I don't have a good enough grasp on it to present it, I would have to give you the book I read recently.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The Moral Law. Ratonality of Faith (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I see.
Since Ze Tahir closed the other thread. Here.
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that
5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that
6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that
7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
Since Ze Tahir closed the other thread. Here.
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that
5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that
6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that
7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
Yes, but not in the way that you think. When you say "has a reason" that means it has a cause. Causality is only applicable if existence is presumed. Ie. if something exists (the universe) it can give cause to something else. Otherwise it cannot. And since existence is only possible inside the universe (there is no such thing as "outside"), nothing can logically give cause to the universe. Why? Because "the universe" means "everything that exists".
Besides, even if you go along with it, god must also have a "reason" to exist, otherwise you contradict yourself. If you were to say instead "everything natural has a reason for its existence, but not everything supernatural" then I would obviously have to ask how do you know this.
I don't understand this. Is he saying that something which begins to exist cannot be its own cause for existence?
Impossible. Causality is only possible within the universe.
"personal creator" as in the Christian god? Absolutely not. Even if we were to agree that there is something which created the universe (a burst of energy, or something similarly strange), there is no reason to think it's a consciousness.
No. Even if "someone" (let's say for arguments sake that it's a consciousness) created the universe, that gives no reason to think he still exists. He could have died.
No. None of these attributes follow logically from "something" that created the universe. And certainly not uncaused, like mentioned already.
Time has no meaning outside the universe, the universe is what defines time. However, I admit I find this one argument of mine less persuasive than the others.
Besides, even if you go along with it, god must also have a "reason" to exist, otherwise you contradict yourself. If you were to say instead "everything natural has a reason for its existence, but not everything supernatural" then I would obviously have to ask how do you know this.
I don't understand this. Is he saying that something which begins to exist cannot be its own cause for existence?
Impossible. Causality is only possible within the universe.
"personal creator" as in the Christian god? Absolutely not. Even if we were to agree that there is something which created the universe (a burst of energy, or something similarly strange), there is no reason to think it's a consciousness.
No. Even if "someone" (let's say for arguments sake that it's a consciousness) created the universe, that gives no reason to think he still exists. He could have died.
No. None of these attributes follow logically from "something" that created the universe. And certainly not uncaused, like mentioned already.
Time has no meaning outside the universe, the universe is what defines time. However, I admit I find this one argument of mine less persuasive than the others.
The universe is not necassarily all that exists. You merely assume this.
Now consider three alternative cases that could possibly explain the fine tuning of
the universe.
1) Natural Law.
2) Accidental.
3) Intelligent Design.
Consider that the universe is in perfect balance. This is an undisputed point. Even Hawking himself said, that the slightest change in the velocity of the Big Bang would cause the universe to collapse into itself resulting in a big ball of fire.
First, the universe does not have to be the way it is. It could have been otherwise. Thus The first alternative, Natural Law, is not very plausible.
Now the second alternative, chance. The problem is that the odds against the fine tuning occuring by accident are so great that they cannot be reasonably fixed.
When you compare the range of possible values which the fundamental quantities permitted by the Laws of Nature could have taken with the range of life permitting values, you find that the range of life permitting values is incredibly small in comparison with the wider range of assumable values.
The probability that all the quantities would fall by chance alone into the life permitting range is vanishingly small. We now know that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life permitting universes like ours.
Third alternative, intelligent design.
Premise 1. The fine tuning is either due to law chance or design.
Premise 2. It is not due to law or chance, therefore it is due to design.
Yes.
That is only your assumption. That does not make it valid.
Because of the fine tuning mentioned above and the Moral Law argument I proclaimed today
We reasonably assume that this Creator was a consciousness. A creator that is supernatural is limitless, He cannot die because He is unnatural.
See above.
Why is it not the other way around. I think time is what defines the universe. Don't you think that my assumption makes more sense, can the universe exist without time?
No, this is the definition of the universe.
wikipedia:
The universe doesn't need any fine tuning. See the cosmology book I mentioned, it's stated there.
Depends on how you define balance. If you say that the universe has a constant amount of energy, that it does not acquire or dissipate energy, I suppose you could say that is some form of balance.
That doesn't mean it would not then be balanced.
And the evidence of this is?
And how have you established these odds?
So what? If this assumption holds then all this proves is that something seemingly unlikely happened. Not something impossible, merely something unlikely.
And this probability you establish how?
Probable on what basis?
It's not an assumption, it's a rational conclusion. How can nothing cause something?
And this knowledge of the nature of the unnatural you derive how?
Actually, I don't. Because if time does not mean particle motion then what does it mean? Time is something we have constructed to aid our reasoning, it is not some sort of strange god given thing.
wikipedia:
The universe doesn't need any fine tuning. See the cosmology book I mentioned, it's stated there.
Depends on how you define balance. If you say that the universe has a constant amount of energy, that it does not acquire or dissipate energy, I suppose you could say that is some form of balance.
That doesn't mean it would not then be balanced.
And the evidence of this is?
And how have you established these odds?
So what? If this assumption holds then all this proves is that something seemingly unlikely happened. Not something impossible, merely something unlikely.
And this probability you establish how?
Probable on what basis?
It's not an assumption, it's a rational conclusion. How can nothing cause something?
And this knowledge of the nature of the unnatural you derive how?
Actually, I don't. Because if time does not mean particle motion then what does it mean? Time is something we have constructed to aid our reasoning, it is not some sort of strange god given thing.
1) This suggests nothing on why casuality does not apply to things outside the universe.
2) It pretty much means that the universe would fall into itself, thus making life impossible.
3) Cosmological fact. The universe does not have to be the way it is. If the calculations are altered, the initial conditions of the universe would be altered, thus the universe will be altered.
4) By mathematics. Probability = outcome/ all possible outcomes. Scientists have thoroughly calculated this and found the probability against this fine tuning to occur by chance to be infinitely small.
5)It proves that the probability is 10^-1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Thus infinitely small and extremely improbable. This is the same probability of getting 1000000000 royal flushes in a row in poker. Virtually impossible.
6) Mentioned above. By inserting the life permitting scenario against all other possible scenarios. For life to be possible, every constant in space must be the way it is now. Any alternative constants in space would directly result in our non-existence.
7) A supernatural force is not nothing.
9) Only a limitless Creator could have caused a limited universe to come into being. If the Creator was limited, the entire God hypothesis would be unjustified.
8) But time had a beggnining, it is not an imaginary concept.
2) It pretty much means that the universe would fall into itself, thus making life impossible.
3) Cosmological fact. The universe does not have to be the way it is. If the calculations are altered, the initial conditions of the universe would be altered, thus the universe will be altered.
4) By mathematics. Probability = outcome/ all possible outcomes. Scientists have thoroughly calculated this and found the probability against this fine tuning to occur by chance to be infinitely small.
5)It proves that the probability is 10^-1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Thus infinitely small and extremely improbable. This is the same probability of getting 1000000000 royal flushes in a row in poker. Virtually impossible.
6) Mentioned above. By inserting the life permitting scenario against all other possible scenarios. For life to be possible, every constant in space must be the way it is now. Any alternative constants in space would directly result in our non-existence.
7) A supernatural force is not nothing.
9) Only a limitless Creator could have caused a limited universe to come into being. If the Creator was limited, the entire God hypothesis would be unjustified.
8) But time had a beggnining, it is not an imaginary concept.
Think for a minute. If something can be the cause of something else, it must exist. If it exists, it is by definition in the universe. So how can something be a cause outside the universe? Logical contradiction.
Why not? Have you ever seen a different universe?
And these other possible outcomes you establish how? By observation?
Probability means that if you flip a coin there are two possible outcomes. You know this not by assumption, you have actually SEEN the two different outcomes. You KNOW they are possible.
So? The fact that all the particles that make up your body happen to be part of YOUR human body is also extremely small. They would be much more likely to be part of a star or a planet or a black hole or pretty much anything else. And yet they make up your body, however unlikely that is.
Not impossible, just unlikely.
Look around you. How many other planets do you see that inhibit life? Supposing our planet is THE ONLY planet that has life in the entire INFINITE universe, how unlikely is that? And yet it's true. All that means is that our planet IS the very unlikely planet that allows life to occur. In other words, our planet is EVIDENCE of this unlikely event HAVING occurred. Get it?
I ask again, how do you know the nature of something unnatural? How do you know, beyond that, what is necessary to create a limited universe? Where is the evidence?
Exactly, it's not imaginary. It means something in the universe. Not outside it.
Why not? Have you ever seen a different universe?
And these other possible outcomes you establish how? By observation?
Probability means that if you flip a coin there are two possible outcomes. You know this not by assumption, you have actually SEEN the two different outcomes. You KNOW they are possible.
So? The fact that all the particles that make up your body happen to be part of YOUR human body is also extremely small. They would be much more likely to be part of a star or a planet or a black hole or pretty much anything else. And yet they make up your body, however unlikely that is.
Not impossible, just unlikely.
Look around you. How many other planets do you see that inhibit life? Supposing our planet is THE ONLY planet that has life in the entire INFINITE universe, how unlikely is that? And yet it's true. All that means is that our planet IS the very unlikely planet that allows life to occur. In other words, our planet is EVIDENCE of this unlikely event HAVING occurred. Get it?
I ask again, how do you know the nature of something unnatural? How do you know, beyond that, what is necessary to create a limited universe? Where is the evidence?
Exactly, it's not imaginary. It means something in the universe. Not outside it.
On the concept of causality.
Imagine for one second a moment before the origin of the universe. If what you are saying is true, then there was absolutely no cause since this cause does not exist. But prior to the Big Bang, you are also suggesting there wasn't even the potentiality of the universe to come into being.
Really imagine this, if there was no potentiality for the universe to come into being, then it wouldn't have come into being. So, let us recall premise 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise cannot be refuted because if it were, the universe would not exist. Metaphysically speaking, it absolutely absurd to assume that something began to exist without an initial CAUSE.
Consider a simpler situation.
There was a huge bang.
I say to you, " What do you think that was?"
You say" Nothing, it just happened".
This notion is obviously absurd.
On probability.
I understand that we could have been the product of a vastly improbable event of randomness, I will consider that possibility. However, you must also consider the possibility that this event of our creation was not random, pointless, meaningless, and was actually a product of divine purpose.
On time.
I agree, time is something that exists inside of the universe. However, since it had a starting point, or a moment of birth, something must have caused it to come to being, hence the casuality argument that is still viable metaphysically even if it was not scientifically.
It is an obvious principle of metaphysics.
BEING does not come from NON BEING, this is absurd. Putting Scientific definitons aside, this is rationally a fallacious statement.
Imagine for one second a moment before the origin of the universe. If what you are saying is true, then there was absolutely no cause since this cause does not exist. But prior to the Big Bang, you are also suggesting there wasn't even the potentiality of the universe to come into being.
Really imagine this, if there was no potentiality for the universe to come into being, then it wouldn't have come into being. So, let us recall premise 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise cannot be refuted because if it were, the universe would not exist. Metaphysically speaking, it absolutely absurd to assume that something began to exist without an initial CAUSE.
Consider a simpler situation.
There was a huge bang.
I say to you, " What do you think that was?"
You say" Nothing, it just happened".
This notion is obviously absurd.
On probability.
I understand that we could have been the product of a vastly improbable event of randomness, I will consider that possibility. However, you must also consider the possibility that this event of our creation was not random, pointless, meaningless, and was actually a product of divine purpose.
On time.
I agree, time is something that exists inside of the universe. However, since it had a starting point, or a moment of birth, something must have caused it to come to being, hence the casuality argument that is still viable metaphysically even if it was not scientifically.
It is an obvious principle of metaphysics.
BEING does not come from NON BEING, this is absurd. Putting Scientific definitons aside, this is rationally a fallacious statement.
Without time, there is no "prior". The big bang is thus the beginning of what can be conceived.
I don't pretend to say that this isn't strange, but to the best of my knowledge this is the definition.
You're saying that without your explanation we have an absurd situation. I say your explanation is absurd. I already said to the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" that causality is based on existence. So causality cannot precede existence. In other words, there is no way to "cause" the universe.
So if we both agree that the present situation is absurd, we gain nothing by adding an absurd explanation. Perhaps Stenger sheds some light on this in his book...
Why? If someone wins the lottery, is that divine intervention? No, because probability dictates that sooner or later someone will. And we happen to have "won", since we're alive.
If you grab Occam's Razor, what's the simpler explanation? "Something happened because sooner or later it had to" or "some unknowable supernatural being made it happen"?
Well, time does not exist as such, it's like heat again. It's a name we give to particle motion. So you could say particle motion had to be created (indeed though the big bang), but not time.
Yours perhaps, not mine.
Neither does being coincide with not being. If god is not in the universe, he does not exist, by the very definition of existence. He is logically absurd, which is what I've been saying all day.
The big bang is thus the beginning of what can be conceived.I don't pretend to say that this isn't strange, but to the best of my knowledge this is the definition.
You're saying that without your explanation we have an absurd situation. I say your explanation is absurd. I already said to the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" that causality is based on existence. So causality cannot precede existence. In other words, there is no way to "cause" the universe.
So if we both agree that the present situation is absurd, we gain nothing by adding an absurd explanation. Perhaps Stenger sheds some light on this in his book...
Why? If someone wins the lottery, is that divine intervention? No, because probability dictates that sooner or later someone will. And we happen to have "won", since we're alive.
If you grab Occam's Razor, what's the simpler explanation? "Something happened because sooner or later it had to" or "some unknowable supernatural being made it happen"?
Well, time does not exist as such, it's like heat again. It's a name we give to particle motion. So you could say particle motion had to be created (indeed though the big bang), but not time.
Yours perhaps, not mine.
Neither does being coincide with not being. If god is not in the universe, he does not exist, by the very definition of existence. He is logically absurd, which is what I've been saying all day.
To add a few more things. If you had inferred that casuality could not have existed prior to time since nothing existed before time, here is an answer. The supernatural force, could have created the universe simultaneously with time, thus no logical fallacies occur here. He can create the universe simultaneous to the progression of time.
To clear up the misconception of improbability.
We aren't talking about the improbabiity of the universe coming into being. We are talking about the improbability of a life permitting universe.
Consider my poker game example.
You are dealt five cards, yes? So the improbability of getting each hand is equal. This is not the basis of my argument. Now imagine if every single time I deal the cards, I am giving myself a royal flush. This is my argument. It is not the improbability alone but the combination of both the pattern of variables necassary for intelligent life plus the incomprehensible improbability that these variables all occur by chance.
To clear up the misconception of improbability.
We aren't talking about the improbabiity of the universe coming into being. We are talking about the improbability of a life permitting universe.
Consider my poker game example.
You are dealt five cards, yes? So the improbability of getting each hand is equal. This is not the basis of my argument. Now imagine if every single time I deal the cards, I am giving myself a royal flush. This is my argument. It is not the improbability alone but the combination of both the pattern of variables necassary for intelligent life plus the incomprehensible improbability that these variables all occur by chance.
Yes, but absurd. Supernatural unknowable being whose attributes are unknown, whose behaviors and potential is unknown, that is to say something indistinguishable from magic. The universe just *poof* came into existence by magic. I don't believe in magic.
But the universe has only began once (that we know of). So on the first draw you dealt yourself a royal flush. So far we know nothing about what's gonna happen in the following draws.
But the universe has only began once (that we know of). So on the first draw you dealt yourself a royal flush. So far we know nothing about what's gonna happen in the following draws.
No, you missed the point of my example. Since every time I dealt the cards, it was very clear the I had a purpose to cheat and make myself win. It is this very purpose that I'm talking about, I was the cause that I got a royal flush, it wasn't just a coincidental circumstance.
This is applied to the universe in the same way. It is the fact that the universe is specifically life permitting that we may be able to conclude that there exists divine intervention. Considering the massive improbability of the universe being life permitting by chance, I pressume there is an inteligent creator.
You asked me how I know how the universe will be if the constants are changed, well, it's not what I know. It's what science suggests. Meaning this, imagine a car accelerating from rest, now before accelerating I open the trunk of the car and remove it's engine. Now, logically the car will not accelerate to higher speed since I have removed its engine.
Notice how in this example, I don't have to have witnessed the event happening in order to know what will happen. Meaning that I do not have to a actually wait and see what happens to a car after I have removed its engine. It is scientifically predictable. Physicists universally agree that if the universe's constants were subjected to any change at all, we would not have a life permitting universe.
This is applied to the universe in the same way. It is the fact that the universe is specifically life permitting that we may be able to conclude that there exists divine intervention. Considering the massive improbability of the universe being life permitting by chance, I pressume there is an inteligent creator.
You asked me how I know how the universe will be if the constants are changed, well, it's not what I know. It's what science suggests. Meaning this, imagine a car accelerating from rest, now before accelerating I open the trunk of the car and remove it's engine. Now, logically the car will not accelerate to higher speed since I have removed its engine.
Notice how in this example, I don't have to have witnessed the event happening in order to know what will happen. Meaning that I do not have to a actually wait and see what happens to a car after I have removed its engine. It is scientifically predictable. Physicists universally agree that if the universe's constants were subjected to any change at all, we would not have a life permitting universe.
Okay, but it's also entirely possible to get a royal flush on the first draw without cheating. And that, it seems, is what the universe is.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant on what basis can you claim that the constants CAN be different? How could you possibly know? You've never seen them be anything else than they presently are.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant on what basis can you claim that the constants CAN be different? How could you possibly know? You've never seen them be anything else than they presently are.
I thought I cleared that point up. I don't need to see them differently to assume that they may be differently, this argument makes absolutely no sense. You are saying it is impossible to presuppose an event without seeing all the possible outcomes of this event.
I can predict that Nedved could be bald next time Juve play, I have never seen Nedved bald before.
I want to make two final points about metaphysics. You also asked me on what is my metaphysical theories based on. Here are two sub-arguments to why my metaphysical argument is rationally correct.
1) For something to become an actuality it must have a potentiality. Before time, you suggest that there was no cause or potentiality. Since there is an actuality, the universe, this logically implies that there was a potentiality, a cause, or God.
2) Your statements suggest that the universe does not need a cause since the casuality theory does not apply( I don't agree here, but for argument's sake I will consider it). This also suggests that the universe actually appeared from nothing, my question is this, why is it only the universe that appears out of nothing. Why don't we see footballs or tits or lemon juice appear from nothing, why is it only the universe?
I can predict that Nedved could be bald next time Juve play, I have never seen Nedved bald before.
I want to make two final points about metaphysics. You also asked me on what is my metaphysical theories based on. Here are two sub-arguments to why my metaphysical argument is rationally correct.
1) For something to become an actuality it must have a potentiality. Before time, you suggest that there was no cause or potentiality. Since there is an actuality, the universe, this logically implies that there was a potentiality, a cause, or God.
2) Your statements suggest that the universe does not need a cause since the casuality theory does not apply( I don't agree here, but for argument's sake I will consider it). This also suggests that the universe actually appeared from nothing, my question is this, why is it only the universe that appears out of nothing. Why don't we see footballs or tits or lemon juice appear from nothing, why is it only the universe?
Okay, I can predict that Nedved could fly next time Juve play. I have never seen Nedved fly before.
The conclusion is logical. The question is whether the premise is correct.
Well, I'm not asserting that. I think it's possible there is another theory that explains this. For instance the idea of a universe that starts with a big bang and ends in a black hole, then starts again with a big bang and so on. Apparently this was discredited according to the text you gave me, but like I said I have a book written in 2007 by a physics professor and cosmologist that claims to explain it.
The conclusion is logical. The question is whether the premise is correct.
Well, I'm not asserting that. I think it's possible there is another theory that explains this. For instance the idea of a universe that starts with a big bang and ends in a black hole, then starts again with a big bang and so on. Apparently this was discredited according to the text you gave me, but like I said I have a book written in 2007 by a physics professor and cosmologist that claims to explain it.
On Nedved.
My point is, I don't have to have seen Nedved bald at a previous point in time to be able to make the assertion that Nedved can be bald. I also don't have to have seen the universe with different constants to be able to predict what the universe may be with different constants.
On the premise.
I think that the premise is metaphysically logical. It is also universally accepted. You also cannot use the notion of casuality and then just completely abandon it when you feel it is conflicting with atheism. I think we both know that the premise is scientifically accurate, in fact, science would not even exist without this premise.
On another theory.
It is widely accepted now that the universe had an origin, or a beggining, and will eventually come to an end. Yes, the text I sent you very thoroughly explains why in my opinion. There were countless cases of atheist phycisists who converted to theism after coming to this conclusion.
I can imagine Nedved flying and I can imagine the universe made of soap. But imagining has nothing to do with probability. Probability is not guesswork, it is prediction based on OBSERVATION.
You have no observation of more than one universe. Therefore you know nothing about the probabilities that govern the creation of a universe.
This still is no basis for god. It only says the universe is here, we don't know why or how. And it will end, noone knows how or why. If you absolutely must insist on a god, you have deism. A god who does not interfere with life. And you have no basis to claim that he didn't die right after creating the universe. From that point there is no basis whatsoever to claim a theistic, personal god.
You have no observation of more than one universe. Therefore you know nothing about the probabilities that govern the creation of a universe.
This still is no basis for god. It only says the universe is here, we don't know why or how. And it will end, noone knows how or why. If you absolutely must insist on a god, you have deism. A god who does not interfere with life. And you have no basis to claim that he didn't die right after creating the universe. From that point there is no basis whatsoever to claim a theistic, personal god.
Very well. Now you can see why I believe in a God, you may ask why a personal, benovelent creator, why not a deistic God?
Well, here is why.
Premise 1: Without God there exists no objective Moral Truths.
Premise 2 : There exists objective Moral truths.
Therefore, logically I can conclude that God does exist. Not only that, but since this is a God that cares for humans by implanting Moral Laws that could only benefit us. I conclude that it is rational to believe in a theistic God.
You will probably object to the premise, but I think we know by now that it is true. Also, here is another example to why there does exist an objective Moral truth.
We can all agree that that the holocaust is an evil act of humanity, and is wrong. Now, the reason this is a Moral truth is because it is not a product of society or evolution. The Nazis who were responsible for this actually did not think this was morally wrong at all. This automatically suggests that the Moral truth is not a product of society but is a universal truth, an absolute truth if you will. This means that it does not matter whether you and I think child abuse is right and wrong for example, our opinions are irrelevant since child abuse is immoral.
Well, here is why.
Premise 1: Without God there exists no objective Moral Truths.
Premise 2 : There exists objective Moral truths.
Therefore, logically I can conclude that God does exist. Not only that, but since this is a God that cares for humans by implanting Moral Laws that could only benefit us. I conclude that it is rational to believe in a theistic God.
You will probably object to the premise, but I think we know by now that it is true. Also, here is another example to why there does exist an objective Moral truth.
We can all agree that that the holocaust is an evil act of humanity, and is wrong. Now, the reason this is a Moral truth is because it is not a product of society or evolution. The Nazis who were responsible for this actually did not think this was morally wrong at all. This automatically suggests that the Moral truth is not a product of society but is a universal truth, an absolute truth if you will. This means that it does not matter whether you and I think child abuse is right and wrong for example, our opinions are irrelevant since child abuse is immoral.
Observation is not necassary to use probability.
Let us take the poker example, this time it's texas hold'em. Now, if you just taught me the game but I had never played it nor have I seen it being played, is it impossible for me to give you the probability of being dealt two aces. I haven't observed anything as far as I know, I just understand the rules therefore this is sufficient.
Physicists, I assume, understand these rules in space just as I do the rules of poker. They can predict based on scientific theory what will happen when values of constants are changed. Like I mentioned before, Stephen Hawking, one of the most respected scientists in the world states the consequences of different constants in space.
Let us take the poker example, this time it's texas hold'em. Now, if you just taught me the game but I had never played it nor have I seen it being played, is it impossible for me to give you the probability of being dealt two aces. I haven't observed anything as far as I know, I just understand the rules therefore this is sufficient.
Physicists, I assume, understand these rules in space just as I do the rules of poker. They can predict based on scientific theory what will happen when values of constants are changed. Like I mentioned before, Stephen Hawking, one of the most respected scientists in the world states the consequences of different constants in space.