The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems amazing to you because
a. you misunderstand Carroll's position on p1 and
b. you still don't seem to understand the meaning of p1 itself.

I understand Carroll's position well enough to know that he isn't endorsing P1.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Carroll isn't the only member of the scientific community who thinks that P1 may be dubious. As the late Victor Stenger argued, "the universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua, this has already been addressed. You haven't made any new points.

Ken was not addressing the OP but rather making an unrelated sweeping response. My reply was designed to update him and refocus the discussion back to the OP. thanks for your help.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lawrence Krauss offered a similar view:

It is true that a small change in the strength of the four known forces (but nowhere near as small as Metaxas argues) would imply that stable protons and neutrons, the basis of atomic nuclei, might not exist. (The universe, however, would—a rather large error in the Metaxas piece.) This is old news and, while it’s an interesting fact, it certainly does not require a deity.

Once again, it likely confuses cause and effect. The constants of the universe indeed allow the existence of life as we know it. However, it is much more likely that life is tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. We survive on Earth in part because Earth’s gravity keeps us from floating off. But the strength of gravity selects a planet like Earth, among the variety of planets, to be habitable for life forms like us. Reversing the sense of cause and effect in this statement, as Metaxas does in cosmology, is like saying that it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.

 

[Joshua260]

Carroll isn't the only member of the scientific community who thinks that P1 may be dubious. As the late Victor Stenger argued, "the universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."

More evidence that you do not understand the meaning of p1.

 

[Joshua260]

Lawrence Krauss offered a similar view:

Still more evidence you don't understand the meaning of p1.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

More evidence that you do not understand the meaning of p1.

P1 states that "the universe is fine-tuned for life." You clarified the meaning of P1 repeatedly, noting that fine-tuning "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." You further claimed that P1 is "not really controversial amongst scientists." Yet at least three scientists seem to disagree with that. Sean Carroll said that "fine-tuning for life is dubious at best" (emphasis in original), and Stenger and Krauss both seem to think that P1 has it backwards and that life is most likely fine-tuned for the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'd just like to know why atheists, especially those who proclaim to hold to "a lack of belief in God", rule out the design option as a cause for the fine-tuning.

What fine-tuning? You still haven't presented anything which shows that the so-called fine tuned values must have had the possibility to be anything other than they are - or if they did, that it was unlikely for them to end up with values which permit life.

Without evidence to support ruling out the design option, it seems like they are acting on an assertive belief that a designer "code named God" does not exist.

Without evidence to support ruling out design by 53 planet-sized muppets, it seems like you are acting on an assertive belief that 53 planet-sized muppets do not exist.

But more seriously, one good reason to rule it out is that even you didn't seem to know what, if anything, was actually explained by a designer. You couldn't tell us how your design idea, for example, explained that we exist on a planet with breathable air. There's no sinister motive in ignoring an explanation which doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Krauss also expressed similar concerns about focusing the argument on life specifically - a point that was also raised by many here:

By considering each of these many factors and imagining the probability of each separately, one can imagine that the combination is statistically very unlikely, or impossible. “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart,” Metaxas writes. “The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.”

Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

So far we have at least three scientists who cannot be said to "strongly support" P1. So P1 is contestable, even within the scientific community. Shall we move on and consider what scientists have to say about the rest of the premises?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hello Ken. Long time, no see.
Instead of sweeping responses, I was kind of looking for responses directed specifically at the OP.

More on that in a minute, but first, I'd like to explain something about the type argument in the OP. It is called an abductive inference. There's nothing wrong at all with this type of logic, and it is in fact used all the time during criminal and historical investigations. It does not carry with it the level of certainty that an inductive inference does, but never-the-less, it is a valid line of reasoning. It boils down to making an observation and then exploring the possible explanations for it.

The main criticism is that you are not holding your own preferred explanation to the same standard as the other two, which you dismiss due to paucity of evidence. If we are going to approach this matter systematically, then we should examine the evidence for each option, including design, before making our conclusions. Importantly, the conclusion can be indeterminate (i.e., we don't know at present). The problem is that you haven't presented any evidence for design. You have examined and dismissed physical necessity and chance, but you didn't examine design before endorsing it. Perhaps design should be dismissed on the same grounds as the other two options, in which case our conclusion would be indeterminate and signify the need for further inquiry. Or perhaps the evidence for physical necessity and chance, however weak, is still greater than the evidence for design. Again, we don't know because you haven't presented any evidence for design for us to evaluate.

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, we don't know because you haven't presented any evidence for design for us to evaluate.

The teleological argument is intended to be evidence for design, which is why those other folks were calling this circular logic.

When you look at the three options (necessity, chance, design) and decide which is most likely, you have to consider the evidence for design (which at least in part is the argument itself) thereby proving design by asserting itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The teleological argument is intended to be evidence for design, which is why those other folks were calling this circular logic.

When you look at the three options (necessity, chance, design) and decide which is most likely, you have to consider the evidence for design (which at least in part is the argument itself) thereby proving design by asserting itself.

I think someone previously argued that physical necessity and chance were highly improbable. Suppose we grant that point, just for the sake of argument. What is the probability of design? We still don't know. It could be just as improbable, or even more improbable, than the other two options. Design proponents seem to declare triumph prematurely.

 

[Davian]

...
It boils down to making an observation and then exploring the possible explanations for it.

Or, one starts with a presupposition, and creates rationalizations in an effort to justify it.

This is the argument of the OP.

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
2. <snip>

Other quotes that support p1:
a. "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

Why do you not change P1 to that last sentence from Davies, so that it actually agrees with what he says?

You imply that I presuppose that a designer exists.

But you do, don't you? Or are we all supposed to pretend that this is not actually a general apologetics thread in favour of Christianity?

<snip>
Here's a really short film on the argument of OP (which is a slight variant of Craig's) and includes quotes from various scientists:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning

Operators are standing by. Please have your credit card ready.

I'd just like to know why atheists, especially those who proclaim to hold to "a lack of belief in God", rule out the design option as a cause for the fine-tuning. Without evidence to support ruling out the design option, it seems like they are acting on an assertive belief that a designer "code named God" does not exist.

It may seem that way to you. I cannot see how this "universe designer" concept of yours is coherent, or how it can be an option. As I said back in post #379, as an ignostic, I would ask: define what you mean by "designer" in this context, in some testable, falsifiable manner.

 

[Joshua260]

There are two reasons that design is ruled out almost a priori.

Well, I applaud you for admitting that atheists sometimes rule out God a priori. I don't think many other atheists on this thread would admit that. I believe that with many atheists, it's really not "a lack of belief", but rather a committed belief in atheism. They're committed to the belief that God does not exist and move forward on that basis. So thanks for being honest about that. You know, it used to be the accepted idea that the universe has always existed, but then the Big Bang came along and messed that up. So atheists began making up all sorts of alternate models for the universe to avoid a beginning. Recently, some of them have been conceding that the universe had a beginning...basically saying to the rest "Hey, the universe had a beginning. Deal with it." Now we have the fine tuning which is messing things up for the atheists also and some of them are willing to deal with it, but they come up with alternate explanations for that also. If you look at the link I supplied before, you will see several scientists concurring that the universe is fine-tuned. Atheists have been accusing believers of offering a god of the gaps argument for years, but haven't some scientists been doing that --coming up with scientific explanations that seem far out only because of a commitment to atheism? Anyway, Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, seemed to think so. Read what he said about that:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

However, I think you are a little confused about what Christians say about God and how he relates to his creation...

First, what good would it do for scientific progress if we just assumed God did it? We would be done exploring and figuring things out.

Christians are not against scientific advancement. Heck, the scientific endeavor began with the motive to understand how things worked in God's universe. Even now, many scientists are theists.

And secondly, the reason God is ruled out as a reason for things almost a priori, is because that hypothesis has been wrong in every other thing we have ever figured out... ever.

We know how planets form themselves.
We know how galaxies form themselves.
We know how the universe came to look the way it does.
We know how weather works.
We know how bacteria/viruses/disease/pestilence works.
We know how earthquakes/tornadoes/hurricanes/floods/volcanoes work.
We know how evolution works.

These are all things that God used to be the hypothesis for, and it turns out none of them have anything to do with him. So why would we make a guess that God did it now when that guess has been wrong every time before?

Again, no serious apologist believes in a god of the gaps. That's just a caricature that atheists throw out. Christians believe, just like the early scientists did, that God works through nature. It's called providence. If you're looking for empirical proof for the existence of God, you should study the evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

Here's a site for that...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus

...although some other scholars have done even more in-depth studies.

Here's another link:
http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm

 

[Joshua260]

Carroll isn't the only member of the scientific community who thinks that P1 may be dubious. As the late Victor Stenger argued, "the universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe."

you still don't get p1 and that is causing a lot of confusion for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

you still don't get p1 and that is causing a lot of confusion for you.

Yes, you keep saying that. But you always stop short of showing that that is the case.

 

[Joshua260]

The teleological argument is intended to be evidence for design, which is why those other folks were calling this circular logic.

Well then they obviously don't understand what it means to say that an argument is using circular logic. In order for an argument to be circular, the conclusion would have to be found in one of the premises.
Here's an example:

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.

You won't find that structure in the OP, so it is not a circular argument.

When you look at the three options (necessity, chance, design) and decide which is most likely, you have to consider the evidence for design (which at least in part is the argument itself) thereby proving design by asserting itself.

Remember that this is not an inductive inference (which are arguments designed to prove something), but an abductive inference (or an inference to the best explanation). We looked at physical necessity and that's out. We looked at chance and calculated that it is extremely unlikely that a life-permitting universe would exist. We looked at design and that option has the explanatory power of explaining why a life-permitting universe exists in spite of the odds against it. So right there, it is found that the design option offers the best explanation. It hasn't been proved, but it offers the best explanation...so far. What I'm waiting for now is for someone to show why the design option is not the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. All I've gotten so far is "well, I don't believe in a designer, so it must be chance".

 

[Joshua260]

Yes, you keep saying that. But you always stop short of showing that that is the case.

No, I have already explained why several times. The scientific community, maybe not every single person, but the scientific community in general, has accepted the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

The following has more quotes about this:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning

In other words, if any of several constants or initial quantities had been only slightly different, the universe would not be life-permitting. That statement has nothing to do with purpose (which your quotes are focusing on) but is only an observation. Carroll does not disagree with the above statement. It is only regarding the explanation which he disagrees with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, I applaud you for admitting that atheists sometimes rule out God a priori. I don't think many other atheists on this thread would admit that. I believe that with many atheists, it's really not "a lack of belief", but rather a committed belief in atheism. They're committed to the belief that God does not exist and move forward on that basis. So thanks for being honest about that.

You have had atheists in this thread concede that design is a possibility, and yet, despite this, you want to suggest that we are being disingenuous.

You know, it used to be the accepted idea that the universe has always existed, but then the Big Bang came along and messed that up. So atheists began making up all sorts of alternate models for the universe to avoid a beginning. Recently, some of them have been conceding that the universe had a beginning...basically saying to the rest "Hey, the universe had a beginning. Deal with it."

You seem to be assuming that the universe having a beginning is somehow inherently problematic for atheism, perhaps because you think a beginning must imply that a deity was somehow involved. This assumption is incorrect.

Now we have the fine tuning which is messing things up for the atheists also and some of them are willing to deal with it, but they come up with alternate explanations for that also.

The fine-tuning problem isn't "messing things up." It's a phenomenon that we are curious about and eager to learn how it works.

If you look at the link I supplied before, you will see several scientists concurring that the universe is fine-tuned.

You only ever say "scientists concur" when they happen to concur with your premises. I've already shown you that not all scientists concur with P1. But since you are eager to discuss what scientists think, shall we move on and look at what they have to say about the other premises in your argument?

Atheists have been accusing believers of offering a god of the gaps argument for years, but haven't some scientists been doing that --coming up with scientific explanations that seem far out only because of a commitment to atheism?

I think you are projecting here. You are assuming that atheist scientists are "committed to" atheism in the same way that you are committed to your religion. Although I cannot speak for all atheist scientists, I think it's safe to say that most aren't religiously committed to atheism. If your theology actually had any explanatory power, they would gladly integrate it into their models. They ignore your theology not out of some commitment against it, but because it has nothing to offer them.

Christians are not against scientific advancement. Heck, the scientific endeavor began with the motive to understand how things worked in God's universe. Even now, many scientists are theists.

Many theists are excellent scientists, but poor apologists. They are excellent scientists because they are not satisfied with the shallow explanations of the apologists. They are curious enough about the question to seek a deeper understanding. That spirit of curiosity is lacking in apologetics.

Again, no serious apologist believes in a god of the gaps. That's just a caricature that atheists throw out.

Yet many of the most well known apologetic arguments focus on questions about which we are still profoundly ignorant.