The Teleological Argument (p4)

[quatona]

It's a matter of record. The following is a fallacious statement. The consequent does not logically follow from the antecedent.

So you simply ignore the explanation I have given you.

You haven't even done it once. How about backing up your accusations with proof?

I did.
You were and are, however, free to dodge and/or ignore the points made.

The main problem remains unsolved and unaddressed:
If you don´t presuppose that the universe (in the way it is) is result of intentional creation, it doesnt matter at all that it is "fine-tuned" to be the exact way it is, no matter how small the odds. Because the odds for every other result would be equally low. IOW: There can be no way for the universe to be that wouldn´t suggest the conclusion "design" (according to your argument).

 

[Davian]

So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.

It does directly address your OP, thusly:

No, I do not mean perception of fine-tuning. You are confusing, as many do, the difference between stating the fact that "the universe is fine-tuned" and saying that "the universe looks designed".

The following is a statement of fact from Hawking speaking as a representative of the scientific community:

""If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."http://sqentropy.ax.lt/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/g.html

"Fine-tuned" means that if certain constants varied from their present values, the universe would not be life-permitting. This is in perfect agreement with what Hawking states as a fact above.

In the context of how you are using "fine-tuing" there, you have yet to establish it as "fact". Let's look at your quote mines in context, the context that you failed to provide earlier.

From How bio-friendly is the universe by P.C.W. Davies

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life."

"broad agreement... ...in several respects" is not "fact".

"This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions. The analysis usually does not extend to more than these broad-brush considerations – that the observed universe is a ‘well-found laboratory’ in which the great experiment called life has been successfully carried out (Barrow and Tipler, 198?). So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires."

So the "fine-tuning" argument, as you are using it, is one in favour of big bang cosmology, and all that that entails - billions of years of stellar evolution, involving the formation of the molecules that would eventually form our solar system and begin the process of life as we understand it on this planet, billions of years ago.

It may be that you do not suffer cognitive dissonance from holding conflicting viewpoints in these forums, but from over here, I do feel the need to call it out.

Is it likely that you will update P1 accordingly? The universe is "fine-tuned" for the nuclear and chemical processes that are necessary for life, starting from about 13.7 billion years ago.

Arguments from "design" and "fine-tuning" actually work against your type of (YEC) god.

This following is more of an opinion...speaking of the fact that the universe looks designed, and not stating the fact that it is fine-tuned:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Sir Fed Hoyle.

The TA argument in my OP states the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, just as Hawking confirms. The question is: what is the best explanation for the universe being fine-tuned? Is it physical necessity, chance, or design. P1 in my argument is not controversial amongst the scientific community. It's the cause behind the fine-tuning of the universe that is controversial.

Opinion is opinion.

 

[Joshua260]

Have you not referenced Dawkins when it comes to the appearance of design? Have you also recognized, that Dawkins also concludes the universe is not designed? Yes, or no.

This is the equivalent of me going to the doctor and him stating; you look very healthy and have the appearance of health, but then diagnostic tests reveal I am very sick, yet I tell everyone; my doctor says I have the appearance of being very healthy, so I am very healthy.

What the heck are you talking about? Dawkins concedes that the universe looks designed, and even offers the possibility that "the designer" could have been aliens who planted life on this planet.
So who's conclusion about the argument of the OP did I ignore? Please cite specific conclusions referencing the argument of the OP.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I do not mean perception of fine-tuning. You are confusing, as many do, the difference between stating the fact that "the universe is fine-tuned" and saying that "the universe looks designed".

So when you said that scientists agree that the universe "looks designed" were you referring to fine-tuning or to apparent design? Further, you have yet to indicate what the universe should look like if it were the product of natural processes and not design.

The following is a statement of fact from Hawking speaking as a representative of the scientific community:

""If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."http://sqentropy.ax.lt/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/g.html

And? What point are you trying to make from this?

"Fine-tuned" means that if certain constants varied from their present values, the universe would not be life-permitting. This is in perfect agreement with what Hawking states as a fact above.

You have yet to indicate why we should focus on life specifically given that any deviation from those values would also change other aspects of the universe as well, not just life. Moreover, as Sean Carroll argued in his debate with Craig, we don't really know what range of values is life-permitting to begin with because we don't yet know the conditions necessary for life to come about.

The TA argument in my OP states the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, just as Hawking confirms. The question is: what is the best explanation for the universe being fine-tuned? Is it physical necessity, chance, or design. P1 in my argument is not controversial amongst the scientific community. It's the cause behind the fine-tuning of the universe that is controversial.

Actually, P1 is controversial, as evident by the discussion that is taking place here. You don't get off the hook for not answering the questions put to you just by insisting that it isn't controversial and that you would much rather discuss P3.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please stay on topic of the OP.

This is on topic. You keep name-dropping all these scientists, assigning a great deal of weight to their opinions. Yet their opinions only seem to matter to you insofar as you perceive them to be supporting your premises. The scientific evidence warrants greater weight than the opinions of individual scientists. So do you accept that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and that lifeforms evolved? If you think that evolution is off-topic then you should never have brought it up in the first place.

You seem to have trouble understanding the situation. Scientists (even atheist ones) say that the universe is fine-tuned. I have cited quotations from them to back that up. If you are going to make a counter-claim that disputes their findings, then the onus is on you to back up your counter-claim. The scientists are on my side of the argument in regards to p1.

But you're not on their side with respect to other claims, are you? You will happily deputise scientists to your argument when it suits you, but when it doesn't you will disregard them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please stay on topic of the OP.

My post was on topic. You brought up evolution. I responded. You ignored most of my response and then accused me of taking the conversation off topic.

 

[Joshua260]

So you simply ignore the explanation I have given you.

You're not making any sense. You made a fallacious statement which I did not ignore, but pointed it out to you. Are you asking me to answer your faulty reasoning?

I did.
You were and are, however, free to dodge and/or ignore the points made.

The main problem remains unsolved and unaddressed:
If you don´t presuppose that the universe (in the way it is) is result of intentional creation, it doesnt matter at all that it is "fine-tuned" to be the exact way it is, no matter how small the odds. Because the odds for every other result would be equally low. IOW: There can be no way for the universe to be that wouldn´t suggest the conclusion "design" (according to your argument).

Maybe you don't understand the argument. I am making an argument of "inference to the best explanation". I'm not presupposing anything, but consider all three options that Hawking and the rest of the scientific community does. I agree with the scientific community that physical necessity is very unlikely. I also agree with the scientific community that chance is also extremely unlikely. The design option has the explanatory power of showing how the universe could have over-ridden the unlikelihood of the chance option and therefore conclude that is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

So please be specific and point out the circular reasoning in the above.

 

[Joshua260]

It does directly address your OP, thusly:

In the context of how you are using "fine-tuing" there, you have yet to establish it as "fact". Let's look at your quote mines in context, the context that you failed to provide earlier.

From How bio-friendly is the universe by P.C.W. Davies

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life."

"broad agreement... ...in several respects" is not "fact".

"This claim is made on the basis that existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain physical parameters, and on the cosmological initial conditions. The analysis usually does not extend to more than these broad-brush considerations – that the observed universe is a ‘well-found laboratory’ in which the great experiment called life has been successfully carried out (Barrow and Tipler, 198?). So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires."

So the "fine-tuning" argument, as you are using it, is one in favour of big bang cosmology, and all that that entails - billions of years of stellar evolution, involving the formation of the molecules that would eventually form our solar system and begin the process of life as we understand it on this planet, billions of years ago.

It may be that you do not suffer cognitive dissonance from holding conflicting viewpoints in these forums, but from over here, I do feel the need to call it out.

Is it likely that you will update P1 accordingly? The universe is "fine-tuned" for the nuclear and chemical processes that are necessary for life, starting from about 13.7 billion years ago.

Arguments from "design" and "fine-tuning" actually work against your type of (YEC) god.

Opinion is opinion.

You are still confusing when one states that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" (where "for" is being used to say that one can observe that the universe is "extremely well-suited" for life) with when one states that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" (meaning that the purpose of the fine-tuning was for life). P1 in my argument is stating that the universe is extremely well-suited for life...it does not mean that the purpose of the fine-tuning of the universe was to sustain life. The scientific community fully understands the meaning of p1 quite well when it is used in the context of the argument of the OP, and that in fact is exactly what Davies is saying in the concluding comment of your quote. So your quote is actually confirming p1. Thank you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are still confusing when one states that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" (where "for" is being used to say that one can observe that the universe is "extremely well-suited" for life) with when one states that "the universe is fine-tuned for life" (meaning that the purpose of the fine-tuning was for life). P1 in my argument is stating that the universe is extremely well-suited for life...it does not mean that the purpose of the fine-tuning of the universe was to sustain life. The scientific community fully understands the meaning of p1 quite well when it is used in the context of the argument of the OP, and that in fact is exactly what Davies is saying in the concluding comment of your quote. So your quote is actually confirming p1. Thank you.

As I noted earlier, the claim that the universe is "extremely well suited" for life is in need of further justification. What would a universe "moderately well suited" for life look like, or how about a universe "poorly suited" for life? By what criteria is our universe "extremely well suited" for life? How do you differentiate universes that are "extremely well suited" for life from those that are "poorly suited"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As other have already argued, what difference does being "extremely well-suited for life" make anyway? If the designer is a deity, he could sustain life in any universe, regardless of how well suited for life it is. There is simply no need to carefully engineer a universe that could naturally sustain life under some narrow and specific conditions when one could make it possible for life to survive in any condition through supernatural intercession. A designer that is concerned by whether conditions are conducive to the formation of life is a designer whose options are limited; a designer who must laboriously tweak the settings until they are optimised for the desired outcome.

 

[Joshua260]

My post was on topic. You brought up evolution. I responded. You ignored most of my response and then accused me of taking the conversation off topic.

You mentioned evolution, not me. Dawkins was asked specifically whether ID could explain how life came to be on this planet and he concurred with the suggestion that there could have been an intelligent designer but stipulated that the designer would have been aliens that planted designed life on this planet. See for yourself in the following short interview:

 

[Joshua260]

As other have already argued, what difference does being "extremely well-suited for life" make anyway? If the designer is a deity, he could sustain life in any universe, regardless of how well suited for life it is. There is simply no need to carefully engineer a universe that could naturally sustain life under some narrow and specific conditions when one could make it possible for life to survive in any condition through supernatural intercession. A designer that is concerned by whether conditions are conducive to the formation of life is a designer whose options are limited; a designer who must laboriously tweak the settings until they are optimised for the desired outcome.

Wow. Now you're really reaching. Dude! P1 is already accepted by the scientific community. Accept it and move on. The controversy is not that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but why is it so.

 

[quatona]

You're not making any sense. You made a fallacious statement which I did not ignore, but pointed it out to you. Are you asking me to answer your faulty reasoning?

No, I am expecting you to address the argument in its entirety and context.

Maybe you don't understand the argument. I am making an argument of "inference to the best explanation".

The argument as presented is the attempt at a logical deduction.

I'm not presupposing anything, but consider all three options that Hawking and the rest of the scientific community does. I agree with the scientific community that physical necessity is very unlikely. I also agree with the scientific community that chance is also extremely unlikely. The design option has the explanatory power of showing how the universe could have over-ridden the unlikelihood of the chance option and therefore conclude that is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

If your argument is based on "likelihoods" show the math. Show how these "likelihoods" were calculated.

The "unlikelihood" of a given result isn´t indicative of anything. The fact that this very raindrop hit my very nose this very moment is incredibly low. Please show how assuming this to be a result of "design" (i.e. intention) "over-rides" this unlikelihood, and - once you have done that - explain to me why this assumption would be more plausible than "chance".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You mentioned evolution, not me.

No, you did, right here:

Ok, so like I said, I didn't make any analogies. But let's not one of the main points of the argument in the OP get lost in the discussion. Even though you may not, scientists (even atheistic scientists) already agree that the universe looks designed. So why do I need to make a case for that which even atheistic scientists already concede to?

Richard Dawkins: "Living objects . . . look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they're designed. Biology is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose."

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/teleological-argument-existence-God.html#ixzz3fSC3cPs4

So do you accept that species evolved and that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? A simple yes or no to these questions will suffice.

Dawkins was asked specifically whether ID could explain how life came to be on this planet and he concurred with the suggestion that there could have been an intelligent designer but stipulated that the designer would have been aliens that planted designed life on this planet. See for yourself in the following short interview:

You are aware that this interview has been heavily edited and doesn't accurately portray Dawkins' views on the matter?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow. Now you're really reaching. Dude! P1 is already accepted by the scientific community. Accept it and move on. The controversy is not that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but why is it so.

Nothing in this post addresses the comment you are responding to, at all.

 

[Joshua260]

This is on topic. You keep name-dropping all these scientists, assigning a great deal of weight to their opinions. Yet their opinions only seem to matter to you insofar as you perceive them to be supporting your premises. The scientific evidence warrants greater weight than the opinions of individual scientists. So do you accept that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old and that lifeforms evolved? If you think that evolution is off-topic then you should never have brought it up in the first place.

But you're not on their side with respect to other claims, are you? You will happily deputise scientists to your argument when it suits you, but when it doesn't you will disregard them.

Their other claims are by definition "off-topic".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Their other claims are by definition "off-topic".

Not if you're going to place a great deal of weight on the opinions of individual scientists, which is exactly what you have done. So do you agree with the opinions of these scientists regarding other matters, such as the age of the universe and evolution, or is your agreement limited to that which is convenient for supporting your premises?

 

[quatona]

Joshua, since you are so determined to appeal to scientific consensus: are you saying that the "design"-option is scientific consensus?
And if so, could you tell us who or what designed the universe, according to scientific consensus?

 

[Joshua260]

No, you did, right here:

You must be referring to the quote below:

Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
...so he admits it looks designed, but he prefers not to believe it.

I was not speaking to Crick's view on evolution, but the fact that he acknowledges (in a back-handed manner) that the universe looks designed.

So do you accept that species evolved and that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? A simple yes or no to these questions will suffice.

I'm simply not going off-topic. Sorry.

You are aware that this interview has been heavily edited and doesn't accurately portray Dawkins' views on the matter?

I have seen the whole interview and believe the edited version portrays his views accurately. He posited the idea that aliens (who must have evolved themselves he says) could have designed life and planted it on this planet. Feel free to cite specific quotes from it.

 

[Joshua260]

Nothing in this post addresses the comment you are responding to, at all.

Your suggestion seems pointless to me. If God meant to create creatures that would breath air, why wouldn't he create an environment that included air?