The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Joshua260]

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.

I'll venture out on this one.
What I disagree with is the belief that life came about solely from natural causes.

Why don't you start a thread on this one? However, I think that if you did, you might have to post it in the Exploring Christianity forum.

 

[Joshua260]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Yes I can. This is where Davies makes the distinction:

"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."

The part you bolded is the part that agrees with p1. The typical misunderstanding is found in the antecedent part of that sentence (the word "for" should be taken with the meaning of "in order to, as with a purpose").

 

[Moral Orel]

2. Other times, the word "for" can be used to indicate suitability or fitness, such as in "this puddle is the perfect size to hold this gallon of water".

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.

No I am not. I am accepting the use of "for" that you are using. The problem is that when you give examples of constants changing, you lose a lot more than life, most of the time you lose everything. In the only other example you've given, you are left with nothing but hydrogen. This means no stars, no rocks, no solid planets, etc... There are a lot of things that wouldn't be if we changed the constants, not just life.

In every quote but one that you show from the scientific community, they do not mention "for life" like you are implying. The only one that does kind of agree with you says that it seems to apply to the building blocks of life (as we know it). Building blocks are different from life itself. So you do not have a consensus of the scientific community that P1 is right.

Adding the words "for life" implies that life is the important result of the seemingly fine-tuned universe, when in fact there is no evidence that life is anything more than an accidental by-product of the fine tuning for other things. There is no reason to have the phrase "for life" in your argument because the exact same argument, based on the evidence you have provided thus far, could be made for rocks or stars or any number of other phenomena in the universe. If I can replace the word "life" with a lot of other things in your argument, then "life" isn't important to your argument.

The universe is more suitable for rocks than it is life. Rocks can exist in a lot more places than life can. So why do you think that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

This is not how you prove something to be true. In fact it is a terrible way to prove something is true.

Think about the weather. A long time ago everyone thought that God controlled the weather, and that is the tidiest explanation there is. That fact hasn't changed. It is much "tidier" to say "God did it" than it is to explain all the factors that go into explaining different aspects and phenomena of the weather.

And this is how it is for just about everything. Things are not simple, and assuming that giving a simple explanation for something is the best answer is how religion explained everything since the beginning of time. God doesn't control the weather, angels don't push the planets around, God doesn't cause every instance of plague and disease and pestilence. These all have explanations that are less "tidy" than using God to explain them, but that doesn't make them less true.

 

[Moral Orel]

physical necessity is very unlikely

Why? Because we can imagine a universe with different constants? This is just an argument from ignorance because we don't know how the constants are controlled, or how they are set to the values that they are set to. It doesn't make it less likely because we don't understand it right now.

chance is extremely unlikely

Again, I gave you information on the multiverse that you never responded to, so I don't know if you bothered to read it. Essentially the multiverse theory (not the one you have read about in sic-fi novels) has math to back it up, and a tiny bit of observational evidence. That is leaps and bounds more than can be said of any proof of the existence of an intelligent designer even if it isn't a lot of proof right now.

This argument has been made by theists since the beginning of time. "Well if God didn't do it, who did? Oh, you don't know or you don't have proof for whatever else you're imagining? Then God must be the only possible answer".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't seem to understand the nature of the argument. Once again, this is an argument of inference to the best explanation.

And once again, you haven't shown that design is 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.

Actually no, you didn't do that. You merely assumed that your preferred option triumphs by default.

The design option has more explanatory power than the other two.

Evidence?

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.

"If paucity of evidence is a problem for..."

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.

The proper response is to point out that your argument doesn't work, for reasons already discussed, and that you haven't presented any evidence for design, contrary to your claims otherwise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you want to talk about rocks, start your own thread.

Oh, another thing that's "off-topic" because it doesn't agree with you?

Again, the scientific community agrees with p1.

Do you really want to go down that road again? Okay. Using that Nature article you cited earlier, which mysteriously became "off-topic" when it could no longer be used to support your argument, tell us whether the scientific community agrees with the rest of your premises.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Given how much weight you assign to the opinions of individual scientists in supporting your premises, would it matter?

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]

Wow. Really? You're going to pretend that we haven't read the thread? How many times did you clarify "fine-tuning" to mean that the universe is "extremely well suited" for life? And now you want to pretend that this was never what "fine-tuning" meant? You don't think anyone's going to pick up on this? In fact, later on in this post you go on to say "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."

Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.[same thing]

You failed to rebut this when I raised it and you haven't addressed it here either. God could create and sustain life in any universe, regardless of the physical conditions.

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]

So you're claiming that design is a "perfectly viable naturalistic explanation"? Interesting.

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].

Would you apply that standard to yourself also?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I already showed you that at least one member of the scientific community does not agree. In any case, shall we consider what else the scientific community has to say on the matter, particularly regarding the other premises? Or is that "off-topic"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Due to the extreme unlikelihood of the fine-tuning being due to physical necessity or chance,

How did you figure this one out? Show us the calculations.

I claim that P3 is more plausibly true than not.

Did you also calculate the likelihood of design? Show us the calculations.

The scientific community agrees that physical necessity and chance are both extremely unlikely.

I already showed you that this isn't entirely accurate using the Nature article you cited!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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


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

I already did. What do you angels breathe? Before you repeat "But why would God create life that breathed air and then put them in a universe that did not have air?," remember the advice you gave to Carroll regarding knowing God's purposes. Why would God require them to breathe air in the first place?

 

[KCfromNC]

Dude! Your beef is with Hawking and not with me.

Until you can post where Hawking has calculated the potential distribution of values of each universal constant you think is fine tuned, then my beef is with you. For some reason, you seem unwilling or unable to provide anything of relevance to that particular question.

 

[KCfromNC]

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


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

You're the one promoting creationism as an explanation, but you need us to tell you what it predicts and how it explains things? Something isn't adding up here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Due to the extreme unlikelihood of the fine-tuning being due to physical necessity or chance

Until you show the tested model you're using and how it generates these odds, you have zero basis to say that you know what the odds are for any particular outcome.

 

[The Cadet]

Dude! Your beef is with Hawking and not with me.

I was banned for a week, so I might have missed any response to the question I posed back on page 11 (although I couldn't find it on pages 12 or 13)... Does Hawking believe that design is the most likely explanation for the fine-tuning of the universal constants?

Hawking simply postulates the multiverse to increase the odds of chance.

You know what else is pure assertion at this point with no backing evidence?

Also, on a side note, has anyone even tried to address my argument back on page 1? I'll repost it, just to be clear:

I fail to see why anyone should care about whether or not this argument is true.

Seriously, does it matter at all if this argument is true or false? The absolute most you can get to at all is some form of deism that you cannot link to any relevance to reality. Congrats, you've proven that there was some thing that is responsible for the fine-tuning of our universe. You've chosen to attribute the word "god" to this thing, despite the fact that this obviously drags along an irresponsible amount of baggage about what "god" means to people, and I cannot for the life of me think of a reason for doing this that doesn't boil down to dishonesty of one form or another. And at the end of the day, whether or not this argument is true, it is completely meaningless and amounts to just so much philosophical hand-waving with no relevant impact whatsoever.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was banned for a week, so I might have missed any response to the question I posed back on page 11 (although I couldn't find it on pages 12 or 13)... Does Hawking believe that design is the most likely explanation for the fine-tuning of the universal constants?

Considering his beliefs about god(s), I'd assume no. But we're supposed to ignore that - he's only an authority in areas which the OP has deemed he is.

 

[The Cadet]

Considering his beliefs about god(s), I'd assume no. But we're supposed to ignore that - he's only an authority in areas which the OP has deemed he is.

No, I mean specifically in the scientific field he's being cited in. Has he ever stated that he considers design to be the most likely or most viable explanation?

...Of course, the point of this question is that, @Joshua260 , No, he hasn't. He has made no such claim, and in fact has dedicated an entire book to demonstrating that it is not the most likely or viable explanation! So claiming that you are honestly representing Hawking and yet still somehow using his arguments to come to a conclusion he very explicitly rejects... Well, to put it bluntly, you are not the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. And neither is WLC.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

You seem to appeal to the scientific community only when it suits the argument you are making. You are quite happy to cast the scientific community aside otherwise, as shown here. If we were to take this discussion in a more scholarly direction, then we would be discussing the scientific literature on the topic in depth, and the discussion would look very different indeed. Instead, the discussion has an obvious apologetic angle, with the scientific literature being either cherrypicked or disregarded. While this may be common practice in apologetics, it doesn't really further our understanding of how the parameters came to be the way they are.

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to appeal to the scientific community only when it suits the argument you are making. You are quite happy to cast the scientific community aside otherwise, as shown here. If we were to take this discussion in a more scholarly direction, then we would be discussing the scientific literature on the topic in depth, and the discussion would look very different indeed. Instead, the discussion has an obvious apologetic angle, with the scientific literature being either cherrypicked or disregarded. While this may be common practice in apologetics, it doesn't really further our understanding of how the parameters came to be the way they are.

Well stated.

Apologetics has no real desire to peel back the layers and get at what is most likely true. Apologetics wants to cherry pick what it can, to fortify a predetermined conclusion.

You grab onto what you can, and ignore and or deny what doesn't fit.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well stated.

Apologetics has no real desire to peel back the layers and get at what is most likely true. Apologetics wants to cherry pick what it can, to fortify a predetermined conclusion.

You grab onto what you can, and ignore and or deny what doesn't fit.

I wouldn't mind if the conversation took a more scholarly turn. It's a genuinely interesting question: why are the parameters that way? What annoys me the most about apologetics is that, perhaps unintentionally, it halts inquiry by fostering the erroneous impression that the answer is already known: there's no need to investigate further, since "we 'know' Goddidit." Curious souls will continue to wonder and inquire, seeking a deeper understanding, while the less curious remain satisfied with their lazy and feeble attempt at an explanation.