The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Arythmael]

Yes, you did claim that.

No, I knew what you meant. It is a generalization about anyone that doesn't find God. Everyone else here who isn't a believer gave it an honest chance at proving itself, and it failed for them as well. Making that argument at all is to imply that people are not sincere if they don't come to the same conclusions.

You don't personally know they gave it an honest chance any more than I do, so don't make that claim. But in my understanding, God who does know how people work, claims that if people are seeking the truth they will find Him. It is by His authority that I am answering that way, since what was asked was a theological question about Christian beliefs. I don't think it is rude or an unfair generalization. For all I know, they will all eventually find Him. And I hope they do. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you will find Him because you are honestly seeking. I don't know that for sure, but I'm willing to believe it. Why else would I still be answering here?

 

[Arythmael]

The claim that we are nonbelievers because we want to sin is exemplary of this attitude. It is assumed that our nonbelief is disingenuous; that no one could sincerely examine the Christian faith and come away not believing in its doctrines.

Real (at least somewhat mature) Christians do not assume that anyone's disbelief is disingenuous, not unless they see a solid, consistent pattern of irrational banter. Not much different than you would about a political debate you might have with someone who is obviously ignoring what you say and just spewing empty party-line views over and over.

But don't forget that this is not like debating higher Mathematical principles or Theoretical Physics. There is a real heart aspect to this which comes into play. Yes you should reject what appear to be clear contradictions, and look for folks who can help clear them up. But when people reject Christianity on grounds that are along the lines of not doing things God's way if they were in charge ... things start to get questionable. There is some real presumption to that. If God says He will judge fairly, why suppose He won't? If you think Jesus was a liar, point out where and why. Otherwise, what did He say but believe in me and you will be saved?

 

[Arythmael]

Trust me. I have debated on Christian forums off and on for decades, and I have seen plenty of both people like yourselves who are trying to pinpoint and get a handle on what the truth is, and people who just keep talking in circles with a clear agenda to avoid dealing with the facts that I am trying over and over to present as clearly and logically as I can. When I corner them logically, they just quietly disappear. Many times they try the out of claiming to "agree to disagree" even while there are open issues they have not begun to address.

It's really not that hard to tell after a while.

 

[quatona]

Trust me. I have debated on Christian forums off and on for decades, and I have seen plenty of both people like yourselves who are trying to pinpoint and get a handle on what the truth is, and people who just keep talking in circles with a clear agenda to avoid dealing with the facts that I am trying over and over to present as clearly and logically as I can.

Don´t take it personally, but "as clearly and logically as I can" doesn´t necessarily mean "clearly and logically".
The argument to the defense of which this thread has been created is a shining example of that.

When I corner them logically, they just quietly disappear.

When I bow out of a discussion, it´s usually for the reason that - in my perception - logic is lost on the other person.

It's really not that hard to tell after a while.

Exactly. After all, there´s no way that this is due to the fact that you are biased towards your own conclusions (in regards to the topic as well as in regards to the attitude of people who disagree with you.

 

[Arythmael]

The claim that we are nonbelievers because we want to sin is exemplary of this attitude. It is assumed that our nonbelief is disingenuous; that no one could sincerely examine the Christian faith and come away not believing in its doctrines.

I'm not so sure it is even theologically correct to say that you are a non-believer because you want to sin. I think people sin because they are trying to fill a void, which only God can fill, with stuff that isn't God. I think people like you are non-believers because you know it is dangerous to get swayed by your emotions into believing something that is false. That is why I started asking questions almost 30 years ago. People who are not really seeking usually come here with the goal of trying to show how stupid, gullible, and self-righteous Christians are.

I'll try to stop here so as not to continue too long off-topic. But it is more important that non-believers come away from this forum understanding that there is both grace and accountability when it comes to seekers of the truth than it is that we stay strictly on-topic at all times. And while true Christians try to offer both that grace and that accountability to honest truth seeking, only God is the final judge as to who was trying to accomplish what while here, and how important that is in the overall picture.

 

[Arythmael]

Don´t take it personally, but "as clearly and logically as I can" doesn´t necessarily mean "clearly and logically".

That's true. It doesn't always mean that in all cases and for everyone.

The argument to the defense of which this thread has been created is a shining example of that.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

When I bow out of a discussion, it´s usually for the reason that - in my perception - logic is lost on the other person.

That's reasonable. Same with me.

Exactly. After all, there's no way that this is due to the fact that you are biased towards your own conclusions (in regards to the topic as well as in regards to the attitude of people who disagree with you.

No need for that. If you see bias on my part, point it out. But just having an opinion that favors ones self is not immediate evidence of bias, is it? You know that. I could say that I am a talented and skilled pianist, if it is necessary to make a point. To know if I'm telling the truth (enough to be considered unbiased) come listen to me play -- before judging. If I have made illogical statements throughout this forum, please point them out ... for heaven's sake what else have I been to trying to do here but deal with such objections?

 

[quatona]

No need for that. If you see bias on my part, point it out. But just having an opinion that favors ones self is not immediate evidence of bias, is it?

Indeed. Neither is the fact that I appeal to my own expertise evidence for this expertise, nor the fact that I find my arguments logically and convincing evidence for the fact that they are solid and sound. So what was your point in writing that paragraph?

You know that. I could say that I am a talented and skilled pianist, if it is necessary to make a point.

What point could you possibly try to make by making this claim?

To know if I'm telling the truth (enough to be considered unbiased) come listen to me play -- before judging.

If you would me believe you are a talented pianist, play to me. Don´t just make claims to that effect - they are pointless.

If I have made illogical statements throughout this forum, please point them out ... for heaven's sake what else have I been to trying to do here but deal with such objections?

I didn´t say anything to that effect. I just noted that you "(Trust me!") appealed to your own expertise in deciding whether your own arguments were good or bad (and your conclusions on the mindset of those who disagree with you).
So I pointed out that there is no reason for me to trust you on that.
IOW I just pointed out that your appeal to your own authority was irrelevant for any intent or purpose - entirely circular.

I guess I could have shortened things by just pointing out that anything that begins with "Trust me" isn´t going to become a valid argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's interesting that you should say that because my impression is the opposite: the more we learn about the universe, the less appealing the teleological intuition becomes. We recognise that complex structures, like fractals, can emerge from remarkably simple rules.

What's even more interesting is that the people who do science professionally tend to be less religious than people who don't. Not that they're necessarily right, but the trend is interesting.

 

[Winepress777]

Can you be more specific? What was wrong in what he wrote? What specifically do you object to?


eudaimonia,

Mark

No. I don't entertain "specific" objections to general armchair philosophy. Nor was I referring to anything said by any one philosopher here. When belly button lint is being pulled out and blown around in a room by a bunch of bloviators, what is the point of attempting to isolate any one fluff of lint? Lol, what would be the point? The entire room is a riot. That was the essence of my post. It's like watching a bunch of monkeys bang away on typewriters, each one thinking they have something important to say. That's what it looks like from the outside looking in. So placing someone into the future, to view this all from a future perspective, (which of course is only applying to those who have eternal life by repentance of sins and baptism into Christ), one might say, (as I did), that one might then look back and laugh on all this nonsense. I hope this explains my post better for you, for whatever reason

 

[Eudaimonist]

No. I don't entertain "specific" objections to general armchair philosophy. Nor was I referring to anything said by any one philosopher here. When belly button lint is being pulled out and blown around in a room by a bunch of bloviators, what is the point of attempting to isolate any one fluff of lint? Lol, what would be the point? The entire room is a riot. That was the essence of my post. It's like watching a bunch of monkeys bang away on typewriters, each one thinking they have something important to say. That's what it looks like from the outside looking in. So placing someone into the future, to view this all from a future perspective, (which of course is only applying to those who have eternal life by repentance of sins and baptism into Christ), one might say, (as I did), that one might then look back and laugh on all this nonsense. I hope this explains my post better for you, for whatever reason

So, you have nothing worthwhile to add. Understood.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Winepress777]

So, you have nothing worthwhile to add. Understood.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course not, I wouldn't even try. No one here has anything worthwhile to add. That is the entire point obviously. That is the enjoyment factor which inspires "laughter".

(Psa 2:4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course not, I wouldn't even try. No one here has anything worthwhile to add. That is the entire point obviously. That is the enjoyment factor which inspires "laughter".

(Psa 2:4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Good job, this did make me laugh.

 

[Joshua260]

I can take your use of the term "fine-tuned" as you would like it to be understood in this conversation. Here it is, as stated above in your own words: "If certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not be life-permitting."

ok...but I stress that my definition does not imply that the constants could be different.

Now here is your definition of physical necessity (again, your own words): "Physical necessity does not mean that only a certain values could be set to support life. Rather, it means that it would be impossible for those values to be different...period! (whether or not there is or isn't life)" I think it is a fair paraphrase to claim that this is saying "If certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not exist at all".

Sorry, no. You changed my meaning from "impossible for those values to be different" to "If certain constants varied just a little bit".

So let me understand your first option of premise (2):

• The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity.

If we replace these words with your definitions, then we are saying:

• The fact that if certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not be life-permitting, is due to the fact that if certain constants varied just a little bit, then the universe would not exist at all.

Is that what you are saying with this first option of premise (2)?

Sorry, no.
You're still trying to impose the idea of "a large bandwidth of possibilities" on the definition of "fine-tuned". My use of "fine-tuned" does not make that assumption. As in my radio example, we don't know whether the radio:
1. has a tuning knob
...or whether the radio
2. is hard-wired for a specific frequency.
Application: If the universe is resonating at 200.0000 hz and the radio is hard-wired to detect 200.0000 hz, then we could say that the radio is "fine-tuned" to the exact frequency of the universe. No "large bandwidth of possibilities" is required.

Here's how I would substitute my definitions into the physical necessity option:

The fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity.

...becomes...

The (fact that so many constants are found to be set to levels which if they varied just a little bit from their current values then the universe would not be life-permitting) is due to (the fact that it is impossible for those constants to be set to any other values, period).

 

[Joshua260]

@Joshua260 Do you think there are other forms of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, of which their intelligence greatly surpasses ours?

I don't know.

In a universe where there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars, I think it's pretty much a done deal that there is life out there that is far, far more intelligent than us. Which means, if the universe was fine-tuned (which I don't think is the case), the designer "God" is a deistic one at most.

I don't see how your conclusion "the designer "God" is a deistic one at most" logically follows from "there is life out there". Can you explain that more fully?

 

[Joshua260]

I keep wondering about the significance of the first premise (in the meaning the OP claims to use it in).
If the argument read:

1. The unverse is as it is. (Or "the universe is huge", or "the universe is, for most parts, uninhabitated", or...)
2. The nature of the universe (or: the hugeness of the universe, or...) is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
3. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, it is due to design.

...would it still...ahem...work the same way as with "fine-tuning"? Why? Why not?

P3 and p4 are built as a result of considering of the options given in p2. Therefore, they may or may not be the same if different attributes are selected in p1. ahem back at ya.

 

[Joshua260]

What's even more interesting is that the people who do science professionally tend to be less religious than people who don't. Not that they're necessarily right, but the trend is interesting.

That's been explained numerous times. Many atheistic scientists had already formed their atheistic point of view before entering into a scientific field of work. Of course, we could list plenty of scientists who are believers in return. This counting noses game really proves nothing one way or the other.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's been explained numerous times. Many atheistic scientists had already formed their atheistic point of view before entering into a scientific field of work. Of course, we could list plenty of scientists who are believers in return. This counting noses game really proves nothing one way or the other.

Okay, but if you are going to argue "scientists think..." when it comes to supporting the premises of the cosmological and teleological arguments, then I think it's legitimate to make a point of the fact that most scientists appear to be nonreligious.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I don't know.


I don't see how your conclusion "the designer "God" is a deistic one at most" logically follows from "there is life out there". Can you explain that more fully?

If there is other life in the universe either equal to us in intelligence or far more intelligent, we're not "special" anymore.

 

[nonbeliever314]

If you are a repentant man, and you worship Jesus, you will know for sure one day, and you will look back and have a good laugh at all this philosophy

I worship nothing. And never will. I choose my own direction in life.

 

[ScottA]

How can a gallon be proved within a quart?