The Teleological Argument (p4)

[KCfromNC]

You seem to have trouble understanding the situation.

Nope, I think the situation is pretty clear. You simply have no idea if these constants which are supposedly fine-tuned could actually be any value other than what they are, or if they could, how likely it is that they are the values we observe. You claim scientists support your pet answer on this subject and when I asked you to demonstrate that you started dodging and weaving, hoping that no one would notice.

So as it stands, we have no reason to think that anything is fine tuned, and if it is, no reason to think necessity or chance are unlikely. Basically, the entire argument is just idle speculation.

 

[KCfromNC]

But why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?

You're the one telling us life must have been designed. How specifically does creationism explain the process and goals of god in this particular situation?

This goes back to the point that creationism really doesn't explain anything - it just look at what we find and says goddidit. The above is an example of how that fails as an explanation. Goddidit explains air-breathing beings living without air just as well as it does air-breathing beings living with air. It is a non-explanation.

 

[KCfromNC]

1. physical necessity seems very unlikely
2. the odds are extremely against the realization of a life-permitting universe

I thought P3 said these were impossible. Now they just seem unlikely. Seem to who? How unlikely, specifically, and what calculations did you make to figure out the odds?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes it does. It shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without life.

Yes, but you're still being misleading by claiming that there is some direct link between the fact of life and the "fine tuning". It also shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without rocks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, but you're still being misleading by claiming that there is some direct link between the fact of life and the "fine tuning". It also shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without rocks.

Therefore, the universe was fine-tuned for rocks. It is "extremely well suited" for rocks. If the values were only marginally different this would not be a rock-permitting universe. Following the argument to its conclusion then, we are forced to concede that the designer is a geology enthusiast who fine-tuned the parameters of the universe to permit the existence of rocks.

 

[Davian]

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).

I am not saying that it is either of those. You cannot demonstrate it is either of those.

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.

"Extremely well-suited for life" is a comparative term; what other universes have you compared ours to? None?

The scientific community fully understands the meaning of p1 quite well when it is used in the context of the argument of the OP,

(my bold) This has not been substantiated by you. Why don't you invite some of them here, so they can chime in on your OP?

and that in fact is exactly what Davies is saying in the concluding comment of your quote.

Yet you have not updated P1 to reflect what he actually says. His "fine-tuning" makes the case for modern cosmology, and all that that entails. Yet you are YEC, are you not?

So your quote is actually confirming p1.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Thank you.

Whatever. Why are you here? Are you writing a book on this or something?

 

[Davian]

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.

You mean, fine tuned for big bang cosmology, and all that that entails.

 

[Davian]

If paucity of evidence is a problem for physical necessity and chance, then it is just as much a problem (or even more so) for design. You cannot demand that others produce evidence to support those two options while assuming that you are exempt from that obligation.

Josh has his evidence. He has Proof. He has his Holy Spirit.

Keep that in mind.

 

[Davian]

So you're saying that scientists have now proved that life came from non-life solely due to natural causes? Hardly.

This "life from non-life" comment that religionists throw out always puzzles me. The only concept of "life" that I am aware of is a process, and involves organisms, those things consuming raw materials and excreting waste products, and struggling against entropy. The implication is that their "god" is where life came from - life from life. Is your "god" alive in the same sense as "life" is, in the context of your above statement?

I know you feel only you can go off-topic in this thread, but I felt the need to call that out.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Once you start referring to these scientists to make a point, it becomes open season for others to discuss these scientists positions.

 

[Davian]

Once you start referring to these scientists to make a point, it becomes open season for others to discuss these scientists positions.

Indeed. One should be willing to show that one is not quote-mining or cherry-picking.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

 

[Joshua260]

But you haven't produced any evidence for design. You've merely stated that there is a paucity of evidence for physical necessity and chance and then concluded that it must therefore be design. Well guess what? Paucity of evidence is just as much a problem for your preferred option! Your preferred option doesn't get to triumph by default. If others are obligated to produce evidence for their hypotheses, then so are you.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the argument. Once again, this is an argument of inference to the best explanation. In effect, I don't have to prove that design was the reason for the fine-tuning of the universe. Notice also that neither is physical necessity or chance "proven". Didn't you notice the "paucity of evidence" for those options? Funny how you don't mention them. Anyhow, in this type of argument, I don't have to prove design, but I only have to show that the design option is more of what some call a "tidy" explanation that the other options, which I did. The design option has more explanatory power than the other two. As I said, physical necessity is very unlikely, chance is extremely unlikely, and design explains why the universe was realized in spite of the unlikelihood of physical necessity and design. That is all that is required of this type of argument. Now if you want to dispute my conclusion, then the proper response would be to reply with a reason why one of the other options has more explanatory power than the design option.

 

[Joshua260]

A relevant excerpt from Carroll's blog:

Blog, eh? I'm tempted top ask, like Davian, whether he is offering his opinion as an individual or facts from a professional scientist.

Sean Carroll said:
I acknowledged that, unlike the cosmological argument that is based on outdated metaphysics, the fine-tuning argument is a respectable scientific claim: two models trying to account for some data. But I gave five reasons why it was nevertheless not a good argument for theism:

1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible. [the argument of the OP is not claiming that the universe is tuned specifically for life, so this comment is irrelevant]
2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.[same thing]
3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.[so Carroll has proven that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? Carroll is talking to a different claim again here.]
4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation. [so is design, which explains why the extremely unlikelihood that this universe was realized, without having to resort to a multi-verse]
5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed.[He's going to have to back up this claim. If God exists, there is no reason to think that Carroll would know his intents and purposes better than He].

Sorry Arch. I don't see how Carroll has refuted that P1 "the universe is fine-tuned for life" (using the meaning I have explained numerous times) at all. The only refutation he offered relevant to my OP is in #5, but I don't see where he offered any evidence to back up his claim.

 

[Joshua260]

Once you start referring to these scientists to make a point, it becomes open season for others to discuss these scientists positions.

So if I'm talking about design, and I cite a scientist who also happens to believe in gambling, then it becomes "open season for others" to talk about his position on gambling? You so silly!!

 

[Joshua260]

Nope, I think the situation is pretty clear. You simply have no idea if these constants which are supposedly fine-tuned could actually be any value other than what they are, or if they could, how likely it is that they are the values we observe. You claim scientists support your pet answer on this subject and when I asked you to demonstrate that you started dodging and weaving, hoping that no one would notice.

So as it stands, we have no reason to think that anything is fine tuned, and if it is, no reason to think necessity or chance are unlikely. Basically, the entire argument is just idle speculation.

Dude! Your beef is with Hawking and not with me. I simply agree with Hawking that the universe is fine-tuned for life and also that necessity and chance are both very unlikely. Hawking simply postulates the multiverse to increase the odds of chance. Hawking ignores the design option.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: ↑
But why would he create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?

You're the one telling us life must have been designed. How specifically does creationism explain the process and goals of god in this particular situation?

This goes back to the point that creationism really doesn't explain anything - it just look at what we find and says goddidit. The above is an example of how that fails as an explanation. Goddidit explains air-breathing beings living without air just as well as it does air-breathing beings living with air. It is a non-explanation.

At this point, I'm waiting for someone to answer my question.

 

[Joshua260]

You mean, fine tuned for big bang cosmology, and all that that entails.

You're still confusing the definition of "for". Again, P1 is supported by the scientific community, whether you understand the meaning of it or not.

 

[Joshua260]

I thought P3 said these were impossible. Now they just seem unlikely. Seem to who? How unlikely, specifically, and what calculations did you make to figure out the odds?

Due to the extreme unlikelihood of the fine-tuning being due to physical necessity or chance, I claim that P3 is more plausibly true than not. The scientific community agrees that physical necessity and chance are both extremely unlikely. The postulating of a multiverse is supposed to increase the odds for the chance option.

 

[Joshua260]

Yes, but you're still being misleading by claiming that there is some direct link between the fact of life and the "fine tuning". It also shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without rocks.

You are confusing yourself with the different meanings of "for". P1 is simply an observation that the universe is fined-tuned for life. Once again...the scientific community agrees with P1.

 

[Joshua260]

Therefore, the universe was fine-tuned for rocks. It is "extremely well suited" for rocks. If the values were only marginally different this would not be a rock-permitting universe. Following the argument to its conclusion then, we are forced to concede that the designer is a geology enthusiast who fine-tuned the parameters of the universe to permit the existence of rocks.

If you want to talk about rocks, start your own thread. Again, the scientific community agrees with p1.