The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Joshua260]

So by "we can also calculate" do you mean you've done this work, or are you just saying that at some point in the future someone might put together a working model which may or may not correspond to your particular guesses?

I'm saying that scientists like Hawking have already made these calculations. Even atheist scientists agree that the universe looks like it is fine-tuned for life. The question is why. Deal with it.

 

[Joshua260]

I already noted that design is a possibility...

I agree. So we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility for the fine-tuning of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

Some, as individuals, may be of this opinion, but not as scientists.

I copied these for you because you seem to be in some state of denial about whether scientists have professionally voiced their opinion about the fact that the universe looks fine-tuned.

Physicist P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes!4

4 P.C.W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 168, 169.

Davies also calculates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by merely one part in 10 raised to the 100th power (!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.5
5 P.C. W. Davies, “The Anthropic Principle”, in Particle and Nuclear Physics

"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


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.

 

[Davian]

I agree. So we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility for the fine-tuning of the universe.

What fine-tuning? Do you mean, the perception of fine-tuning?

 

[Davian]

How nice of you to pull just that line out of context.

I copied these for you because you seem to be in some state of denial about whether scientists have professionally

But not scientifically.

voiced their opinion

Just their opinion. Got it.

about the fact that the universe looks fine-tuned.

...that some of them perceive "fine-tuning" (definitions vary). Can you read minds? How do you establish this as "fact"?

Physicist P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes!4

4 P.C.W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 168, 169.

Please quote the actual passage, so we can see if this is speculation.

As this book reviewer says, "[Davies] makes some of the usual points: that there is no case for invoking "a god of the gaps" to explain what science cannot account for, because history shows that sooner or later science quite often does get to explain the once seemingly inexplicable."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/16/god-new-physics-paul-davies-review1

Davies also calculates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by merely one part in 10 raised to the 100th power (!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.5
5 P.C. W. Davies, “The Anthropic Principle”, in Particle and Nuclear Physics

"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

The anthropic principle is a tautology.

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.

What are the other alternatives? Gods, being only characters in books at this point, do not appear to be an alternative.

What of the balance of my post?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree. So we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility for the fine-tuning of the universe.

Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm saying that scientists like Hawking have already made these calculations.

Then you'll have no problem telling us the exact probability distribution for each of the fundamental constants you claim is fine tuned. Don't forget to include your work and show references for each of those results.

 

[Davian]

Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?

While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.

 

[bhsmte]

While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.

Does this argument sound like another poster on this board.

Cherry picking statements from Dawkin's, but then ignoring Dawkin's conclusions?

Cherry picking arguments from Willy Craig, when he states folks who don't agree the universe is 13.8 billion years old, are ignorant?

 

[quatona]

Seriously? Instead of acknowledging to your self that you made a fallacious statement...

... and quietly moving on, you're actually going to reply by making a false accusation that I am using circular reasoning?

I didn´t make a fallacious statement. I was clearly referring to a scenario without further conditions (e.g. knowing that there are designers, knowing how and why they design stuff) - the very scenario we have when trying to find out whether and how the universe came into existence.

Ok then. Please point out exactly where in my OP (copied below) did I use circular reasoning?

I have done it often enough, just to see that you are ignoring the arguments.

 

[Joshua260]

Just their opinion. Got it.

You're right, I was wrong to use the word "opinion" in my last post. The following is a statement of fact from a scientist speaking as a scientist:

"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

 

[Joshua260]

What fine-tuning? Do you mean, the perception of fine-tuning?

No, I do not mean perception of fine-tuning. You are confusing, as many do, the difference between stating the fact that "the universe is fine-tuned" and saying that "the universe looks designed".

The following is a statement of fact from Hawking speaking as a representative of the scientific community:

""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

"Fine-tuned" means that if certain constants varied from their present values, the universe would not be life-permitting. This is in perfect agreement with what Hawking states as a fact above.

This following is more of an opinion...speaking of the fact that the universe looks designed, and not stating the fact that it is fine-tuned:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Sir Fed Hoyle.

The TA argument in my OP states the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, just as Hawking confirms. The question is: what is the best explanation for the universe being fine-tuned? Is it physical necessity, chance, or design. P1 in my argument is not controversial amongst the scientific community. It's the cause behind the fine-tuning of the universe that is controversial.

 

[Joshua260]

I didn´t make a fallacious statement.

It's a matter of record. The following is a fallacious statement. The consequent does not logically follow from the antecedent. It's embarrassing if you keep denying it. Just accept it and move on.

If the odds for something to be the way it is are extremely low, the odds for it to be designed that way are equally extremely low.

I have done it [demonstrate that circular reasoning is in the argument of the OP] often enough, just to see that you are ignoring the arguments.

You haven't even done it once. How about backing up your accusations with proof?

 

[Joshua260]

Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?

Please stay on topic of the OP.

 

[Joshua260]

Then you'll have no problem telling us the exact probability distribution for each of the fundamental constants you claim is fine tuned. Don't forget to include your work and show references for each of those results.

You seem to have trouble understanding the situation. Scientists (even atheist ones) say that the universe is fine-tuned. I have cited quotations from them to back that up. If you are going to make a counter-claim that disputes their findings, then the onus is on you to back up your counter-claim. The scientists are on my side of the argument in regards to p1.

 

[Joshua260]

Does this argument sound like another poster on this board.

Cherry picking statements from Dawkin's, but then ignoring Dawkin's conclusions?

Cherry picking arguments from Willy Craig, when he states folks who don't agree the universe is 13.8 billion years old, are ignorant?

So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.

 

[Joshua260]

While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.

So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.

 

[bhsmte]

So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.

My post isolates the obvious; you cherry pick certain people statements and then choose to ignore their conclusions on the same topic.

 

[Joshua260]

My post isolates the obvious; you cherry pick certain people statements and then choose to ignore their conclusions on the same topic.

Conclusions? What conclusions are you referring to? Please cite conclusions specifically referencing the argument of the OP.

 

[bhsmte]

Conclusions? What conclusions are you referring to? Please cite conclusions specifically referencing the argument of the OP.

Have you not referenced Dawkins when it comes to the appearance of design? Have you also recognized, that Dawkins also concludes the universe is not designed? Yes, or no.

This is the equivalent of me going to the doctor and him stating; you look very healthy and have the appearance of health, but then diagnostic tests reveal I am very sick, yet I tell everyone; my doctor says I have the appearance of being very healthy, so I am very healthy.