Timeline for Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2020 at 23:35 | comment | added | Cell | @AdamSharpe So believing in the fine-tuning argument means believing that no life cannot exist in alternate universes (with different constants) which we can only imagine with our minds based in our universe and can't actually test anything. And that the constants in our universe allow life based on the only observation that our puny earth contains life in a possibly infinite universe. That's not so surprising I suppose. Religious people believe in much bolder claims with much less evidence. But this not the consensus among scientists. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 23:33 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | (Slight correction to my last comment. In Bayesian inference, technically you also need to consider the prior probability of a hypothesis (theism) too, before one can say it "better explains" something. If the prior probability is too low, it can perfectly explain some phenomenon, and still be the less likely theory.) | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 23:24 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | @Cell But fine-tuning isn't to do with the universe being "friendly" to life (in the sense that there would be life in every corner of it), rather it's about the very possibility of life at all. So the argument goes, given atheism the probability of a universe where life exists is very low. Given theism (of no specific variety), the probability of a universe where life exists wouldn't be comparably low (I admit, I can only argue for this on intuitive grounds, since theisms are not generally precise and quantitative), and so the life-permitting universe is better explained by theism. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 22:52 | comment | added | Cell | @AdamSharpe That means as far as the collective human knowledge goes the criteria for life is based on a literal outlier data point. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 22:47 | comment | added | Cell | @AdamSharpe That's not my point. To say the universe is "fine-tuned" for life has two implications: 1. If certain properties of the universe were slightly different life as we know it could not emerge. You already established that. But there's the flip side what I'm trying to tell you: 2. That the constants as they are now allow life to emerge. But as I said the vast empty space is inhospitable for life, and of the part that is hospitable, the environment is not friendly and it appears that there is life only on a tiny blue/green speck in what could be an infinite universe. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 22:27 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | @Cell As I understand it, if certain constants of physics didn't fall within a very narrow range of values, the universe would expand too fast, or collapse in on itself, or there would be no chemistry as we understand it, and so on. No life could possibly adapt to such environments. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 22:14 | comment | added | Cell | @AdamSharpe My point is precisely that physicists and biologists don't believe in fine-tuning otherwise authors like Man Ho Chan wouldn't cite creationism journals for basic biology and physics claims. And of course the notion wouldn't be popularized only in journals with a religious motive (like bio-complexity or "Theology and Science"; the journal Man Ho Chan published in). The principle of adaptation should be enough to debunk fine-tuning. Or that our planet is the only one with observable life forms or that the vast majority of empty space is inhospitable to life. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 21:25 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | @Cell Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the specifics of your buffer objection. And I myself don't find 'guided evolution' Behe-style fine-tuning convincing, though I'm at the mercy of the experts. Two types of fine tuning that I do find convincing (I'm a theist) are 1. the fine tuning of the constants of physics, and 2. the fine-tuning of the laws (and any "meta-laws") themselves. Regarding 1, the impression I get is that physicists agree that there is apparent fine-tuning, but that either a multiverse, or a better theory-of-everything will make it disappear. | |
| Jan 7, 2020 at 18:50 | comment | added | Cell | @AdamSharpe Are you talking about the paper "Would God create our Universe through multiverse?" Man Ho Chan, 2015? I don't see how anyone can read that article and not see the quackery. This author claims a fact about the "excellent" buffering capacity of carbon dioxide in the body and cites bio-complexity.org; a creationism journal. You'd think a physics PhD would be more rigorous than that and cite a reputable biochemistry journal. Besides what makes the carbonic acid/bicarbonate buffer so "excellent"? Because if I hyperventilate I can have respiratory alkalosis and get severely sick? Great. | |
| Jan 3, 2020 at 18:27 | comment | added | Adam Sharpe | +1 Nice answer. As you say, fine-tuning is the contemporary version of the teleological argument, which is very much alive and discussed, especially Bayesian-inference forms of the argument. Even if one disagrees with the author, the paper you linked to does give a very nice overview (and given that the author has a PhD in physics as well as philosophy, I think a charitable reading is in order). | |
| Dec 28, 2019 at 5:30 | comment | added | Hare Krishna | Author has given references for what he writes about evolution, like: Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True (New York: Penguin Group, 2009). 207 Kenneth Kardong, An Introduction to Biological Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), p.277, Marten Scheffer, Critical Transitions in Nature and Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009), p.177, Michael Seeds, Foundations of Astronomy (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005) | |
| Dec 28, 2019 at 5:17 | comment | added | Hare Krishna | Hello, I think there is some misunderstanding. If we see chapter 2, it provides mathematical foundation based on which further analysis will carried out. And author doesn't deny evolution. In fact, in chapter 5 author talk about evolution, specially section 5.1.2 but author draw attention to fine tuning needed for it, based on initial conditions and from simulation models, some results in which fine tuning required. Author has given 145 references, and it doesn't matter who writes paper but what is written is right or not, or we can mistakes it as ad homium because we have to judge by work. | |
| Dec 26, 2019 at 14:27 | comment | added | Cell | Also this paper has no mathematics at all. Just some trivial comparisons between some constants like the "number of possible universes" versus the probability of life arising due to random chance etc. There is no novel derivation of anything just comparing work other people have done. And the biggest offence is that references to "scientific" work are from creationists papers in religious journals. | |
| Dec 26, 2019 at 14:20 | comment | added | Cell | I'm sorry but that paper is nonsense. In the abstract it says modern science reveals the universe is fine-tuned for life, but biology says that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment not the reverse. This is important because in the intro this author talks about things like how the solubility of oxygen is important to life when early autotrophs don't care about such things. And worse of all this paper quotes the infamously wrong quote on the probability of evolution arising due random chance. | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 5:49 | comment | added | Hare Krishna | Hello, when we says God of gaps, we are sure that God must not answer, but how do we know it? Same way one could say to anything. One can say something is evolution of gaps because we don't know real reason. It is not that we have arbitrary fill gaps, but evidence itself suggest it. If we says theistic explanation must not answer, we suppose that fine tuning is due to either absurd universe, multiverse, super-law, universe can be only exist if consciousness exist, or life principle. But author has specifically shows that some of it doesn't satisfactory explain, and multiverse isn't best. | |
| Dec 25, 2019 at 4:46 | comment | added | armand | The fine tuning argument does not require debunking: it's just a God of the gaps fallacy in savant disguise. | |
| Dec 24, 2019 at 14:16 | comment | added | user37981 | There are, at least, two distinctly different usages of teleology. Purpose [large P] and purpose [small p]. Large P is no longer required to explained complexity, God or anything else. In fact just the opposite. Spinoza explains that if God built purpose into the universe it would indicate that there was something missing or needed as a mechanism. The universe requires no mechanisms, it includes 'everything possible within an infinite understanding'. The other purpose [teleology] reflects the self-sustaining functions within systems; like in the body's organs or a solar system. CMS | |
| Dec 24, 2019 at 13:35 | review | Late answers | |||
| Dec 31, 2019 at 13:20 | |||||
| Dec 24, 2019 at 13:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 24, 2019 at 14:49 | |||||
| Dec 24, 2019 at 13:19 | history | answered | Hare Krishna | CC BY-SA 4.0 |