-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Teleological Argument
- Thread starter Joshua260
- Start date
- Status
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
False dichotomy. It may be mere coincidence, not chance; and, you have yet to establish the existence of any "intelligence" capable creating this cosmological conumdrum.To start with, it needs to be made clear that all that's being claimed is that the teleological argument makes belief in a Creator more reasonable than disbelief. So it would be reasonable to believe that an intelligence designed certain features of the universe based on the teleological argument.
Let me give an example of what would make one conclude that an intelligence is at work:
A) A precision is observed
B) The precision produces a surprising effect
C) The effect is repeated
D) The effect is unnecessary for life to exist
I'll start by giving an example that includes "D," though I don't believe it's necessary to include D in order for the line of reasoning to succeed:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/13/total-solar-eclipse-australia
Notice the photograph of a total solar eclipse from the link above. Note that the moon virtually exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, leading to a tremendous lighting effect. Now, such a thing is totally unnecessary for life to exist: the moon could very well be further away, or closer, or bigger, or smaller, and such an effect would be impossible. Therefore, either:
A) Chance produced a total solar eclipse
or
B) An intelligence produced a total solar eclipse
Since there's a great deal of precision involved, producing a surprising effect, which is completely unnecessary for the existence of life, I would argue that it's far more reasonable that an intelligence produced it rather than chance.
In order for you to defeat this version of the teleological argument, you would have to explain to me why it's more reasonable that chance causes total solar eclipses rather than an intelligence. And that I don't think you can do.
Unless, you are suggesting...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Achilles6129
Veteran
Saying "it may be mere coincidence" is a non-explanation. You have to show that that's more reasonable than believing in an intelligence, considering the precise nature of the effect, which isn't easy to do.
Since intelligences produce precision which produces brilliant effects (like a total solar eclipse) it's certainly reasonable to conclude that an intelligence produced a total solar eclipse. Note that the teleological argument is a way of deducing the existence of an intelligence; no one, obviously, can demonstrate it's existence.
Since intelligences produce precision which produces brilliant effects (like a total solar eclipse) it's certainly reasonable to conclude that an intelligence produced a total solar eclipse. Note that the teleological argument is a way of deducing the existence of an intelligence; no one, obviously, can demonstrate it's existence.
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Wait, and "it may be an as of yet completely undefined intelligence" isn't?
Okay, what are the odds that an intelligence exists that is capable of crafting planets and entire solar systems? You've skipped a step or two here. You've pointed to something which seems unlikely, but not provided any sort of calculation for how unlikely it is. Then you've pointed to some as of yet unestablished intelligence and tried to claim that it is somehow more likely of an explanation than chance for the unlikely phenomenon, again without any sort of calculation for how likely or unlikely it is. I'd say occam's razor immediately puts the kebosh to this argument, given that we know that natural forces can lead to incredibly magnificent events, and thus we can validly invoke them to explain your solar eclipse without the need of invoking any sort of supernatural being.
I am not aware of any intelligence which is capable of moving matter around at this scope. Also, you still have made no attempt to divide what counts as "unlikely" and what doesn't.
(And you also clearly skipped over something else:
Although I won't be too much of a stickler about that one.)
Upvote
0
Speaking of Predator and aliens
I have a lot of stories, this one is more tame but still interesting:
When I was in high school, I started taking girls I would date to this club called Sambuca's. I wasn't old enough to get in, but I looked like I was in my early 20's in high school, so I could often get into places that my friends couldn't. My best friend, however, was 6'6", looked like he was in his 20's also, so me and him basically had free range wherever we would go.
Anyways, the bouncer at this club was HUGE. Like, 7'5" tall huge. And he never checked my ID, he would always let me in. The bartender got to know me and my face, and would laugh every time I brought a different girl in there ... and the bouncer got to recognize me too
His name was Calvin. I took my best friend there once, to see them side by side ... when Calvin shook my friend's hand, it dwarfed not just his hand, but half his arm. I mean this guy was HUGE.At the time, rumor was that he was a stand in for a new Predator movie, though I never did ask him if he was ... in case he wasn't, I didn't want to make it seem like I was comparing him to this huge towering gruesome alien lol
Anyways, they closed that club down years ago ... but they opened up a few others in better/safer/cleaner parts of town. I just Google'd Calvin to see if I could find anything on him, to see if he was even still alive for that matter, and lo and behold ... here he is, 7'6", 445 pounds of him, and it looks as though he was in one of the Predator movies after all in some capacity:
For reference, this is him and Shaq ... look at those hands !!!!
I'm glad he never carded me, let's just say that lol
But he was cool anyways, he prol would have just told me to leave and not worry about it lol
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Why did I win the lottery? Was there a reason the numbers came up as they did? What? That is not an explanation?
Before you go any further, tell me more about this "intelligence". The only "intelligence" that I am aware of is a product of a brain. It is biology. You have left out how you got to "intelligence" aligning suns, planets and moons.
Are you using a personal definition of "intelligence" that does not require a brain?
Upvote
0
I wasn't explaining anything. I asked a question: do you believe there are events that fall into the category of coincidence ? I was going to see your thoughts on that first, and then go from there perhaps.
No one can demonstrate the existence of an intelligent entity that is responsible for a brilliant effect ? Is that what you're saying ? It seems contradictory to your premise.
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
As I noted in the "Best Arguments" thread, there seems to be an underlying assumption that intelligence is a preexisting force that organises matter and energy. This teleological intuition seems to have it backwards though. Intelligence doesn't just come from nowhere; matter and energy must first undergo certain processes in order to become 'intelligent' and thereby have the ability to organise things. As we learn more about the universe, and as we trace the origins of intelligence to its roots in biology, this teleological intuition becomes increasingly untenable.
As with the KCA, apologists leverage this assumption in the teleological argument. The idea that intelligence depends on there being a universe would go against their assertion that an intelligence was responsible for bringing the universe into being. This is usually the point at which they resort to special pleading: "Oh, but this intelligence is exceptional! Being supernatural, it doesn't need to satisfy the conditions necessary for intelligence within the universe. It's special, so our knowledge of 'intelligence' within this universe doesn't apply."
As with the KCA, apologists leverage this assumption in the teleological argument. The idea that intelligence depends on there being a universe would go against their assertion that an intelligence was responsible for bringing the universe into being. This is usually the point at which they resort to special pleading: "Oh, but this intelligence is exceptional! Being supernatural, it doesn't need to satisfy the conditions necessary for intelligence within the universe. It's special, so our knowledge of 'intelligence' within this universe doesn't apply."
Upvote
0
On the other hand, life showing up where natural processes were totally hostile to it would be a sign that something supernatural might be going on.
But we don't have that here. As you say, natural processes happening where natural processes are favored isn't really a sign of anything special wrt gods.
Upvote
0
Virtually exactly? Is that like kinda pregnant?
I'd think that a god important enough to worship could get it exactly dead on correct. Picking at sorta close enough feels like making up stuff to fit a predetermined conclusion. As in you couldn't find anything actually fine tuned enough to work, but this is close enough to rationalize as being OK.
Upvote
0
What's "Fine Tuning"?
Without establishing what that means in the first place the whole thing is pointless.
If it's a, universe so big the original writers of Genesis had no clue what it was. With asteroids and planets whizzing around and crashing into each other. With one planet with humans on it and other planets where other life forms are, or could be.
Then that's fine tuned. Which is as if a potato is fine tuned because it is what it is, imperfect.
The OPs assumption is absurd.
A. The Earth isn't fine tuned.
B. The Universe isn't fine tuned.
C. The Earth isn't tuned.
The Universe isn't tuned.
It assumes something is finished and as we all know it's still evolving. Or at least changing. And it's by no means perfect or by design, too many things go wrong.
Without establishing what that means in the first place the whole thing is pointless.
If it's a, universe so big the original writers of Genesis had no clue what it was. With asteroids and planets whizzing around and crashing into each other. With one planet with humans on it and other planets where other life forms are, or could be.
Then that's fine tuned. Which is as if a potato is fine tuned because it is what it is, imperfect.
What precision is needed?
The OPs assumption is absurd.
A. The Earth isn't fine tuned.
B. The Universe isn't fine tuned.
C. The Earth isn't tuned.
The Universe isn't tuned.
It assumes something is finished and as we all know it's still evolving. Or at least changing. And it's by no means perfect or by design, too many things go wrong.
Upvote
0
The teleological argument is in fact referring to universal fine tuning as cosmologists define it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
The problem here is not that the parameters of the universe need to be very specific in order to present this universe, but rather, we have no idea why the parameters themselves are what they are, and speculation of what those parameters "could be" , rely on theories that are pretty far out there.
It is one of those problems in physics where we are fairly utterly ignorant, and the only people who can pretend to know something about it are using advanced math and theory to try to work something out we can grasp.
We are so ignorant that one of our best models that actually describes things (quantum field theory) predicted a cosmological constant over 100 orders of magnitude wrong in the last decade.
So, here we have theists pretending that something we are woefully ignorant can be the basis of an argument that a designer was required, which is of course, just an argument from ignorance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not only all of that, but a total solar eclipse is only total from certain vantage points on the earth at any one time. Someone else viewing the same "total" eclipse will not see it covered the same way, it will be partial.
Upvote
0
Because it's unreasonable to posit a designer for every interesting effect in the universe.
Since the moon is receding, total solar eclipses would have been possible on this planet for about 1.7 billion years now and will have it's last in just under a billion more.
So, you have that small window of 2.7 billion years given the moons size and distance, and the sun's distance and size.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
So stereotyped. Everyone knows aliens wear suits:False dichotomy. It may be mere coincidence, not chance; and, you have yet to establish the existence of any "intelligence" capable creating this cosmological conumdrum.
Unless, you are suggesting...
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
