The Teleological Argument (p4)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
You misunderstood Hawking. If you read all I have posted, he is actually favors the chance option. And btw, the truth or falsity of p3 is not contingent on a poll. Opinions don't change the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Reminds me of the ID folks, who say claiming intelligent design, has nothing to do with God.
I can't believe you and Archaeopteryx would actually blame me for being intellectually honest. Would you prefer I offer circular logic for your consideration?
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I understand the argument quite well.
Your comments do not bear that out.

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?
I've answered this enough. Maybe I answered in a manner not to your liking. ;)

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.
Yes, I have. Hawking agrees that physical necessity is not preferable (I've shown this numerous times). He rules out design a priori and is left with choosing to believe in chance as the best explanation. See post 180 for why I believe design is the best explanation (in regards to the TA only).
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
There is still nothing about tuning in that quote.
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...
"It would appear that a falling man will grasp at a blade of grass." - unknown
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

And that is why science rejects it.

I'm honestly not sure how something inside the universe could fine-tune the universe's parameters; either way, the context of the arguments makes it pretty clear that the god it is arguing for is a supernatural being. And in science, the supernatural is not a valid answer, for a variety of well-established and clear reasons. Now, if you want to exit the realm of science, that's fine, but keep in mind that you're also abandoning the justification you have for rejecting options 1 and 2.

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.

Wow, what brilliantly useful explanatory power. :) That explains so much about the universe that every other option wouldn't have.

Actually, supernatural design could create a universe which was not life-permitting, and then proceed to fill it with life anyways. Disembodied spiritual entities that can communicate with each other across boundless space without the need for things like bodies or food or sustenance. Great cosmic beings that hold together not with things like gravity and electromagnetism but the hand of a loving deity. In this universe, there could be no other explanation but design. But the fact that we can invoke design to explain both a universe fine-tuned for life and a universe not fine-tuned but which contains life nonetheless is a perfect example of why supernatural explanations hold no merit in science. They make no testable predictions, have no predictive power, and are unfalsifiable. They are, as a result, completely useless.

And of course, "if the universe were different we wouldn't be here" is a meaningless argument. Yeah, weak anthropic principle says hi. In any given universe where we would not exist, we would not be there to wax philosophical about how unlikely it is that we were there!

Let's be honest here. Given these three options for the universal constants - physical necessity, chance, and "god did it" - what do you think most cosmologists accept? Which do you think Hawking accepts? Do you think there is one which most of them reject, and if so, which one?

I mean, to be blunt, I at least have some respect for the people who cite their own scientists accurately, even if those scientists are crap. Citing a thousand crap articles by Behe is at least more intellectually honest than twisting Hawking's words to have him take on a position he quite obviously does not take on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
so he resorts to believing in the existence of multiple universe, for which there is not one iota of evidence.
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.
Well there is one iota of evidence. We have seen a universe pop up from a tiny point at least once. That gives us some reason to think it can happen more than once. We can believe that something can happen a bunch of times if we believe it happened at least once. We've never seen a deity craft something out of nothing, so there is no reason to believe it happens if we have never seen it happen even once. To say that we have seen a deity craft something from nothing moves back to the KCA and not this argument. The only fact is that a bunch of stuff started small and spread out.

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.
Explanatory power and scope aren't really good qualifiers though. What about all the other things that science has found reason for outside of religion like disease? If we simply accept disease had been designed, we would never have learned how to treat it. But simply claiming a deity would explain disease very well. Ockham's razor says not to go with whatever has the most explanatory power and scope, but to go with the least amount you actually need. Do we need to argue Ockham's razor?

But the multiverse has all of these qualifiers anyways doesn't it? What's more simple than, "if it happened once, it probably happened a lot of times". But a deity is not simple. Then you have to ask "why" that deity did what he did, whereas you can claim big bangs are a natural occurrence.

And since it can happen an infinite number of times, with an infinite amount of different possibilities it is definitely comprehensive.
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
58
✟8,011.00
Faith
Baptist
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.

I'd like to hold off on this "hybrid option" topic for a moment in order to stay focused on the question of causation, if you don't mind. I think that question is much more relevant.

If I understand correctly the basic question of the teleological argument is how do we explain the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe for the support of life. Yes? And that first premise about fine-tuning is claiming that extremely few or perhaps no other set of constants and their values could possibly lead to a universe with life. So this is the thing we are saying can be observed. And now we set off to find a possible cause for this.

What's bothering me is that only two of the options offer possible answers concerning causation: (1) chance, which means there was no cause, or (2) design, which means that a conscious entity had a goal in mind.

But as you defined physical necessity, that concept is only restating one of the acceptable observations of the first premise: that no other set of constants and their values could possibly lead to a universe with life. I reiterate that 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. How many life-filled universes might exist using different constants only changes the probably when you role that dice -- if we're talking about chance. If there is only one (physical necessity), the chance is smaller. If there are a few thousand the chance is larger. But physical necessity is not an alternative option to chance. It is merely an explanation of how many chance events were required.

Can you respond to this point, please?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Right! Hawking accepts p1
I still don't see where.
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.
Is that not the same evidence we have for gods - I mean, personal-universe-designer-creator-thingys?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That's just a plain false accusation and I do not appreciate that.
I'm sorry; That's just the way your argument came across - I was struck with the similarity to the way religious scriptures are used by some people arguing for their particular sect or schism.

...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.
Assuming the multiverse, there may be vastly more universes that can't support life than can, but in those that can support life, life is not unexpected - and as living creatures, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in such a universe - the chance is 100% (Anthropic Principle).

The multiverse is a prediction of certain applications of the Standard Model of physics - the same model that generates the parameters and constants on which the fine tuning argument depends. We know the model is good within tested limits, but we know it's incomplete, and neither the fine tuning nor the multiverse hypotheses is directly testable (which makes them more speculation than hypothesis). This is why it's sometimes called the appearance of fine tuning; as has been said, it's the model that's fine tuned to fit our observations.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I don't see why I should disagree with Hawking regarding scientific matters
Could you please line out the scientific methodology and process by which Hawking arrived at said "scientific" conclusion? Just so we can be sure it is a scientific finding and not a mere "belief" (as you yourself interestingly called it) of his?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
If you are trying to say this;

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

...then you are correct! :)
Well there is one iota of evidence. We have seen a universe pop up from a tiny point at least once.
...
Does that evidence show that the Earth formed first, then the Sun, then the cosmos around it?
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And that is why science rejects it.
Correction: People reject the supernatural. Science itself is neutral on the subject.

Wow, what brilliantly useful explanatory power. :) That explains so much about the universe that every other option wouldn't have.
That was a silly reply. Did you think that either option would answer every thing about the universe?

Actually, supernatural design could create a universe which was not life-permitting, and then proceed to fill it with life anyways. Disembodied spiritual entities that can communicate with each other across boundless space without the need for things like bodies or food or sustenance. Great cosmic beings that hold together not with things like gravity and electromagnetism but the hand of a loving deity. In this universe, there could be no other explanation but design. But the fact that we can invoke design to explain both a universe fine-tuned for life and a universe not fine-tuned but which contains life nonetheless is a perfect example of why supernatural explanations hold no merit in science. They make no testable predictions, have no predictive power, and are unfalsifiable. They are, as a result, completely useless.

And of course, "if the universe were different we wouldn't be here" is a meaningless argument. Yeah, weak anthropic principle says hi. In any given universe where we would not exist, we would not be there to wax philosophical about how unlikely it is that we were there!

Let's be honest here. Given these three options for the universal constants - physical necessity, chance, and "god did it" - what do you think most cosmologists accept? Which do you think Hawking accepts? Do you think there is one which most of them reject, and if so, which one?
You're just ranting here and not worth responding to.

I mean, to be blunt, I at least have some respect for the people who cite their own scientists accurately, even if those scientists are crap. Citing a thousand crap articles by Behe is at least more intellectually honest than twisting Hawking's words to have him take on a position he quite obviously does not take on.
I did not twist Hawking's words, but represented his views accurately. Please don't accuse me of things that are not true. That's just bad form.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well there is one iota of evidence. We have seen a universe pop up from a tiny point at least once. That gives us some reason to think it can happen more than once. We can believe that something can happen a bunch of times if we believe it happened at least once. We've never seen a deity craft something out of nothing, so there is no reason to believe it happens if we have never seen it happen even once. To say that we have seen a deity craft something from nothing moves back to the KCA and not this argument. The only fact is that a bunch of stuff started small and spread out.


Explanatory power and scope aren't really good qualifiers though. What about all the other things that science has found reason for outside of religion like disease? If we simply accept disease had been designed, we would never have learned how to treat it. But simply claiming a deity would explain disease very well. Ockham's razor says not to go with whatever has the most explanatory power and scope, but to go with the least amount you actually need. Do we need to argue Ockham's razor?

But the multiverse has all of these qualifiers anyways doesn't it? What's more simple than, "if it happened once, it probably happened a lot of times". But a deity is not simple. Then you have to ask "why" that deity did what he did, whereas you can claim big bangs are a natural occurrence.

And since it can happen an infinite number of times, with an infinite amount of different possibilities it is definitely comprehensive.
So because there is a universe, that's evidence that there are others? Wow. I'm glad you said that and not me. I'd be run out of town if I made such an argument.

Look, Hawking does not believe that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity...meaning that the constants had to be where they're at and could not be set anywhere else. Rather, he believes it's by chance. His reason?...because it surely couldn't be design. He chooses to believe in chance even though the odds are enormously against it. In order to make it more feasible, he has to increase the odds by believing in multi-universes. Even if he did accept more universes, it can't be just one or two more, it would have to be significantly more in order to raise up the odds to something reasonable. As far as Ockham's Razor, that sounds like it's getting more complicated, not simpler.

But you go ahead and believe that if you like.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'd like to hold off on this "hybrid option" topic for a moment in order to stay focused on the question of causation, if you don't mind. I think that question is much more relevant.

If I understand correctly the basic question of the teleological argument is how do we explain the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe for the support of life. Yes? And that first premise about fine-tuning is claiming that extremely few or perhaps no other set of constants and their values could possibly lead to a universe with life. So this is the thing we are saying can be observed. And now we set off to find a possible cause for this.

What's bothering me is that only two of the options offer possible answers concerning causation: (1) chance, which means there was no cause, or (2) design, which means that a conscious entity had a goal in mind.

But as you defined physical necessity, that concept is only restating one of the acceptable observations of the first premise: that no other set of constants and their values could possibly lead to a universe with life. I reiterate that 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. How many life-filled universes might exist using different constants only changes the probably when you role that dice -- if we're talking about chance. If there is only one (physical necessity), the chance is smaller. If there are a few thousand the chance is larger. But physical necessity is not an alternative option to chance. It is merely an explanation of how many chance events were required.

Can you respond to this point, please?
No, you misunderstood on physical necessity. If I misspoke, I apologize. Let me clarify a little bit better. Physical necessity does not mean that only a certain values could be set to support life. Rather, it means that it would be impossible for those values to be different...period! (whether or not there is or isn't life). But instead, it seems that the constants can be different and still have some kind of universe.
So the choices are like saying:
1: did it have to be this way?
2: was it by chance that it's this way?
3: did a free-causal agent make it this way?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So because there is a universe, that's evidence that there are others? Wow. I'm glad you said that and not me. I'd be run out of town if I made such an argument.
What I am saying is that if we know something happened, we have a reason to believe it could happen more than once. If we have never seen something happen, then we have no reason to believe that it has ever happened once.

You believe it is less reasonable to assume the possibility that more than one universe ever popped up even though we have seen it happen at least once, than it is to assume that a deity created a universe even though we have never seen a deity?

I believe it is reasonable that evolution explains how we became what we became because I can see instances of intelligence growing a bit, so I find it reasonable to assume that has happened before. Yet people believe that humans were created intelligent even though they have never seen something become intelligent without developing first.

I'm only stating that there is some reason to think that there are multiple universes and there is no reason to think that something we have never seen happen has happened at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You're jus ranting here and not worth responding to.
I think that what he's asking is why did God make a universe we can explain through science if he wants that universe to be proof that he exists. If things couldn't be explained any other way than with magic, then we would believe in magic. But because things can be explained by nature, then we can believe that there is only nature.

I wonder that myself too. Someone posted a video that suggested that if God did create the universe, then the fine tuning of the universe is a "bug of the system not a feature". If God wanted the universe to be proof, he wouldn't make it in such a way that we can explain how it works without him.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm sorry; That's just the way your argument came across - I was struck with the similarity to the way religious scriptures are used by some people arguing for their particular sect or schism.


Assuming the multiverse, there may be vastly more universes that can't support life than can, but in those that can support life, life is not unexpected - and as living creatures, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in such a universe - the chance is 100% (Anthropic Principle).

The multiverse is a prediction of certain applications of the Standard Model of physics - the same model that generates the parameters and constants on which the fine tuning argument depends. We know the model is good within tested limits, but we know it's incomplete, and neither the fine tuning nor the multiverse hypotheses is directly testable (which makes them more speculation than hypothesis). This is why it's sometimes called the appearance of fine tuning; as has been said, it's the model that's fine tuned to fit our observations.

Ok, thanks for the kind response.

About the Anthropic Principle. This has been answered for quite a while and there's a fallacy in the logic.
Suppose that you stood in front of a firing squad made up of 100 expert sharp-shooters and they were ordered to aim, fire!
You open your eyes and find that you are alive. Should you be surprised that you are alive? Of course not. Otherwise, you would not be able to make the observation. But what you should be surprised at is why aren't you dead? After all, remember that you had a 100 sharp-shooters firing at you!!
That is the situation with the chance option. Should we be surprised that we find ourselves in a universe well-suited for life? Of course not. Otherwise, we would not be able to make the observation. But again, with the odds so stacked against the actualization of a life-permitting universe, what we should be really surprised at is the fact that we exist at all. It is more likely that we should not have existed in the first place. Hawking knows that, and that's why he supports the idea of a multi-verse. But, as I've pointed out, there's not one iota of evidence for it.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Could you please line out the scientific methodology and process by which Hawking arrived at said "scientific" conclusion? Just so we can be sure it is a scientific finding and not a mere "belief" (as you yourself interestingly called it) of his?
Here's the source for everything I've quote from Hawking on this thread.

S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua260

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2012
1,448
42
North Carolina
✟9,504.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What I am saying is that if we know something happened, we have a reason to believe it could happen more than once. If we have never seen something happen, then we have no reason to believe that it has ever happened once.

You believe it is less reasonable to assume the possibility that more than one universe ever popped up even though we have seen it happen at least once, than it is to assume that a deity created a universe even though we have never seen a deity?
I don't think I ever said that it is unreasonable that only one universe exists. I said that we have to go to an extreme of believing that a whole bunch of universes exist, just to raise up the odds that a life-permitting one could have been actualized. As far as the existence of a deity, there are many Christian evidences for the existence of God, in particular the evidence surrounding the Resurrection. But this is a philosophy forum and I'm trying to obey the rules and not get side-tracked into apologetics.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.