The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Moral Orel]

Ancient Greeks determined around 350 BC that the earth was spherical. In fact, they even calculated its circumference, and were within 90% accurate. So, no, it was not just a theory, it was actual observation and mathematical calculation. If you go to the heliocentric/geocentric debates, you see that the spherical nature of the earth was taken for granted by all sides involved, including the Church.

String theory and the theory of the multiverse both have sound mathematical calculations and some observations. But at that point they are just theories. Until someone actually travelled around the Earth or travelled to space and saw it, there was no "proof" or "knowledge" that the observations they made meant nothing other than the Earth was round and floating in space.

Well, if you were going to criticize me for not defining "ether" as "A compound containing an oxygen atom bonded to two hydrocarbon groups," you'd be on solid ground. But unfortunately, you didn't go there--you're essentially merely arguing over spelling.

Since you're accepting "ether" or "aether" as meaning the contents of the space between heavenly bodies, you should know that space is not empty.

I'm not arguing about your spelling, I'm pointing out that there is no aether. Is space a perfect vacuum? No. Does one atom per square meter have any effect on anything? No. It was proposed as the stuff that light travelled through so that it didn't have to travel through a vacuum. That would make it matter that lets light waves affect it in order to travel. That doesn't exist. Light travels through what is basically a vacuum. It doesn't need that atom every meter to travel. Space is basically a vacuum because what little matter there is is negligible. If you add it all up, sure it seems like a lot, but spread as thin as it is, it means nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

All scientific knowledge is theories, all provisional, none strictly proven [although the basic ones are taken to be beyond reasonable doubt]. Did you mean it was just a hypothesis, not yet tested?

Exactly. It wasn't tested nearly as well as it eventually could be. Now I know they didn't have the technology back then to look at Earth from outer space or to make a ship that could travel the circumference of the Earth, but those are reasonable experiments to test the theory and they are what proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Observations and calculations can only take you so far. I don't know if it will ever be possible to see what caused the big bang or what set the laws of physics the way they are because it seems right now to require time travel, which mathematically seem impossible.

Yes, this is exactly what Einstein was saying - that if the aetherists are wedded to the idea of an aether, spacetime is the closest they're going to get.

But that doesn't mean it has anything in common with aether other than the fact that they fill the gap between objects in the universe. It sounds to me like he was explaining it in the same way that some people see the phrase "let there be light" in the Bible, and accept it to mean the big bang. They thought it was something else, they have to believe it is something, so you give them a way to accept both things.

 

[paulm50]

Point one depends on who is making the observation. In my view to a certain extent the universe is fined tuned for the purposes and conditions that exist today, they do exist. But, only up to a point because the universe is in constant state of change. Our own planet is changing. Fine tuning is a verb. Number one should read "The Universe is fine-tuning.

I think it should read, "The Universe is tuned enough for planets to exist that can sustain life.". Which makes the god argument as in the bible obsolete.

The problem is, if the bible was gods word written on his orders under his direction. science wouldn't be continually proving it wrong and the fundamentalists wouldn't have to continually find excuses.

If it were written by men, working for their own ends. Science and logic would be proving it wrong.

 

[paulm50]

I think that #2 is all of the above. Since none of us will ever know the real answer about a designer until He reveals himself we have to assume it is by design by a designer. The odds of this all happening on its own are beyond calculable probability.
#3. We don't know enough about the universe to be able to say it is due to a physical necessity or chance. There is no evidence of the universe lining things up by chance to arrive at where we are today. #4. The existence of human beings. The default position has to be a designer.

Evolution going so wrong, so many times. Proves it wasn't done by design by a designer. Why even bother with all the dead planets, Asteroids, Meteorites, Black Holes, Solar Storms, Exploding Stars, if done by a designer were huge mistakes. If done by a big bang, that explains it. As the bible makes no mention of a big bang and puts the creation of the Universe as light in the sky and the sun and Moon as luminaries. Either god was lying to them or they were making the story up.

All scientific knowledge is theories, all provisional, none strictly proven [although the basic ones are taken to be beyond reasonable doubt]. Did you mean it was just a hypothesis, not yet tested?

And where is the bible version strictly proven?

The problem fundamentalist have is, if it was the word of god, it would be accurate.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If its fine tuned for life, where are the aliens?

 

[paulm50]

If its fine tunes for life, where are the aliens?

There are planets that can sustain life. So why haven't they landed here or sent us a message?

For the answer one has to be logical and drop the fantasy theories.

If the lifetime of the Earth was compressed into one day. We Humans would appear in the last few minutes. For 500,000 (0.02%) years we have been unable to send or receive radio waves from A-B. At the rate of progress we're on, the Earth will be unable to sustain Human life.

Life is out there.

Is it like us and able to match our achievements, or has it done so and become extinct? We are trying to find out. Not looking to a book written by people who had no idea of what the lights in the sky at night were. And no one was telling them.

The telling thing is, recently the number who claim to have met aliens, exceeds the numbers who have met god or Jesus. Just goes to show the power of the imagination.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But how fine tuned can things get? Can they be any more fine tuned, for instance?

 

[paulm50]

But how fine tuned can things get? Can they be any more fine tuned, for instance?

Get rid of all the dead planets, meteorites crashing into the Earth and killing most of the species, Asteroids, Solar Flares, Exploding Stars. As for the Earth, stop overpopulating and slowly killing it would be a good start.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread will remain open. In your posting, please remember the following:
Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Please remember to stay on topic

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[KCfromNC]

But how fine tuned can things get? Can they be any more fine tuned, for instance?

They're fine tuned enough to rationalize a belief that a god must have done it. Or at least enough to quell the thoughts that there's no reason to believe a god must have done it. That's all arguments like this accomplish - a bit of sophistry to quiet the cognitive dissonance so that believers can continue to believe what they wish was true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...And where is the bible version strictly proven?

The bible version of what?

It doesn't matter; historical fiction and morality tales can't be 'proved'.

 

[Joshua260]

how did you establish that design, chance, and necessity is a true trichotomy?

Feel free to add a fourth option. I await your genius.

 

[Joshua260]

Premise one is also in need of justification. What is the universe fine-tuned for and how do we determine this? The most common strategy seems to be to claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life because even a small deviation in one of the constants would render the universe "life-prohibiting" (to use Craig's words). Ignoring for a moment the fact that this isn't technically correct (it may merely render it prohibiting to our kind of life, but not all life), it's not clear why we should presume that life is the end goal when even a small deviation would also mess up various other aspects of the universe as well. Life wouldn't be the only thing affected, so why presume that the constants are set that way to enable life specifically?

My premise p1 "The universe is fine-tuned" should not be controversial if it is understood properly.
I separated out p1 because some others had similar questions in a previous thread. P1 has nothing whatsoever to do with any free-causal agent affecting anything in the universe. It is not the same as saying "The universe is designed" and those who claim my p1 begs the question for a designer are greatly mistaken. Rather, "fine-tuned" simply means that there are constants found within the universe that if they were adjusted only slightly one way or the other, then life would not have been possible within the universe. I'm sure you know that I could cite scientists who have said the same, and I will I you like. So scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life and the evidence for that is still mounting.

You've raised this suggestion before that maybe other types of life could evolve in a universe with significantly different constant values.
Life:
"(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce"
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
When scientists agree that if some constants were altered only a little that life would not be possible in the universe, they are using the above definition. Notice that the definition describes processes and not specifically calls out dogs, cats, people, horses, etc. Anything that exhibits the processes listed in the definition is called life. So no, whatever forms of life you are imagining, the physical constants would still have to maintain within a relatively short range for even those other forms of life to survive.

As I said, my p1 (or even p2) is not really controversial amongst scientists. Rather it is my p3 "It is not due to physical necessity or chance." that is usually challenged.

 

[The Cadet]

Feel free to add a fourth option. I await your genius.

That's not how that works. When you present as a premise that there are only three options, it is on you to demonstrate that those are the only options. Personally, the way I'd go about doing it is separating it into disparate nested binary statements, and then showing how that necessarily follows (a trichotomy is for this reason quite difficult to work with at times). When you say "feel free to add a fourth option" you are shifting the burden of proof. Demonstrate that your premise is true.

(Also, some combination of necessity and physics? That's an easy fourth option.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My premise p1 "The universe is fine-tuned" should not be controversial if it is understood properly.
I separated out p1 because some others had similar questions in a previous thread. P1 has nothing whatsoever to do with any free-causal agent affecting anything in the universe. It is not the same as saying "The universe is designed" and those who claim my p1 begs the question for a designer are greatly mistaken. Rather, "fine-tuned" simply means that there are constants found within the universe that if they were adjusted only slightly one way or the other, then life would not have been possible within the universe. I'm sure you know that I could cite scientists who have said the same, and I will I you like. So scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life and the evidence for that is still mounting.

You've raised this suggestion before that maybe other types of life could evolve in a universe with significantly different constant values.
Life:
"(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce"
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
When scientists agree that if some constants were altered only a little that life would not be possible in the universe, they are using the above definition. Notice that the definition describes processes and not specifically calls out dogs, cats, people, horses, etc. Anything that exhibits the processes listed in the definition is called life. So no, whatever forms of life you are imagining, the physical constants would still have to maintain within a relatively short range for even those other forms of life to survive.

As I said, my p1 (or even p2) is not really controversial amongst scientists. Rather it is my p3 "It is not due to physical necessity or chance." that is usually challenged.

As I noted previously, life wouldn't be the only thing affected if these parameters were adjusted, so it seems arbitrary to say that the parameters were fine-tuned for life specifically.

 

[Davian]

Feel free to add a fourth option. I await your genius.

"We don't know".

 

[Davian]

... I'm sure you know that I could cite scientists who have said the same, and I will I you like. So scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life and the evidence for that is still mounting.
...

I would like to see a citation to show that this is a scientific consensus, and not opinion. Scientists may agree on a place to eat lunch, but I would not proffer this as science.

 

[quatona]

My premise p1 "The universe is fine-tuned" should not be controversial if it is understood properly.
I separated out p1 because some others had similar questions in a previous thread. P1 has nothing whatsoever to do with any free-causal agent affecting anything in the universe. It is not the same as saying "The universe is designed" and those who claim my p1 begs the question for a designer are greatly mistaken. Rather, "fine-tuned" simply means that there are constants found within the universe that if they were adjusted only slightly one way or the other, then life would not have been possible within the universe. I'm sure you know that I could cite scientists who have said the same, and I will I you like. So scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned for life and the evidence for that is still mounting.

I guess nobody disagrees that the universe would be different if it were different. Unless you are presupposing that the actual state is the result of an intentional action or purpose (and thereby begging the question), there is absolutely no point in calling the result "fine-tuned for...".

 

[Eudaimonist]

"We don't know".

Right.

Reworking that, I would say: "It cannot yet be determined."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is this relevant to a fine tuning scenario:

"In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that God sends down from the sky, then gives life therewith to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between heaven and earth, there are surely signs for a people who understand." - Koran