The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Archaeopteryx]

You must be referring to the quote below:

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

I was not speaking to Crick's view on evolution, but the fact that he acknowledges (in a back-handed manner) that the universe looks designed.

Then you are ignoring what Crick is actually saying. First, Crick is talking about biology. Second, he notes that species evolved rather than having been designed. The salient point to draw from this is that the appearance of design can be misleading.

I'm simply not going off-topic. Sorry.

You already have by injecting biology into the discussion. If this was a strategic move then it was a poor one because it broaches the topic of evolution, which you are clearly not prepared to discuss. I can guess at why: it would undermine your argument entirely to admit that apparent design can be misleading.

I have seen the whole interview and believe the edited version portrays his views accurately. He posited the idea that aliens (who must have evolved themselves he says) could have designed life and planted it on this planet. Feel free to cite specific quotes from it.

No, he admits that he doesn't know how life came about. Stein continued pressing him for another answer because he was not satisfied with "I don't know." In any case, I thought that this was off-topic? And yet you brought it up!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your suggestion seems pointless to me. If God meant to create creatures that would breath air, why wouldn't he create an environment that included air?

You are trying to draw inferences based on the dubious proposition that our universe is "extremely well suited" for life. I say that it is dubious because you haven't established the criteria on which this judgment is based. In any case, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant: a god could create and sustain life in any universe, regardless of how well suited it is for life.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua, since you are so determined to appeal to scientific consensus: are you saying that the "design"-option is scientific consensus?
And if so, could you tell us who or what designed the universe, according to scientific consensus?

I'm trying not to assume anything beyond the argument of the OP. As far as I know, there is a scientific consensus that the universe is fine-tuned for life. However, scientists are divided as to the cause.
Based on...
1. physical necessity seems very unlikely
2. the odds are extremely against the realization of a life-permitting universe
3. design would explain why, in spite of #2, the universe was in fact realized

...I conclude that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

Now if someone were task me for evidence for the existence of a designer, I would then turn to other philosophical arguments and several Christian evidences.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm trying not to assume anything beyond the argument of the OP. As far as I know, there is a scientific consensus that the universe is fine-tuned for life. However, scientists are divided as to the cause.
Based on...
1. physical necessity seems very unlikely
2. the odds are extremely against the realization of a life-permitting universe
3. design would explain why, in spite of #2, the universe was in fact realized

...I conclude that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

If paucity of evidence is a problem for physical necessity and chance, then it is just as much a problem (or even more so) for design. You cannot demand that others produce evidence to support those two options while assuming that you are exempt from that obligation.

Now if someone were task me for evidence for the existence of a designer, I would then turn to other philosophical arguments and several Christian evidences.

Such as?

 

[quatona]

I'm trying not to assume anything beyond the argument of the OP. As far as I know, there is a scientific consensus that the universe is fine-tuned for life. However, scientists are divided as to the cause.

...so scientific consensus doesn´t follow your supposedly irrefutable argument leading towards the conclusions "design" and "designer".

Based on...
1. physical necessity seems very unlikely
2. the odds are extremely against the realization of a life-permitting universe
3. design would explain why, in spite of #2, the universe was in fact realized

How exactly would it explain this?
And why would one specific low probability result require an explanation any more than any other of the countless low probability results, in the first place?

...I conclude that design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

Except that it doesn´t explain anything.
All your above reasoning does is: Scrutinize two of three options, and then accept the third without putting it to the same scrutinity.

 

[Joshua260]

Then you are ignoring what Crick is actually saying. First, Crick is talking about biology. Second, he notes that species evolved rather than having been designed. The salient point to draw from this is that the appearance of design can be misleading.

Sure he's talking about biology, and during his discussion he warns that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed". Therefore, he is back-handedly admitting that life looks designed. That is the "takeaway" that I meant to draw from the quote.

No, he admits that he doesn't know how life came about. Stein continued pressing him for another answer because he was not satisfied with "I don't know." In any case, I thought that this was off-topic? And yet you brought it up!

The point is that Dawkins conceded that there is a possibility that intelligent design could be the reason why life appears to be designed. That is on-topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure he's talking about biology, and during his discussion he warns that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed". Therefore, he is back-handedly admitting that life looks designed. That is the "takeaway" that I meant to draw from the quote.

Yes, it "looks designed," but isn't - that's the salient point and it undermines your argument.

The point is that Dawkins conceded that there is a possibility that intelligent design could be the reason why life appears to be designed. That is on-topic.

No, Dawkins' answer was that he doesn't know how life came about. Now, for some reason, it's on-topic? Yet when I asked you about evolution it is suddenly off-topic? You seem to be cherrypicking what stays on- and off-topic as it suits you. Since we have established that biology is on-topic (thank-you for conceding that point), my question remains relevant: do you believe that species have evolved?

 

[Joshua260]

You are trying to draw inferences based on the dubious proposition that our universe is "extremely well suited" for life. I say that it is dubious because you haven't established the criteria on which this judgment is based.

OYE! Dude! Scientists say that!! I'm simply agreeing with them.

In any case, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant: a god could create and sustain life in any universe, regardless of how well suited it is for life.

But why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OYE! Dude! Scientists say that!! I'm simply agreeing with them.

Do you agree with them regarding the age of the universe and evolution? If not, then why is your agreement selective?

But why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?

What do angels breathe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?

It's worthwhile bearing in mind that the vast majority of the universe does not contain breathable air. So this question could be rephrased to say: why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe where only a tiny minuscule portion of it contains the air they need to breathe?

 

[Joshua260]

Yes, it "looks designed," but isn't - that's the salient point and it undermines your argument.

So you're saying that scientists have now proved that life came from non-life solely due to natural causes? Hardly.

No, Dawkins' answer was that he doesn't know how life came about.

But he conceded that intelligent design could have been the reason for life on this planet.
Go ahead. You keep saying that he doesn't know, and I'll keep pointing out that he admits the possibility of ID.

Now, for some reason, it's on-topic? Yet when I asked you about evolution it is suddenly off-topic? You seem to be cherrypicking what stays on- and off-topic as it suits you. Since we have established that biology is on-topic (thank-you for conceding that point), my question remains relevant: do you believe that species have evolved?

Here is a copy of the argument from the OP. Please point out where evolution is discussed.
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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OYE! Dude! Scientists say that!! I'm simply agreeing with them.

What about this, from the Nature article you cited earlier:

But things have changed in the past few years, says astronomer Bernard Carr of Queen Mary, University of London, UK. String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation. If their ideas stand up, it would mean the constants of nature are meaningless. “In the past, many people were almost violently opposed to that idea because it wasn’t seen as proper science,” Carr says. “But there’s been a change of attitude.”

Do you agree with them still?

 

[Joshua260]

It's worthwhile bearing in mind that the vast majority of the universe does not contain breathable air. So this question could be rephrased to say: why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe where only a tiny minuscule portion of it contains the air they need to breathe?

"It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you're saying that scientists have now proved that life came from non-life solely due to natural causes? Hardly.

No, that's not what I'm saying. We are talking about evolution and the appearance of design, not the origin of life. The lesson to draw from that excerpt is that apparent design can be misleading.

But he conceded that intelligent design could have been the reason for life on this planet.
Go ahead. You keep saying that he doesn't know, and I'll keep pointing out that he admits the possibility of ID.

So what if he does? It in no way furthers your argument because the bottom line is that Dawkins concedes that he doesn't know how life came to be. He didn't posit ID as a preferred hypothesis or even a credible one. You're grasping for straws here.

Here is a copy of the argument from the OP. Please point out where evolution is discussed.
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.

You brought evolution up! I already showed you that. If you didn't think it was on-topic, then why did you bring it up?

 

[Moral Orel]

So you're saying that scientists have now proved that life came from non-life solely due to natural causes? Hardly.

Abiogenesis isn't evolution. It also doesn't argue about design, it argues about power. A molecule gaining life doesn't require it to be designed in some special way, it just requires the power to eat and reproduce. You've been telling Arche not to bring evolution into the argument, don't go dragging abiogenesis in now, that once again, is not evolution.

Go ahead. You keep saying that he doesn't know, and I'll keep pointing out that he admits the possibility of ID.

It's possible that Elvis designed everything as well. You can acknowledge that something is possible without stating you believe it is likely. You can also state that you don't know the answer to a question while acknowledging that some theories are of course possible.

 

[Joshua260]

Do you agree with them regarding the age of the universe and evolution? If not, then why is your agreement selective?

What do angels breathe?

I'm not straying off-topic. Start your own thread.

 

[Joshua260]

You brought evolution up! I already showed you that. If you didn't it was on-topic, then why did you bring it up?

I'm not replying to this any further. I brought up the fact that a biologist recognizes that life looks designed. That was the point.

 

[Joshua260]

Abiogenesis isn't evolution. It also doesn't argue about design, it argues about power. A molecule gaining life doesn't require it to be designed in some special way, it just requires the power to eat and reproduce. You've been telling Arche not to bring evolution into the argument, don't go dragging abiogenesis in now, that once again, is not evolution.


It's possible that Elvis designed everything as well. You can acknowledge that something is possible without stating you believe it is likely. You can also state that you don't know the answer to a question while acknowledging that some theories are of course possible.

I never brought up evolution. I merely pointed out that a biologist recognizes that life looks designed. Arch is trying to bring in evolution into the discussion, but that is not the topic of the thread and I will not comply with his attempts to deflect from the topic.

 

[Moral Orel]

"It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

See, now this is why you shouldn't even include the phrase "for life" in the argument. You keep citing statistics that show nothing else would be possible either, so why is life special in the argument? Show some stats that say specifically life conditions couldn't exist, and then you can include the phrase "for life" in the argument. Until then, the argument is only "fine tuned for the universe to exist".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not replying to this any further. I brought up the fact that a biologist recognizes that life looks designed. That was the point.

Then you've misconstrued his point. He noted that it "looks designed," but isn't - it evolved. The lesson from this is that the appearance of design can be misleading. In what way does that support your argument?