William Lane Craig's Teleological Argument

Post Reply New Topic

Based on the 93 physical phenomena for fine-tuning listed here, http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... e-universe , if we assume each of the 93 phenomena are independent like your above described coin-flips, then it can be argued that probabilistically the odds of each of them occurring simultaneously is so astronomically low that it is nearly impossible.

However, the 93 physical phenomena look largely non-independent, so they would have to use conditional probability theory to calculate the probability of these occurrences, and your coin-flip example would not be applicable. Conditional probability looks at the probability of event if another event is already known.

They don't show us their logic and math, or perhaps there is none.

It could might be all the 93 phenomena correspond to the "Big Bang" event happening i.e., all 93 phenomena ALWAYS happen when the "Big Bang" occurs. This is a deterministic point of view. So, the only probability that matters is whether the Big Bang can happen randomly or not.

It seemed like you were formulating a probabilistic response that the range of values is large, and thus, not as probabilistically likely ?

I would just ignore that link. It is a Christian ministry site, and I don't really know if what they're saying is scientific. Until we see papers confirming such information to be accurate, they're meaningless at this point. I may not understand what the papers themselves may be saying exactly, but at least I can take it seriously if such peer-reviewed papers exist.

Umm I said it is a philosophical argument that draws on science. The anthropic nature of the variables can be found in journals and I have given you plenty of references to them



No it does not. Anyone wanting to test this claim is free to view the rest of the thread, please do so. The problems with your argument have been well discussed... many times.



Stenger's program is completely valid, what is ludacris is how you are using it. I detailed the reasons why on the last page, feel free to read them again.

You made some "scientific" arguments that are not actually backed up by peer-review science papers.

The fine tuning argument isn't taken seriously in the science field. That should tell you something.

So as a purely philosophical exercise, it can be debunked with just postulating some form of the multiverse triggered by the Singularitor (an entity that's much simpler than God). I am only talking about the simple philosophical idea of fine-tuning (without the pseudoscientific flavors you added to try to complicate things).

The other aspect is strictly "scientific", and that one, therefore, demands evidence that that's what peer-review science agrees with (something you have failed to back up).

Other members have also made some goods arguments against the idea of fine-tuning as well. The universe may be "fine-tuned" for temporary human life that took billions of years to emerge (by the way), but it's also fine-tuned for natural disasters, for an immense number of uninhabitable stars or planets or even galaxies, and stars exploding, and the universe eventually dying. We are just a speck in this wide wide wide universe. If God really designed and "fine-tuned" this universe for the existence of living things, we'd expect a universe with much much more life in it.

Also, if God really existed, then why would he even think of fine-tuning the universe with certain constants and making the universe operate directly via laws exactly as if God didn't have to exist and the universe was brought forth into existence by chance? At best, it would make sense that a deist God might exist but definitely not a God that intervenes every now and then.

The conclusion then is the fine-tuning argument is not even one of the best arguments for God. And if you have nothing substantial to say, I'm not going to bother responding anymore.

I have given you over 100 sources, the only complaint you have so far offered about any of them is that they came from a website you didn't like. It is grasping at straws because you have to know that the articles are out there by now. I have been loath to engage with the objection because it is more or less meaningless. You are just looking for excuses to keep posting. You are free to comment on those articles and references, you don't get a free pass from me for waving them off.

Here are another for you to chew on:
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C ... nciple.pdf

I would also go further and point out that you appear to be deeply confused about how science and philosophy relate to one another in terms of publication. The anthropic nature of the constants is within the purview of science and just about everyone agrees that small variations in certain constants would produce a vastly different universe. Even Stephen Hawking would agree to that principle, so I think it is best to move on from that position. Where the discussion over the interpretation of the data occurs is in the philosophy journals (although there is an exception to this rule in terms of books, but in terms of peer-review the difference is quite strict). So let us move past this discussion of the constants and your inablity to digest the point where philosophy begins and science ends.



Umm... Nowhere, anywhere does anyone argue that the fine-tuning argument leads to a Christian God, just to a God.



Perhaps you might suggest a single cosmological constant that could be changed in a way to make life more permissible?



I have been working with the distinct impression that you have not even been reading the things you have been responding to. Silence would actually make you appear more informed than the stuff you have published.

Last edited by 91 on 10 Jan 2014, 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

If I had a measurement tool that detected the level of intellectual dishonesty, it would hit the very top with your posts.

200 sources that are either not scientific peer-reviewed or that don't even back up the fine-tuning argument are hardly sources that would back your position up. Acharya S references zillions of sources in her books, but they mean nothing if they don't even support what she says or they're just as lacking in credibility as her works.

So I will handwave and dismiss as many useless and misleading junk as I have to. If you don't like it, kiss it.

.

1. MCalavera, I merely point out that the article formulates the anthropomorphic "strong form" argument as all conceivable universes as I was saying so the logical necessity follows that the multiverse is guaranteed to contain a life-permitting universe. Infinite could be less than all conceivable.


2. Juno, can you answer the question presented in the article with regards to modern physics,

Quoted: So here at last could be a way of making some sense of the quantum physicist's typical but very odd claim that Reality is relative to the observer.

Is it still true in quantum mechanics that reality is relative to the observer? I mean do physicists have a "workaround" Perhaps, a "quantum level measurement device" for the double slit experiment ? An could you opine about the double slit experiment relative to universe-splitting in view of modern physics. Thanks.


3. Here is my favorite youtube video on the "double slit experiment" below. This is needed for the above article to get a grasp at "universe-splitting".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho[/youtube]

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 10 Jan 2014, 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mind journal is a philosophy one, not science. And this is the author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Leslie

Yes, towards the end he gets deeply into GOD and how theories could correlate to GOD, however, his suppositions on QM are interesting to note.

Let's try a different approach. Do you understand that the constants of our universe exist in a way that favour life? Yes or no please. If no, then do you understand that you are in a position that disagrees with pretty much everyone, from Paul Davies through Hawking? If Yes, then please provide a new argument in favour of your position because your original one is quite awful.

*It is not lost on me that you have been quite selective in how you are responding to what I am putting forward, so go easy with the charges of intellectual dishonesty.

My OP argues that the universe we're in permits us to exist because of infinite chances for a universe like ours to exist. So the answer is "yes" with me providing a simpler alternative to the God "hypothesis" which isn't even logical.

And to reveal a tidbit of how misleading you tend to be, your main objection throughout this thread was a seemingly scientific argument (albeit incorrect) that pointed out how constants in this universe are more "finely tuned" than usual. My OP does not address this argument, but that's only because it doesn't have to as science does not support your main objection. So forcing me to accept this as a plausible argument when it's not is out of the question.

So... you didn't answer my questions. Also we have been over the idea the chance construct you have put forward, it sucks... seriously.

Leave it to the readers to judge.

It would seem like Craig would win a debate with the audience if your response to his arguments is "pure chance".

Craig "Life permitting universes are improbable"

MCalvera: "Pure random chance that we got lucky to get this one"

Craig: "As an observer we should experience a lesser fined tuned world. (Cites statistics of 10 to the -100 power of improbability).

MCalvera: "Pure random chance that we got lucky to get this one"

I'd first have to accept the plausibility of his argument that there is such a thing as "less fine tuned". I don't. I only went along with it just to show that chance would still have done it. But now I regret doing so because of a failure for theists to appreciate such an argument.

But even if we were to go along with that, chance would still be the only option anyway. Again, somebody has to observe this universe, given infinite chances. Even if the probability was less than whatever Craig may come up with.

That said, I never said I'd win a debate with Craig (in terms of rhetorics and presentation), so not sure where you got that impression from. However, his argument has pretty much been debunked by others from even before I made this thread.

And if he ever would act smug and start mocking, then all an atheist has to do is mock back and point out how God couldn't trigger creation as a mindful God and chance would still have to do the job. So on both sides, it is chance alone that does the job.

Apologies. I have to ask. Your universes are generated randomly so they would vary in how fine-tuned they are ? So, you must believe in less-fined universes, and greater fined-tuned universes?