The Teleological Argument (p4)

[KCfromNC]

Why do I need to prove what scientists already agree to?

You don't have to provide any backing for your random claims - if you don't want to be taken seriously, that is.

If you do, though, now's the time to come up with an actual answer to my objection rather than pretending you already answered it when you obviously haven't.

 

[KCfromNC]

Scientists agree that slight variations in various constants would make this a life-prohibiting universe. I've already provided you citations for this.

But my objection wasn't to that, but to the guess that it was possible for the constants to be different in the first place. So you're pretending you've presented a scientific answer to a question I didn't ask. Try again.

 

[KCfromNC]

P1 is more plausibly true than not

So the conclusion of this argument is that maybe there was a designer, maybe there wasn't.

 

[bhsmte]

So the conclusion of this argument is that maybe there was a designer, maybe there wasn't.

Kinda back to square one.

 

[KCfromNC]

I need clarification concerning premise 2:
The fact that Mr. A won the lottery last week - is that due to chance or physical necessity or design?

I'm actually curious why design is automatically separated from physical processes? Seems like the other categories should be physical contingency, non-physical necessity and non-physical contingency. Design could be the result of any number of these - even chance, if you're looking at the end result as in "the hole in the ground looks like it was designed for the puddle".

 

[KCfromNC]

However, many scientists believe that there is an acceptable range of possible settings for these constants in possible alternative universes

So there's no scientific consensus on this, but rather just various different opinions? Weird you'd claim there was earlier when I asked about this.

Anyway, this means that the remaining scientists disagree with P3. So why are you going against the beliefs of those scientists to further your argument? Doesn't it matter to you what actual scientists believe about this problem, or do their opinions only count when they agree with your attempts to rationalize a reason for believing in your god?

 

[KCfromNC]

Kinda back to square one.

If it is a big enough smokescreen to get believers to ignore the nagging doubts and buy a few more books, it is a success.

 

[quatona]

I'm actually curious why design is automatically separated from physical processes? Seems like the other categories should be physical contingency, non-physical necessity and non-physical contingency. Design could be the result of any number of these - even chance, if you're looking at the end result as in "the hole in the ground looks like it was designed for the puddle".

Yes.
I´m actually curious how the three criteria became a trichotomy. In my understanding they aren´t even in the same category, they aren´t mutually exclusive and - seeing how randomly they appear to be chosen - they aren´t complete.

 

[Joshua260]

I am asking the same of you.

I did not put words in his mouth, you did. You interpreted the following:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
as Hawking saying "we got lucky".

I'm saying that what he said was:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.""


Joshua260: He is saying that if that particular constant had varied just a bit, the universe would not exist.

What has that to do with tuning? The weak anthropic principle is a tautology.

This demonstrates that you do not understand what is being communicated in p1. Fine-tuning in p1 means that if slight variations had occurred in certain constants (see (a) in Hawking's statement), this would be a life-prohibiting universe (see (b) in Hawking's statement).
Hawking:
"[If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million = (a)], [the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.= (b)]"

Hawking's statement above matches the definition of fine-tuning as used in p1.

Joshua260:Who's talking about God?

You, by all appearances.

If so, please quote the specific passage in my OP.

 

[Joshua260]

So... how do cosmologists (Hawking in particular, because you keep citing him) feel about the universe being "designed"? You examine the first two explanations, and discover that scientists don't seem to like either very much. Okay. But when we're talking about "best" (or, as I'd refer to call it in this case, "least bad"), we need to examine all of the options. After all, if our options are A, B, and C, and A has a probability of 1:10^20 and B has a probability of 1:10^30, we do not get to conclude that C is the most likely option without examining it. C could have a probabilty of 1:10^4, or a probability of 1:10^40*.

And the fact of the matter is that the option you want to offer as the "best explanation" is not even considered an explanation. It's not considered a valid explanation for why the universe is the way it is, any more than it is considered a valid explanation for why we see such diversity of life on the planet. It might technically be possible. It's also unscientific, unfalsifiable, and fundamentally useless. I mean, Hawking, the scientist you are basing most of your citations on, quite obviously doesn't think that design is the most reasonable answer - he's an atheist. He wrote an entire book attacking this argument. In fact, reading an excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal, it seems that he in fact endorses the "chance" option, and the multi-universe hypothesis:


Again, we run into exactly the same problem as the cosmological argument. You appeal heavily to very complex theoretical physics that basically require a post-grad course just to understand the mathematics involved, but the scientists just keep not following through to your conclusion for some reason. If your argument for the existence of god depends on cosmology and something like 80% of cosmologists are atheists, you've got a honkin' big problem.



...Yes, and this is why "supernatural design" belongs in a bin. It has no explanatory power or scope, its plausibility is incalculable, and it is not falsifiable. It, like all supernatural explanations, makes no testable predictions and as a result is completely worthless.

*If they were a mutually exclusive, complete set of options, then yes, P(C) would necessarily be P(U) - P(A) - P(B), but this is part of why I find the trichotomy so problematic here. Neither of the two naturalistic options are universally accepted, and the supernaturalistic one is by definition useless.

Thanks for confirming that Hawking agrees that the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity. And we all know he rules out design a priori. From this article, we can gather that Hawking agrees with p1 and p2. It is p3 (as I said earlier) that is the controversial premise of the argument. So Hawking believes that the fine-tuning is due to chance. I'm curious as to why you left out the last paragraph:
"Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.

 

[Joshua260]

You don't have to provide any backing for your random claims - if you don't want to be taken seriously, that is.

If you do, though, now's the time to come up with an actual answer to my objection rather than pretending you already answered it when you obviously haven't.

what objection are you referring to?

 

[Joshua260]

So there's no scientific consensus on this, but rather just various different opinions? Weird you'd claim there was earlier when I asked about this.

Consensus : "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

"Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe..." If this is being discussed, it is because they believe the universe if fine-tuned.
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

Anyway, this means that the remaining scientists disagree with P3. So why are you going against the beliefs of those scientists to further your argument? Doesn't it matter to you what actual scientists believe about this problem, or do their opinions only count when they agree with your attempts to rationalize a reason for believing in your god?

Even Hawking, though he chooses to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe was by chance, recognizes that it is a low probability.
"Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244
Hawking is an atheist. He cannot prove that the fine-tuning is due to either chance or design. Yet even while admitting the low probability, he chooses to believe it's by chance.

 

[Joshua260]

Yes.
I´m actually curious how the three criteria became a trichotomy. In my understanding they aren´t even in the same category, they aren´t mutually exclusive and - seeing how randomly they appear to be chosen - they aren´t complete.

See post #132. Hawking himself confirms the trichotomy.

 

[Moral Orel]

"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
as Hawking saying "we got lucky".

You see, this is why "fine tuning" is misleading. It implies that there are a lot of different constants that could be changed by just a bit to make the universe not exist, when in actuality only one has that much importance: the rate of expansion. So the premise should be "if the rate of expansion wasn't what it was...".

As to the conditions necessary for life, I believe evolution answers the idea very well that life is going to capitalize on its surroundings. We have eyes that can see a very narrow spectrum of light, because that is the spectrum our Sun gives off. Water and oxygen are important because we have them. There are some things that seem necessary, like the way carbon molecules can connect to so many other types of molecules. But so can silicon. And liquid is important as a type of substance to evolve in, since we can't move around in solid rock, or stay together in a gas. But I believe the "necessary conditions for life" are a lot more vague than we think.

We aren't even sure if there's life on Mars, so we don't have a good idea of whether there is some form of life in the solar system next to us. We may have a good idea that it isn't anything like ours, but that's very different.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.

Low probability? That isn't really how probability works.

If there are a thousand different configurations that the universe can have, and only one permits and has life, but all the configurations exist, then what is the probability that life exists?

 

[Davian]

I did not put words in his mouth, you did. You interpreted the following:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."
as Hawking saying "we got lucky".

I'm saying that what he said was:
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.""


Joshua260: He is saying that if that particular constant had varied just a bit, the universe would not exist.

I do wonder if you read any of this stuff in context.

"The book concludes with the statement that only some universes of the multiple universes (or multiverse) support life forms. We, of course, are located in one of those universes. The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain" link

This demonstrates that you do not understand what is being communicated in p1. Fine-tuning in p1 means that if slight variations had occurred in certain constants (see (a) in Hawking's statement), this would be a life-prohibiting universe (see (b) in Hawking's statement).
Hawking:
"[If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million = (a)], [the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.= (b)]"

Hawking's statement above matches the definition of fine-tuning as used in p1.

Joshua260:Who's talking about God?

If so, please quote the specific passage in my OP.

Where did I say it was in this particular OP?

 

[Davian]

So how 'bout premise 3? How's that one gonna work?

Joshua is consistently appealing to Hawking; Hawking thinks that the laws of nature we observe are due to chance.

"The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance, Hawking and Mlodinow explain" link

So I expect that Joshua will conclude it was by design.

 

[The Cadet]

So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.

So does everyone else, because "design" is not considered a real explanation.

 

[Winepress777]

I'd like to discuss and explore the Teleological Argument, so I offer the following version:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

If you are trying to say this;

(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

...then you are correct!

 

[Arythmael]

No, that's not what it means. Physical necessity (in regard to this argument ) simply means that the physical constants could not have been set to any other level. In other words, it would be impossible that there could have been a universe with slightly different settings for the constants in question. However, many scientists believe that there is an acceptable range of possible settings for these constants in possible alternative universes (so they reject that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity), but then the question is how many of them would support life (chance)? That is the subject of Hawking's comment here:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

I understand your definition of "physical necessity" better now, but you failed to show me how this concept is not orthogonal to the notions of chance and design. The phrase "due to physical necessity" treats this concept of their being a one-to-one mapping of those physical constants to a resultant universe containing life ("physical necessity") as something having properties of causation (as we think of design and chance having, although perhaps to opposite extremes). Even if there is only one recipe for making the perfect chocolate cake, that tells you nothing about how one might have actually come into being. Please explain to me how this option can stand alone even as a concept of causation to begin with such that it does not require incorporating one of the other two (chance and/or design) to make sense out of it.

Well, this argument is an "inference to the best explanation". So this argument doesn't rule out chance totally, but it can be shown that the odds of creating a life-permitting universe is extremely slim. Although there is a range of possible settings for many constants to support the existence of a universe (live or dead), the range required for life is much more narrow and when you begin to consider all of the constants that would have to be set just right for life, it only adds to the unlikelihood that a life-permitting universe would exist. Note that Hawking in the quote above also indicates that he recognizes that same unlikelihood in the phrase "our universe is picked out".

This was not meant to be a proof-breaking point on my part, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Your argument said that there was one of three possible options, and went on to imply that it could not be both chance and design (which, on the face of it seems natural to assume). But if you acknowledge even the possibility of a universe whose creation was driven by chance, then you must allow the possibility of a creator whose designs are driven by chance (arbitrary or meaningless goal). That makes chance and design not mutually exclusive, unless you also require design to have a purpose (no longer arbitrary) -- in which case you must also prove that that purpose exists in order to prove it was design!

PS: Be careful before you claim that "Whoever is responsible for the design of life must have had life itself as the goal (or purpose)." That would be much to presumptuous, and many other options and arguments could brought to bear against it.

 

[quatona]

See post #132. Hawking himself confirms the trichotomy.

Is Hawking God now, or something?
And how come that you disagree with him even though you appeal to him as if he were an unquestionable authority on everything?