The Teleological Argument (p4)

[bhsmte]

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.

That is what happens, when one already has the answer ahead of time and the motivation is to do everything they can, to show their predetermined answer is correct. If this requires, cherry picking, ignoring certain evidence and or conclusions from those they cherry pick from, so be it.

This is what you call, being psychologically driven, vs being scientifically driven.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is what happens, when one already has the answer ahead of time and the motivation is to do everything they can, to show their predetermined answer is correct. If this requires, cherry picking, ignoring certain evidence and or conclusions from those they cherry pick from, so be it.

This is what you call, being psychologically driven, vs being scientifically driven.

I find it saddening, to be honest. Okay, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Goddidit is correct. Is that really all it takes it to satisfy their curiosity? They don't want to know how god did it; the processes he undertook? Thankfully, there are theists who do care enough about the question to inquire into how "god did it." They make excellent scientists, but poor apologists.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it saddening, to be honest. Okay, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Goddidit is correct. Is that really all it takes it to satisfy their curiosity? They don't want to know how god did it; the processes he undertook? Thankfully, there are theists who do care enough about the question to inquire into how "god did it." They make excellent scientists, but poor apologists.

The deal is, for some, it isn't good enough to just say they believe a God did it based on faith. They must try to convince themselves mostly, they have a logical reason to believe God did it and this is where you get the apologetics, that will go about their business they way they do.

It is really an attempt for them to feel more secure in their faith belief, to convince themselves it is more than faith and it includes logic.

 

[Arythmael]

Here's the radio example again:
1. I can hear the universe perfectly. (p1)
2. Is the radio built hard-wired to that frequency? (phy necc)
3. Does the radio have a tuning knob and we happen to be lucky that it's tuned to the universe? (chance)
4. Did someone tune the radio to that frequency? (design)

The first statement in your example here does not capture the "fine-tuned" part of the teleological argument. It only highlights the idea that the constants are currently set to a value that works to support life. That critical statement of the opening premise of your arguments, and how it relates to the physical necessity option, is an important part of my objection.

 

[Arythmael]

The simple reason why I do not agree with your phrasing is because I believe my language is simpler and clearer for the argument I offered.

In effect, another way to re-write my p2 is:
The fact that the constants have the values they do is due to...
1. A universe's constants have to have those values.
2. We're extremely lucky the universe's constants have those values.
3. A free-causal agent made our universe's constants have those values.

So as not to remain stuck about the exact wording, I still would like to move forward with gaining clarity on your teleological argument and what physical necessity really means by demanding to know whether it (physical necessity) states that these constants have to be this way because it is logically impossible or because you just don't get a universe without them set the way they are.

Logically impossible would be to something along the lines of there being some grand system of equations for which there is only one mathematical solution (the current settings). This still assumes that the equations (relationships between the constants) have not been altered in any way, which I don't see why it should be the case. Not only could the values be different, the constants could be a completely different set, and the rules which relate them completely different as well. Why not?

Anyway, if it does not mean this, but rather, that you just don't get a universe without the constants set as they are, then that is where I bring up the objection that physical necessity simply begs the question about why the universe is fine-tuned to even exist (let along contain life). Because as such this does not really present an answer as to how it got to be this way (as does chance and design).

 

[quatona]

Let´s assume for a moment the constants were different and there were no life? So what?

 

[Davian]

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.

An unfalsifiable postion can find support just about anywhere.

 

[Joshua260]

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?

Yes, but lots of possible universes are well-suited for rocks.
"It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature..." (source)Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-and-physical-necessity#ixzz3fpM6uAUu
However, only a slim few possible universes are well-suited for life.

I drew up a graphic to illustrate:

Condition A (the universe exists):

********** (10)

Condition B (galaxies exist):

******** (8)

Condition C (Stars (and rocks?) exists):

****** (6)

Condition D (planets exist):

**** (4)

Condition E (size and distance of planet to star)

** (2)

Condition F (life):

* (1)

This is only a rough example, but it shows that although 6 out of 10 universes would contain rocks, only 1 in 10 would contain life. So the point is that the "rock" odds are 60%, while the "life" odds are10%.

So when we say that the universe is "well-suited for file", what we're expressing is that so many conditions need to be set just right for a universe to accommodate life (I count 6 in my example) while only 3 conditions need to be set right for a universe to sustain the existence of rocks.

What we find is that as we continue to uncover new constant requirements, it just keeps adding improbability upon improbability that a life-permitting universe could have been actualized.

 

[Joshua260]

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

Actually, we use that method all the time to prove something is true.

There is inductive inference, which is what we use to determine things like the physical laws of the universe. For example, we perform an experiment over and over several times and eventually we come to feel confident that we have discovered a genuine law that we can use to predict the outcomes of future experiments.

However, when we're talking about things like cosmology, we have to resort to a different method to uncover the truth. For example, the big bang happened only once and it is not a repeatable event, so we have to use a method known as abductive inference or "inference to the best explanation", which admittedly is inherently less certain that direct observation is by performing repeated experiments. This is a perfectly valid method of discerning the truth, and we use it all the time in historical and criminal investigations...and again in areas of science such as cosmology.

 

[Arythmael]

I find it saddening, to be honest. Okay, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Goddidit is correct. Is that really all it takes it to satisfy their curiosity? They don't want to know how god did it; the processes he undertook? Thankfully, there are theists who do care enough about the question to inquire into how "god did it." They make excellent scientists, but poor apologists.

As you will probably agree, people are generally more emotional than they are logical. Many come to Christianity for the same emotional reasons that people go to other religions. Of course, that alone does not make any of those religions wrong. But for most Christians, right or wrong, their curiosity about how God works is satisfied by hearing preachers go into historical details about Biblical events that show how God has been working with man over the centuries. It would tax their minds to follow and process in-depth discussions about scientific principles and observations that point to God's handiwork. I, too, think that is unfortunate, and would hope to change that. But it does no good to stand around claiming intellectual superiority over such people. In fact, that's a quick way to lose respect in most other people's eyes -- and then they really stop listening.

The deal is, for some, it isn't good enough to just say they believe a God did it based on faith. They must try to convince themselves mostly, they have a logical reason to believe God did it and this is where you get the apologetics, that will go about their business they way they do.

It is really an attempt for them to feel more secure in their faith belief, to convince themselves it is more than faith and it includes logic.

Yet for many their logic may be based on premises that are subjectively discerned, rather than scientifically discerned. There are statements which are very subjective, like "This person must have been very wise" and then one could base an entire logical argument upon that premise, and then model their entire reality based, in part, on the result of that argument. The logic could be completely valid, and the only question about the argument's soundness would rest on whether that opening premise were true or not. But how do you prove it? And even if you agree, how much weight does that hold? Don't we "weigh" evidence when coming to a conclusion? One person's weight for that evidence may be vastly different from your own.

That doesn't make their thought process illogical. It just means you don't agree with the premise of their logic, and/or give it so little weight as to not sway your opinion away from conclusions whose evidence you give more weight to.

 

[Joshua260]

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.
".

Hawking on physical necessity:
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

...the multiverse theory...has math to back it up, and a tiny bit of observational evidence.

That's quite astounding if true. Are you saying that we have some observational evidence of another universe? That I got to see. Please provide the evidence.

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".

You obviously don't understand the argument of an inference to the best explanation. As I explained, the scientific community agree that physical necessity and chance are extremely unlikely, and design explains the fine-tuning in spite of the odds against it. So in response to it, the scientific community has offered the multiverse, which has some math to back it up but no actual observational evidence of another universe. As I have explained before, just because one can do math to describe something, that does not prove that the something described actually exists.

Also, no serious apologist offers a god or the gaps argument as you suggest. That is just a mischaracterization of our faith. There are several arguments and Christian evidences that we could cite to support a reasonable belief in Christianity (and thus the existence of a designer) , especially where it surrounds the Resurrection.

 

[Joshua260]

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"?

If you mean your citation from Carroll, most of that was irrelevant, and he did not dispute p1 as I have been saying.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

I never said Hawking commented on every value. But I don't need to. Hawking publicly recognizes that the universe is fine-tuned.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." Hawking from A Brief History of Time

Yes, I see the verbiage "seem to". Of course he does not believe that there was a designer, but his comments above show that he recognizes the fine-tuning of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

You confusing inductive inference with abductive inference.

 

[Joshua260]

That is what happens, when one already has the answer ahead of time and the motivation is to do everything they can, to show their predetermined answer is correct. If this requires, cherry picking, ignoring certain evidence and or conclusions from those they cherry pick from, so be it.

This is what you call, being psychologically driven, vs being scientifically driven.

Another unsubstantiated accusation of circular reasoning. Please demonstrate the circular reasoning in the argument of the OP specifically.

 

[bhsmte]

Another unsubstantiated accusation of circular reasoning. Please demonstrate the circular reasoning in the argument of the OP specifically.

We all know the motivation behind designing this type of argument.

Now, tell us why you refer to certain statements from scientists and then choosing to ignore their conclusions on those same topics?

I will repeat this analogy.

This is the equivalent of going to your doctor for a checkup and he tells you, you have the appearance of being healthy. After he analyzes your blood tests, he determines you are not healthy and have significant disease. Then you choose to tell people only that, your doctor stated you have the appearance of being healthy.

 

[Joshua260]

1. I can hear the universe perfectly. (p1)

The first statement in your example here does not capture the "fine-tuned" part of the teleological argument. It only highlights the idea that the constants are currently set to a value that works to support life. That critical statement of the opening premise of your arguments, and how it relates to the physical necessity option, is an important part of my objection.

Did you not see the word "perfectly"? That means not tuned to 107.954336578 or 107.811263754, but tuned exactly to 107.90000000.

My p1 is "The universe is fined-tuned for life."
When we insert "for life", we are dong the same thing as tuning the radio exactly to 107.90000000.

 

[Joshua260]

We all know the motivation behind designing this type of argument.

Now, tell us why you refer to certain statements from scientists and then choosing to ignore their conclusions on those same topics?

I will repeat this analogy.

This is the equivalent of going to your doctor for a checkup and he tells you, you have the appearance of being healthy. After he analyzes your blood tests, he determines you are not healthy and have significant disease. Then you choose to tell people only that, your doctor stated you have the appearance of being healthy.

How about backing up your claims of circular reasoning by demonstrating it specifically using the argument I presented in the OP? If you cannot, then your accusation is false.

 

[bhsmte]

How about backing up your claims of circular reasoning by demonstrating it specifically using the argument I presented in the OP? If you cannot, then your accusation is false.

Using statements from scientists and ignoring their conclusions, is flawed reasoning.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is only a rough example, but it shows that although 6 out of 10 universes would contain rocks, only 1 in 10 would contain life. So the point is that the "rock" odds are 60%, while the "life" odds are10%.

You made those statistics up. Show me the real statistics with real sources that explain which constants changed by the tiniest bit would alter the conditions necessary for life. I'm not saying necessarily that those stats don't exist, but you haven't shown them.

What we find is that as we continue to uncover new constant requirements, it just keeps adding improbability upon improbability that a life-permitting universe could have been actualized.

But when we look at our planet, in its deepest recesses, we find life where we thought it was impossible. From volcanoes to the blackest depths of the ocean, it seems like life might just have a lot more ways of existing than we think. So saying the universe is fine-tuned for life doesn't take into account all the other ways that life might exist that we haven't found yet, but it also only thinks about the kind of life that we are familiar with and ignores the extremophiles.