Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Hinman on the fine-tuning argument

Here.

9 comments:

SteveK said...

Things like "chance" have no causal ability so the argument makes no sense to me.

SteveK said...

If my choices are a cause that produces a randomly changing effect that would be interpreted as "chance" or a cause that produces a sustained non-random effect, it's clear to me that we live in a universe that is the latter. 'Fine-tuned' is not a random effect. I think it's reasonable to argue for design on that basis.

Joe Hinman said...

SteveK said...
Things like "chance" have no causal ability so the argument makes no sense to me.

then how can you accept that science offers nay kind of prediction power? if fine tuning is unworkable in theory then why do they use it in inflationary theory?

Joe Hinman said...

SteveK said...
If my choices are a cause that produces a randomly changing effect that would be interpreted as "chance" or a cause that produces a sustained non-random effect, it's clear to me that we live in a universe that is the latter. 'Fine-tuned' is not a random effect. I think it's reasonable to argue for design on that basis.

again then why did they use it in making inflationary theory?

Also: All hypothesis testing is suppose to use prediction, if you can't coordinate predictor with cause then you can't test an hypothesis because you can;'t predict,

Joe Hinman said...

hey Doc i am honored, Here's my plug form Metacrock blog today,

This is called Tie-breaker because it moves us past the log jam that results in saying God is uncased and timeless always has been always will be with cause, vs. the atheist argument that this is no better than just saying the universe happens to be here for no reason. My friend Eric Sotnak, who has a great gift for sarcasm that is not lost on me, set's it up as a matter of brute facts. There is a huge literature on brute facts but I wont go into it because I don't have time and I'm no expert. A brute fact is a thing that exists for no higher purpose, it has no reason for being it just is. [1] Now some will argue that brute facts can have physical causes or not. Since we have no examples of anything in nature that has no cause that just leaves and the universe as a whole. So the comparison between atheism and theism is between God who has no cause vs a universe that has no reason for being weather it has a physical cause o not Having no reason means it could as easily not be. Sotnak turns this into an argument agaisnt the existence of God, but couches it in terms of God as a brute fact:


God is not a brute fact

Miguel said...

Hinman,

I have a question. You've done work on religious experience, haven't you? In your book, or articles or whatever, do you conclude that

1) religious experience, while not proving God exists beyond reasonable doubts, point that the existence of God is probable, or at least that it is more probable than not; it raises the probability of theism (or supernaturalism, perhaps);

Or

2) religious experience doesn't actually raise the probabilities significantly, or doesn't make God's existence more probable, but for a religious believer it may cohere well with their beliefs and provides rational warrant?

Also, do you think the evidence provided by religious experience is only relevant to the one who experienced it, or is it such that we can take the testimony of others for ourselves and believe even though we did not directly experience it?

Joe Hinman said...

Miguel said...
Hinman,

I have a question. You've done work on religious experience, haven't you? In your book, or articles or whatever,

My book: The Trace of God, Rational Warrant for Belief




do you conclude that

1) religious experience, while not proving God exists beyond reasonable doubts, point that the existence of God is probable, or at least that it is more probable than not; it raises the probability of theism (or supernaturalism, perhaps);

my actual wording is that Belief i God is rationally warranted,The sub title of my book is: "rational warrant for belief," that is my claim.

Or

2) religious experience doesn't actually raise the probabilities significantly, or doesn't make God's existence more probable, but for a religious believer it may cohere well with their beliefs and provides rational warrant?

I would claim that it does raise the probability TO THE EXTENT THAT the claim is being made through the f inductive argument that any sort of question lowers the probability. I would think it must work that way, however, I am no expert on probability. so I don't put it in those terms,

Also, do you think the evidence provided by religious experience is only relevant to the one who experienced it, or is it such that we can take the testimony of others for ourselves and believe even though we did not directly experience it?

we can place confidence in data that is gleaned scientifically. Whether or not you feel you can believe the experiences of another is an epistemic judgement you must make for yourself. But there are areas we can study scientifically those areas can be measured.

My book proves that there is a significant relationship between certain kinds of experience in all faiths around the world and the effect of those experiences are positive dramatic, and long term; based upon that data which is form 200 + solicitation peer reviewed journals we can construct some God arguments that prove the rational warrant thesis,

Miguel said...

Alright, thanks for your answers. I actually tend to believe that well established religious experiences do raise the probability of the existence of God. I think I agree with Swinburne's assessment in th way he presents it. But I have never actually studied religious experience in depth, so I don't have a fixed position on it. To the extent I've read about it or seen it presented in some arguments, I do think it's interesting, however, and I think I'm favourable to it.

Thanks for the responses, I was mostly curious. I might end up checking out your book some day.

Joe Hinman said...

read my book Of course i'm biased but I have endorsement from the major researcher in the field.