What does this statement mean-

It makes no sense to suppose that God knows, logically prior to creation, that if the universe were to begin with a singularity, this singularity would emit a life-producing configuration of particles, since the supposition that this counterfactual is true logically prior to creation is inconsistent with the essential semantic properties of counterfactuals

It means nothing to me.

First, it uses screwy tense (maybe based upon “there was no ‘then’ prior to the existence of time-space”?) and unnecessary commas that divide thoughts where they shouldn’t be divided.

Second, counterfactuals are conditional statements in which the “if” is about something that’s not true, and the “then” is the way things would be as opposed to how they actually are ... all according to the speaker/writer, of course. “If Martin Luther King hadn’t been born, the Civil Rights Movement wouldn’t have happened for another decade.” (They’re typically weak, presumption-laden arguments, but not inherently.)

Is the author criticizing a bad counterfactual argument—that God created the universe using the Big Bang knowing it would produce life, or even specifically us, perhaps?

Dunno ... need more context regarding the counterfactual in question. The criticism doesn’t fully cover it.

Either that or the author is just confused and it doesn’t make sense.

‘Is the author criticizing a bad counterfactual argument—that God created the universe using the Big Bang knowing it would produce life, or even specifically us, perhaps? ‘

Yes, Byron, this is the case. Thanks for your thoughts on this, it is a little clearer now.

Anything that hard to understand doesn’t interest me.

Everything up to the first comma seem correct.

Avogadro’s number - 15 January 2012 07:37 AM

What does this statement mean-

It makes no sense to suppose that God knows, logically prior to creation, that if the universe were to begin with a singularity, this singularity would emit a life-producing configuration of particles, since the supposition that this counterfactual is true logically prior to creation is inconsistent with the essential semantic properties of counterfactuals

The writer assumes, at least for the sake of argument, the legitimacy of the idea of God, though I can’t tell what the writer’s actual assumptions are about the existence of God. The writer seems to be proposing the notion that God could not have known that any universe He might create would eventually result in living creatures. It makes intuitive sense but as Byron says, the punctuation is careless. Here’s how the last few clauses could have been punctuated:

. . . , since the supposition that this counterfactual is true logically—prior to creation—is inconsistent with the essential semantic properties of counterfactuals[.]

It seems to be grammatically and semantically nonsensical. On the one hand, it sounds like an attempt to philosophically discredit Intelligent Design, ie, God couldn’t possibly have foreseen life via the deployment of this method, he would have had to come back for a second bite of the apple, which ends up supporting it because God did (as written).

Answerer - 16 January 2012 10:23 AM

It seems to be grammatically and semantically nonsensical. On the one hand, it sounds like an attempt to philosophically discredit Intelligent Design, ie, God couldn’t possibly have foreseen life via the deployment of this method, he would have had to come back for a second bite of the apple, which ends up supporting it because God did (as written).

Rather, a refutation of an argument for intelligent design based upon a counterfactual statement.