William Lane Craig's Teleological Argument

Post Reply New Topic

The argument from design is bogus. It always has been bogus and it always will be bogus.

Final Cause is the Last Refuge of intellectual scoundrels

ruveyn

Apologies.



You could try to show how evolution addresses the second argument - that we are evolved to fit the world and not the other way around. So, it is humans that are fine-tuned, not the world. There should be a ton of evolutionary evidence ? If so, then you don't need the "multiverse" hypothesis.

We would expect to see astronomical odds if you look at humans as single event, and not an evolutionary event.

Awkward moment, the design argument is not a first cause argument.

Yes, if you want to reject the fine-tuning, that's fine. In fact, no theist (including WLC, who is nowhere close to being qualified to even calculate the possibility of fine-tuning) can demonstrate that this world is fine-tuned.

Your issue seems to be that I didn't try to argue much against fine-tuning, not that I failed to address all the relevant theistic arguments. There's a difference.

I must admit, you're a fair bit calmer than AwesomelyGlorious.

Your original post does not appear to address #2 below (as 91 quickly and repeatedly pointed out so due credit to 91) ... unless you are hypothesizing that this random universe out of the multiverse has #1 & #2?

However, if you are, then that is a problem, because then you are just assuming that which are you supposedly "proving".


Mr. Craig's two Teleological arguments presented here ...

1. A probability of a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more likely than a life-permitting universe.
2. A probability that the universe is the way is per the laws of nature expressed as mathematical constants, and arbitrary life-permitting values, non-extraordinary events - these values such as (Roger Pemrose low entropy condition, and the size of our universe being as large based on randomness and "events like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines" not happening [citation from link below])

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 05 Jan 2014, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Our universe seems fine-tuned for creating black holes and enormous empty spaces with temperatures close to 0 Kelvin. There is almost no life in the universe as far as we know.
There are very simple ways to make our universe more habitable, for example the Singulator could have made water a liquid at a wider range of temperatures.

He is not going to acknowledge that. His last point was that the fine-tuning cannot be calculated, which is highly misleading. It cannot be completely calculated but it can be estimated and many physicists and philosophers of science have done exactly that. He will ride around in circles but at this point I am convinced that he does understand the argument but he wants to present it in a way that is not accurate. At this point he will slander pretty much everything, from me to philosophy itself, to the quotes, to anything to avoid the reality that even if the fine-tuning argument does not work, it has nothing to do with his efforts on the subject.

I did address that. Chance alone would be sufficient in the absence of a God that makes logical sense. Assuming premise 2 is accurate.

However, 91 has failed to provide evidence anyway. So any claim he makes about what scientists say is pretty much misleading.

I guess it helps that, when I used to be a Christian, I had this intellectual dishonesty going on as well. So, in a sense, I can actually empathize with 91.

I should say argument, not premise.

That statement is demonstrably false to anyone who takes an honest reading of the thread.

The debate:

Mr. Craig: A probability of a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more likely than a life-permitting universe, so it is more likely that an intelligent designer created this universe.

MCalavera: Imagine a multiverse that contains every conceivable universe. Imagine that randomly we just got lucky, and happen to live in one of the lesser probable universes that support life.

Mr. Craig: Ok. It seems preposterous to imagine that every conceivable universe exists, and there is no evidence of it. However, given the hypothesis that every conceivable universe exists, and we exist in one of those universe, then it logically follows we could live in one of the life-permitting universes.

Mr. Craig: However, the probability that us as observers would witness this universe, and not some other random life-permitting universe is astronomically low (Roger Pemrose calls it "chicken feed" ).

Mr. Craig: The probability that the laws of nature expressed as mathematical constants, and arbitrary life-permitting values, non-extraordinary events - these values such as (Roger Pemrose low entropy condition, and the size of our universe being as large based on randomness and "events like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines" not happening , and thus as "fined tuned" to human existence is devastatingly low. In other words, we would not randomly expect this universe to be as fined-tuned to humans.

MCalavera: The Singulator is by chance, thus .....

What is the response to Mr.Craig for his second argument.

Thanks.

I am sorry for interrupting this way but I do have a question I'd need to know more about before being able to go further.
What is wrong about the anthropic principle, exactly? The first time I read about it, it sounded sensible and reasonable. I mean, if our universe wasn't fine tuned for life then there would exist no observers in that universe to find out about that. So life can only happen in an universe which permits life. I honestly don't see holes in that one, so if they are, can someone point them out to me?

1. I never said "every conceivable universe". It could be that an infinite number only entails an infinite number of universe within a certain range of conceivable ones.

2. God would be more preposterous than any explanation I've given.

3. God couldn't, logically speaking, bring forth anything into this existence. Thus, even with God's existence, chance would still be necessary to do the job.

4. You couldn't have observed a universe that didn't allow for your existence.

etc.

Nothing wrong with it.

However, out of desperation, some theists have chosen to make it sound like this universe is more "fine-tuned" than it's meant to be, thus implying some intelligent design.

However, no evidence has been shown by any of such theists that this is so. I even asked 91 for evidence, and he didn't end up providing what I asked for. Instead, he just gave me a couple of links to videos where a couple of theists just say they believe the universe is fine-tuned.

Besides, 91 does agree that it's not maximally fine-tuned, which leads to the question of why, then, did God make it less fine-tuned than it could be.

In short, many theistic apologists dread any explanation that involves the multiverse as it effectively replaces God as an explanation for this particular universe.