(September 20, 2012 at 7:33 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So it's by physical necessity?

It may very well be. We don't know for certain, but we don't have a reason to expect otherwise and we do have reasons (constants with root cause known) to expect it.

Thanks.

---

So there is basically three arguments against the teleological argument:

1) Chance, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't perfect chance.... (I would say it ignores the fact it shows Designer is highly probable)
2) Multiple universes (we happen to be in the lucky one).
3) Physical necessity (I find this to be the strongest if it's plausible).

(September 20, 2012 at 7:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Ones who are arguing for intelligent design do.

Ones arguing for intelligent design are not physicists.

Well, I suppose that depends on what your definition of "physicists" is. I'm not about to invoke No True Scotsman and suggest that one with a Ph.D in physics and working in the field is not a physicist. Misguided, yes, but not not-a-physicist.

(September 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So there is basically three arguments against the teleological argument:

1) Chance, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't perfect chance.... (I would say it ignores the fact it shows Designer is highly probable)
2) Multiple universes (we happen to be in the lucky one).
3) Physical necessity (I find this to be the strongest if it's plausible).

No. There are other, older arguments. This is by no means a complete list:

Hume: Order in nature may be due to nature alone. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose can only arise from design.

Salmon: All objects which exhibit order are to our knowledge created by material, finite beings or forces. There are no known instances of immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything.

Voltaire: Even if the argument from design could prove the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove that this designer is God (as proponents of ID are wont to assert).

Hume's refutation (now nearly 300 years old) is enough to confound the argument. It is not demonstrably true that order (the appearance of design) implies a designer. Hume effectively exposes the teleological argument as an argument from ignorance - which is to say that it is not necessarily true that there is no designer, but that the teleological argument fails to demonstrate such.

Well I'm a Christian and I believe in everything about science, even getting into string theory (not the parallel universes though). Perhaps being into science a decade and a half before becoming a Christian plays a big role in my acceptance of science.

Only thing I don't believe in which I attribute to my beliefs is the possibility for alien life in the universe.

You give credence to string theory, yet the idea of extra-terrestrial life is completely null for you?

That raises an interesting question; what happens if we meet intelligent life elsewhere and find out that they have absolutely no idea what God is?

Or, if they do?

(September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.

If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.

To think that your own thoughts really are true is irrational.

Unfortunately if what you say is true, I would have no way of knowing. If evolving for survival cannot create a competent cognitive system, then how am I to recognize the validity of your argument? Moreover, even if I were convinced of what you say, why should I believe you are in any better position cognitively than I?

Now you want to suggest that there is another alternative. If there is a magic alternative, you're saying, then we could get cognitive reassurance that doesn't rely on our flawed facilities. But the possibility of a magic alternative is pretty out there. If we can't even expect to make valid conclusions about the stuff we can actually observe, how can we expect it making determinations between competing magical claims? Why your brand?

(September 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm)Polaris Wrote: Well I'm a Christian and I believe in everything about science, even getting into string theory (not the parallel universes though). Perhaps being into science a decade and a half before becoming a Christian plays a big role in my acceptance of science.

Only thing I don't believe in which I attribute to my beliefs is the possibility for alien life in the universe.

Accepting science is fine. Accepting theories which are as of yet unproven is not. Seriously, you're fine with 11 dimensions but not parallel universes and aliens? Why can't you think aliens exist (which is very probable, given that there is extraterrestrial life, albeit only lichen, in our own solar system) if you're a christian?

Why is it that ID proponents usually come up with different odds when asserting the probability of this universe having its laws? Statler used 10^500 (he said also that Penrose claimed that), some other guy asserted 10^300, now this? If they are asserting that, I would like to know in what dataset are they basing said assertion? How many universes do they know?

It seems to me that they are pulling that bullshit out of some creationist website or someone (A preacher I'd wager) told them. They could at least get their story straight lol.

(September 21, 2012 at 3:56 am)Tobie Wrote: (which is very probable, given that there is extraterrestrial life, albeit only lichen, in our own solar system)

Is this true? If so, do you have anything I can look at? Not trying to be arsey, I'm genuinely interested in case there's some report I've not heard about; which, with the meds I'm on, wouldn't surprise me in the least.