The Teleological Argument

[Joshua260]

The Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

It was suggested to create a thread specifically on this subject.

 

[The Cadet]

Your forgot premise 0: "The universe is fine-tuned". And a definition of what "fine-tuning" even means. And to justify premises 0, 1, or 2.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Presumes there is fine tuning, but without knowing what process created whatever tuning you're claiming we have no way to know if there is a possibility for whatever it is that was tuned to be any different.
Ignores a lot of other options. It could be a non-necessary physical process, a non-natural undersigned one, and any number of other combinations of the categories offered up here.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Same problem as #1 - without knowing what process was involved in tuning whatever it is that might have been tuned, making any conclusions about what those processes must have been are premature.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Design is presumed to triumph by default. If paucity of evidence is a problem for the other two options (physical necessity and chance), then it is just as problematic for the apologist's preferred option (design).

 

[Davian]

Now we wait for the arbiter(s) of common sense, astrophysics, and arguments for the existence of gods to return.

Popcorn anyone?

 

[com7fy8]

1. The fine-tuning of the universe

I would say it is fine-tuned, including it is "interesting" how the main things needed for life are transparent . . . water and air and sunlight < three > these are triune, could we say?? Is this a coincidence, how three transparent things function as and in one??

is due to either physical necessity,

Well, after Adam and Eve fell, they needed an earth which they could relate to, with their capabilities. So, the way the universe is . . . now . . . could be related to the necessity that fallen Adam and Eve might not be able to survive and function on a spiritual-level earth. After all, they could not function with God who is spiritual.

chance,

I would say there is no chance to anything. There is purpose. God wants children who are pleasing to Him like Jesus is, and this universe is where God is producing and bringing up children who are like Jesus >

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

or design.

God designed all things, including how three main things for life are transparent and readily available. Also, He has done, I would say, much more marvelously than is required for survival. Because all has been done with love, and love gives so much more than the minimum: God's love is not welfare love.

And we see how humans are not able to figure out so many things and personality. Because God's ways are "past finding out" (in Romans 11:33). And these "ways past finding out" are working in and through all things, so that we can not figure out what is going on But we can rest in the LORD and enjoy

 

[zippy2006]

The Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

It was suggested to create a thread specifically on this subject.

I once heard Dr. David Albert argue against the premise that the universe is fine-tuned, and I found him rather persuasive. His basic point was that the statistical distributions used to calculate the relevant variance include assumptions that do not necessarily apply in this case. The assumptions have to do with the uniformity of possibility. I could try to dig up some notes but I'm sure he's written a paper on the subject.

 

[Cappadocious]

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design

Or it's brute.

 

[durangodawood]

It seems competely natural (and not contrived) that events occur in the kind of places suited for them

Different universe... different events.

 

[Moral Orel]

The fine-tuning argument also requires all of the constants of the universe to be just that, constant. But that isn't necessarily true. Some constants could have been different at a different time, and the math still works out as long as more than one constant changed. So determining the probability that the universe formed the way it formed is impossible without knowing that the constants were always constant.

Here's an article

 

[nonbeliever314]

Your forgot premise 0: "The universe is fine-tuned". And a definition of what "fine-tuning" even means. And to justify premises 0, 1, or 2.

Agreed. (Emoji thumbs up)

 

[Achilles6129]

The Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

It was suggested to create a thread specifically on this subject.

I don't like this version of the argument. Anyways, would everyone prefer to discuss the teleological argument on this thread or on the other one? That way we're not going back and forth.

 

[nonbeliever314]

So we can start this new debate off on the right foot, let's get the right version of TA and start over again. And whatever that is, put it in bold, and don't change it. Another rule, always add the post number link to the argument in any reply so that way we always have an easy ref to it, example:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

TA: #2837

Can we agree on that?

 

[The Cadet]

I don't like this version of the argument. Anyways, would everyone prefer to discuss the teleological argument on this thread or on the other one? That way we're not going back and forth.

Let's leave the other for the KCA and focus on the teleological here .

What version do you prefer?

Also, can anyone present a version that isn't a complete waste of time and which points to a god which is anything beyond the deist god?

 

[Achilles6129]

Well, I think Joshua and I have different approaches to teleology. We can each present our own versions of the argument, and other people can present theirs as well if they'd like.

 

[TillICollapse]

Let's leave the other for the KCA and focus on the teleological here .

What version do you prefer?

Also, can anyone present a version that isn't a complete waste of time and which points to a god which is anything beyond the deist god?

On the face of it, the OP version appears to be a complete waste of time. "Fine-tuning" needs to be established and defined first, before progressing further. The rest of it just seems like bare assertions and false dilemmas to me.

 

[Achilles6129]

To start with, it needs to be made clear that all that's being claimed is that the teleological argument makes belief in a Creator more reasonable than disbelief. So it would be reasonable to believe that an intelligence designed certain features of the universe based on the teleological argument.

Let me give an example of what would make one conclude that an intelligence is at work:

A) A precision is observed
B) The precision produces a surprising effect
C) The effect is repeated
D) The effect is unnecessary for life to exist

I'll start by giving an example that includes "D," though I don't believe it's necessary to include D in order for the line of reasoning to succeed:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/13/total-solar-eclipse-australia

Notice the photograph of a total solar eclipse from the link above. Note that the moon virtually exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, leading to a tremendous lighting effect. Now, such a thing is totally unnecessary for life to exist: the moon could very well be further away, or closer, or bigger, or smaller, and such an effect would be impossible. Therefore, either:

A) Chance produced a total solar eclipse
or
B) An intelligence produced a total solar eclipse

Since there's a great deal of precision involved, producing a surprising effect, which is completely unnecessary for the existence of life, I would argue that it's far more reasonable that an intelligence produced it rather than chance.

In order for you to defeat this version of the teleological argument, you would have to explain to me why it's more reasonable that chance causes total solar eclipses rather than an intelligence. And that I don't think you can do.

 

[nonbeliever314]

In order for you to defeat this version of the teleological argument, you would have to explain to me why it's more reasonable that chance causes total solar eclipses rather than an intelligence. And that I don't think you can do.

Define intelligence.

 

[TillICollapse]

To start with, it needs to be made clear that all that's being claimed is that the teleological argument makes belief in a Creator more reasonable than disbelief. So it would be reasonable to believe that an intelligence designed certain features of the universe based on the teleological argument.

Let me give an example of what would make one conclude that an intelligence is at work:

A) A precision is observed
B) The precision produces a surprising effect
C) The effect is repeated
D) The effect is unnecessary for life to exist

I'll start by giving an example that includes "D," though I don't believe it's necessary to include D in order for the line of reasoning to succeed:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/13/total-solar-eclipse-australia

Notice the photograph of a total solar eclipse from the link above. Note that the moon virtually exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, leading to a tremendous lighting effect. Now, such a thing is totally unnecessary for life to exist: the moon could very well be further away, or closer, or bigger, or smaller, and such an effect would be impossible. Therefore, either:

A) Chance produced a total solar eclipse
or
B) An intelligence produced a total solar eclipse

Since there's a great deal of precision involved, producing a surprising effect, which is completely unnecessary for the existence of life, I would argue that it's far more reasonable that an intelligence produced it rather than chance.

In order for you to defeat this version of the teleological argument, you would have to explain to me why it's more reasonable that chance causes total solar eclipses rather than an intelligence. And that I don't think you can do.

Firstly, do you believe there are events that fall into the category of coincidence ? And do you believe apophenia is a legitimate psychological phenomenon ?

 

[The Cadet]

To start with, it needs to be made clear that all that's being claimed is that the teleological argument makes belief in a Creator more reasonable than disbelief. So it would be reasonable to believe that an intelligence designed certain features of the universe based on the teleological argument.

Let me give an example of what would make one conclude that an intelligence is at work:

A) A precision is observed
B) The precision produces a surprising effect
C) The effect is repeated
D) The effect is unnecessary for life to exist

Care to elaborate on "B"? What qualifies as "surprising"? I mean, if we go from the starting point of the big bang, depending on whether you hold to determinism or not, it's either infinitely unlikely that I would press the "Minecraft" button on my taskbar in about 10 minutes (once I get done with the 25 or so alerts I have), or it's a 1:1 chance. Neither answer bodes well for this argument. If every basic thing is infinitely unlikely (1:1 billion chance of sperm meeting ovum times however many generations of ancestors I have, plus whatever else is incredibly unlikely), then nothing can be considered "surprising". After all, a royal flush of spades is a rare hand in Poker, but so is 3S 5H 2C 7S 4C. If everything is guaranteed, then any argument for probability flies out the window, as no matter what the circumstance is, it was guaranteed.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/13/total-solar-eclipse-australia

Notice the photograph of a total solar eclipse from the link above. Note that the moon virtually exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, leading to a tremendous lighting effect.

Wow. That is some sloppy logic. The moon completely covering the sun in the case of a solar eclipse seems unlikely, until we consider how many planets and moons there are. What are the odds that any one of them would have this effect? And of course, it's not precise. The moon's covering varies greatly from month to month, as well as year to year; as take your pick of the Hovind clan would point out, "WE'RE LOSING THE MOON!" (And at some point in geologic time, this covering will no longer take place in any meaningful way). Now let's add the factors that a habitable planet will almost certainly be not greater than a certain size, that a planet of that size can only have moons up to a certain size, and how do the odds look? Of course, you have no way of calculating the odds because we still don't know that it could be any different. And if it could be any different, how different could the earth be? And of course, the covering is not "precise" in any meaningful sense; the range of viable options is actually quite ride.

And of course, how this effect is "surprising" is beyond me; if the universe is not deterministic, then every single thing done by every single human ever is "surprising"; if it is, then nothing is.

A) Chance produced a total solar eclipse
or
B) An intelligence produced a total solar eclipse

Since there's a great deal of precision involved, producing a surprising effect, which is completely unnecessary for the existence of life, I would argue that it's far more reasonable that an intelligence produced it rather than chance.

Let's point out for a moment that D) is necessary to avoid the anthropic principle, because anything that doesn't fulfill D) actually provides us good evidence that no form of intelligent is necessary at all (after all, a god could create a universe wherein things necessary for life as we know it didn't exist and still have life). But in this case, how could you possibly assert that it's more reasonable that an intelligence produced it? Assuming that the universe is not deterministic, we know full well that random natural processes can create moons, suns, and planets, and create a whole lot of them - there's absolutely no reason to believe that it could not have come about by chance. Meanwhile, saying "an intelligence produced something" without first demonstrating the existence of that intelligence... Um, how does that work? What are the odds of that?

In order for you to defeat this version of the teleological argument, you would have to explain to me why it's more reasonable that chance causes total solar eclipses rather than an intelligence. And that I don't think you can do.

We have done absolutely nothing to establish that this intelligence exists in the first place!