Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm (This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm by Mystic.)
(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 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 8:13 pm (This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm by Darkstar.)
(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).
First of all, there is no way to test a multiple universe theory (or at least not with our current technology) so that argument can't really hold water. Abstractly defining our current physics as a 'physical necessity' doesn't offer any evidence as to how there can even be a 'necessity' (although there is no evidence that the constants can be changed, so a better argument would be that they just are this way, even if there is no 'necessity').
The first argument, however, does have merit. Despite that many theists claim that 'the designer is highly probable', I would disagree.
Let's think of god and all of the attributes he posseses. First, he created the universe. There was nothing before him, and nothing with him when he created the universe. He was the first being. Now let's take one of god's attributes such as, say, his strength. Theists argue that god cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, so his strength is infinite. If we put god's strength on a bell curve, we will find that he is infinite standard deviations above any human. Thus, the odds of any given person being as strong as god is 0.001%. Thus, if there were an infinite number of beings in the universe, we could expect one to be god. This makes sense to a monotheist; there can only be one god.
However, he was the first being. For god to be any particular being is infinitly unlikely, but he was the first. Not to mention all of god's other attributes that are infinite. This is also not taking into account the abilities (seeing into the future, etc.) that may not be possible in any form, let alone with infinite proficinecy in them. God is immensely complex; for him to exist would require either A. a greater god to create him (which would answer nothing, and only complicate things, and thus should be avoided as stated by Occam's razor) or B. evolution (but if he appeared without god then why do we need one?). The third idea is that he just is, which is what some theists will say. However, saying that an omnipotent being arose spontaneoulsy with infinite knowledge of the universe while single-celled organisms with no knowledge can't is not something I think even needs to be argued against.
Seeing as how god is infinitely unlikely, then any explanation for something is more likely than him and we can throw him out altogether. There is no evidence a non-physical being even could exist, let alone does.
Naturally, I believe that theists will object to this. The first objection will be the bridge hand analogy. 'Just because god happening to be first is infinitly unlikely doesn't mean that he couldn't have happened later if things had been different. However, because he created the universe, he would have had to be first. If he came into existance even second, then the universe must have already existed and he couldn't have created.
Secondly, if god did not arise spontaneously, but evolved, perhaps in another universe(which has no emperical evidence of its existance) in order to become omnipotent, there would have had to have been an infinite amount of time put into the evolution. Omnipotentce is infinite power, and as far as we know, nothing can be infinite outside of abstract mathematics. Even if there are many univereses, so many that the number has 10^99999 zeros, it will still be a finite number.
In conclusion: Although this still leaves a 0.001% chance of god's existance, if chemists who count out six decimal places treat the mass of an electron as zero because it is too small to matter, then the chance of god existing is too small to matter. After all, if god does exist, I'm going to hell for not believeing in him, so I'd have to be pretty sure that he wasn't real...
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
September 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm (This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm by Jackalope.)
(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.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.
(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?
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
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.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
