, for the argument to hold water, every universe needs to have different laws of nature.
And besides, we know camels, so why shouldn't there be flying camels? We know people, so why shouldn't there be aliens? Why shouldn't there be is a very weak argument. But I think I've exhausted it. Refer to the above sources, where I explained what I have to say about this nonsense.
I broke down.
An attempt to refute the statistical inference of the ontological proof:
Sample: 1 (There is one world)
Variety: Infinite
Statistical inference ability: 0
I knew why I shouldn't break down. What I wrote appears on page 14 of the third booklet:
"The probability (or, more correctly, the likelihood) of God's existence cannot be calculated, since we have neither a space of possibilities nor any tool to test it per se. We can only speculate one way or another, in the direction of the believer or the atheist. Anything said on this subject would not be worth much."
They will say whatever they want about you, Rabbi Michi, but you have gone through and thought about everything. All the thoughts, reflections, claims and answers that appear in my mind have already appeared in your various writings. I don't know if you are like the Rambam, and I certainly don't resemble the Rambam, and yet it is possible to say about you what the Rambam said about the Rambam, "For he did a great work in his assembly." It is likely that you can be surprised, but whoever tries to surprise you will have to work hard. I have not bothered to be convinced by the evidence to this day - and as you can see, my arguments are with me - but you also know my arguments.
Blessed are you, Rabbi Michi, for you precede the words of those who disagree with your words, but I can only understand why you are nevertheless convinced where I did not think I should be convinced.
Hello.
When the rabbi wrote: "And here, surprisingly, now comes the atheist and as an alternative to the religious "teapot" (which is not a teapot at all) invents a multitude of teapots that no one has seen and cannot see (because they are small, transparent, etc.). And this is his attack on believers! After all, he himself is the greatest believer in nonsense that has no indication that they exist, simply because the claim of their existence cannot be refuted."
What does the rabbi mean by his comparison of masses of teapots, which have no indication that they exist, simply because their existence cannot be refuted? To the precise laws?
thanks
It seems to me that he meant the invention of many universes (teapots) that existed before the creation of our universe.
And they constituted the endless trials that ultimately created our universe, like one of the infinite tosses of a dice.
Which is the six six that can appear after so many rolls
Indeed. Not necessarily were, but still exist.
peace,
What do you think about "The Pink Unicorn"?
This is a sort of improved version of Russell's (poor) argument, but it's worth considering in this case.
Except for the fact that there are people/nations who claim (seriously) that they have seen God or that He has been revealed to them, and the above does not.
I don't know what you're getting at (I know something similar about the ontological view. Not related here). By the way, Russell's arguments are not generally poor.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer