The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not straying off-topic. Start your own thread.

But that is on-topic. You claimed that the universe is "extremely well suited" for life. I noted that a god could create and sustain life in any universe, regardless of how well suited it was for life. You responded by asking why god would create organisms that needed air only to place them in a universe without air. My tongue-in-cheek response was to ask you what do angels breathe. It wasn't entirely tongue-in-cheek, however, since presumably angels are considered "alive" in some sense and yet they presumably have no need for air.

All of this relates to a larger point: how do you differentiate a universe that is "extremely well" suited for life from one that is "poorly suited" when you don't know the conditions that are necessary for life to emerge in the first place?

 

[Joshua260]

What about this, from the Nature article you cited earlier:

Do you agree with them still?

"String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation."

If you can read black print on white paper, you might come to understand that he is discussing the possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. He is not disputing (but rather concurring with) p1 of my argument. So yes, I agree with him that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never brought up evolution. I merely pointed out that a biologist recognizes that life looks designed. Arch is trying to bring in evolution into the discussion, but that is not the topic of the thread and I will not comply with his attempts to deflect from the topic.

Evolution is perfectly relevant because it teaches us an important lesson: the appearance of design can be misleading. Things that were thought to have been designed turned out to have evolved through natural processes. It's not clear whether you accept this lesson or not because it's not clear whether you accept evolution or not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation."

If you can read black print on white paper, you might come to understand that he is discussing the possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. He is not disputing (but rather concurring with) p1 of my argument. So yes, I agree with him that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

So you admit to reading the piece selectively? You don't concur with the rest of the piece?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

More from the same article:

“In recent years, it was looking more and more to me like the laws of nature were environmental,” says Susskind, who has just written a book making this argument (L. Susskind The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little Brown, 2005). He suspects that there are many universes, all with different values for these variables. Just as human life had to evolve on a planet with water, he says, perhaps we also had to evolve in a Universe where atoms could form.

As someone who places so much weight on "this is what scientists say!" I assume you agree, Joshua260?

 

[Joshua260]

See, now this is why you shouldn't even include the phrase "for life" in the argument. You keep citing statistics that show nothing else would be possible either, so why is life special in the argument? Show some stats that say specifically life conditions couldn't exist, and then you can include the phrase "for life" in the argument. Until then, the argument is only "fine tuned for the universe to exist".

If you read the quote carefully, you will see that it states that a smaller universe could have existed, but in that case it would only have contained hydrogen.

 

[Joshua260]

More from the same article:

As someone who places so much weight on "this is what scientists say!" I assume you agree, Joshua260?

off-topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

off-topic.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you read the quote carefully, you will see that it states that a smaller universe could have existed, but in that case it would only have contained hydrogen.

Right, but that still doesn't say anything specifically about life. There are a lot of things that wouldn't exist in a universe made entirely of hydrogen.
In fact, if the universe was finely tuned for life, then we should see life everywhere. It seems a bit more like although there may be some perceived fine tuning, life exists despite it being difficult for it to do so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

off-topic.

By the way, as before, you brought up this article! Why did you bring it up if it was off-topic and you weren't interested in discussing its contents? It was on-topic when you thought it supported your argument, but it suddenly becomes off-topic when it no longer supports your argument?

 

[Joshua260]

So you admit to reading the piece selectively? You don't concur with the rest of the piece?

Does he have any evidence that rules out the design option?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does he have any evidence that rules out the design option?

Do you have any evidence that rules it in? The burden of proof for design rests on the design proponent; in this case, you.

 

[Joshua260]

Evolution is perfectly relevant because it teaches us an important lesson: the appearance of design can be misleading. Things that were thought to have been designed turned out to have evolved through natural processes. It's not clear whether you accept this lesson or not because it's not clear whether you accept evolution or not.

because evolution is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

because evolution is not the topic of the thread.

Not anymore, because it doesn't support your argument. It seems that the sole criterion for something being "on-topic" is whether it supports your argument or not. That Nature article was "on-topic" when you introduced it, but now its contents are "off-topic."

 

[Joshua260]

Right, but that still doesn't say anything specifically about life.

Yes it does. It shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without life.

There are a lot of things that wouldn't exist in a universe made entirely of hydrogen. In fact, if the universe was finely tuned for life, then we should see life everywhere. It seems a bit more like although there may be some perceived fine tuning, life exists despite it being difficult for it to do so.

You're starting to stray into the confusion of the use of the word "for" in p1. P1 simply says that the universe is well-suited for life...a fact that is undisputed by the scientific community. P1 is not meant to imply that the purpose of the fine-tuning was to sustain life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes it does. It shows that there are possibilities in which a universe could exist without life.


You're starting to stray into the confusion of the use of the word "for" in p1. P1 simply says that the universe is well-suited for life...a fact that is undisputed by the scientific community. P1 is not meant to imply that the purpose of the fine-tuning was to sustain life.

Sean Carroll is a member of the scientific community and he disputes it. Let me guess, "off-topic"?

 

[Joshua260]

Do you have any evidence that rules it in? The burden of proof for design rests on the design proponent; in this case, you.

The argument in the OP an inference to the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. Not only have I provided reasons that physical necessity and chance are unlikely, but I have also shown how design explains how the universe was realized in spite of the unlikelihood of chance or necessity. At this point, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that design is not the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. ...in this case, you.

 

[Joshua260]

Sean Carroll is a member of the scientific community and he disputes it. Let me guess, "off-topic"?

disputes what exactly? Please cite.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The argument in the OP an inference to the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. Not only have I provided reasons that physical necessity and chance are unlikely, but I have also shown how design explains how the universe was realized in spite of the unlikelihood of chance or necessity. At this point, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that design is not the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. ...in this case, you.

But you haven't produced any evidence for design. You've merely stated that there is a paucity of evidence for physical necessity and chance and then concluded that it must therefore be design. Well guess what? Paucity of evidence is just as much a problem for your preferred option! Your preferred option doesn't get to triumph by default. If others are obligated to produce evidence for their hypotheses, then so are you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

disputes what exactly? Please cite.

A relevant excerpt from Carroll's blog:

I acknowledged that, unlike the cosmological argument that is based on outdated metaphysics, the fine-tuning argument is a respectable scientific claim: two models trying to account for some data. But I gave five reasons why it was nevertheless not a good argument for theism:

1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible.
2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions.
3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability.
4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation.
5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed.