The anthropic principle and a finely-tuned universe

SubjectSean

Howdi Doubters, please slap me down if you've heard this one before and point me in the direction of the replies. What do people in here think of the argument that the Universe is 'just right' like baby bear's porridge; and because sentient consciousness, (endowed with qualities that transcend the animal) is an inevitable product of the evolution of the universe, it would seem to indicate that the odds of any of this actually happening are so staggeringly small that there may well be a consciousness behind it.

The only argument I have heard against this all is that we have no other universe to compare this one with. However it is very easy for me to envisage a universe where the big bang was bigger, smaller, faster, longer etc. Such a big bang would influence outcomes so that none of that which has occured, could have occured. I am inclined because of this to think that there is a so-called "God". All the same I am extremely disinclined to think that It has ever dictated any books to anybody except in a very indirect but nonetheless inevitable fashion. I do though entertain the potential delusion that certain individuals like Siddartha Gautama, Yeshua ben Miriam and certain other sufis and mystics actually in some way transcended all that is animal in us and became something better. Because of those people human social morality as a whole has made strides away from the original f**kwits we were. I believe this too was inevitable and is most likely a convergent happening on many other planets. Where is this social morality and consciousness evolving to? It is making big changes to the savage thing we were/are.

robindch

The anthropic argument collapses on itself with surprising speed, once you actually understand what it's saying. Which is that we and the world fit well together, therefore we were designed for it and it was designed for us. While ignoring the inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the physical rules were different. It's an embarrassingly circular argument and and something of a favorite with creationists.

Douglas Adams had this to say on it:

Douglas Adams wrote:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Dades

I always why if the universe has been finely tuned for us, what's all that other stuff out there for?

By that reasoning the rest of the mind-boggling enormous cosmos is, as Carl Sagan puts it, 'a waste of space'.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I always why if the universe has been finely tuned for us, what's all that other stuff out there for?

By that reasoning the rest of the mind-boggling enormous cosmos is, as Carl Sagan puts it, 'a waste of space'.

God didn't want you to feel claustrophobic?

SubjectSean

robindch wrote: »

The anthropic argument collapses on itself with surprising speed, once you actually understand what it's saying. Which is that we and the world fit well together, therefore we were designed for it and it was designed for us. While ignoring the inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the physical rules were different. It's an embarrassingly circular argument and and something of a favorite with creationists.

Douglas Adams had this to say on it:

Ya but I don't think that it was designed specifically for us the human race, just specifically for life and that it was inevitable that something approximating the human race would grow from this on every planet supporting life. For this to all have just emerged from the 'random' chaos is something I have difficulty believing. I really don't think that it's an inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the rules were any different. That's kind of my point, it could have been different in so very many even ever so slight ways and we just wouldn't exist. (Am I being thick?) I am at one of the many ends of a 14 billion year long chain of 'co-incidental' events and it is simply too fantasitic for me to believe they can be accidental. I don't think the puddle analogy is a good fit for me as I do not think like the puddle or arrive here like it, the analogy belittles consciousness by reducing it to an observable phenomenon like any other. I do not think it is. I do not claim any special status for myself or even humanity, merely for sentient consciousness and am saying what it leads to is an inevitable outcome in a universe tuned in this manner.

stereoroid

It's possible to get extremely technical on this topic. There was a paper, which I'm trying to find, about how the heat of fusion of elements in the sun is nowhere near as finely-tuned as is claimed. Then there's the Ikeda/Jefferies rebuttal from Bayesian analysis, here, which analyses the probabilities that that could be happening.

I think the problem creationists have is clear from the lengths they have to go to, to find anything that could possibly support their claims.In the (highly unlikely) event that they found some sign of supernatural action in the fine-tuning of cosmological constant, that's a hell-of-a long way from the man-shaped interventionist God they want us all to worship. The one does not follow automatically from the other.

Dave!

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ya but I don't think that it was designed specifically for us the human race, just specifically for life and that it was inevitable that something approximating the human race would grow from this on every planet supporting life. For this to all have just emerged from the 'random' chaos is something I have difficulty believing. I really don't think that it's an inconvenient fact that we couldn't be what we are if the rules were any different. That's kind of my point, it could have been different in so very many even ever so slight ways and we just wouldn't exist. (Am I being thick?) I am at one of the many ends of a 14 billion year long chain of 'co-incidental' events and it is simply too fantasitic for me to believe they can be accidental. I don't think the puddle analogy is a good fit for me as I do not think like the puddle or arrive here like it, the analogy belittles consciousness by reducing it to an observable phenomenon like any other. I do not think it is. I do not claim any special status for myself or even humanity, merely for sentient consciousness and am saying what it leads to is an inevitable outcome in a universe tuned in this manner.

So what's the point in all the planets that don't support life?

Scofflaw

I think there may be an element of misunderstanding here. The Anthropic Principle, as I understand it, simply says that the universe is such as to permit the existence of life. Being life, we observe the universe, and wonder how it is that it allows life - but were the universe different, no life would exist to wonder such a thing.

The statistical improbability of a universe that permits life is therefore irrelevant - life always finds itself in a universe that permits life. No other result is possible - the probability that a universe that contains life is one that permits life is 1.

As to how it is that the Universe is 'finely tuned' to allow us in particular - that is the wrong way round. We are the finely tuned products of the universe that permits us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

SubjectSean wrote: »

Howdi Doubters, please slap me down if you've heard this one before and point me in the direction of the replies. What do people in here think of the argument that the Universe is 'just right' like baby bear's porridge; and because sentient consciousness, (endowed with qualities that transcend the animal) is an inevitable product of the evolution of the universe, it would seem to indicate that the odds of any of this actually happening are so staggeringly small that there may well be a consciousness behind it.

The only argument I have heard against this ...

I really don't see how you can argue probability on this one - whatever the odds of this universe appearing just right they have to be less than some sort of supreme being/God appearing that's able to create this universe?

Surely a hugely powerful trans-dimensional sentient being that could create a universe has to be more complicated and 'finely tuned' than the universe! - I mean who knows if just a little bit of this supreme being was a little different maybe he'd create pasta dishes instead of universes! - how finely tuned and unlikely is this supreme being?

I am inclined because of this to think that there is a so-called "God". All the same I am extremely disinclined to think that It has ever dictated any books to anybody except in a very indirect but nonetheless inevitable fashion.

Even if this view of God is true - it means nothing - God created the universe and buggered off never to be heard from again. As far as out lives go it's exactly the same as a natural universe - God hasn't given us any laws to live by, we don't have souls so when we die we're just as dead as if he didn't exist - I really can't see why even bother spending 10 seconds on this - why is this important to you, what difference would it make if it's true or false?

Zillah

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

SubjectSean

stereoroid wrote: »

It's possible to get extremely technical on this topic. There was a paper, which I'm trying to find, about how the heat of fusion of elements in the sun is nowhere near as finely-tuned as is claimed. Then there's the Ikeda/Jefferies rebuttal from Bayesian analysis, here, which analyses the probabilities that that could be happening.

I think the problem creationists have is clear from the lengths they have to go to, to find anything that could possibly support their claims.In the (highly unlikely) event that they found some sign of supernatural action in the fine-tuning of cosmological constant, that's a hell-of-a long way from the man-shaped interventionist God they want us all to worship. The one does not follow automatically from the other.

Thanks for the link. I think the creationists are loolaa's and I would not wish to associate what I am saying with those people at all.

SubjectSean

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

I cannot even begin to comprehend the designer it is beyond my apeabilities:) I think that maybe things like the attractors in Chaos theory or convergent evolution are hints of a designer. Whatever got this universe going it's too too freaky to be an accident I feel. I mean what are the chances of the whole many tangled process of thr evolution of the universe just happening randomly from a superheated explosion of quarks. It seems like I'm being asked to believe that stardust turned into people by random accident. I really can't hack it. It's like somebody farted and it came up smelling of roses.

stereoroid

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

That's not going to work on "real" theists - their Creator is outside the universe, so basic ideas such as cause-and-effect or designer-and-design don't apply to Him. :rolleyes:

SubjectSean

pH wrote: »

Even if this view of God is true - it means nothing - God created the universe and buggered off never to be heard from again. As far as out lives go it's exactly the same as a natural universe - God hasn't given us any laws to live by, we don't have souls so when we die we're just as dead as if he didn't exist - I really can't see why even bother spending 10 seconds on this - why is this important to you, what difference would it make if it's true or false?

OK don't spend 10 seconds then is the answer to this one. If it's true I'm happy if it's false I'm more bored.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I'm going to throw in one of Dawkin's favourites here. If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

In fairness, I don't think you are correct. What Dawkins is picking up is simply that the argument from design rests on an infinite number of turtles.

pH

SubjectSean wrote: »

OK don't spend 10 seconds then is the answer to this one. If it's true I'm happy if it's false I'm more bored.

Why would the fact that the universe was made by an uncaring God make you happy and it not being make you bored?

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think you are correct. What Dawkins is picking up is simply that the argument from design rests on an infinite number of turtles.

Then wouldn't that be the cosmological (or first cause) argument rather than the teleological argument (or argument from design)?

robindch

PDN wrote:

I really thought Dawkins was more intelligent than that. Such logic can only meaningfully argue that the Designer is not an accident - which He is not.

It sounds like you may not be familiar with the actual argument that Dawkins is making, which, if memory serves, was derived if not actually copied, from Hume. This is the argument:

If you say that the universe is too ordered to be an accident, thereby implying that it's a universe which requires a designer to design it just right, then rather than explaining anything, you actually end up with the larger problem of trying to work out who designed the designer. This is especially the case if you subscribe to the false creationist dogma that "information" (for whatever definition you choose for that word) can't arise by accident. Additionally, you can't claim "well, the designer exists outside of time and space or he existed before the start of the universe" without allowing the other side to use a similar escape-hatch, at which stage discussion becomes pointless as both sides would have ceased rational discussion.

As far as I recall, Hume had a slightly extended argument which pointed out, correctly, that the requirement for a designer does not imply the existence of any of the gods of the old or new testaments, or the truth of any of the stories about any of them. Nor does it imply that the designer god still exists, nor that the designer wasn't actually a pantheon of designers, any or all of which might have since ceased existing or become otherwise uncommunicative.

Outside of creationist circles, the "argument from design" and its close relatives, the cosmological and teleological arguments, are found decidedly unconvincing.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Outside of creationist circles, the "argument from design" and its close relatives, the cosmological and teleological arguments, are found decidedly unconvincing.

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

robindch

PDN wrote:

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

A predictable come-back. Would you care to address the argument?

BTW, here's a recent article from the NY Times on Flew and the claims that religious fundamentalists have exploited him in his rapid-seeming decline into frailty, anxious to bag a high-profile atheist. Make of it what you will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&ex=1351828800&en=c249db082e6a548e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Now back to PDN and his upcoming demolition of Hume and/or Dawkins.

.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Then wouldn't that be the cosmological (or first cause) argument rather than the teleological argument (or argument from design)?

Exactly as per Robinch above.

PDN wrote: »

Except in the case of Mr Flew, I presume?

I'm happily unaware of the man's work. Does he actually say anything that refutes the position as explained by Robinch?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

A predictable come-back. Would you care to address the argument?

Now back to PDN and his upcoming demolition of Hume and/or Dawkins.

I make no claims to demolish anyone. I simply address the argument as framed by Zillah. An argument that I find very weak.

If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

The argument from design can work at one level without therefore having to assume it must apply at other levels.

The argument from design works with a watch and a watchmaker (with apologies to Paley et al). I presume we all accept that a watch demonstrates a level of organisation which presumes a designer? An atheist can see that the existence of a watch demands a watchmaker without therefore positing a series of further designers that leads to God.

If Dawkin's argument (at least as presented by Zillah) is valid then it would logically rule out any argument by design at any level ever. Therefore it is illogical to assume that a book must have had an author or a printer, and we allow for the possibility that everything occurs by accident. That is patently absurd.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Exactly as per Robinch above.I'm happily unaware of the man's work. Does he actually say anything that refutes the position as explained by Robinch?

He is a deist who holds to a version of the teleological argument. Therefore his very existence refutes the assertion that such arguments are confined to creationist circles (unless Robin is using 'Creationist' in such a broad sense as to include every theist and deist).

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

If Dawkin's argument (at least as presented by Zillah) is valid then it would logically rule out any argument by design at any level ever. Therefore it is illogical to assume that a book must have had an author or a printer, and we allow for the possibility that everything occurs by accident. That is patently absurd.

You're ignoring the part where they attempt to explain the existence of the entire universe, rather than a subset thereof.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

You're ignoring the part where they attempt to explain the existence of the entire universe, rather than a subset thereof.

I don't think so. Let's face it, nobody knows what the entire universe looks like. All we can deal with is the small subset of it which we can observe.

Now, it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him) but as you describe it, and as Schuhart expands on it, it appears to take the following form:

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

If an atheist believes in a watchmaker, or a printer, but not in a God, then that obviously requires a break to occur in Dawkins' chain of designers. If such a break can occur at any point in the chain then it is clearly possible for the break to occur at God's end of the chain rather than earlier, therefore Dawkins' argument would become invalid.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

An atheist can see that the existence of a watch demands a watchmaker without therefore positing a series of further designers that leads to God.

I don’t see how this works. Presumably the watchmaker in your example does require Mr and Mrs watchmaker to produce a child, and they presumably require parentage in turn until you get back to a shrew leaping into the gap left by the demise of the dinosaurs.

Is the key point here that atheists are willing to accept that a complex thing can evolve from something less complex?

Plus, there’s the other material that Robinch introduced to the effect that even conceding a first cause doesn’t make that first cause a god that we would recognise. You understand that we can only speculate, but presumably that first cause could be, say, three independent events coinciding but not willed by anything.

In any event, think of the assumptions you have to make before your ‘designer’ concept has any relevance. The designer has to be conscious of what he was doing. He has to intend life to emerge on Earth. He has to have a purpose for that life that amounts to more than it being a galactic water feature. He has to be That God That Gave Us This Religion and Not That One. Maybe he even has to be the God as understood by Fred Phelps.

All of which, I think, was more entertainingly summarised in a story by Hilaire Belloc that I’ve posted here more than once because I think its terrifically funny (which is always a bad sign).

PDN wrote: »

He is a deist who holds to a version of the teleological argument. Therefore his very existence refutes the assertion that such arguments are confined to creationist circles (unless Robin is using 'Creationist' in such a broad sense as to include every theist and deist).

Indeed, I don’t doubt that many theists have a vague sense of ‘this couldn’t all be here by accident’ and at the same time accept, say, evolution or the age of the universe. But, you’ll understand, I’m more interested in the actual case that refutes what is being said.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him)

tbh his books are entertaining, but not necessarily the best description of the argument. You'll understand, its the argument that we are interested in rather than Dawkins. In general (and I'm not particularly thinking of the discussion in hand), I'd feel Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction is much better (and shorter) at just formally setting out the case for atheism.

Zillah

The failure in applying the designer argument to God is that it violates the initial premise; something too complex to exist without a designer must have been designed. They state that the universe is too well ordered to exist without a guiding hand, but claim that the entity who is complex enough to design it does not need such a designer. Its a self defeating argument.

That aside, the initial premise is also false, so the argument is both internally and externally invalid. The fact that something appears designed is not proof that it was designed. In a strict sense, a painting is only evidence for a painting, not neccessarily a painter. We can infer the existence of a painter due to the overwhelming supporting evidence. The God Designer conclusion has no such supporting evidence.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I don't think so. Let's face it, nobody knows what the entire universe looks like. All we can deal with is the small subset of it which we can observe.

Now, it may be that Dawkins' argument is more complex in his books (I freely admit that I've never read him) but as you describe it, and as Schuhart expands on it, it appears to take the following form:

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

If an atheist believes in a watchmaker, or a printer, but not in a God, then that obviously requires a break to occur in Dawkins' chain of designers. If such a break can occur at any point in the chain then it is clearly possible for the break to occur at God's end of the chain rather than earlier, therefore Dawkins' argument would become invalid.

Very reasonable. If we argue that A demands designer B, we are actually positing "designer B designing A" as the explanation for A. We may then posit an entirely independent explanation of B by way of evolution, or by way of further design, which in turn requires designer C.

What every member of the chain certainly shares is an explanation - each is offered as an explanation for the previous link, and each is in turn explained. God, however, is not explained, which is where God actually sticks out like a sore thumb.

The more primitive one is, or the more primitive one's audience is, or the less well understood the chain, the earlier in the chain one offers the First Unexplained Explanation. 'Savages' will offer an inexplicable God as an explanation for thunder - sophisticated theistic evolutionists offer God only as the inexplicable explanation of the Big Bang (itself a causeless cause). Even Special Creationists offer God some way up the chain these days.

(God, of course, is not the only possible Unexplained Explanation available, as every parent knows. 'Because' is a popular alternative.)

God is not so much a First Cause, or First Designer, but the First Inexplicable - in a fashion that is not accepted at any other point in the chain. We all know where this leads, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

PDN wrote: »

If A demands designer B; then B must demand designer C; and C must demand designer D etc. all the way to Z where Z=God; then Z must demand a designer. (This, I presume, is what Schuhart's infinite number of turtles refers to).

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever. It appears to me much more reasonable that A can demand designer B, but B may or may not demand a designer. There is no logical necessity for a designer itself to be designed.

No it doesn't, you're just confused.

The universe could have appeared 'uncaused', then produced us and then we design a watch - I can't see how this is a problem for anyone. You appear to be confusing (deliberately?) two things:

One being a variation on Paley's watch argument (if you see something 'obviously' designed then it must have a designer) and the other the Cosmological argument -

Zillah

PDN wrote:

However, if that argument is valid then it necessarily excludes any argument from design in any area of existence whatsoever.

An argument from design needs to be thoroughly surrounded by supporting evidence to be any way valid. As the Theory of Evolution has shown us, the appearance of design in isolation does not neccessarily support the existence of a designer.

Schuhart

I feel sort of redundant. At the same time, it is somewhat satisfying to see the point just is as shagging obvious as we're saying.

PDN

pH wrote: »

No it doesn't, you're just confused.

You appear to be confusing (deliberately?) two things:

One being a variation on Paley's watch argument (if you see something 'obviously' designed then it must have a designer) and the other the Cosmological argument -

No, I'm not confusing the two at all - I believe that was done by Schuhart in post #16. I am arguing against such confusion.

The universe could have appeared 'uncaused', then produced us and then we design a watch - I can't see how this is a problem for anyone.

I agree that the universe 'could' have appeared uncaused and then produced us, and then we design a watch. That is exactly my point. A designer (a human watchmaker) does not itself necessarily require another designer.

I can't see how this is a problem for anyone either, but it obviously is for Dawkins (at least as presented by Zillah). He argues that if God designed the universe then God must Himself require a designer, a fallacious argument IMHO.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

I don’t see how this works. Presumably the watchmaker in your example does require Mr and Mrs watchmaker to produce a child, and they presumably require parentage in turn until you get back to a shrew leaping into the gap left by the demise of the dinosaurs.

I think you are still confusing the cosmological and teleological arguments. The point of the teleological argument is not whether the child had an origin (Mr & Mrs Watchmaker) but whether the child had a designer. Parentage relates to the cosmological (first cause) argument.

Is the key point here that atheists are willing to accept that a complex thing can evolve from something less complex?

I do not think complexity is the issue at all. The issue is that of design. For example, a perfect square is less complex than the fronds of a fern - but most of us would be more inclined to see the square, rather than the fern, as evidence of a designer if we found them embedded in a rock.

In any event, think of the assumptions you have to make before your ‘designer’ concept has any relevance. The designer has to be conscious of what he was doing. He has to intend life to emerge on Earth. He has to have a purpose for that life that amounts to more than it being a galactic water feature. He has to be That God That Gave Us This Religion and Not That One. Maybe he even has to be the God as understood by Fred Phelps.

That's a red herring. The argument from design has relevance if we are discussing whether a greater power than ourselves exists. I am not arguing that the argument from design necessarily leads to faith in the Christian God, or even in a Personal God. It could equally argue for an impersonal designer as in deism. Do remember that this discussion is taking place on the atheist forum, not the Christian one.

lostexpectation

whos says the universe is ordered? anybody watching ian stewarts power of the planet on bbc, good explanation of the mecahnics of the planet. not only did we come from monkey we came from bacteria

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I think you are still confusing the cosmological and teleological arguments. The point of the teleological argument is not whether the child had an origin (Mr & Mrs Watchmaker) but whether the child had a designer. Parentage relates to the cosmological (first cause) argument.

However, I don't see this materially altering the situation. Just to use the term, what seems at issue is the emergence of 'design' and the assumption that 'design' requires 'designer'. That seems (to me) to bring us back to that point of whether complex (or, if you prefer, 'design-looking' ) stuff can emerge from things that are less complex (or less 'design-looking). And, bear in mind, this is a context where we know people, animals and plants are capable of reproducing themselves without external assistance. We are not in the situation of having dug up the Tyco Monolith on the Moon, and are struggling to account for how such a perfectly proportioned artifact could have come about without someone manufacturing it.

I may be very stupid. But I really don't see how assuming a designer is anything more than just that - assuming that the 'design' you see in nature requires something acting to put it there, with that something (apparently) absolved of the need for its 'design' to be accounted for in similar fashion.

PDN wrote: »

most of us would be more inclined to see the square, rather than the fern, as evidence of a designer if we found them embedded in a rock.

Indeed, but we haven't found such an artifact.

PDN wrote: »

That's a red herring. The argument from design has relevance if we are discussing whether a greater power than ourselves exists.

Fine, however those intermediate steps don't seem to me to be a complete red herring as they recall the argument that any religion known to man requires several leaps into the dark. This means we are reduced to speculation about what this 'greater power' might be. It seems to me that this 'greater power' need not be 'greater' at all - it could simply be an unconscious process. Equally, it could be a bearded god sitting on a throne with a plan to incarnate his son a few billion years after the Earth forms. But I don't see the point of using the term 'greater power' when all we are really saying is 'We absolutely have no idea whatsoever if there is a designer, or if all this is the product of a natural process without anything we could recognise as will or intent'. I would suggest that, instead of 'greater power', we adopt the term 'Great Green Arkelseizure' to underline the fact that we simply don't know what we're talking about.

pH

Here is the wikipedia page on this argument as put forward by Dawkins in TGD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

I've read TGD but this summary of the argument isn't exactly as I remember it, and I don't have the book to hand. I personally find anything which addresses the origins of the universe and the origins of life in the same breath problematic - it just confuses everything.

robindch

PDN wrote:

robindch wrote:

Outside of creationist circles, the "argument from design" and its close relatives, the cosmological and teleological arguments, are found decidedly unconvincing.

Therefore his very existence refutes the assertion that such arguments are confined to creationist circles (unless Robin is using 'Creationist' in such a broad sense as to include every theist and deist).

If I were to write that sentence again, I'd replace "decidedly" with "generally". Mea maxima culpa!

PDN wrote:

The argument from design can work at one level without therefore having to assume it must apply at other levels.

You can certainly try that line out, but I can't imagine your going to get anywhere with it. If you assert that a designer must exist because the universe looks like it was designed, then you're not going to appear very convincing if you're going to ignore the question of where the designer came from.

Or conversely, if you allow yourself to ignore the question of who designed the designer, then you can't really blame anybody who ignores the assumption of design to start with.

You can't have it both ways, if you expect to be taken seriously.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I agree that the universe 'could' have appeared uncaused and then produced us, and then we design a watch. That is exactly my point. A designer (a human watchmaker) does not itself necessarily require another designer.

I can't see how this is a problem for anyone either, but it obviously is for Dawkins (at least as presented by Zillah). He argues that if God designed the universe then God must Himself require a designer, a fallacious argument IMHO.

It's notable that Dawkins (or whoever) doesn't believe God required a designer - as he doesn't exist. I think the point is that someone who comes to the grand conclusion that the universe was "designed", based on nothing but speculation, is required to take that speculation a step further.

The watch analogy is disingenuous because there is no element of speculation or leap of faith in saying it was designed. We have full knowledge of the circumstances of it's existence, unlike the origins of matter, which is the what the intelligent design argument is concerned with.

pH

I think I understand PDN's argument now, and on the face of it it's a fair one.

In the course of normal enquiry, we don't need to continue back chains of causation. For example take the question(s) where did the Mona Lisa come from?/how was it created? /who created it?

Now there could be a natural process that produces paintings of women (we just don't happen to know one or think one exists), the historical and forensic evidence seems to indicate that Leonardo DaVinci painted it.

Most people are happy to accept the explanation 'Leonardo painted it' without requiring any explanation of what created Leonardo. The explanation suffices by itself without a full knowledge of either the theory of evolution or a full genealogical tree for him dating back millions of years.

Even without specific knowledge, you could look at any painting of a woman and deduce that someone did it (yes maybe monkeys or robots or some other clever explanation might possibly exist), again most people would consider it acceptable to conclude that a picture hanging on a wall was painted by someone (as opposed to being a naturally occurring object).

So based on the above, if the evidence pointed to a designed universe, why can't that be accepted as the painting above? Its designer might be designed, they might have occurred naturally, they might even have evolved! - but you don't need to explain the designer to accept that the universe was designed.

As I said, on the face of it ... but the argument above has a serious flaw

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

whos says the universe is ordered? anybody watching ian stewarts power of the planet on bbc, good explanation of the mecahnics of the planet. not only did we come from monkey we came from bacteria

I would not see any necessary contradiction between mankind coming from bacteria and the universe being ordered.

bogwalrus

I had a discussion like this with a friend of mine before and one conclusion we came up with was:

The universe is infinitely complex!! Now instead of saying infinite i am going to say there is a limit of complexity as it is easier to grasp(not that any of you guys need things simplified;). So as an analogy if we look at a ten story office building where the roof represents the limit of complexity. All new employees get hired and work there way from the first floor to get to the top floor. This process involves learning new skills, adapting to different working atmospheres and basically becoming better at what you do so that you can get to the top floor where living conditions are inmproved from having more money and a sense of accomplishment etc....

This can easily relate to the universe where you have a beginning (the big bang) and because there is a complexity constant or limit of complexity even the most inanimate and smallest things will always move up and up (or drawn towards) to become better and more developed. (i say drawn towards cause the begining of the universe can be described as the negative moving towards the plus)

You could even say that this "complexity constant" (i dunno if this term is correct) exists outside our universe and is the thing that initially sparks our universe thus meaning our universe does not need to be created by a divine being or a designer, you could easily just accept that there is an infinite form of complexity, knowledge that surrounds everything and is the cause and effect of everything and this complexity need not be created as it just exists "differently to a designer or creator of things" etc

(i do apologise for mixing up things being "infinite" and having "a limit" but i find comprehending infinity makes things hard to understand and just saying there is a limit makes things easier and more linear)

A good example to support some of this would be that experament the russians did in space with the inanimate space dust where the dust formed a double helix on a number of accasions when put in a zero gravity chamber. I suppose this could also prove a number of other theories also though.
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14101/1066/

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

I think I understand PDN's argument now, and on the face of it it's a fair one.

In the course of normal enquiry, we don't need to continue back chains of causation. For example take the question(s) where did the Mona Lisa come from?/how was it created? /who created it?

Now there could be a natural process that produces paintings of women (we just don't happen to know one or think one exists), the historical and forensic evidence seems to indicate that Leonardo DaVinci painted it.

Most people are happy to accept the explanation 'Leonardo painted it' without requiring any explanation of what created Leonardo. The explanation suffices by itself without a full knowledge of either the theory of evolution or a full genealogical tree for him dating back millions of years.

Even without specific knowledge, you could look at any painting of a woman and deduce that someone did it (yes maybe monkeys or robots or some other clever explanation might possibly exist), again most people would consider it acceptable to conclude that a picture hanging on a wall was painted by someone (as opposed to being a naturally occurring object).

So based on the above, if the evidence pointed to a designed universe, why can't that be accepted as the painting above? Its designer might be designed, they might have occurred naturally, they might even have evolved! - but you don't need to explain the designer to accept that the universe was designed.

As I said, on the face of it ... but the argument above has a serious flaw

That, apart from the works of mankind, the world shows no evidence of design. There are those who will honestly argue that it does, but as we've seen in a certain great big thread, it's invariably an argument from ignorance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

robindch wrote: »

If you assert that a designer must exist because the universe looks like it was designed, then you're not going to appear very convincing if you're going to ignore the question of where the designer came from.

Or conversely, if you allow yourself to ignore the question of who designed the designer, then you can't really blame anybody who ignores the assumption of design to start with.

You can't have it both ways, if you expect to be taken seriously.

That would be true, if we were attempting to use the argument from design as proof of God's existence. I am not asserting that a designer must exist, and neither did the OP. Rather, he said that an apparently ordered universe "would seem to indicate ... that there may well be a consciousness behind it".

I think it reasonable for someone to say, "This universe looks ordered, therefore, in my opinion, I think it more probable than not that there was a designer." That is a faith statement supported by evidence, but not by conclusive proof - which supports theism or deism.

I also think it is reasonable, BTW, for an opponent to say, "This universe actually looks chaotic, therefore, in my opinion, I think it more improbable that there was a designer." That is also a faith statement supported by evidence, but not by conclusive proof - which supports atheism.

I also think it is reasonable to say, "The designer of a universe would seem to me to have to be of such complexity that I think it more probable than not that said designer must also have a designer." That is a faith statement supported by evidence, but not by conclusive proof - which might support some Gnostic theory of intermediate demi-gods or angels that, while created themselves, also created the universe.

I also think it is reasonable to say, "The designer of a universe would seem to me to possess qualities (eg omnipotence) that would render any further designer improbable."

These are all opinions, and obviously subjective to some degree, so should not be presented as proofs. So far, no problem.

However, Zillah's presentation of Dawkins' argument moved beyond the realm of opinions, of subjectivity, of balances of probability. In contrast to the OP which used words like "would seem" or "may well be", we were told:

If you argue that the universe is too well organised to be an accident, and therefore must be designed, you must then address the impossibility of the Designer himself.

The Zillah/Dawkins argument speaks of impossibility, and, as I believe I have demonstrated, no logical impossibility is involved, therefore it is fallacious as a response to the teleological argument.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, but we haven't found such an artifact.

Of course we have, every museum in Europe has bucketloads of such artifacts. We have rocks in which we find geometric shapes carved. Therefore we assume that there is a designer (ie, the stone age guy who carved the shaps into the rock). We also have loads of rocks in which are embedded the more complex fern shapes. We generally assume that these occurred 'naturally' and do not require a designer. This proves, IMO, that complexity is irrelevant. It is perfectly logical to see a less complex entity as suggestive of a designer while a more complex entity may not suggest a designer. Therefore complexity is a red herring that confuses any discussion of the teleological argument.

Scofflaw

I'm not sure why orderliness or structure is taken as the mark of a creator - it seems to assume that we are talking about clockwork here. What 'order' obtains in art?

An arbitrary 'artistic' universe would seem to me to argue more strongly for a creator than does an ordered one. The more ordered, the less 'design' is involved - and the less 'design', the less need for a 'designer'. Complexity, as PDN says, is irrelevant, but arbitrariness is not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SASQUATCH

What ye are discussing is whether there is a latent universal conciousness underlying the actions and forms taken by all the matter in the universe, our thoughts being part of all this , are not separate - Carl sagan- "we are a way for the universe to look at itself" (something along those lines anyway), so headfukingly, we influence this supposed commonality as much as it does us , the snake goes on eating its tail, but somehow it moves forward , or so it seems to in the short lifespan we are assigned(I think this gives humans a strong urge to know as much as they can within this time, a bit like a cattle prod). If this "sentient universe" exists isn't it going about the very thing it supposedly gets up to by making the little sparks fly around our brains and transmit them in the form of words through our fingers via electronic brains down a wire into a place that doesn't really physically exist at all (boards.ie) so this discussion can take place . It's a wonderful world, that's the main thing . There just happen to be a lot of megalomaniac assholes who think they own the place ****ing it up for the rest of us. Sorry for ranting and just throwing stuff in here, but I'm no good at analysing the thing as a whole or picking out one post in particular to reply to ( I'm lazy)

SubjectSean

pH wrote: »

Why would the fact that the universe was made by an uncaring God make you happy and it not being make you bored?

I think neutral, uncaring sounds so human IMHO. I'd be happy to know I wasn't created by 'nothing' and bored to find out that I was. It would make the universe less interesting.

That said I am still finding it highly unlikely that the universe was created by 'nothing'. God could be undesigned, I don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with saying the universe is undesigned. Something has to cop for this universe, it really is an unlikely spillage IMO

robindch

SubjectSean wrote:

I'd be happy to know I wasn't created by 'nothing' and bored to find out that I was

Erm, you were created by your parents, I think...

SubjectSean

robindch wrote: »

Erm, you were created by your parents, I think...

Ha ha they have a quark factory do they? I do wish they would keep me informed.