The Teleological Argument (p4)

[RDKirk]

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

1. The universe is fine-tuned.
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 design.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

To say it's teleological is to say it toward a purpose and therefore by design.

 

[RDKirk]

Hundreds of years ago we didn't know that the Earth was a floating ball in space, but that didn't make it less true.

Actually, "hundreds of years ago" we did know the earth was a floating ball in space. Go back around 2500 to 3000 years.

Well, there were different ideas of what "space" contained--and we know it isn't truly "empty" today--there is a highly rare combination of matter and energy in space that could be called "ether" as well as we call the combination of gases around us "air."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

An interesting piece that touches on the teleological intuition that might make arguments like this attractive:

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually, "hundreds of years ago" we did know the earth was a floating ball in space. Go back around 2500 to 3000 years.

Well, there were different ideas of what "space" contained--and we know it isn't truly "empty" today--there is a highly rare combination of matter and energy in space that could be called "ether" as well as we call the combination of gases around us "air."

500 - 1000BC they knew the Earth was round? You're kidding right? And there's no such thing as "ether" which I believe you actually mean "aether" which is what you're describing.

 

[Soyeong]

The Teleological Argument

FYI, there are a number of telogical arguments, not just the one that WLC uses.

 

[bhsmte]

An interesting piece that touches on the teleological intuition that might make arguments like this attractive:

Yes, psychologists have seen strong correlations between analytical thinking being related to; acceptance and understanding of science and being more prone to non belief in Gods. While, intuitive thinkers, go the other way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

500 - 1000BC they knew the Earth was round? You're kidding right? And there's no such thing as "ether" which I believe you actually mean "aether" which is what you're describing.

The earliest documented knowledge of Earth being round is around the 6th century BC, it's quite possible that it was known a few hundred years before that.

Einstein himself gave a lecture (to aetherists) where he gently introduced spacetime by suggesting they might view it as the new aether - of course, he explained its properties and how it was different from the aether they were used to...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An interesting piece that touches on the teleological intuition that might make arguments like this attractive:

Yes; I would seriously recommend all intuitive thinkers to read Daniel Kahneman's extraordinary book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", which allows you to get a fascinating personal insight into the flaws and biases of intuitive thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

The earliest documented knowledge of Earth being round is around the 6th century BC, it's quite possible that it was known a few hundred years before that.

Einstein himself gave a lecture (to aetherists) where he gently introduced spacetime by suggesting they might view it as the new aether - of course, he explained its properties and how it was different from the aether they were used to...

See now you use the word "knowledge" when it was just a theory. It turned out to be correct, but it wasn't widely accepted, and it wasn't proven.

And spacetime isn't the "matter and energy" aether that the person I quoted suggested. Spacetime is the stuff that everything sits in, but it is nothing like what we believed "aether" to be beyond that.

 

[paulm50]

Actually, "hundreds of years ago" we did know the earth was a floating ball in space. Go back around 2500 to 3000 years.

Well, there were different ideas of what "space" contained--and we know it isn't truly "empty" today--there is a highly rare combination of matter and energy in space that could be called "ether" as well as we call the combination of gases around us "air."

Read the original Creation script.

Mechanical Translation of Genesis. Oh my, see how much we have updated the word of the man in the sky.

and they exist for luminaries in the sheet of the sky to make glow upon the land and he existed so, and “Elohiym [Powers]” made two of the magnificent luminaries, the magnificent luminary to regulate the day and the small luminary to regulate the night and the stars, and “Elohiym [Powers]” gave them in the sheet of the sky to make a glow upon the land,

 

[Isaacsname]

Fine tuned how ?

Usually people invoke the Alpha Constant, but the jury is still out regarding the variation in the strength of Alpha over history

What exactly is " fine tuned " ?

 

[Joshua260]

If premise 3 is that it's not due to design how can premise 4 be design? Also I disagree with premise 1

Lol. That's what I get for posting late at nite! I fixed it now.

 

[RDKirk]

500 - 1000BC they knew the Earth was round? You're kidding right?

Ancient Greeks determined around 350 BC that the earth was spherical. In fact, they even calculated its circumference, and were within 90% accurate. So, no, it was not just a theory, it was actual observation and mathematical calculation. If you go to the heliocentric/geocentric debates, you see that the spherical nature of the earth was taken for granted by all sides involved, including the Church.

And there's no such thing as "ether" which I believe you actually mean "aether" which is what you're describing.

Well, if you were going to criticize me for not defining "ether" as "A compound containing an oxygen atom bonded to two hydrocarbon groups," you'd be on solid ground. But unfortunately, you didn't go there--you're essentially merely arguing over spelling.

Since you're accepting "ether" or "aether" as meaning the contents of the space between heavenly bodies, you should know that space is not empty.

Outer space, or simply just space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including the Earth. It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays. The baseline temperature, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvin (K).

Plasma with a number density of less than one hydrogen atom per cubic metre and a temperature of millions of kelvin in the space between galaxies accounts for most of the baryonic (ordinary) matter in outer space; local concentrations have condensed into stars and galaxies. In most galaxies, observations provide evidence that 90% of the mass is in an unknown form, called dark matter, which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not electromagnetic forces.

 

[KCfromNC]

What exactly is " fine tuned " ?

Whatever it takes to make room in your heart for Jesus. This has nothing to do with logic or evidence and everything to do with giving believers a convincing reason not to worry about the lack of a good reason for their beliefs. So anything mildly convincing will do.

 

[hgkeller771]

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

1. The universe is fine-tuned.
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.

1. The universe is fine-tuned. It isn't by any means fine-tuned.
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 design.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

Prove point 1. then we can discuss the rest.

Point one depends on who is making the observation. In my view to a certain extent the universe is fined tuned for the purposes and conditions that exist today, they do exist. But, only up to a point because the universe is in constant state of change. Our own planet is changing. Fine tuning is a verb. Number one should read "The Universe is fine-tuning.

 

[hgkeller771]

One could say that to suggest that changing the apparent constants of our universe would make the universe we know impossible is an obvious tautology - if the constants were different it wouldn't be the universe we know. The weak anthropic principle may seem unsatisfying, but - unlike the fine tuning argument - it doesn't implicitly restrict complexity to the familiar. If, as seems to be the case, there is an action in low entropic states toward the maximisation of the rate of increase of entropy, then, statistically, the emergence of complexity (local complex systems) will be favoured, because such complex systems maintain their local entropy minima by increasing the rate of energy dissipation, so increasing overall entropy in the system as a whole. Increasingly complex self-sustaining systems (like life in this universe) would appear to be inevitable wherever they are possible. Whether such systems would become complex enough qualify as 'observers' is entirely speculative - they did here, but who can say what kind of complex systems might emerge in an entirely different universe?

In a pothole analogy, if you fill a pothole with a carefully shaped piece of wood and the pothole changes shape, the wood will no longer fit. This doesn't mean the pothole was finely tuned to the wood, it means the wood was tailored to that exact pothole; you could carve a new piece of wood to fit the new shape, and do the same for any shape of pot hole. However, that would be a design argument, and Occam might object. A liquid (e.g. water) is a more fitting analogy, it will match the contours of any pothole exactly without the need for careful crafting.

Tautology, anthropic principle, entropic states, complex systems, and Occam. Geez man, speak English. It's to much work to wade through all that BS.

 

[hgkeller771]

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

1. The universe is fine-tuned.
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 think that #2 is all of the above. Since none of us will ever know the real answer about a designer until He reveals himself we have to assume it is by design by a designer. The odds of this all happening on its own are beyond calculable probability.
#3. We don't know enough about the universe to be able to say it is due to a physical necessity or chance. There is no evidence of the universe lining things up by chance to arrive at where we are today. #4. The existence of human beings. The default position has to be a designer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tautology, anthropic principle, entropic states, complex systems, and Occam. Geez man, speak English. It's to much work to wade through all that BS.

It's all English, but I apologise, I pitched it wrong; I thought people discussing the Teleological Argument in a philosophy forum would follow it.

Let me explain - a tautology is saying the same thing in two different ways; the (weak) Anthropic Principle is that living observers inevitably find themselves in a universe that can support life; entropy is (roughly) a measure of disorder and tends to increase, determining the arrow of time and driving the development of the universe; complex systems are systems that are, well, complex - for example, galaxies, stars, living things; Occam refers to the guy who proposed Occam's Razor, the principle that an explanation with fewer elements should be preferred, all things being equal.

 

[Davian]

Tautology, anthropic principle, entropic states, complex systems, and Occam. Geez man, speak English. It's to much work to wade through all that BS.

Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See now you use the word "knowledge" when it was just a theory. It turned out to be correct, but it wasn't widely accepted, and it wasn't proven.

All scientific knowledge is theories, all provisional, none strictly proven [although the basic ones are taken to be beyond reasonable doubt]. Did you mean it was just a hypothesis, not yet tested?

And spacetime isn't the "matter and energy" aether that the person I quoted suggested. Spacetime is the stuff that everything sits in, but it is nothing like what we believed "aether" to be beyond that.

Yes, this is exactly what Einstein was saying - that if the aetherists are wedded to the idea of an aether, spacetime is the closest they're going to get.