The Teleological Argument (p4)

[quatona]

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.

So for the "the nature of the universe" there are more or different options than "due to chance, natural necessity or design" while for the "fine-tuning of the universe"?
That´s interesting. Which options would that be, for example?

 

[Arythmael]

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


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


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).

Okay. Although I am tempted to argue the way you are slicing and dicing some of the semantics here, I think it is more beneficial to move on with your own last summary.

Given your own restatement of the physical necessity option, is this suggesting that it is "impossible" because it breaks the known laws of physics, or because it is somehow logically or mathematically impossible?

 

[Arythmael]

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?

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

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


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.

quatona, in some cases I am just sharing ideas (like the "trust me" thing). This type of speech is meant to be less formal, and most people realize that.

On the other hand, when someone presents a more formal argument, it is perfectly okay to make ones claim first, and then wait for any opponents to challenge that by requiring examples or specific evidence. That's how debate usually roles.

 

[Arythmael]

How can a gallon be proved within a quart?

I think this brings up an important point about what we think constitutes proof, and exactly how limited the role of proof is in this "quart" context of ours.

When people discuss things like this, they need to understand that in some contexts, we have to settle for believing whatever is the most reasonable thing, and give up making deductive proofs based on rules we can only imagine might be true.

For example, in my view, an inductive approach is most reasonable here because we have (in my opinion) evidence of design patterns in the universe, as well as the basic repeated evidence of more intelligent entities creating generally more complex designs from the elements in their surroundings. Such repeated observations and occurrences constitute a kind of proof by induction that the universe, being perhaps the most complex and intricately designed system (not even including the life-based systems that it encompasses), was in fact designed by the most intelligent entity imaginable.

 

[quatona]

quatona, in some cases I am just sharing ideas (like the "trust me" thing). This type of speech is meant to be less formal, and most people realize that.

That´s kind of a relief to me. I was fearing that your judgement of the intentions of your conversation partners was meant to have some nutritional value.
Glad to learn I can simply file it under "off-topic irrelevant rant" now.

 

[Arythmael]

That´s kind of a relief to me. I was fearing that your judgement of the intentions of your conversation partners was meant to have some nutritional value.
Glad to learn I can simply file it under "off-topic irrelevant rant" now.

That's pretty rude and uncalled for, although perhaps you know that and fancy it as a part of your personality that you think makes you look clever in other people's eyes. Whatever.

 

[Joshua260]

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

So you think God would stop caring about us because there's someone else smarter out there? That doesn't sound like the god of the Bible.

 

[quatona]

although perhaps you know that and fancy it as a part of your personality that you think makes you look clever in other people's eyes.

I guess this is just another case of what you prefer to call "sharing [your] ideas [...,]meant to be less formal" (see: once you have explained it to me I spotted it right away ), and which I would call, err, something else.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Any evidence for this claim?

 

[KCfromNC]

Okay. Although I am tempted to argue the way you are slicing and dicing some of the semantics here, I think it is more beneficial to move on with your own last summary.

Given your own restatement of the physical necessity option, is this suggesting that it is "impossible" because it breaks the known laws of physics, or because it is somehow logically or mathematically impossible?

I'm guessing c. because it leads to the predetermined conclusion the argument was invented for.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think this brings up an important point about what we think constitutes proof, and exactly how limited the role of proof is in this "quart" context of ours.

When people discuss things like this, they need to understand that in some contexts, we have to settle for believing whatever is the most reasonable thing, and give up making deductive proofs based on rules we can only imagine might be true.

For example, in my view, an inductive approach is most reasonable here because we have (in my opinion) evidence of design patterns in the universe, as well as the basic repeated evidence of more intelligent entities creating generally more complex designs from the elements in their surroundings. Such repeated observations and occurrences constitute a kind of proof by induction that the universe, being perhaps the most complex and intricately designed system (not even including the life-based systems that it encompasses), was in fact designed by the most intelligent entity imaginable.

Who themselves had to be designed by even more intelligent entities, at least if you consistently apply the reasonable inductive argument.

Or we could use induction to prove that humans designed the universe : the most complex designs we see are from humans, the universe is a very complex design, therefore humans must have done it.

Sometimes there's a fine line between induction and hasty generalization. I think questions about the design of the universe are way past that line, off in the next county somewhere.

 

[paulm50]

So you think God would stop caring about us because there's someone else smarter out there? That doesn't sound like the god of the Bible.

It sounds precisely like the bible. According to the bible, the Jews were the chosen people. And they were a pretty insignificant tribe at the time.

And I'm sure Christians sects are telling people today they are loved by god more than the others.

This debate is silly. Either Genesis is right and wrong.

 

[Winepress777]

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

That has been obvious

 

[Arythmael]

Or we could use induction to prove that humans designed the universe : the most complex designs we see are from humans, the universe is a very complex design, therefore humans must have done it.

No, you can't use induction to prove that because we don't have examples of things creating other things that are as complex or more complex than themselves.

 

[Arythmael]

Who themselves had to be designed by even more intelligent entities, at least if you consistently apply the reasonable inductive argument.

Possibly. But the argument of design is not intended to prove who designed the designer. Only that the universe was designed, right? So how is the above statement relevant?

 

[bhsmte]

Possibly. But the argument of design is not intended to prove who designed the designer. Only that the universe was designed, right? So how is the above statement relevant?

Can you provide a definition of what design is, that is workable?

Can you provide a test to determine when design is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[Belk]

No, you can't use induction to prove that because we don't have examples of things creating other things that are as complex or more complex than themselves.

What are you using to measure complexity?

 

[Arythmael]

I'm guessing c. because it leads to the predetermined conclusion the argument was invented for.

Dude, not only is this a pointless and snarky remark, it shows you're not even paying attention. If setting the constants is impossible, then physical necessity is an option, and according to his teleological argument, then he wouldn't be able to rule it out and claim that it is due to design. Please don't waste our time and forum space like this.

 

[Arythmael]

What are you using to measure complexity?

In this case, I'm basing it on the presumption that whatever complexity something has, any system that contains that thing plus any identifiable complexity at all in addition to that thing must be at least as complex as the thing itself.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, you can't use induction to prove that because we don't have examples of things creating other things that are as complex or more complex than themselves.

Depends on how you define complexity.

But yeah, if you read the rest of my post you'd see that I didn't think this was a serious approach, just showing how talking about designs which might not even be designs implying a designer unlike anything we've ever experienced is stretching inductive logic beyond any relationship to reality.