The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Moral Orel]

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.

I don't want to get this thread closed down either, so I won't argue about what I can't argue about. There's been a rash of closed threads as of late.

I did look up some evidence towards the multiverse theory though. Here's some reading material:
“If you buy eternal inflation, it predicts a multiverse,” Peiris said.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

Hold on here. That's not correct, at least not as far as the Christian god is concerned. I almost missed this but noticed it on a second reading, so let me correct this part before going on. I happened to be reading this this morning, and sure enough it is appropriate for this reply (providence?):
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. "
1 Cor 2:11-12 (KJV)

Sorry to pull scripture here, but your reply necessitated it. I do not know God exists because of some philosophical proof. Rather, my knowledge of God existing comes from the Holy Spirit. That's what the scripture above is communicating. Arguments and evidences only serve to show that it is reasonable to believe in God. But the proof comes from the Holy Spirit. I do not expect that an atheist would believe that (I just noticed that you are listed as a seeker and not an atheist), but that is the Christian position on proof of God's existence.

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.

Noted. But I don't think we will be able to explain everything by solely referring to things within our universe. For example, I don't believe scientists will ever prove that the universe caused itself to begin to exist. This goes into the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), which can be read here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

 

[Moral Orel]

Arguments and evidences only serve to show that it is reasonable to believe in God.

Well there's thinking that it is reasonable, and I can agree with that to an extent, and then there's thinking that it is more reasonable than other explanations, and I don't agree with that. I don't think it would be a miracle if it was more reasonable either, so I don't really understand the purpose of these logical arguments to begin with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's just a plain false accusation and I do not appreciate that. I have represented Hawking fairly. He supports p1 and p2 in my argument. He does not believe that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity and he does not believe in God. So, 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.

Right! Hawking accepts p1 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.

You resort to design, for which you have not one iota of evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see why I should disagree with Hawking regarding scientific matters, but first he proclaims that philosophy dead, and then begins to philosophize about the nature of reality. Hawking is not a philosopher, Craig is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your comments do not bear that out.

You haven't addressed the majority of my comments.

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

You haven't provided evidence for design.

Yes, I have.

Where? Link to the post where you show evidence for design.

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.

What does Hawking have to do with anything? We are discussing the teleological argument, not Hawking. Try to stay on topic.

See post 180 for why I believe design is the best explanation (in regards to the TA only).

I saw it. I'm not sure what I was supposed to glean from it in the way of evidence for design.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You did make such an argument, more or less (see red):

Your reply demonstrates that you are still not clear as to the nature of the claim of p1.

Yes, one could just as easily re-write my p1 to say that the universe is fine-tuned for stars (that is if in fact evidence supports that slight variations in certain conditions would render star formation impossible).

What you're really doing here is straying into p3 and questioning whether the universe is necessarily life-permitting, and you are confusing that issue with p1. Let me provide an example to illustrate:
Suppose that you and I walk into a house and find a 70" SONY Flat Screen TV in the front room. I might look around and see how big the room is and how the layout is extremely suitable for sound, and proclaim "This particular room is extremely suited for a 70" Sony Flat Screen TV." [That in itself is the nature of the claim of p1...scientists have noticed that so many conditions in the universe are set at a really narrow range that is extremely suitable for life. This observation in itself is not controversial.]

Now let's stray into p3 (for necessity)
continuing in my example: But then you point out "Hey, why don't you comment on that fancy couch over there? Isn't this also a extremely suitable room for that couch?" (That's analogous to your replies). But then I reply "So what? Everybody's got a couch..."
[In other words, we can have lots of front rooms that have couches, but they don't all have to have TVs. Scientist agree that the universe could have existed without life.]

Now into p3 (for chance)
me continuing: "...It's the TV here that makes this room extra special". You: "But a lot of other rooms have a TV also." Me: "Yes, but very few have 70" Sony Flat Screens".
[So the odds of having a universe with life is extremely small compared to the odds of a universe existing that is totally dead.
"“If you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way [life-permitting] by chance are infinitesimal — one in a very large number.”
Geoff Brumfiel “Our Universe: Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (Jan. 5, 2006)]

So p1 is not controversial. P3 is the controversial premise, that the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity (your present objection) or chance.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Yeah, because the teleological argument has got nothing to do with apologetics.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

To be completely honest you should disclose all your theologically laden assumptions for consideration. Don't pretend that you are arguing for just any designer or designers. Don't balk at the question "who designed the designer?" when it inevitably arises.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hold on here. That's not correct, at least not as far as the Christian god is concerned. I almost missed this but noticed it on a second reading, so let me correct this part before going on. I happened to be reading this this morning, and sure enough it is appropriate for this reply (providence?):
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. "
1 Cor 2:11-12 (KJV)

Sorry to pull scripture here, but your reply necessitated it. I do not know God exists because of some philosophical proof. Rather, my knowledge of God existing comes from the Holy Spirit. That's what the scripture above is communicating. Arguments and evidences only serve to show that it is reasonable to believe in God. But the proof comes from the Holy Spirit. I do not expect that an atheist would believe that (I just noticed that you are listed as a seeker and not an atheist), but that is the Christian position on proof of God's existence.


Noted. But I don't think we will be able to explain everything by solely referring to things within our universe. For example, I don't believe scientists will ever prove that the universe caused itself to begin to exist. This goes into the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), which can be read here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

What is it that you keep telling us? To stay on topic? How about abiding by that advice yourself?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.



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.

I think Sean Carroll said it well:

The real reason theism isn’t taken seriously is because it’s completely ill-defined. If we would presume to contemplate theism from an intellectually honest perspective, we would try to decide what kind of universe we would expect to live in if theism were true; then we would do the same for naturalism; and finally we would compare those expectations to the real world. But when we do that we find theistic expectations failing to match reality over and over again. Now, I know perfectly well (from experience as well as from cogitation) that you can never make headway with theists by claiming “If God existed, He would do X, and He doesn’t” (where X is “prevent needless suffering,” “make His existence obvious,” “reveal useful non-trivial information to us,” “spread religious messages uniformly over the world,” etc.) Because they have always thought through these, and can come up with an explanation why God would never have done that. (According to Alvin Plantinga, our world — you know, the one with the Black Death, the Holocaust, AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, and so on — is “so good that no world could be appreciably better.”) But these apologetic moves come at a price: they imply a notion of theism so flexible that it becomes completely ill-defined. That’s the real problem. Craig’s way of putting it is to suggest that God is “like the cosmic artist who wants to splash his canvas with extravagance of design.” That’s precisely why naturalism has pulled so far ahead of theism in the intellectual race to best model our world: because it plays by rules and provides real explanations for why the world is this way rather than that way.

 

[Davian]

Correction: People reject the supernatural. Science itself is neutral on the subject.
...

On the claims of "supernatural" it is not. We can apply scientific methodologies to any claim, if there is anything to work with. Hoaxes can be discovered, frauds exposed, etc.

"Mystical" events can be duplicated, and the credulousness of those involved can be observed.

Penn and Teller demonstrated that things like the "indian rope trick" can be believed to be possible, and to have happened, even in modern times.

"The "classic" version, however, was much more detailed: the rope would seem to rise high into the skies, disappearing from view. The boy would climb the rope and be lost to view. The magician would call back his boy assistant, and, on getting no response, become furious. The magician would then arm himself with a knife or sword, climb the rope, and vanish as well. An argument would be heard, and then limbs would start falling, presumably cut from the assistant by the magician. When all the parts of the body, including the torso, landed on the ground, the magician would climb down the rope. He would collect the limbs and put them in a basket, or collect the limbs in one place and cover them with a cape or blanket. Soon the boy would appear, restored." wiki

The "magic" happens at 46 min.

 

[Davian]

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.

It's a shame that there is nowhere on this site that you can post this alleged "evidence" for discussion.

(not really)

 

[Davian]

Hold on here. That's not correct, at least not as far as the Christian god is concerned. I almost missed this but noticed it on a second reading, so let me correct this part before going on. I happened to be reading this this morning, and sure enough it is appropriate for this reply (providence?):
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. "
1 Cor 2:11-12 (KJV)

Sorry to pull scripture here, but your reply necessitated it. I do not know God exists because of some philosophical proof.

I don't find them convincing either.

Rather, my knowledge of God existing comes from the Holy Spirit.

Or, you may have imagined it. Unless you are infallible. Are you infallible?

That's what the scripture above is communicating. Arguments and evidences only serve to show that it is reasonable to believe in God. But the proof comes from the Holy Spirit. I do not expect that an atheist would believe that (I just noticed that you are listed as a seeker and not an atheist), but that is the Christian position on proof of God's existence.

So you did bring along the circular logic after all.

 

[The Cadet]

Correction: People reject the supernatural. Science itself is neutral on the subject.

No, supernatural explanations are excluded from the getgo. This is what methodological naturalism means.

That was a silly reply. Did you think that either option would answer every thing about the universe?

It would make at least one testable prediction that it must satisfy. Design does not.

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.

Does Hawking believe that design is the most likely explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe?

 

[quatona]

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.

So you want the discussion of the teleological argument be based on the acceptance of this paper in its entirety? (Maybe you could add that as a fifth premise in the OP?).

 

[KCfromNC]

Reminds me of the ID folks, who say claiming intelligent design, has nothing to do with God.

Except when they're under oath, of course. Then the truth comes out.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok, so to review, you set up the requirement that I provide some testable model to show that the fine-tuning of the model and I responded:
"Why do I need to prove what scientists already agree to?"

So here's my clarification:

You may be misunderstanding the TA. It is not that scientists are wondering what the universe would have looked like with different laws. The question is what would the universe look like if we had the same laws but the constants were slightly altered.

Using the same laws, scientists can plug in different values for various constants and can predict what would happen, as in the following example:

"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

If you have an issue with Hawking's prediction, take it up with him.

None of this has anything to do with my question. How do you know the constants can be any different than they are in our universe in the first place? Sure, it is great to talk about what would happen if they are different, but how are you sure that these different values are even possible?

The Hawking quote you gave says nothing about this question. Do you even understand what I'm asking?

 

[KCfromNC]

My argument is an inference to the best explanation.

Not as originally stated. But it is good to see you accepting my take on the argument.

I believe that the best explanation is for design because physical necessity is pretty much out

Pretty much? You initially claimed it was certainly wrong, now it just might be? Which do you actually believe?

chance is very unlikely

There's no statement of probability in the original argument. Why are you changing your story now?

design has the best explanatory power, explanatory scope, simplicity, comprehensiveness, and so on.

Not really, since the argument says nothing about any attributes of the designer which may or may not have been responsible.

However, I would not presume to say that the argument proves to you the existence of God.

Sure, the argument says nothing about any gods at all. The conclusion is that maybe the universe is designed, maybe it isn't. The design could come from anything - gods, random impersonal forces, pretty much anything.

 

[bhsmte]

Except when they're under oath, of course. Then the truth comes out.

Yes. Being under oath and cross examination, can do wonders to get at the truth of the matter.