Q&A: Is the anthropic rebuttal invalid?
Is the anthropic rebuttal invalid?
Question
Hello Rabbi. A friend argued to me with the anthropic argument that there were infinitely many attempts to create universes, and therefore there is nothing surprising about fine-tuning.
So I showed him this paragraph of yours:
"In fact, in this way one can dismiss any argument about an improbable event. For example, someone who sees the shards of our shattered flowerpot returning and assembling themselves into a whole flowerpot, or the miraculous rescue of a person condemned to death, or perhaps Fred Hoyle's tornado assembling an airplane out of its scraps, could always say that apparently there were countless failed attempts (even though we know of none), and we are simply observing the one of them that succeeded. We have no reason to be surprised by such events."
But then, to my astonishment, he refuted it for me and said that with regard to attempts to create the airplane and the flowerpot, we would expect to see all those attempts, and since we did not see them then apparently there were no such attempts. But regarding universes, it is obvious why we did not see them, because we cannot exist there. In other words, when I see an airplane formed from scrap, I assume that someone is indeed responsible for it because there are two wonders: 1. An event with low probability happened. 2. I happened to observe דווקא it, and I never saw the infinitely many other attempts. It is unlikely that there are two coincidences here (the rare event happened, and by chance I observed specifically it). But regarding the universe there is only one wonder (precise laws), and there is no reason to be surprised that I observe this one in particular, because by definition I could not have observed the other universes. a0
In summary: regarding the flowerpot and the airplane, "I didn't see [the infinitely many attempts]" is evidence that there aren't such attempts.
Regarding the universe and its laws, "I didn't see" is not evidence, because there is an excellent explanation why I didn't see them: because one cannot exist there.
Someone who makes a positive claim about reality, that there is God, has to prove that this really is the only attempt.
What do I answer him??
Answer
This "surprise" is old and trite, and all the atheists repeat this nonsense as if it were some supreme wisdom. I addressed it in my book and in the third booklet, and also in an article (see here at the end).
Briefly, I would say this. Bertrand Russell, one of the well-known atheists of the twentieth century, argued that belief in God seems to him like someone coming and saying that around the planet Jupiter there is constantly orbiting a small celestial teapot. And when I ask him why I don't see it, he answers: simple, because it is small and therefore impossible to see it. Should I treat that as though there were a 50-50 chance that such a teapot exists? Russell rightly argues that definitely not. When I have no reason at all to assume such a teapot exists, and the person claiming its existence has no tools to know this, there is no reason to assume it is there. To say that it can't be seen because it is small is an evasion that prevents us from disproving this claim, and that puts it under an even greater question mark. In short, we would reject it out of hand. This is what atheists argue in many cases against believers in God. He is a small teapot that cannot be seen, and therefore this is basically an invention with no basis and no reason to accept it.
And now, astonishingly, the atheist comes along and, as an alternative to the religious "teapot" (which is not a teapot at all), invents masses of teapots that nobody has seen and nobody can see (because they are small, transparent, etc.). And this is his attack on believers! Why, he himself is the greatest believer in nonsense for which there is no indication at all that it exists, merely because one cannot disprove the claim of its existence.
There are other arguments too, if any are needed, against this nonsense. You can see the rest in my book God Plays with Dice and in the article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/
And also in the third booklet here on the site.
Discussion on Answer
According to this healthy logic, you can claim that there are demons and flying camels without proving it, because in the past people thought there weren't lots of stars and now they know there are.
Maybe you can also claim that there is God even though he thinks not, because in the past people were also mistaken about the number of stars.
And maybe our logic too is worth nothing, because in the past we were wrong more than once.
Actually, in front of my house stand battalions of aliens, each with a backpack containing ten universes.
How is it that I don't see them? In the past people also thought there were few stars.
By the way, although in the past they didn't know about galaxies, they did understand that there are masses of stars. Already in the Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, says this to Abraham: like the sand on the seashore.
In the portion of Deuteronomy we see that they thought the number of stars was about six hundred thousand stars: "And behold, today you are as numerous as the stars of heaven" (Deuteronomy 1:10). I'm still waiting for us to get close to the real 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 although we don't know of, it wouldn't be right to dismiss, no?
Y.D., so what?
Joseph, why should there be? Why do you assume that the laws of nature on stars are like here? Maybe those are universes with different laws? And in any case, for the argument to hold water, each universe has to have different laws of nature.
Besides, we know camels, so why shouldn't there also be flying camels? We know people, so why shouldn't there be aliens? "Why shouldn't there be" is a very weak argument. But it seems to me I've exhausted this. See the above sources, where I explained what I have to say about this nonsense.
I broke.
An attempted refutation of the statistical inference of the psycho-anthological proof:
Sample: 1 (there is one world)
Variance: infinity
Ability to make a statistical inference: 0
I knew why I shouldn't have broken. What I wrote already appears on p. 14 in the third booklet:
"The probability (or, more accurately, plausibility) of God's existence cannot be calculated, since we have no possibility space and no tools whatsoever to evaluate it in itself. One can only raise one speculation or another, in the believer's direction or the atheistic one. Anything said on this matter will not be worth much."
They can say about you, Rabbi Michi, whatever they want, but you have already gone through and thought about everything. All the thoughts, reflections, claims, and counterclaims that appear in my mind have already appeared in your various writings. I do not know whether you are like Maimonides, and I certainly am not like the Raavad, and still one may say about you what the Raavad said about Maimonides: "for he did a great work in his gathering." It is reasonable to assume that one can still surprise you, but whoever tries to surprise you will have to work hard. I have not troubled myself until today to be convinced by the proofs—and as you see, I have my reasons with me—but even my reasons are familiar to you.
Fortunate are you, Rabbi Michi, that you state the words of those who disagree before your own words; but I am left only to understand why, nevertheless, you are convinced where I did not think one should be convinced.
Hello.
When the Rabbi wrote: "And now, astonishingly, the atheist comes along and, as an alternative to the religious 'teapot' (which is not a teapot at all), invents masses of teapots that nobody has seen and nobody can see (because they are small, transparent, etc.). And this is his attack on believers! Why, he himself is the greatest believer in nonsense for which there is no indication at all that it exists, merely because one cannot disprove the claim of its existence."
What does the Rabbi mean in his comparison to masses of teapots for which there is no indication at all that they exist merely because one cannot disprove the claim of their existence? The precise laws?
Thank you
It seems to me that he means the invention of many universes (the teapots) that existed before our universe was created,
and they constituted the infinite number of attempts at the end of which our universe was created, as one out of infinitely many dice rolls,
our universe being the double-six that can appear after so many rolls
Indeed. Not necessarily existed in the past, but still exist.
Hello,
What do you think about the "pink unicorn"?
It's a kind of improved version of Russell's (lame) argument. But it's worth addressing in this case.
Aside from the fact that regarding God there are people / peoples who claim (seriously) that they saw or that He revealed Himself to them, whereas not so with the above.
I don't know what you mean (I know something similar about the ontological proof. Not relevant here). By the way, Russell's arguments are not usually lame.
Wow, what an investment! Thank you.
But now he tells me that in the past people also thought there were no stars besides the solar system, and today they know there are billions upon billions…