The Teleological Argument (p4)

[GrowingSmaller]

So in the absense of a scientific explanation, is all else redundant? Or is an attempted raitonal explanation better, even if it is speculative and religious?

 

[Joshua260]

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.)

Physical necessity is already one of the options listed. If you think of an option not listed, we'll talk about it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Define physical necessity, in standardised physical equations - preferably in falsifiable terms.

 

[KCfromNC]

So in the absense of a scientific explanation, is all else redundant? Or is an attempted raitonal explanation better, even if it is speculative and religious?

Attempts to deductively logic our way to understanding the natural world from first premises don't have a great track record.

 

[quatona]

So in the absense of a scientific explanation, is all else redundant? Or is an attempted raitonal explanation better, even if it is speculative and religious?

What exactly do you have in mind when you say "rational explanation"?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Physical necessity is already one of the options listed. If you think of an option not listed, we'll talk about it.

You're still confused as to how this works. The burden is yours to demonstrate that these are necessarily the only possible options. That includes ruling out the category of 'unknown'. Good luck with that.

But imagine for a moment that I grant the premise. I'd still like an answer to this question,

how did you determine that 'divine design' is even a meaningful category of explanation in the first place? It has no ontological or epistemological basis whatsoever.

 

[Joshua260]

"We don't know".

P2 of the argument above is not like our speculation regarding what could be the cause of the beginning of the universe. When considering whether the universe was fine-tuned by physical necessity, chance, or design, your answer won't work. In p2, I'm not speculating about what the cause of the fine-tuning is, but simply speculating on the categories that might apply. So "I don't know" is not an option. You could certainly suggest another category other than what's already listed in p2...if another category existed.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

The objection you raise is exactly the reason why I separated out p1 into its own premise in my argument...so that we could define what "fine-tuned" means before addressing any other premise.
Your reply here demonstrates that you are confusing the intended use of the word "for" in p1.

There are a few definitions of "for".

1. Sometimes the word "for" is used is to indicate a purpose, such as in "a grant for studying medicine".

2. Other times, the word "for" can be used to indicate suitability or fitness, such as in "this puddle is the perfect size to hold this gallon of water".

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for

Some might conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but my use of the word "for" in p1 is simply stating that the universe is "extremely well-suited" for life and is thus neutral regarding the reason for the fine-tuning.
To be clear, I am using the "for" as defined in #2 above in p1.

BTW, I updated my p1 to "The universe is fine-tuned for life" to clarify that "suitability for life" is the characteristic of the universe that the argument addresses.

 

[Davian]

P2 of the argument above is not like our speculation regarding what could be the cause of the beginning of the universe. When considering whether the universe was fine-tuned by physical necessity, chance, or design, your answer won't work. In p2, I'm not speculating about what the cause of the fine-tuning is, but simply speculating on the categories that might apply. So "I don't know" is not an option. You could certainly suggest another category other than what's already listed in p2...if another category existed.

Allow me to clarify; we don't know that the universe is fine-tuned. I do understand that this does not work with the conclusion that you have started from.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

Here's a quote from Hawking:
"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

and here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

This site talks about it, and has some references.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-teleological-argument-and-the-anthropic-principle

 

[quatona]

There are a few definitions of "for".

1. Sometimes the word "for" is used is to indicate a purpose, such as in "a grant for studying medicine".

2. Other times, the word "for" can be used to indicate suitability or fitness, such as in "this puddle is the perfect size to hold this gallon of water".

Minor point: The word "for" doesn´t even appear in your second example.
Major point: "This puddle is the perfect size to hold this gallon of water" certainly has a different connotation than "this puddle is fine-tuned to hold this gallon of water".
So if you are serious about avoiding loaded terms, you could simply say "this universe has conditions to allow there to be life in it (in very few and small places, that is)".
And, of course, they aren´t "perfect" (they´d be perfect if life were all over the place). They just allow it.
Plus, the conditions to allow no life in most places.

Some might conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but my use of the word "for" in p1 is simply stating that the universe is "extremely well-suited" for life and is thus neutral regarding the reason for the fine-tuning.

Then drop the "fine-tuned". It is misleading, and you can find better terms. Of course, this universe is not extremely well-suited for life, since we find life only as an exception.
"The conditions in the universe allow there to be life in extremely few and small places." would be the least loaded and most accurate wording. Of course, this doesn´t go well with the conclusion you want to force.

 

[Joshua260]

Allow me to clarify; we don't know that the universe is fine-tuned. I do understand that this does not work with the conclusion that you have started from.

But the fact that if the constants were slightly different from what they are, the universe would not be life permitting is strongly supported by notable scientists, and more findings continue to confirm it. See my other reply citing scientists' quotes. Again, p1 is not the controversial premise. It's p3.

 

[Joshua260]

Minor point: The word "for" doesn´t even appear in your second example.
Major point: "This puddle is the perfect size to hold this gallon of water" certainly has a different connotation than "this puddle is fine-tuned to hold this gallon of water".
So if you are serious about avoiding loaded terms, you could simply say "this universe has conditions to allow there to be life in it (in very few and small places, that is)".
And, of course, they aren´t "perfect" (they´d be perfect if life were all over the place). They just allow it.
Plus, the conditions to allow no life in most places.



Then drop the "fine-tuned". It is misleading, and you can find better terms. Of course, this universe is not extremely well-suited for life, since we find life only as an exception.
"The conditions in the universe allow there to be life in extremely few and small places." would be the least loaded and most accurate wording. Of course, this doesn´t go well with the conclusion you want to force.

Thanks for your advice, but there's no reason to drop the phrase "fine-tuned" from my argument. Scientists know exactly what this means when used in the context of my argument, and I've clarified it in this thread. From now on, you will know what I mean when I use that phrase in regards to p1.

 

[quatona]

But the fact that if the constants were slightly different from what they are, the universe would not be life permitting is strongly supported by notable scientists, and more findings continue to confirm it.

A lot of things would be different if the constants were different. So why single out one thing?

Again, p1 is not the controversial premise. It's #3.

Yes, I am disputing #1. We´ll get to #3 later.

 

[Joshua260]

You're still confused as to how this works. The burden is yours to demonstrate that these are necessarily the only possible options. That includes ruling out the category of 'unknown'. Good luck with that.

But imagine for a moment that I grant the premise. I'd still like an answer to this question,

Thanks for your gracious granting of my p2.

Eight Foot Manchild said:
how did you determine that 'divine design' is even a meaningful category of explanation in the first place? It has no ontological or epistemological basis whatsoever.

My argument doesn't say "divine" design.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your advice, but there's no reason to drop the phrase "fine-tuned" from my argument.

Then there´s no reason to accept it.

Scientists know exactly what this means when used in the context of my argument, and I've clarified it in this thread.

In the meaning scientists would agree with using this word it wouldn´t allow for your conclusion.

From now on, you will know what I mean when I use that phrase in regards to p1.

If you mean "the conditions in the universe allow for there to be life in very few and small places", your premise doesn´t lead to your conclusion.
If you mean something beyond that, you are keeping a load in your premise that is not agreed upon, neither by me not by scientists.

 

[Joshua260]

Yes, I am disputing #1. We´ll get to #3 later.

Ok, so please take a look at the reply to Davian where I cite scientists who agree that the universe is fine-tuned...and I do not presume to mean in p1 that "someone fine-tuned" it. Rather, that if certain constants were altered just a fraction of a degree, the universe (and coincidentally all of us) would not exist.

Start with the quote from Hawking:
"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

 

[Joshua260]

In the meaning scientists would agree with using this word it wouldn´t allow for your conclusion.

I'm only addressing p1 right now, and in that sense, scientists would certainly be comfortable agreeing with it. See my citations in my other reply.

 

[quatona]

Ok, so please take a look at the reply to Davian where I cite scientists who agree that the universe is fine-tuned...and I do not presume to mean in p1 that "someone fine-tuned" it. Rather, that if certain constants were altered just a fraction of a degree, the universe (and coincidentally all of us) would not exist.

Which, as I have repeatedly said, is undisputed. However, a mere "if things were different, things would be different" does in no way point to design. It´s completely irrelevant in regards to your conclusion.

I notice you ignore relevant parts of my posts, btw. I guess we both know why that is.

 

[quatona]

I'm only addressing p1 right now, and in that sense, scientists would certainly be comfortable agreeing with it. See my citations in my other reply.

But they won´t agree once it has turned out that you have changed the definition on the way to your conclusion.
So, yes, I am disputing premise 1, and I am doing it in the context of your argument.