The Teleological Argument (p4)

[Moral Orel]

Again, I gave you information on the multiverse that you never responded to, so I don't know if you bothered to read it. Essentially the multiverse theory (not the one you have read about in sic-fi novels) has math to back it up, and a tiny bit of observational evidence.

That's quite astounding if true. Are you saying that we have some observational evidence of another universe? That I got to see. Please provide the evidence.

I already did. I then referenced it later, and you replied that you did not read it. I think that if you had any interest whatsoever in a better understanding of the multiverse and what it means to your argument you would have put in the five minutes that I did to Google evidence of it.

What we predicted was that universes would bump into each other from time to time. If that had happened, then we would see a remnant of that collision on the outside of our universe. So we designed an algorithm to have a computer look for the telltale sign we predicted (because humans will find a pattern that isn't there if they want to find one) and we found it. It isn't proof that it was another universe that caused it, but our prediction came true which is a tiny bit of physical evidence that backs up all the math. I'm not Googling it again, time for you to do some homework since you ignored mine.

 

[Moral Orel]

Also, no serious apologist offers a god or the gaps argument as you suggest.

This is exactly what you are doing in this argument though. You throw out the multiverse because you think it has absolutely no evidence to back it up and then accept God as the answer with absolutely no evidence to back it up except for this argument itself. But we could simply switch around your p3 to state, "it isn't design or necessity, so it must be a multiverse" and we would have more evidence to support that notion than yours. The "gap" is our lack of proof of some other answer, and you are putting God in there.

There are several arguments and Christian evidences that we could cite to support a reasonable belief in Christianity (and thus the existence of a designer) , especially where it surrounds the Resurrection.

This is the only way that you are going to prove the likelihood of God's existence. Science is never going to be the Christian's friend, it has only undermined what theists have thought for thousands of years. Trouble is, we aren't allowed to have a conversation about this on CF because it turns into "general apologetics". So don't start in with it now unless you want your thread closed.

 

[Moral Orel]

You obviously don't understand the argument of an inference to the best explanation.

I do though, and the argument from inference is garbage because it is an argument from ignorance. You can only infer from what you currently know and observe, and we have found far too many times that there are things we don't know about and haven't observed yet. I'm sure you agree with that statement since God is one of those things. That's why I don't rule him out completely, but he doesn't seem very likely.

Notice that I'm not trying to prove the multiverse to you and saying that design is impossible, I'm pointing out that there are things we don't know about, and there is evidence that there are things we don't know about. We shouldn't be making conclusions and touting things like these apologetics arguments as logical proofs when they are anything but.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, but lots of possible universes are well-suited for rocks.
"It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature..." (source)Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-and-physical-necessity#ixzz3fpM6uAUu
However, only a slim few possible universes are well-suited for life.

I drew up a graphic to illustrate:

Condition A (the universe exists):

********** (10)

Condition B (galaxies exist):

******** (8)

Condition C (Stars (and rocks?) exists):

****** (6)

Condition D (planets exist):

**** (4)

Condition E (size and distance of planet to star)

** (2)

Condition F (life):

* (1)

This is only a rough example, but it shows that although 6 out of 10 universes would contain rocks, only 1 in 10 would contain life. So the point is that the "rock" odds are 60%, while the "life" odds are10%.

So when we say that the universe is "well-suited for file", what we're expressing is that so many conditions need to be set just right for a universe to accommodate life (I count 6 in my example) while only 3 conditions need to be set right for a universe to sustain the existence of rocks.

There's only one problem with this and it's a big one: you just made the numbers up.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As you will probably agree, people are generally more emotional than they are logical. Many come to Christianity for the same emotional reasons that people go to other religions. Of course, that alone does not make any of those religions wrong. But for most Christians, right or wrong, their curiosity about how God works is satisfied by hearing preachers go into historical details about Biblical events that show how God has been working with man over the centuries. It would tax their minds to follow and process in-depth discussions about scientific principles and observations that point to God's handiwork. I, too, think that is unfortunate, and would hope to change that. But it does no good to stand around claiming intellectual superiority over such people. In fact, that's a quick way to lose respect in most other people's eyes -- and then they really stop listening.

Who here is claiming intellectual superiority over them? I am lamenting their lack of curiosity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You obviously don't understand the argument of an inference to the best explanation. As I explained, the scientific community agree that physical necessity and chance are extremely unlikely,

Citation needed.

and design explains the fine-tuning in spite of the odds against it.

Calculations please. Show your working out.

So in response to it, the scientific community has offered the multiverse, which has some math to back it up but no actual observational evidence of another universe. As I have explained before, just because one can do math to describe something, that does not prove that the something described actually exists.

So the scientific community doesn't take your preferred hypothesis seriously. Why is that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you mean your citation from Carroll, most of that was irrelevant, and he did not dispute p1 as I have been saying.

Actually, he did dispute it, as I showed you. If "fine-tuning" is defined in the manner in which you have defined it, he disputes it, noting that "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." In any case, shall we consider what else the scientific community has to say on the matter, particularly regarding the other premises?

 

[quatona]

Yes, but lots of possible universes are well-suited for rocks.
"It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature..." (source)Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-and-physical-necessity#ixzz3fpM6uAUu
However, only a slim few possible universes are well-suited for life.

I drew up a graphic to illustrate:

Condition A (the universe exists):

********** (10)

Condition B (galaxies exist):

******** (8)

Condition C (Stars (and rocks?) exists):

****** (6)

Condition D (planets exist):

**** (4)

Condition E (size and distance of planet to star)

** (2)

Condition F (life):

* (1)

This is only a rough example, but it shows that although 6 out of 10 universes would contain rocks, only 1 in 10 would contain life. So the point is that the "rock" odds are 60%, while the "life" odds are10%.

Which supports my suggestion that - if applying this criterium consistently - it is more reasonable to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for cancer, ALS or genetic disorders rather than that it is fine-tuned for life.

 

[Davian]

I'll venture out on this one.
What I disagree with is the belief that life came about solely from natural causes.

What other kinds of causes are there?

Why don't you start a thread on this one? However, I think that if you did, you might have to post it in the Exploring Christianity forum.

Do you think me so naive that I do not see that the intent of this thread - or any of your recent threads in this forum - are in violation of this forum's Statement of Purpose that clearly states that "the CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Another unsubstantiated accusation of circular reasoning. Please demonstrate the circular reasoning in the argument of the OP specifically.

I don't think bhsmte accused you of circular reasoning. He simply noted that you are cherrypicking from the scientific community to support your claims, and he's right about that. Are you really interested in what the scientific community has to say about the matter, or are you only interested insofar as you can use it to advance your argument?

 

[Davian]

Yes I can. This is where Davies makes the distinction:

"So the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires."

The part you bolded is the part that agrees with p1. The typical misunderstanding is found in the antecedent part of that sentence (the word "for" should be taken with the meaning of "in order to, as with a purpose").

Amazing to see how you can keep those goalposts moving around like that. To say that it agrees with P1 would be a false equivalency. In that context, you could say that Davies agrees with the universe being "fine-tuned" for Frisbees. If you can get him to agree with that without laughing in your face, I will let you have that one.

Is this really the kind of stuff to have to accept to be a religionist?

 

[Davian]

There's only one problem with this and it's a big one: you just made the numbers up.

But the numbers look good and sell books, for the source from where he got this argument. Is that not good enough for here? Did it not work for the KCA?

 

[Moral Orel]

As I explained, the scientific community agree that physical necessity and chance are extremely unlikely

Wait, I thought you were equating "chance" with "the multiverse" in your argument. The multiverse of course being the answer to make the chances better. A major portion of the scientific community believes the multiverse is a very plausible explanation in more ways than just convenience and actually believes it is the answer to the problem, so you either need to add "the multiverse" to the list of explanations, or you need to acknowledge that the scientific community does not believe that chance is extremely unlikely.

So in response to it, the scientific community has offered the multiverse, which has some math to back it up but no actual observational evidence of another universe. As I have explained before, just because one can do math to describe something, that does not prove that the something described actually exists.

And the math is backed up by observations. It all stems from the inflation theory where we seem to have found that space itself is expanding. We have observed this happening, so we made the theory. That theory predicts a multiverse. We made a prediction based on this theory, based on this math, based on these observations, and that prediction came true. This is what real evidence is. Not inference from what we thought we used to know. Is it proof? No. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? No. But it is a lot more plausible than you give it credit for. This is deductive reasoning.

Is there any deductive reasoning that proves God exists? Because inference is inferior to deduction.

 

[Joshua260]

Using statements from scientists and ignoring their conclusions, is flawed reasoning.

1. Put a name to the fallacy you describe.
2. Demonstrate circular using using the argument of the OP.
3. Maybe you should do this first...read a book on the use of logic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1. Put a name to the fallacy you describe.
2. Demonstrate circular using using the argument of the OP.
3. Maybe you should do this first...read a book on the use of logic.

He already named it: you are cherrypicking. Perhaps you should consult a book on logic?

 

[Joshua260]

You made those statistics up. Show me the real statistics with real sources that explain which constants changed by the tiniest bit would alter the conditions necessary for life. I'm not saying necessarily that those stats don't exist, but you haven't shown them.

Google it you like.
But can you not already look at the universe and realize how many conditions need to be right for life to succeed? Can't you think for yourself and see that rocks can exist in many more places than people? Things that come to mind are distance of a planet to sun, the size of the planet of the planet, the stability of the sun, does the plant have sufficient gravity, an atmosphere, air in atmosphere, seasons, etc.
Again, the scientific community has already accepted p1 and moved on to discussing what could account for it.

 

[Joshua260]

He already named it: you are cherrypicking. Perhaps you should consult a book on logic?

Im not cherry-picking and quite honestly i didnt know that was a logical fallacy. is it? In any case, scientist agree with p1. In fact, you've been the one misinterpreting Carroll's position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Im not cherry-picking and quite honestly i didnt know that was a logical fallacy. is it?

Yes, it is a fallacy.

In any case, scientist agree with p1.

You appear to have no interest in discussing what the scientific community thinks on the matter, as evident by your earlier dismissal of the Nature article.

In fact, you've been the one misinterpreting Carroll's position.

Misrepresenting Carroll by quoting Carroll?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just so that it's clear that I am not misrepresenting Carroll, here is the relevant segment from his debate with Craig (beginning 4:39). Note the slide on screen says "Fine-tuning for life is dubious at best" (emphasis in original).

 

[Joshua260]

Yes, it is a fallacy.

You appear to have no interest in discussing what the scientific community thinks on the matter, as evident by your earlier dismissal of the Nature article.

Misrepresenting Carroll by quoting Carroll?

But cherry picking does not apply in this case. Cherry picking is like I'm citing evidence that supports my conclusion and ignoring evidence that doesn't. So citing statements from scientists that concur with the fine-tuning and disagreeing with their conclusion that it is not due to design is not cherry picking. That's the difference between evidence and conclusion. Using that logic, could we not then accuse atheistic scientists (there are theistic ones who agree with design) of cherry picking, since we use the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion?

Yes, I am interested in what the scientific community thinks about fine-tuning. I've quoted them concurring with me several times.

Yes, you misrepresented Carroll. He agrees with P1.