• 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 (p4)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, I am interested in what the scientific community thinks about fine-tuning. I've quoted them concurring with me several times.
And you've disregarded them when they do not concur with you, as shown here.
Yes, you misrepresented Carroll. He agrees with P1.
Go on. Show how I've misrepresented Carroll.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Rough example

A rough example of what? You, or maybe WLC or whoever, it just making up numbers. That's not how science works.

What we find is that as we continue to uncover new constant requirements, it just keeps adding improbability upon improbability that a life-permitting universe could have been actualized.

No it doesn't. To show that the values we see here are improbable you'll actually have to get down to the tough work of proposing a model for how those constants got the values they did. That's what would show how unlikely any particular set of them is. So far, you've been remarkably unwilling to do so.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hawking on physical necessity:
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

Why do you say that a critique of a competing theoretical model has anything to say about physical necessity? Or maybe I should ask what does WLC think the connection is, since that's where this quote-mining is coming from.

You obviously don't understand the argument of an inference to the best explanation. As I explained, the scientific community agree that physical necessity and chance are extremely unlikely, and design explains the fine-tuning in spite of the odds against it.

Then why are so few of them Christians? Are you saying you understand the inferences from modern physics and cosmology better than the people who study these subjects for a living?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I never said Hawking commented on every value.

Then why did you bring him up? It has nothing to do with my objections - it seems like an attempt to dodge the question rather than try and answer it.

Yes, I see the verbiage "seem to".

Then hopefully you'll stop with the false claims that he says the universe is fine-tuned.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But cherry picking does not apply in this case. Cherry picking is like I'm citing evidence that supports my conclusion and ignoring evidence that doesn't.

Or in this case, citing opinions which agree with you and ignoring opinions which don't.

Using that logic, could we not then accuse atheistic scientists (there are theistic ones who agree with design) of cherry picking, since we use the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion?

No, since they're obviously not going to reference you as an expert in their field of study.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
1. Put a name to the fallacy you describe.
2. Demonstrate circular using using the argument of the OP.
3. Maybe you should do this first...read a book on the use of logic.

I will ask you one more time.

If you went to your doctor and he told you; you have the appearance of being healthy, but upon reviewing your blood work, he determined you had significant disease, would you then tell everyone; my doctor says I am healthy, and ignore what his conclusions were after further examination, beyond appearance?

This is EXACTLY what you are doing in referencing the statements of scientists, in regards to design.

If you think that is logical, then you run with that.
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
60
✟23,011.00
Faith
Baptist
1. I can hear the universe perfectly. (p1)


Did you not see the word "perfectly"? That means not tuned to 107.954336578 or 107.811263754, but tuned exactly to 107.90000000.

My p1 is "The universe is fined-tuned for life."
When we insert "for life", we are dong the same thing as tuning the radio exactly to 107.90000000.

I saw your word, "perfectly," and according to the way it was used, grammatically, it is an adverb describing how well you receive the signal and process it. It does not describe how many other frequencies on which you might also receive and process such a signal. I could speak French and you could hear and understand me "perfectly". That would not mean I could not also speak English or Mandarin and you would be able to hear and understand it also. So your statement does not capture the sense that it could only be French (i.e., that the universe could only be tuned as it is for life).

Nonetheless, it seems that I have already posed the dilemma to you that your p1 states how the constants could only be set to what they are in order to support life, and that your "physical necessity" option only expands this by saying that they could only be set to what they are to support the existence of a universe ... and that this option only seems to broaden the issue and beg the question: but how do we account for that fine-tuning?

If you gave me a clear-cut answer to that, I'm afraid it escaped me. Could you do that now?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
When we insert "for life", we are dong the same thing as tuning the radio exactly to 107.90000000.
And if we insert any other "for..." we are tuning the radio to another frequency.
You are a priori assuming a significance of "life" - that´s one of the fundamental problems in your argument.
Your analogy spells it out: You are the fine-tuner.
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
60
✟23,011.00
Faith
Baptist
Regarding the question of efficiency on the part of any "designer" of the universe ...

Efficiency depends upon what the goal is. If you have unlimited resources and unlimited time, there is absolutely nothing to be gained in creating everything instantly and without any process or formulation going on.

To an Engineer for whom every kind of problem was designed in His own head, as well as its solution, the process is the goal. And that is also the case for a true Artist, who unlike most of us, does not need to revel in His own accomplishments, but then seeks only to share both the process and the results in a communion, in a relationship, that He establishes with those He loves and who return His love.

How does this have bearing upon our discussion of a "designer"? The fact is, you cannot throw out the other accepted truths that are a part of someone's model of the world while testing one of them for consistency with yours. If you want to falsify a world view, you have to take it on its own terms, and find a contradiction within that model. So it may be fine for you to suggest that any designer of the universe must be efficient in terms of not wasting any time or material as a potter or sculptor does, but that's because your world view accepts any such designer as primarily person-like in their desire to be efficient with resources. A world view that discounts this presumption about efficiency may also accept the designer as an artist with unlimited resources.

There is no basis to make your assumption, so looking for inefficiency in that regard to disprove ID is likewise baseless.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Regarding the question of efficiency on the part of any "designer" of the universe ...

Efficiency depends upon what the goal is. If you have unlimited resources and unlimited time, there is absolutely nothing to be gained in creating everything instantly and without any process or formulation going on.

To an Engineer for whom every kind of problem was designed in His own head, as well as its solution, the process is the goal. And that is also the case for a true Artist, who unlike most of us, does not need to revel in His own accomplishments, but then seeks only to share both the process and the results in a communion, in a relationship, that He establishes with those He loves and who return His love.

How does this have bearing upon our discussion of a "designer"? The fact is, you cannot throw out the other accepted truths that are a part of someone's model of the world while testing one of them for consistency with yours. If you want to falsify a world view, you have to take it on its own terms, and find a contradiction within that model. So it may be fine for you to suggest that any designer of the universe must be efficient in terms of not wasting any time or material as a potter or sculptor does, but that's because your world view accepts any such designer as primarily person-like in their desire to be efficient with resources. A world view that discounts this presumption about efficiency may also accept the designer as an artist with unlimited resources.

There is no basis to make your assumption, so looking for inefficiency in that regard to disprove ID is likewise baseless.
Then the fine-tuning argument misses the mark entirely because "fine-tuning" implies efficiency and the image of an engineer, not an artist. You've just deflated the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
60
✟23,011.00
Faith
Baptist
Then the fine-tuning argument misses the mark entirely because "fine-tuning" implies efficiency and the image of an engineer, not an artist. You've just deflated the argument.
No, that presumes that if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer. What I said was that if it has an artist-designer it is not true that it must be efficient.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, that presumes that if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer. What I said was that if it has an artist-designer it is not true that it must be efficient.
Which means that the fine-tuning argument falls to pieces. An individual "fine-tunes" something so that it has the optimal settings to a perform a particular function. An aspiration toward efficiency is implied, or otherwise it wouldn't be "fine-tuning" so much as "playing around with the dials."
 
Upvote 0

Arythmael

Member
Jul 3, 2006
223
27
60
✟23,011.00
Faith
Baptist
Which means that the fine-tuning argument falls to pieces. An individual "fine-tunes" something so that it has the optimal settings to a perform a particular function. An aspiration toward efficiency is implied, or otherwise it wouldn't be "fine-tuning" so much as "playing around with the dials."
You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.

My statements say that if there is an artist-designer it's not true that everything must show evidence of efficiency. That's not the same as saying that if there is an artist-designer then everything must not show evidence of efficiency. Nor is that the same as saying that if there are signs of efficiency then there couldn't be an artist-designer.

You are mixing your logic up to support your view.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.

My statements say that if there is an artist-designer it's not true that everything must show evidence of efficiency. That's not the same as saying that if there is an artist-designer then everything must not show evidence of efficiency. Nor is that the same as saying that if there are signs of efficiency then there couldn't be an artist-designer.

You are mixing your logic up to support your view.
If you are claiming that the universe is "fine-tuned," then you are invoking the metaphor of an engineer, not an artist; you are saying that someone tweaked the settings to optimise a particular function. Whether those settings are aesthetically pleasing or not is beside the point; all that matters is that they optimise the function in question. In art, it's the aesthetics that are important, not how "fine-tuned" the art is for performing a particular function. In fact, the artwork may have no clear purpose in mind at all; it may be open to interpretation. That's clearly not the same as fine-tuning.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.

My statements say that if there is an artist-designer it's not true that everything must show evidence of efficiency. That's not the same as saying that if there is an artist-designer then everything must not show evidence of efficiency. Nor is that the same as saying that if there are signs of efficiency then there couldn't be an artist-designer.

You are mixing your logic up to support your view.
This is not about supporting the view that the universe isn´t defined - it is about scrutinizing the teleological argument saying that it must be designed.
The argument implicitly argues from and for efficient and parsimonous design.
If you introduce artistic design (which could result in pretty much anything) you are throwing the relevance of the teleological argument out of the window: Literally anything could be the result of design.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.