The Teleological Argument (p4)

[quatona]

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.

I have no idea how this could possibly scientifically verified or falsified. Do you?
Plus: Even if there could have been a universe with different conditions, this doesn´t mean that this universe could have been different.

However, many scientists believe

Actually, I don´t care much what scientists believe in their spare time.

Well, this argument is an "inference to the best explanation".

So you are peddling back? You presented the argument as a deduction.

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.

And the odds of designing a universe with life in it are broader are higher than creating one?

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.

The existence of this universe is a fact.

 

[quatona]

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!

Good point!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're still not understanding the argument.

No, I understand the argument quite well. You ignored the majority of my post again. To reiterate, the claim that the universe is "extremely well suited" for life is in need of further justification. What criteria did you use to determine this? In your previous post, you made an analogy to a room "extremely well suited" for a 70" flat screen TV. But as I pointed out, this analogy just doesn't work.

Ok, so I'll repeat also.
My argument is an "inference to the best explanation."

Physical Necessity:
Not only does one have to show that a universe with slightly different values for the constants is impossible, but Hawking laments that even the best theory on the scene doesn't support it:
"Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe..."
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."

Chance:
Hawking lists chance as an option not preferred:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."

Design:
So I offer this argument as an "inference to the best explanation", which I believe in this case is design.

It bears repeating, for the third time: If paucity of evidence is a problem for those two options, it is just as much a problem (or even more so) for the third option (design). Where is the evidence for design?

The best explanation should be one that is simple, has explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so on.

You haven't shown that design is the best explanation according to these criteria. You haven't even shown that it is preferable to the other two options.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you are trying to say this;

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

...then you are correct!

He's not. Apparently his argument has nothing to do with God, or so he claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

what objection are you referring to?

The one you sidestepped in post 105

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If the majority scientific view is that a physical model uniquely predicts the universe, that would imply physical necessity, not design so P3 is incorrect.

But I'm sure you're just quote-mining here. Let's see the paragraphs before and after this quote.

 

[bhsmte]

He's not. Apparently his argument has nothing to do with God, or so he claims.

Reminds me of the ID folks, who say claiming intelligent design, has nothing to do with God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Well, yes and no; it depends what we mean by 'chance' in this context. If we assume the multiverse hypothesis, then it's chance in a statistical sense, rather than in a 'lucky' sense.

When Hawking said our universe is 'picked out' by the Anthropic Principle, he was simply saying that in a multiverse, living creatures will find themselves in universes that can support life. There's no chance in that, it's logically inevitable. Assuming the multiverse and living creatures, then at least one universe can support life - and given that some of the supposedly fine-tuned parameters appear to be less critical than had been thought (e.g. see Could life as we know it have developed if fundamental physics constants were different?), there are likely to be other universes with different tuning that can support life as we know it, let alone other forms of life.

It's interesting that the Fine Tuning argument, recruited in support of design arguments, is based on the Standard Model of physics, which is equally firmly rejected when it fails to support, or contradicts, so many other facets of those theistic views that involve the physical world...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Together with cherry-picking, taking statements out of context, interpreting to suit an agenda, playing with semantics... all familiar tropes...

 

[Joshua260]

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

Right! Hawking accepts p1 and p2, but he rules out design a priori, and thus chooses to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe is due top chance. However, the odds of the existence of a life-permitting universe, as opposed to the likelihood of a life-prohibiting universe , is extremely small (all of this Hawking concedes), so he resorts to believing in the existence of multiple universe, for which there is not one iota of evidence.

Where did I say it was in this particular OP?

Then your comment was off-topic.

 

[Joshua260]

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?

I don't see why I should disagree with Hawking regarding scientific matters, but first he proclaims that philosophy dead, and then begins to philosophize about the nature of reality. Hawking is not a philosopher, Craig is.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260: So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.

... "design" is not considered a real explanation.

That's a truth claim and you're obligated to back that up.

 

[Joshua260]

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Together with cherry-picking, taking statements out of context, interpreting to suit an agenda, playing with semantics... all familiar tropes...

That's just a plain false accusation and I do not appreciate that. I have represented Hawking fairly. He supports p1 and p2 in my argument. He does not believe that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity and he does not believe in God. So, even though he understands that the odds of the one universe being a life-permitting universe is extremely low compared to the odds of this being a life-prohibiting universe, he chooses to believe that the fine-tuning is due to chance, and thus chooses to believe in a multi-universe. This choice raises the odds for the chance option, but there is not one iota of evidence to show that there really are more than one universe.

 

[Davian]

Right! Hawking accepts p1 and p2, but he rules out design a priori, and thus chooses to believe that the fine-tuning of the universe <snip>

What fine-tuning? Where was this established?

 

[Joshua260]

The one you sidestepped in post 105

Ok, so to review, you set up the requirement that I provide some testable model to show that the fine-tuning of the model and I responded:
"Why do I need to prove what scientists already agree to?"

So here's my clarification:

You may be misunderstanding the TA. It is not that scientists are wondering what the universe would have looked like with different laws. The question is what would the universe look like if we had the same laws but the constants were slightly altered.

Using the same laws, scientists can plug in different values for various constants and can predict what would happen, as in the following example:

"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."http://sqentropy.ax.lt/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/g.html

If you have an issue with Hawking's prediction, take it up with him.

 

[Joshua260]

What fine-tuning? Where was this established?

I've quoted this several times.

"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."http://sqentropy.ax.lt/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/g.html

Others on this thread have acknowledged this and moved onto p3, so I'm going to restrict my time to those discussions from now on. I can't keep retreading over ground that has been covered numerous times and has been confirmed by non-believers themselves. There's so many responders, that I've got to move on.

 

[Joshua260]

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

My argument is an inference to the best explanation. I believe that the best explanation is for design because physical necessity is pretty much out, chance is very unlikely, and design has the best explanatory power, explanatory scope, simplicity, comprehensiveness, and so on. However, I would not presume to say that the argument proves to you the existence of God.

 

[The Cadet]

Joshua260: So even though Hawking recognizes the low probability of a life-permitting universe, he prefers that explanation over design.


That's a truth claim and you're obligated to back that up.

Okay, my mistake.

Is this design natural or non-natural (or, rather "supernatural")?

Also, on a slight tangent, what possible explanatory power does design have?

 

[Joshua260]

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.

I think this is a great question. I don't claim to have a degree in philosophy, but I don't see how this argument would rule out a hybrid as you suggest. Could a designer roll the dice and say C'est la vie? It seems so, but I don't think the chance option favors a life-prohibiting universe. See my next answer.

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.

I disagree here. I think it is more likely that, if there was a designer, that the purpose was to create a universe suitable for life. I see where you're going, and it would seem more reasonable if the odds were something like 50/50 for a life-permitting universe. However, it is being estimated that the odds for a life-permitting universe is 1 in 10 followed by 500 zeroes, so even if there was some chance thrown in there, maybe it was to allow options that were amongst a select few versions of life-permitting universes. But if you're talking about presuming (from the argument) that the universe was purposefully designed for human life, I'd have to agree there that we shouldn't presume as much.

 

[Joshua260]

Okay, my mistake.

Is this design natural or non-natural (or, rather "supernatural")?

I don't want to step out of my bounds here in regards to this argument. I think we would have to shift to the KCA in order to speculate about the nature of the designer. The KCA would suggest that the designer was not contingent on the existence of this universe, and therefore not of this universe.

Also, on a slight tangent, what possible explanatory power does design have?

Well, it is estimated that the odds of a universe being life-permitting is 1 in 10 followed by 500 zeros. So, if it was deigned, that would help explain why such an unlikely scenario was realized. Odds are we should be dead...or more accurately, non-existent.