BaalChatzaf wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
...Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?
You can't. Your statistics are BS.
It's a legitimate question to wonder how they derived the "odds" of life permitting parameters.
They use "conditional probability theory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probabilityGiven X of this universe, what is the probability of Y.
See here, note the probability notation; it means "probability of E" , "given K & not D"
So, it's very murky.
The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA)
(1) P(E|K & ~D) ≈ 0
(2) P(E|K & D) >> 0
(3) P(D|K) >> P(E|K & ~D)
∴ P(D|E & K) >> 0
http://home.olemiss.edu/~namanson/Fine% ... gument.pdfReverend Bayes must be turning over in his grave....
If you are critical of the probability calculations ...
You should note that atheist physicists like Hawking concede that the universe is fine tuned to permit life.
"Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that
"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_UniverseThe atheists counter that 1) String theory predicts the multi-verse, and 2) We got very, very, very, very ..... lucky, and we are in one of the life permitting universes within the multi-verse.
That is how powerful the probability argument is.