"Fine-tuned for life" - supposed to be an argument for a designer or for a creator?

[quatona]

Lots of criticism of the "fine-tuning/design"-arguments have been given in countless threads.

Here I´d like to focus on just one point that I can´t seem to be able to make sense of:

One token of (good, intelligent) design is elegance and parsimony.
However, the "fine-tuned/designed for life" argument rests on the idea that an incredibly huge, complex universe is required for sustaining a tiny bit of life in an incredibly small and insignificant spot in this universe.

Doesn´t look like good design to me, sorry. Unparsimonous to the max and full of redundancy.

Unless, of course, this huge, complex system was necessary for life to be able to exist. Which raises the question: What powers did the designer have? What were the pre-existing conditions that he had to accept as given, and with which he could just fiddle around? What about those often-cited "constants" - did he actually create/invent them, or were they something that already existed and that he had to accept as given?

So what am I supposed to believe, exactly? That there was a creator who created conditions, laws, constants and other such stuff, and then there was a designer who tweaked these until life was possible?
Or do you actually refer to an omnipotent ex-nihilo-creator as a "designer" - in which case he certainly could have simply created life directly - without creating the fact that a huge universe is required for there to be some life, along with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Gee quatona, what are the chances that today at 4:12 you would post exactly these words in this sequence? Think of all the little things in your day that had to happen (and could've happened, but didn't) in order for you to post that? Why if we look back at just today and try to calculate them all, it becomes near unlikely that you'd post these words!

If we look even further back, say all last week, and try to calculate everything that had to happen for you to post that...it would certainly approach near impossible.

If we start with just when you were born...then it becomes nothing short of miraculous!! Did you feel god guiding you towards this post your entire life?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lots of criticism of the "fine-tuning/design"-arguments have been given in countless threads.

Here I´d like to focus on just one point that I can´t seem to be able to make sense of:

One token of (good, intelligent) design is elegance and parsimony.
However, the "fine-tuned/designed for life" argument rests on the idea that an incredibly huge, complex universe is required for sustaining a tiny bit of life in an incredibly small and insignificant spot in this universe.

Doesn´t look like good design to me, sorry. Unparsimonous to the max and full of redundancy.

Unless, of course, this huge, complex system was necessary for life to be able to exist. Which raises the question: What powers did the designer have? What were the pre-existing conditions that he had to accept as given, and with which he could just fiddle around? What about those often-cited "constants" - did he actually create/invent them, or were they something that already existed and that he had to accept as given?

So what am I supposed to believe, exactly? That there was a creator who created conditions, laws, constants and other such stuff, and then there was a designer who tweaked these until life was possible?
Or do you actually refer to an omnipotent ex-nihilo-creator as a "designer" - in which case he certainly could have simply created life directly - without creating the fact that a huge universe is required for there to be some life, along with it.

Yes, I suppose we can be sure that God has a vested interest in "elegance and parsimony" as characteristic marks of His Rule of the Universe.........

2PhiloVoid

 

[quatona]

Gee quatona, what are the chances that today at 4:12 you would post exactly these words in this sequence? Think of all the little things in your day that had to happen (and could've happened, but didn't) in order for you to post that? Why if we look back at just today and try to calculate them all, it becomes near unlikely that you'd post these words!

If we look even further back, say all last week, and try to calculate everything that had to happen for you to post that...it would certainly approach near impossible.

If we start with just when you were born...then it becomes nothing short of miraculous!! Did you feel god guiding you towards this post your entire life?

Yes - to the point that now that I´ve written it I feel my life has become meaningless.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

He could have created a minute boltzman fluctuaiton in a mini-universe. That would be parsimonious, but I am not sure it would be "elegant". Maybe then though, God would be called wimpy, because he never created a sublime universe, just a small one.

 

[quatona]

He could have created a minute boltzman fluctuaiton in a mini-universe. That would be parsimonious, but I am not sure it would be "elegant". Maybe then though, God would be called wimpy, because he never created a sublime universe, just a small one.

Then again, he could have avoided the problem of being called things altogether by creating his creatures in a fashion that would prevent them from calling him things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then again, he could have avoided the problem of being called things altogether by creating his creatures in a fashion that would prevent them from calling him things.

...or God made the universe on a scale according to His ultimate purposes rather than one which human beings rationally prefer.

 

[quatona]

...or God made the universe on a scale according to His ultimate purposes rather than one which human beings rationally prefer.

Yeah, or God was forced by METAGOD to abstain from the idea to create parsimonously, and to instead create maximal redundancy.
Once we start making up stuff out of thin air, the options are sheer countless.

 

[anonymous person]

Lots of criticism of the "fine-tuning/design"-arguments have been given in countless threads.

Here I´d like to focus on just one point that I can´t seem to be able to make sense of:

One token of (good, intelligent) design is elegance and parsimony.
However, the "fine-tuned/designed for life" argument rests on the idea that an incredibly huge, complex universe is required for sustaining a tiny bit of life in an incredibly small and insignificant spot in this universe.

Doesn´t look like good design to me, sorry. Unparsimonous to the max and full of redundancy.

Unless, of course, this huge, complex system was necessary for life to be able to exist. Which raises the question: What powers did the designer have? What were the pre-existing conditions that he had to accept as given, and with which he could just fiddle around? What about those often-cited "constants" - did he actually create/invent them, or were they something that already existed and that he had to accept as given?

So what am I supposed to believe, exactly? That there was a creator who created conditions, laws, constants and other such stuff, and then there was a designer who tweaked these until life was possible?
Or do you actually refer to an omnipotent ex-nihilo-creator as a "designer" - in which case he certainly could have simply created life directly - without creating the fact that a huge universe is required for there to be some life, along with it.

This is not the teleological argument. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what a defense of the argument entails and what it does not. I am a proponent of the argument and am willing to discuss it if you are open to accepting the conclusion.

 

[quatona]

This is not the teleological argument.

Who cares?
It´s an argument presented here many times.
If it´s not your argument you needn´t defend it.

But maybe you could fill me in about the teleological argument (as you would present it):
Is it meant to argue for the existence a creator or for a designer or both? Or neither?

 

[anonymous person]

Who cares?
It´s an argument presented here many times.
If it´s not your argument you needn´t defend it.

But maybe you could fill me in about the teleological argument (as you would present it):
Is it meant to argue for the existence a creator or for a designer or both? Or neither?

Well the teleological argument is the fine-tuning argument.

So when I said:

"This is not the teleological argument..."

I intended for you to take it as me saying:

"This is not the fine-tuning argument...."

IOW, your questions have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument.

The teleological or fine-tuning argument is an argument for the hypothesis that the fine-tuning observed in the cosmos is due to design. The argument attempts to show that the competing hypotheses i.e. chance and necessity cannot adequately account for the fine-tuning observed in the universe and that therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design because there are only three hypotheses that can account for the fine-tuning. They are: chance, necessity, and design.

 

[quatona]

The teleological or fine-tuning argument is an argument for the hypothesis that the fine-tuning observed in the cosmos is due to design. The argument attempts to show that the competing hypotheses i.e. chance and necessity cannot adequately account for the fine-tuning observed in the universe and that therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design because there are only three hypotheses that can account for the fine-tuning. They are: chance, necessity, and design.

So I take it your answer is "for a designer"?

 

[anonymous person]

So I take it your answer is "for a designer"?

Correct.

 

[quatona]

Correct.

Thanks.

So what, in short, prompted me to make this thread, was the question: How come an argument for a "designer" (assuming for the sake of the argument that it holds water) is frequently accepted as evidence for a "creator(-god)"? Doesn´t seem to follow, and doesn´t even seem to help.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, or God was forced by METAGOD to abstain from the idea to create parsimonously, and to instead create maximal redundancy.
Once we start making up stuff out of thin air, the options are sheer countless.

or, we can just go back and forth with countless ORs.... OR, we can just RAZOR OCCAM out of the whole thing...

 

[quatona]

or, we can just go back and forth with countless ORs....

Well, I didn´t start it.

OR, we can just RAZOR OCCAM out of the whole thing...

You mean dropping it as being off-topic?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I didn´t start it.

You mean dropping it as being off-topic?

No, quatona. I would never be that narrow minded. Occam's Razor seems to always be on the menu; however, it's just that I never happen to order it.

Peace

 

[anonymous person]

Thanks.

So what, in short, prompted me to make this thread, was the question: How come an argument for a "designer" (assuming for the sake of the argument that it holds water) is frequently accepted as evidence for a "creator(-god)"? Doesn´t seem to follow, and doesn´t even seem to help.

Why would you not view a designer of the universe as a creator of the universe?

It seems to me that when you conduct a conceptual analysis of the attributes such a designer, must at minimum possess, to design the universe, you would derive many of the attributes philosophers commonly attribute to God.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Why would you not view a designer of the universe as a creator of the universe?

It seems to me that when you conduct a conceptual analysis of the attributes such a designer, must at minimum possess, to design the universe, you would derive many of the attributes philosophers commonly attribute to God.

Well think about it. Much to our knowledge the only things that are designed (that we know of) are on this planet. The rest of the universe we observe is full of extremely simple objects like gas giants, stars and near uni-form planets (like this beauty http://bit.ly/1Dsdshy)

Why would I be compelled to believe there's a "designer" to them? Those aforementioned objects are no more complex than a raindrop.

 

[quatona]

Why would you not view a designer of the universe as a creator of the universe?

Because the words aren´t synonyms. Or else the teleological argument could and would have used the word "creator".
Instead, it´s about a designer all the time, yet the theistic conclusion suddenly replaces it by "creator".
"Designing" means manipulating or shaping that which already exists. Something entirely different than ex-nihilo creation.

It seems to me that when you conduct a conceptual analysis of the attributes such a designer, must at minimum possess, to design the universe, you would derive many of the attributes philosophers commonly attribute to God.

Be that as it may (god concepts are a dime a dozen, after all) - the teleological argument (again: pretending for a moment it holds water) doesn´t prove a creator god - simply because there´s a gap between proving a designer and concluding a creator.