The Teleological Argument (p4)

[paulm50]

This whole debate swings on two sides arguments.

1. We know everything and can explain it from writings of Bronze Age men, retelling stories carried down from the Stone Age. And when proved wrong, ignore it or twist it to fit our view. Because we can never be wrong.

2. We are still learning using a level of technology that grows by the day. We can be wrong, therefore we correct our knowledge and move on.

 

[Arythmael]

How does one distinguish a universe that is designed from one that isn't? The presence of complex structure probably isn't sufficient because we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex structure without the guidance of an intelligence.

The phrase "without the guidance of an intelligence" seems a little slippery. We would be looking not necessarily for direct guidance, but indirect guidance by way of the injection of rules which seem to promote functions, which in turn result in higher functions, which result in complex systems, ecosystems, etc. And in that sense you are guilty of circular logic here.

You are presuming that there was no intelligence behind the injection of those rules into the natural world, and yet that is the very thing we are trying to prove. The absence of evidence there does not weigh in on either side, because otherwise we are claiming that we somehow know for a fact that if there were intelligence behind it then we would be able to ... we must be able to witness in those observations direct evidence of the creator also. But we have no reason whatsoever to claim that. So we have to look elsewhere; somewhere that we can find a pattern of intelligence creating tools and interacting elements which achieve functions, which lead to higher functions, etc.

This we find everywhere else.

Everywhere there is what we call intelligence, the more intelligence we ascribe to something, almost invariably the more that thing is capable of accomplishing those creative and complex results. From the tiniest microbes to the brains of humans themselves.

Ergo, we have much stronger evidence overall weighing in on the side that says nature itself by its complexity must have had an intelligence behind it as well.

 

[Moral Orel]

What would be your idea of evidence showing that the universe was, in fact, designed?

I've seen a lot of people posit an answer to this, mostly in question form such as, "why not just this or that?". Basically, a very simple, very small, totally inexplicable universe would be evidence that design is the only way for it to exist. What purpose is there in processes that develop things naturally if everything can be made instantly and magically?

I'll ask the reverse: what would a universe look like that developed complexity through natural processes alone?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The phrase "without the guidance of an intelligence" seems a little slippery. We would be looking not necessarily for direct guidance, but indirect guidance by way of the injection of rules which seem to promote functions, which in turn result in higher functions, which result in complex systems, ecosystems, etc. And in that sense you are guilty of circular logic here.

You are presuming that there was no intelligence behind the injection of those rules into the natural world, and yet that is the very thing we are trying to prove.

I'm sorry, but could you please try pointing out my alleged circular logic again? All I stated was that we know that natural processes are capable of producing complex structure, and therefore the presence of complexity isn't, on its own, a sufficient marker of design. This is why we don't conclude that every complex structure must have been designed.

The absence of evidence there does not weigh in on either side, because otherwise we are claiming that we somehow know for a fact that if there were intelligence behind it then we would be able to ... we must be able to witness in those observations direct evidence of the creator also. But we have no reason whatsoever to claim that. So we have to look elsewhere; somewhere that we can find a pattern of intelligence creating tools and interacting elements which achieve functions, which lead to higher functions, etc.

This we find everywhere else.

Everywhere there is what we call intelligence, the more intelligence we ascribe to something, almost invariably the more that thing is capable of accomplishing those creative and complex results. From the tiniest microbes to the brains of humans themselves.

Ergo, we have much stronger evidence overall weighing in on the side that says nature itself by its complexity must have had an intelligence behind it as well.

I'm not following. What evidence do we have for intelligent design? Isn't intelligence also complex? In which case, who or what designed the designer?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'll ask the reverse: what would a universe look like that developed complexity through natural processes alone?

Might it look like this one?

 

[KCfromNC]

Wow. So which view do you support? That the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity, or by chance.

Neither - I'm smart enough not to pretend this is an answered question. Or that there's even any fine tuning to worry about in the first place. I'm just trying to figure out why you're ruling out options which you claim are supported by your scientific experts on the topic.

So do you suppose that might indicate that Hawking believes it is possible for the constants to be different? Think about it.

I wouldn't have to guess at it if you could find quotes showing that he and other scientists agree with your take on the matter. Think about it.

And of course, none of this answers my question - how do you know for certain that the physical constants could be anything other than what they are? Please be specific.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, assuming a mutl-verse. And not just one or two, but a enormous amount of them in order to make chance a reasonable option...again, with not even one iota of evidence for even a second one. I just think you should understand the lengths one has to go to in order to avoid design.

Yes, assuming a multiverse. That's what were were talking about. If we don't assume a multiverse, there are other naturalistic options, none of them any more satisfying. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a multiverse or the other options resolve any ultimate truths about reality or origins; the situation is that variations on the multiverse have the most support among cosmologists as an explanation for the appearance of fine tuning because they 'fall out' of the Standard Model. It's very early days for these cosmological hypotheses, we don't have enough observational data yet. The Planck cosmic background radiation measurements are still under analysis and have only recently been made public, and that's really just the start.

yes...again...a lot of supposition to justify chance a an option.

It was a logical consequence of your analogy; if it had happened as you describe, either something very unusual happened or our assumptions were incorrect.

Still no evidence for it.

No indeed, but it is based on a model of known validity. This is how science works. when Einstein proposed his theory of General Relativity, it was sometime before its predictions could be tested; when they were tested, they were found to correspond precisely to the observations. When Peter Higgs and his colleagues proposed that the Standard Model of particle physics required and predicted an undiscovered particle with certain properties, it took 40 years before the technology was available to detect that particle and confirm that it had the predicted properties. Although this confirmed that the Standard Model was extraordinarily accurate within its known domain of validity, many physicists were disappointed because it revealed nothing new or unexpected to provide clues about how to extend it beyond its known domain.

This is not to say that the multiverse or any other proposed hypothesis is likely to eventually be confirmed, just that this is how science operates at the margins of what is known.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No indeed. This is how science works. when Einstein proposed his theory of General Relativity, it was sometime before its predictions could be tested; when they were tested, they were found to correspond precisely to the observations. When Peter Higgs and his colleagues proposed that the Standard Model of particle physics required and predicted an undiscovered particle with certain properties, it took 40 years before the technology was available to detect that particle and confirm that it had the predicted properties. Although this confirmed that the Standard Model was extraordinarily accurate within its known domain of validity, many physicists were disappointed because it revealed nothing new or unexpected to provide clues about how to extend it beyond its known domain.

This is not to say that the multiverse or any other proposed hypothesis is likely to eventually be confirmed, just that this is how science operates at the margins of what is known.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There’s no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers."

 

[Joshua260]

Believe me when I say that I totally understand your point. However, I'm pretty sure you are not understanding mine.

The very definition of "fine-tuned" means you have a large bandwidth of possibilities but the one or ones you need to "tune" into to create and/or sustain a universe like ours lies within a very narrow bandwidth -- it was "fine-tuned".

This is where we part ways on this discussion. We are using different definitions for "fine-tuned".

My use of the term "fine-tuned" in this thread is that if certain constants varied just a little bit (without presuming that they could <<<<<that is the crux of our disagreement), then the universe would not be life-permitting.

I am not imagining a radio with a big fat tuning dial which has been found to be set to our universe. After all, could it not be that the radio was built without a tuning dial and it is hard-wired so that everyone is forced to listen to a specific frequency (this universe)?

Suppose that the universe is resonating at 200 hz. I build a radio that is hard-wired to pick up the frequency, but my calculations for which transistors to use was faulty and I find that my finished radio is built to detect 180 hz. If we wanted to pick up the universe at 200 hz, then that is a poorly-tuned radio. Again, no tuning dial existed.

Suppose we build another radio which is also hard-wired to pick up the frequency and this time we make the right calculations and can hear the universe perfectly. In that case, the radio is finely-tuned to pick up our universe at 200 hz. Yet, still no tuning dial.

So it is a mistake to presume that "fine-tuned" means that there are alternate possibilities, and that is the point of the physical necessity option. We are asking "Do we have a dial with a range of possible frequencies, or is the radio hard-wired to read one specific frequency only?"

 

[Joshua260]

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We’re not afraid to admit what we don’t know. There’s no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers."

uh-huh. and no one here is doing that. thanks for the post.

 

[Arythmael]

I've seen a lot of people posit an answer to this, mostly in question form such as, "why not just this or that?". Basically, a very simple, very small, totally inexplicable universe would be evidence that design is the only way for it to exist.

We're trying to find the most reasonable thing to believe with regard to our universe and design. Is it more likely that it was or that is wasn't designed? We don't need to prove that design is the only way for some kind of universe to exist. If we could do that, then yes, that would constitute proof. But there are many ways to arrive at a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence without using that particular approach.

What purpose is there in processes that develop things naturally if everything can be made instantly and magically?

This presumes that efficiency is the foremost goal in creating it. What makes you think that is the case?

I'll ask the reverse: what would a universe look like that developed complexity through natural processes alone?

I personally don't think it is possible. Reason doesn't support it. In any case, the burden of proof with regard to design is on those of us who claim there is a designer (since there is no irrefutable authority standing in front of us saying "I did it."). So the better question is for me to ask what attributes a universe would have to have for you to say it definitely shows signs of having been designed. If I can show that those attributes exist (or that they are unreasonable), we can get somewhere.

 

[Arythmael]

Believe me when I say that I totally understand your point. However, I'm pretty sure you are not understanding mine.


This is where we part ways on this discussion. We are using different definitions for "fine-tuned".

My use of the term "fine-tuned" in this thread is that if certain constants varied just a little bit (without presuming that they could <<<<<that is the crux of our disagreement), then the universe would not be life-permitting.

I am not imagining a radio with a big fat tuning dial which has been found to be set to our universe. After all, could it not be that the radio was built without a tuning dial and it is hard-wired so that everyone is forced to listen to a specific frequency (this universe)?

Suppose that the universe is resonating at 200 hz. I build a radio that is hard-wired to pick up the frequency, but my calculations for which transistors to use was faulty and I find that my finished radio is built to detect 180 hz. If we wanted to pick up the universe at 200 hz, then that is a poorly-tuned radio. Again, no tuning dial existed.

Suppose we build another radio which is also hard-wired to pick up the frequency and this time we make the right calculations and can hear the universe perfectly. In that case, the radio is finely-tuned to pick up our universe at 200 hz. Yet, still no tuning dial.

So it is a mistake to presume that "fine-tuned" means that there are alternate possibilities, and that is the point of the physical necessity option. We are asking "Do we have a dial with a range of possible frequencies, or is the radio hard-wired to read one specific frequency only?"

No need to part ways on this discussion; I think we can converge on a mutual understanding here.

I can take your use of the term "fine-tuned" as you would like it to be understood in this conversation. Here it is, as stated above in your own words: "If certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not be life-permitting."

Now here is your definition of physical necessity (again, your own words): "Physical necessity does not mean that only a certain values could be set to support life. Rather, it means that it would be impossible for those values to be different...period! (whether or not there is or isn't life)" I think it is a fair paraphrase to claim that this is saying "If certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not exist at all".

So let me understand your first option of premise (2):

• The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity.

If we replace these words with your definitions, then we are saying:

• The fact that if certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not be life-permitting, is due to the fact that if certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not exist at all.

Is that what you are saying with this first option of premise (2)?

 

[Moral Orel]

This presumes that efficiency is the foremost goal in creating it. What makes you think that is the case?

I didn't say that efficiency was the foremost goal. The point is that things that are unnecessary don't have a purpose except to be a part of showing how the universe designs itself.

We don't need to prove that design is the only way for some kind of universe to exist. If we could do that, then yes, that would constitute proof.

You asked what the universe would look like in my/our opinion if it was designed (I know you weren't talking to me, but I jumped in anyways). I told you what features I would expect (and have read other people say what they would expect). It isn't about proving what a designer would do in some universe, it's about what isn't done in this one to show design.

So the better question is for me to ask what attributes a universe would have to have for you to say it definitely shows signs of having been designed.

The only attribute you could add to this universe to show that it has a designer is the irrefutable being saying "I created this". I know that is going to be something you call unreasonable. Of course I don't see why. Creating a universe is a big deal, showing up and taking credit should be trivial.

So the question is what should be taken away to show signs of a designer. And that would be the way that we can see how the universe shapes itself including it's inhabitants.

We can see and calculate how a nebula forms into a star and then see how planets form themselves out of dust and rocks. You may disagree, but we can see how life becomes more complex, changes, and becomes more intelligent and advanced. Evidence of a designer comes from these things happening straight out of the designer, and not out of natural processes that control these things themselves.

So you may disagree about the evidence we have for evolution, and that is a whole other topic for a whole other board, but as long as we can see ways that a designer is unnecessary, then we see signs that a designer does not exist. What we need to show evidence of a designer, is a lack of evidence that a designer is unnecessary.

So much of what we have thought required a designer no longer requires one (think about gravity, natural disasters, disease, etc.) that there is good reason that the things we can't explain yet will be explained someday. Maybe not even someday soon, but someday. What reason is there to believe that what we haven't explained yet, won't ever be explained given how much we have explained thus far?

 

[nonbeliever314]

@Joshua260 Do you think there are other forms of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, of which their intelligence greatly surpasses ours?

In a universe where there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars, I think it's pretty much a done deal that there is life out there that is far, far more intelligent than us. Which means, if the universe was fine-tuned (which I don't think is the case), the designer "God" is a deistic one at most.

 

[paulm50]

If one's definition of fine tuned, is what the Universe is now, Able to sustain one planet, for sure, with intelligent life, a few more with the probability of life. That have the probability of being wiped out by natural powers beyond anyone's control. Then yes it's fine tuned.

And this is essentially the argument on those saying it's fine tuned. We may get killed by a hurricane, flood, lightening, earthquake, volcano, disease, meteor, etc. All fine tuning.

 

[Arythmael]

I didn't say that efficiency was the foremost goal. The point is that things that are unnecessary don't have a purpose except to be a part of showing how the universe designs itself.

I know you didn't say that explicitly, but I saw it as a presupposition because here's what you said, slightly rephrased, "If everything can be made instantly and magically, what purpose is there in processes that develop things naturally?" This compares two options, one whose primary benefit seems to be that it is done "instantly" -- and that is typically only useful when your goal is to be efficient, right?

So the answer to your question has to be something which posits that even though instant, "magical" creation was possible, the Creator had a higher purpose than to simply gain efficiency by doing it that way.

You asked what the universe would look like in my/our opinion if it was designed (I know you weren't talking to me, but I jumped in anyways). I told you what features I would expect (and have read other people say what they would expect). It isn't about proving what a designer would do in some universe, it's about what isn't done in this one to show design.

So are you saying the attributes it would have to have are (1) it is very simple, (2) it is very small, and (3) it is totally inexplicable? Really? That's how you would know it is designed? Let me just stop there and make sure I understand that correctly. I'll let you confirm.

The only attribute you could add to this universe to show that it has a designer is the irrefutable being saying "I created this". I know that is going to be something you call unreasonable. Of course I don't see why. Creating a universe is a big deal, showing up and taking credit should be trivial.

Just because showing up and taking credit would be trivial, it does not necessarily follow that this is something desirable from the vantage point of the One who is responsible for creating us, at least not how you may be envisioning it (perhaps via some giant television screen in the sky on the "BigGuy Network" channel). Being that we are discussing this on a Christian forum site, I'm sure you are aware that Christianity claims that someone did show up and take credit for it. So your beef should be about whether or not you believe this person and the accounts of what He claimed, not why no one showed up claiming to be the Creator.

So the question is what should be taken away to show signs of a designer. And that would be the way that we can see how the universe shapes itself including it's inhabitants.

We can see and calculate how a nebula forms into a star and then see how planets form themselves out of dust and rocks. You may disagree, but we can see how life becomes more complex, changes, and becomes more intelligent and advanced. Evidence of a designer comes from these things happening straight out of the designer, and not out of natural processes that control these things themselves.

If you knew nothing about how a symphony got recorded but could listen carefully as many times as you wanted, how would you know that it was designed by a composer rather than occurred "naturally" somewhere? You would observe nothing that appeared to come "straight out of the designer", you would only hear patterns, see themes and variations, hear melodies unfolding seemingly entirely on their own and without any help. There would appear to be rules about which harmonies land on which beats, but would you assume that the rules and patterns just "magically" existed on their own as natural occurrences?

Perhaps you would. But you see how wrong you would be, because it was only your knowledge that was limited. The simple fact which Christians do not understand about your point of view is why everywhere else in life we look for those elements of design to discern what was designed and what was not (just think of archaeology, alone). But when it comes to the universe, you demand to see that big hand at work, or an owner's manual telling you how it's all made and how to fix stuff. That's what just doesn't make any sense. It is both reasonable and intuitive to see all of these elements of design and conclude that there is a designer.

So you may disagree about the evidence we have for evolution, and that is a whole other topic for a whole other board, but as long as we can see ways that a designer is unnecessary, then we see signs that a designer does not exist. What we need to show evidence of a designer, is a lack of evidence that a designer is unnecessary.

You're not making any sense. That's like watching the symphony orchestra perform, and deciding that a composer was not necessary because the music is clearly organizing itself all on its own. Don't you know the difference between a design and a medium for executing the design? In the universe you are only seeing the forces which act as the orchestra that is executing what was scripted for them by the composer. Why would God need to explain to you exactly how He "speaks" a command and the elements obey Him (metaphorically speaking)? He came and did miracles so that you knew He had the ability to command the elements. Argue that if you want. But don't try to tell me that a designer is unnecessary just because He's not directly standing there pulling the strings or playing the instruments.

So much of what we have thought required a designer no longer requires one (think about gravity, natural disasters, disease, etc.) that there is good reason that the things we can't explain yet will be explained someday. Maybe not even someday soon, but someday. What reason is there to believe that what we haven't explained yet, won't ever be explained given how much we have explained thus far?

Even if you resolved the grand unified theory in one elegant equation, you would still have to explain who the heck put it there for you to discover. You still have the problem that all of this stuff has the elements of design written all over it, and yet you're going to insist that there is no designer despite that evidence and despite the fact that someone did come along and not only claim to be the Creator but perform things only a superhuman (above human) Creator would be able to perform.

 

[Winepress777]

@Joshua260 Do you think there are other forms of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, of which their intelligence greatly surpasses ours?

In a universe where there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars, I think it's pretty much a done deal that there is life out there that is far, far more intelligent than us. Which means, if the universe was fine-tuned (which I don't think is the case), the designer "God" is a deistic one at most.

If you are a repentant man, and you worship Jesus, you will know for sure one day, and you will look back and have a good laugh at all this philosophy

 

[quatona]

I'd like to discuss and explore the Teleological Argument, so I offer the following version:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

I keep wondering about the significance of the first premise (in the meaning the OP claims to use it in).
If the argument read:

1. The unverse is as it is. (Or "the universe is huge", or "the universe is, for most parts, uninhabitated", or...)
2. The nature of the universe (or: the hugeness of the universe, or...) is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

...would it still...ahem...work the same way as with "fine-tuning"? Why? Why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are a repentant man, and you worship Jesus, you will know for sure one day, and you will look back and have a good laugh at all this philosophy

What is it in what he said that tickles your repentant funny bone?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

Being that we are discussing this on a Christian forum site, I'm sure you are aware that Christianity claims that someone did show up and take credit for it. So your beef should be about whether or not you believe this person and the accounts of what He claimed, not why no one showed up claiming to be the Creator.

I will not discuss this issue because it falls in the realm of general apologetics and I don't want to see this thread closed. Please stay within the realm of philosophy and stick to the "general deity" argument.

As to the rest of your post, you talk about design as if it is obvious, which it is not. We aren't talking about a symphony of instruments that can only play music with someone plucking the strings. At best, we're talking about hearing a bunch of birds singing, and it sounds kind of like a melody you know. Plenty of well reasoned people don't see the patterns that you do, and it isn't about being in denial. If God wanted it to be obvious, he would have made it obvious, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. For some reason, if God exists, he wants to be elusive.

If you already believe in design, especially if you believe very strongly, you're going to see design wherever you can. If you don't believe in design, you'll have to be shown real evidence of design to believe in it. Bias changes perceptions and humans are great at spotting patterns, even patterns that aren't there.