"William" <telige@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
news:408aacdf.36243057@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:35:40 -0400, "Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

Since you obviously chose to ignore my last post on the
OT law, I guess your *patience* as you warned, did run out!
So, I decided to revisit this post!
Answer it, but only if you are willing to address the real
issues.

<snip >

It doesn't matter what we know. Your argument is an argument from
statistics.

Why do you assert that this is an argument from statistics?
Can you give me a reference where the scientist who first
recognized this and wrote about it claimed it was an
argument from statistics?
In any event, it does not explain awaw the question of how
it came about that our universe does, in fact, have these
precise values which are essential for the origin and
evolution of carbon based
life.

It argues on the basis on the probabilities of this
universe happening with its particular conditions. For the statistical
probabilities of something happening you have to know how big your
statistical sample is. The bigger the sample, the greater the
probabilities of it happening. If universes occur by the trillion then
the probabilities of one like this happening are approaching
certainty.

This is the multiverse hypothesis of which there are several
variations: ie the bubble univerrse, parallell universes,
mother/daughter universe etc.

If they only ever happen once then the probabilities of one
like this happening are approaching zero.

But it did. Our universe is a reality. So I agree the odds against
it occuring does approach zero. Given the odds of anything
happening with the same chances: I would not bet $.01 against
$10^9 yet it did happen!

An illustration. If the chances of winning the lotto are 1 in 22
million then if only one person plays and they come up with the
winning number it is remarkable (and you might even argue it was
'fixed'). If 22 million people play and someone comes up with the
number it is not at all remarkable. You have to know how many play.

But a better analogy would be the same person buying one
lotto ticket each week and getting a winning ticket each and
every week for years. The reason is because of the number
of separate and distinct *coincidences*which had to have
occured for abiogenesis and evolution to have happened.

Therefore, to argue that the chances of this universe coming up is too
unlikely to contemplate you have to show that it only ever happens
once.

No, I disagree! We must be able to deal with the one we
are fortunate enough to be born into. Imaginary universes
which we can never observe, visit, study or analysis
are a foolsplay.

All you are doing so far is saying "if there is just one then

the probabilities of this one happening are vanishingly small". But
that is no good. And saying you can only see one is puerile. Of course
you only see one. You have to SHOW that there only ever is just one.

Why, since this is not a statistical problem? The coincidences
are real, the values are real. It is a real world problem: not
a hyprothical one.

It's no good asking me to show that more than one happens; that's
shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to show anything. It's your
argument, you show me that it happens just once.

Of course, you cannot show it - nobody has yet; so the fine tuning
argument is baseless and simply a bit of pure speculation. It doesn't
explain anything.

You could apply your statistical *analysis*
to a great many other problems and state that they are meaningless.
The origin of life for example. Do we have to show that unless
we can show that life arose only once it is meaningless? I cannot
show that life occured more than once. Does that mean we
should not make every effort to show how life arose this one
time we know about?

Ron

William