The Teleological Argument

[TillICollapse]

So stereotyped. Everyone knows aliens wear suits:

And they leave monuments on Mars to help support the TA:

 

[paulm50]

So, here we have theists pretending that something we are woefully ignorant can be the basis of an argument that a designer was required, which is of course, just an argument from ignorance.

The argument for intelligent design, is totally reliant on what was designed is perfect. Of course those arguing the god performed the miracle, than had everything undone by satan.

Like five year old children blaming each other for making then breaking a toy. It was him who did it wrong. At least with two children we know they're there.

 

[paulm50]

Not only all of that, but a total solar eclipse is only total from certain vantage points on the earth at any one time. Someone else viewing the same "total" eclipse will not see it covered the same way, it will be partial.

By reading the original translation of Genesis, that wasn't how the Jews saw the world. The believe god created day and night. Think about what that proves.

 

[Achilles6129]

Josh, I have a feeling we're wasting our time on this thread.

 

[The Cadet]

Josh, I have a feeling we're wasting our time on this thread.

I've asked for definitions on quite a few terms as well as clarification; you have not offered either.

 

[quatona]

The Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe

That´s already a question-begging term. Just because something is the way it is (and not one of the trillions of ways you may imagine it to possibly being) doesn´t mean it´s "fine-tuned".

is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Could you define these terms precisely so that they become the trichotomy you present them as?

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

Says who?

 

[TillICollapse]

Josh, I have a feeling we're wasting our time on this thread.

Is your goal to discuss the TA, or do you have another goal in mind ?

 

[variant]

The argument for intelligent design, is totally reliant on what was designed is perfect. Of course those arguing the god performed the miracle, than had everything undone by satan.

Like five year old children blaming each other for making then breaking a toy. It was him who did it wrong. At least with two children we know they're there.

I am honestly not sure how this replies to what I said as I did not reference anything about the quality of the universe being perfect or imperfect.

Are you sure you quoted the right post?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Josh, I have a feeling we're wasting our time on this thread.

How?

 

[nonbeliever314]

I think it's best to start with a definition of fine tuning.
First, it should be made clear that p1 is not question begging. Those that claim so simply do not understand what is meant by the phrase "fine-tuning". P1 is not saying that "the design of the universe is caused due to either physical necessity, chance, or design."

By fine-tuning, I mean that small deviations from certain set constants and quantities would render the universe life-prohibiting, or alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is extremely narrow in comparison with range of assumable values.

Now, have any scientists offered professional opinions as to whether the universe is fine-tuned? Apparently so. Read below:

Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction (from A brief History of Time).

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! He 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 (from The Anthropic Principle).

"THE REMARKABLE FACT IS THAT THE VALUES OF THESE NUMBERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE." - Stephen Hawking

"WHEREVER PHYSICISTS LOOK, THEY SEE EXAMPLES OF FINE-TUNING." - Sir Martin Rees

I love this exchange with Dawkins:
Ben Stein: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or evolution?”
Dawkins:“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
So although Dawkins refuses to let a "divine foot in the door", at least he leaves it wide open for an alien designer. No bias there!

So scientists agree that the universe looks fine-tuned (and Dawkins even goes far as to allow for a designer).

Now the second part of p1 provides three possible explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe. I think these three categories (physical necessity, chance, and design) capture all of the possibilities.

Any more questions on p1? I think the real "meat and potatoes" will be in p2.

Define life.

 

[Joshua260]

Define life.

First, please note that as I demonstrated, scientists have already agreed with the fine-tuning of the universe. So the definition below is really provided as a formality.

Life: the property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce.

 

[nonbeliever314]

First, please note that as I demonstrated, scientists have already agreed with the fine-tuning of the universe. So the definition below is really provided as a formality.

Life: the property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce.

(That was taken straight from Willy Craig.. and not a scientific definition) Anyways, isn't it possible if the "fine-tuned" constants were changed they could produce other types of life? Therefore, this universe isn't "fine-tuned" for some other type of biochemistry? And technically not "fine-tuned" for all life, because the only life we know of is what we've observed on Earth?

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'd also like to note, just because a couple a scientists might think the universe is "fine-tuned" doesn't mean it is. If we are gonna play "quote the scientist" I could equally find just as many scientists that think fine tuning is a joke.

 

[nonbeliever314]

The only reason why the universe might appear "fine-tuned" is because we're here, and if we tweak the constants we can say "Oh, I guess we wouldn't be here then". So what? It's like saying, "If that car was going 40mph instead of 20, I would've gotten in a car accident". (I wish I did)

 

[variant]

(That was taken straight from Willy Craig.. and not a scientific definition) Anyways, isn't it possible if the "fine-tuned" constants were changed they could produce other types of life? Therefore, this universe isn't "fine-tuned" for some other type of biochemistry? And technically not "fine-tuned" for all life, because the only life we know of is what we've observed on Earth?

Not just other kinds of life but life as we know it might be better suited to universes with other values.

Specifically for the cosmological constant more life would exist in the universe if constant were slightly negative.

The cosmological constant problem is used by theists as the prime example of the fine-tuning of the universe that they claim as evidence for God. However, cosmologist Don Page, an evangelical Christian, has pointed out that the apparent positive value of the cosmological constant is somewhat inimical to life because its repulsion acts against the gravitational attraction needed to form galaxies. If God fine-tuned the universe for life he would have made the cosmological constant slightly negative.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_problem_with_the_cosmological_constant

Specifically it is not "life" that the universe is "fine tuned" for but rather things like having physical matter available to make life, and the formation of galaxies and not having the entire universe collapsing in on itself instantaneously.

We are focused on life in this debate but of course it is completely unknown what other, more fundamental things would be violated if we changed the constants that make up the universe.

Sure, if we changed the energy of an electron at rest that would make life impossible, but the question is, what else would it make impossible?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think it's best to start with a definition of fine tuning.
First, it should be made clear that p1 is not question begging. Those that claim so simply do not understand what is meant by the phrase "fine-tuning". P1 is not saying that "the design of the universe is caused due to either physical necessity, chance, or design."

Then rephrase the premise to say "apparent fine-tuning."

By fine-tuning, I mean that small deviations from certain set constants and quantities would render the universe life-prohibiting, or alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is extremely narrow in comparison with range of assumable values.

Why focus on life specifically? Small deviations in these values would not only render the universe life-prohibiting, they would also render it starless and mostly devoid of heavy elements.

This appears to have been copied from here, almost word for word.

Now, have any scientists offered professional opinions as to whether the universe is fine-tuned? Apparently so. Read below:

Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball due to gravitational attraction (from A brief History of Time).

This appears to have come from here, almost word for word.

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!

This also appears to have been copied from here, almost word for word.

He 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 (from The Anthropic Principle).

According to this source, this calculation was performed by Barrow and Tipler, not Davies.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​