The Teleological Argument (p4)

[The Cadet]

Hawking himself restricted the alternatives to the same three I listed in p2:
"Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle".

S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

Now it's your turn. Please demonstrate where Hawking left out a fourth alternative.

...You do realize that you still have not shown that this is a legitimate trichotomy, right? Getting a scientist (who disagrees with you, by the way, on the subject of the teleological argument) to seemingly reassert your claim of a trichotomy does nothing to exclude hypothetical alternatives we have not discovered yet. It also does nothing to demonstrate that there is no overlap between the three categories.

Furthermore, Hawking makes it perfectly clear that the far more accepted hypotheses are the multiverse hypothesis and necessity. That is, the ones you're trying to exclude. He wrote a whole book on this particular argument. This is the problem with making an argument based on cosmology when most cosmologists are atheists. Clearly, either you (or, let's be honest, William Lane Craig) is misunderstanding some portion of the physics or the logic, or they are. I'd like to say that given that Craig himself touts these arguments as so obviously deductive that nobody could deny the conclusions if the premises were true, the problem is more with the fact that Craig (like you) has no background in cosmology, physics, mathematics, or science.

 

[quatona]

So now you are going to dispute scientists when they say things you don't want to believe?

Red irony alert.

 

[quatona]

I need clarification concerning premise 2:
The fact that Mr. A won the lottery last week - is that due to chance or physical necessity or design?

 

[Dave RP]

I don't think the universe is fined tuned at all, it is by fortunate chance able to be sufficiently long lasting for life to evolve and this planet (at least) has the right conditions for intelligent life to flourish. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd personally like to see any defense of the teleological argument deal with the objections raised in this video, especially the discussion of the meaning of the term "fine tuning" two minutes into the video.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why do I need to clarify clearly written English?

Because it doesn't reflect what you are actually arguing for. The strategy of this style of apologetic seems to be to keep the premises as vague and nebulous as possible, then sneak your appeal to magic through the side door.

 

[bhsmte]

Because it doesn't reflect what you are actually arguing for. The strategy of this style of apologetic seems to be to keep the premises as vague and nebulous as possible, then sneak your appeal to magic through the side door.

Well, some have to slip the magic in somewhere. Hopefully, when no one is looking.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260 said: ↑
So now you are going to dispute scientists when they say things you don't want to believe?

I don't know. You will have to provide me with an example.

"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

In the statement above, Hawking is agreeing that the universe is fine-tuned. He doesn't include any words like "seem to" to suggest that it's only his opinion but rather professes it as a matter of fact.

So do you accept what Hawking said or do you dispute it?

 

[Joshua260]

I agree with Hawking.

"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

Do you now?

 

[Joshua260]

I do not understand what you mean here by "physical necessity". The concept of necessity implies the existence of an unfulfilled "need" of some kind.

No, that's not what it means. Physical necessity (in regard to this argument ) simply means that the physical constants could not have been set to any other level. In other words, it would be impossible that there could have been a universe with slightly different settings for the constants in question. However, many scientists believe that there is an acceptable range of possible settings for these constants in possible alternative universes (so they reject that the fine-tuning is due to physical necessity), but then the question is how many of them would support life (chance)? That is the subject of Hawking's comment here:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

Another thing to consider is the concept of "meaning". What if someone designed life, but with no apparent meaning or purpose. In that case it would be "designed" but very much arbitrary. With no apparent goal for this creator's actions, even those actions came upon us merely by ... chance. So in order to rule out chance, you need to show there is "meaning", that is, a real "goal" that is evident (or communicated).

Well, this argument is an "inference to the best explanation". So this argument doesn't rule out chance totally, but it can be shown that the odds of creating a life-permitting universe is extremely slim. Although there is a range of possible settings for many constants to support the existence of a universe (live or dead), the range required for life is much more narrow and when you begin to consider all of the constants that would have to be set just right for life, it only adds to the unlikelihood that a life-permitting universe would exist. Note that Hawking in the quote above also indicates that he recognizes that same unlikelihood in the phrase "our universe is picked out".

 

[Joshua260]

That is on topic. The designer is supposed to be timeless, no? Or do you disagree with your version of the KCA now?

No, that's not on topic for the Teleological Argument. Timelessness has nothing to do with the argument I proposed in the OP. Whether time could have begun before the beginning of the existence of the universe is a question for the KCA. BTW, the answer is yes, time could have begun before the beginning of the existence of the universe. If you want to question this further, please ask in the other thread where we've been discussing the KCA. This threads is for the TA I proposed in the OP.

 

[Joshua260]

This "particular room" (i.e., the universe) contains much more than a flat screen TV. One could say that it is "extremely well suited" for that bookcase in the corner, that couch in the centre, and that side-lamp, etc.

You're still not understanding the argument.

Let's look again at what Hawking said:
"Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."

By this comment, "Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe..." Hawking is not only suggesting that there is a consensus about the truth of p1, but he is also listing one of the alternatives listed in p2 (physical necessity).

By the following comment, Hawking affirms p2 (that there are only three alternatives). He's already listed the first alternative (some condition that predicts the universe, or physical necessity), but now he says:
"These [other alternatives] are..."
here's the second of the alternatives:
"...that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God..." (design)
and here's the third of all three alternatives:
"...Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle. (chance).

So Hawking's own statements support p1 and p2.

 

[Davian]

Joshua260 said: ↑
So now you are going to dispute scientists when they say things you don't want to believe?


"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

In the statement above, Hawking is agreeing that the universe is fine-tuned.

No, he is saying we got lucky, if there is such a thing as luck.

Or, highlight the part for me where he states that this is the result of tuning. Did your deity have to do a bit of trial-and-error to get things just right?

He doesn't include any words like "seem to" to suggest that it's only his opinion but rather professes it as a matter of fact.

So do you accept what Hawking said or do you dispute it?

I do not dispute it.

Can we review which god this is supposed to justify believing in? Is the allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing biblical deity that walked and talked in that Garden of Eden a few thousand years ago, wiped out cities, flooded the entire planet, and sacrificed himself to himself for himself? In all the excitement I seem to have missed which page we are on.

 

[The Cadet]

So how 'bout premise 3? How's that one gonna work?

 

[Joshua260]

It bears repeating: "I don't want to second-guess apologists, but I presume the first two options were eliminated due to paucity of evidence? If paucity of evidence is a problem for those two options, it is just as much a problem (or even more so) for the third option (design)."

Ok, so I'll repeat also.
My argument is an "inference to the best explanation."

Physical Necessity:
Not only does one have to show that a universe with slightly different values for the constants is impossible, but Hawking laments that even the best theory on the scene doesn't support it:
"Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe..."
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."

Chance:
Hawking lists chance as an option not preferred:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."

Design:
So I offer this argument as an "inference to the best explanation", which I believe in this case is design.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/best_explanation.html

The best explanation should be one that is simple, has explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so on.

Quotes from S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.

 

[Davian]

So how 'bout premise 3? How's that one gonna work?

I have no idea.

Popcorn?

 

[Joshua260]

No, he is saying we got lucky, if there is such a thing as luck.

Just plain wrong. Why put words in Hawking's mouth? He is saying that if that particular constant had varied just a bit, the universe would not exist.

Can we review which god this is supposed to justify believing in? Is the allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing biblical deity that walked and talked in that Garden of Eden a few thousand years ago, wiped out cities, flooded the entire planet, and sacrificed himself to himself for himself? In all the excitement I seem to have missed which page we are on.

Who's talking about God? Where is God in the OP? I'm just pointing out that Hawking agrees that the universe if fine-tuned and that he believes that there are only three possible causes: physical necessity, chance, or design. In effect, he agrees with p1 and p2 as I have explained them in his thread. These are plain and uncontroversial statements if properly understood.

 

[Joshua260]

So how 'bout premise 3? How's that one gonna work?

First, if you would, please read post 135. My argument is an inference to the best explanation.

 

[Davian]

Just plain wrong. Why put words in Hawking's mouth?

I am asking the same of you.

He is saying that if that particular constant had varied just a bit, the universe would not exist.

What has that to do with tuning? The weak anthropic principle is a tautology.

Who's talking about God?

You, by all appearances.

Where is God in the OP?

This thread exists in the context of your entire posting history.

I'm just pointing out that Hawking agrees that the universe if fine-tuned

No, you are asserting it.

and that he believes that there are only three possible causes: physical necessity, chance, or design. In effect, he agrees with p1 and p2 as I have explained them in his thread. These are plain and uncontroversial statements if properly understood.

Or, taken as you assert them.

Keep trying, though.

 

[The Cadet]

Ok, so I'll repeat also.
My argument is an "inference to the best explanation."

Physical Necessity:
Not only does one have to show that a universe with slightly different values for the constants is impossible, but Hawking laments that even the best theory on the scene doesn't support it:
"Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe..."
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."

Chance:
Hawking lists chance as an option not preferred:
"Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle."

Design:
So I offer this argument as an "inference to the best explanation", which I believe in this case is design.

So... how do cosmologists (Hawking in particular, because you keep citing him) feel about the universe being "designed"? You examine the first two explanations, and discover that scientists don't seem to like either very much. Okay. But when we're talking about "best" (or, as I'd refer to call it in this case, "least bad"), we need to examine all of the options. After all, if our options are A, B, and C, and A has a probability of 1:10^20 and B has a probability of 1:10^30, we do not get to conclude that C is the most likely option without examining it. C could have a probabilty of 1:10^4, or a probability of 1:10^40*.

And the fact of the matter is that the option you want to offer as the "best explanation" is not even considered an explanation. It's not considered a valid explanation for why the universe is the way it is, any more than it is considered a valid explanation for why we see such diversity of life on the planet. It might technically be possible. It's also unscientific, unfalsifiable, and fundamentally useless. I mean, Hawking, the scientist you are basing most of your citations on, quite obviously doesn't think that design is the most reasonable answer - he's an atheist. He wrote an entire book attacking this argument. In fact, reading an excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal, it seems that he in fact endorses the "chance" option, and the multi-universe hypothesis:

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Again, we run into exactly the same problem as the cosmological argument. You appeal heavily to very complex theoretical physics that basically require a post-grad course just to understand the mathematics involved, but the scientists just keep not following through to your conclusion for some reason. If your argument for the existence of god depends on cosmology and something like 80% of cosmologists are atheists, you've got a honkin' big problem.

The best explanation should be one that is simple, has explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so on.

...Yes, and this is why "supernatural design" belongs in a bin. It has no explanatory power or scope, its plausibility is incalculable, and it is not falsifiable. It, like all supernatural explanations, makes no testable predictions and as a result is completely worthless.

*If they were a mutually exclusive, complete set of options, then yes, P(C) would necessarily be P(U) - P(A) - P(B), but this is part of why I find the trichotomy so problematic here. Neither of the two naturalistic options are universally accepted, and the supernaturalistic one is by definition useless.