An Objection to the Teleological Argument
The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism. It states that we have good reason to affirm theism because our universe exhibits evidence of very precise fine-tuning that would be very improbable under single-universe atheism. By fine-tuning I mean the fact that if many of our laws of physics had been only slightly different, life would not have been able to exist. I propose that one objection to this argument, the "Who designed the designer?" objection is successful.
One version of the teleological argument comes from Robin Collins and can be formulated this way:
1. The fine-tuning data are not improbable under theism.
2. The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism.
3. If some evidence is not improbable under A but very improbable under B, then that evidence provides strong evidence for A.
4. So, the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over single-universe atheism.
One version of the objection that I am defending comes from George Smith. This objection rejects Premise 2 in the above formulation of the teleological argument. I think it goes as follows:
1. If God exists, then he was not designed.
2. If God exists, then he is more wonderful* than the universe.
3. If God exists, then he created the universe.
4. If A is more wonderful than B and A was not designed and A created B, then it is not improbable that B was not designed.
5. So, if God exists, then it is not improbable that the universe was not designed.
*By more wonderful I mean something like more powerful.
Positing the existence of God in the conclusion of an atheistic objection may seem a little strange, but it is necessary to appeal to the theistic opponent. This conclusion states that even if God did exist, and we were to (wrongfully) subscribe to single-universe atheism, then we should not be surprised by the apparent fine-tuning of our universe. Therefore, the fine-tuning does not provide strong evidence for theism.
It seems like the most contentious premise in this argument is Premise 4. However, I don't think we are likely to find a counterexample. First, we must think of something (A), which is not designed and can create something else less wonderful than itself (B). Then, it must be probable that B was designed. This is the difficulty: If A was not designed, how could its creation, B, be designed? Until we can come up with a counterexample to this premise, it looks like the objection succeeds and we can confidently reject the teleological argument for theism.
One version of the teleological argument comes from Robin Collins and can be formulated this way:
1. The fine-tuning data are not improbable under theism.
2. The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism.
3. If some evidence is not improbable under A but very improbable under B, then that evidence provides strong evidence for A.
4. So, the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence to favor the design hypothesis over single-universe atheism.
One version of the objection that I am defending comes from George Smith. This objection rejects Premise 2 in the above formulation of the teleological argument. I think it goes as follows:
1. If God exists, then he was not designed.
2. If God exists, then he is more wonderful* than the universe.
3. If God exists, then he created the universe.
4. If A is more wonderful than B and A was not designed and A created B, then it is not improbable that B was not designed.
5. So, if God exists, then it is not improbable that the universe was not designed.
*By more wonderful I mean something like more powerful.
Positing the existence of God in the conclusion of an atheistic objection may seem a little strange, but it is necessary to appeal to the theistic opponent. This conclusion states that even if God did exist, and we were to (wrongfully) subscribe to single-universe atheism, then we should not be surprised by the apparent fine-tuning of our universe. Therefore, the fine-tuning does not provide strong evidence for theism.
It seems like the most contentious premise in this argument is Premise 4. However, I don't think we are likely to find a counterexample. First, we must think of something (A), which is not designed and can create something else less wonderful than itself (B). Then, it must be probable that B was designed. This is the difficulty: If A was not designed, how could its creation, B, be designed? Until we can come up with a counterexample to this premise, it looks like the objection succeeds and we can confidently reject the teleological argument for theism.
Comments (93)
In Martin Rees' book Just Six Numbers we find out that for the universe to be as it is, life-friendly, all that had to be done was fine-tune the values of just 6 constants. Such simplicity! Surely the work of unparalleled genius!
If we do not dismiss this idea, then we are confronted with the possibility of an infinite regress of Y designed Z, and X designed Y, W designed X. etc.. This potential infinite regress indicates that we haven\t properly determine what it means to have been "designed". Misunderstanding, or failure to provide an adequate definition of "design" is what causes this potential for an infinite regress.
Instead of properly addressing this issue, what it means to have been "designed", you dismiss the possibility of the designer having been designed. But if you look at the evidence, of designed things, artefacts, you'll see that the idea that the designers themselves, human beings, have not been designed, has not been adequately justified, or you wouldn't be asking the question which you are asking in the first place.
I am more wonderful than this post. I was not designed*. I created this post.
OK, all conditions met, all set. Here's the conclusion:
It is not improbable that this post was not designed.
Ok, it's not the greatest post in the world. I am sure there are better posts But to imply that it's a haphazard phenomenon seems a little unkind.
* I was begotten - if we want to stick with the 'this is an argument for theists' idea.
I don't think either the pro-design or the anti-design arguments make any sense. I think the problem with the pro-design argument comes from Premise 2 of Collins' argument:
Quoting SwampMan
This shows a lack of understanding of how probability works. Before you start, the probability of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads is about 1x10^-30. After you're done flipping 100 heads in a row, the probability is 1. Getting the multiverse involved is meaningless and confusing.
I don't think so, and a great way of showcasing this is the following analogy:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Leslie.html
I think two things happen if you're still alive after a bunch of sharpshooters try and shoot you: you'd be surprised by your existence and you would conclude it wasn't an accident that you're alive. I think it's directly analogous to the fine-tuning argument.
In Bayesian terms, Pr(E/H) would be very low, where E is your existence and H is "all sharpshooters just happened to miss". Pr (E/~H) would be through the roof (~H being the design hypothesis: "all sharpshooters missed by design" (on purpose))
Some thoughts.
First, what does this have to do with the multiverse?
[joke]Second, for 100 shooters to be 10 feet away, they would have to be in a circle with less than a foot of space to stand each. If they shot at you, they would be very likely to hit each other. Clearly they all shot in the air or into the ground. [/joke]
Seriously - Sure. I know about how likely it is that one shooter, much less a hundred, would miss me, so I would assume a non-accidental reason. But I have no idea what the probability of a universe which could support intelligent life is. The only way we could know that is if we had more than one universe to look at. A sample size of one provides absolutely no information about the frequency of the relevant property except that it is greater than 0.
Going back to the sharpshooter analogy, you seem to agree that it's reasonable to conclude the shooters missed you by design. The execution was "rigged" in your favor. But pretend that instead of just you being executed, you live in a huge multiverse and there are 100 bazillion (where "bazillion" is a very very large number) you's being executed by sharpshooters at the same time. In a big enough multiverse, just by random chance, there will be a few worlds where the sharpshooters all DO miss by random chance and/or suffer simultaneous equipment malfunctions. In those cases, it now becomes reasonable to believe in the following disjunct when you find yourself alive after the order to fire is given: either they all missed on purpose OR I live in a very large multiverse, and I happen to be in a world where they all missed on accident. That's how the multiverse defeats the fine-tuning argument.
I think we can make some reasonable assumptions that a universe with no atoms would not support life, nor a universe that exists for a second before collapsing in on itself, nor a universe with no stars, etc.
One of the main problems with the fine-tuning argument is that it has not, and probably cannot, establish this central claim about probability.
The notion that the physical constants taking on values that allow for life is somehow improbable is reached by assuming that these constants can take on arbitrary values; if they can take on arbitrary values, then surely the values landing in those small ranges that allow for life and structure is improbable, right?
The problem is, we have no idea whether they can take on arbitrary values, or indeed whether they can even take on any values other than the observed ones. We've only ever observed one universe, and one set of values, and we currently lack any established theory that predicts these values (they must be measured) or posits the mechanisms by which they are determined.
So for all we know, no other values are possible. Or maybe a small range of values is possible. Or maybe a large range. We simply don't know. But the proponent of the fine-tuning argument requires that we do know, enough to meaningfully assign any probabilities here- but we don't, and so we can't, and so the fine-tuning argument cannot proceed to its conclusion.
The current thinking is that the values could have been other than what they are. They are not derivable, at present.
So the point remains: the fine-tuning proponent has not and cannot establish that there is any improbability of the constants taking on values suitable for life. For all we know, the probability of those values is 100%. Or not. We simply do not know at present, which utterly shipwrecks the fine-tuning argument, at least any fine-tuning argument premised on a purported improbability.
Maybe someday we will discover whether the physical constants can take on other values, and we can/will revisit the issue then, but at present this version of the teleological argument is dead in the water.
I think you're probably right in an infinite universe. In a finite universe, there's probably no way to know how many particles and how many volumes there are in our current universe; how far away an atom has to be to affect conditions on earth; and how many universes beyond our own there are, if any. Then, what are the odds that exactly the same type of particle is in exactly the same locations in another hypothetical universe to match our universe, with a few changes to affect the shooters. Without knowing that stuff, your statement about the 100 bazillion universes is unsupported.
Beyond that, as far as we know, we can never know what is going on outside the observable universe, which is much smaller than the entire universe, or in another universe. Even if we could, how could we ever find the universe of interest and find the firing squad within it.
Quoting RogueAI
I didn't say that, if there is a multiverse, there won't be some without life in them. I also don't know if there can be life in a universe with no atoms. It certainly wouldn't be life as we know it. That's the story - we don't know, and probably can't know, how likely the situation is that you describe. Which makes the whole issue meaningless.
Infinitely more wonderful! Infinitely more wonderful! :up:
:fire: :fire:
Other objections to consider:
Dysteleogical Argument (for the "Creator" being morally unworthy of worship!)
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Evolution also fine-tunes us to fit into this world.
I think I suss out what you mean but this sentence makes no sense to me. To begin with, evolution neither has a "telos" nor is an "intentional agent" ...
You're right. The universe has no purpose or intentional agency. The point I was trying to make is that the universe doesn't fit us, we fit the universe. We were created by chemical and physical processes and evolved to fit our environment.
It's true that in Mesopotamian & Mediterranean traditions, teleological arguments were produced by theologians to defend their belief in the invisible deity (Theism) variously defined by the Abrahamic lineage, of Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But other cultures have different definitions & arguments for their preferred imaginary Author of Reality. Most, if not all, of them assume some kind of creation event (First Cause), and some subsequent progression (evolution) of the creation toward some final resolution (teleology), for some divine reason that may be specified, or left to your imagination. However, there are a few minority belief systems that leave the definition of deity obscure, for lack of direct revelation.
One of those alternative models of reality is Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview that observes order (non-randomness) & meaning (logic) in the world, then infers the necessity for a logical organizer of some kind (e.g. LOGOS) to impose order on chaos, and to create meaningful patterns in randomness. Although they observe a positive direction in evolution (complexity & self-organization), they have only limited scientific knowledge and imperfect human reasoning, from which to predict the future course of evolution. Since the Purpose and Final Goal of our contingent & temporary world is unknown, any speculation on destination would not technically be teleo- (end) logical, but mesia- (middle) logical : the view from the middle of the process. :smile:
Note -- for those who see no lawful order or meaningful direction in the physical world, attributions of intention & purpose would be literally Absurd. But such an illogical world would also make Science and Philosophy absurd.
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein
Not at all – "science and philosophy" make more explicit by empirical and conceptual reasoning, respectively, that it is "absurd" to claim to know what cannot be known here and now.
[quote=Steven Weinberg, Nobel Physicist]The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.[/quote]
"Seems pointless" as in e.g. quantum uncertainty, thermodynamics, natural selection, etc.
What's absurd is to believe either that nature is ordered by non-nature or that nature is nothing but disorder. It's absurd to believe either what cannot be known or that which entails the negation of all that is known. The Absurdist rejects – strives to thrive in the void between – both absurdities.
So what can we know without impaling our reasoning on one or the other horn of this dilemma – committing "philosophical suicide" as either an idealist or nihilist – and yet thrive?
Only that 'order is a phase-state of disorder' (e.g. "the ten thousand things of the dao") or a 'raft afloat down this long winding river' ("that can't be stepped into twice"); only that 'facts are contingent and "things" are events' ("anicca" "anatta" "maya" "lila"); and that we immanent beings cannot know, or live with courage-integrity by, "transcendent truths" beyond the Human condition (i.e. "indispensable yet inadequate" reason's limits). The Absurdist affirms her limits saying 'I/we do not know', living accordingly (i.e. as an "antifragilista") instead living in denial on woo-of-the-gaps crutches.
When talking about probability of life, design, god, etc., most people (except I) think of probability as a measure of reality.
But probability is not a measure of reality. In reality there are no probabilities. Probabilities are born in man's mind, to approximate the unknown when certainty in knowledge is missing.
Either everyone else (other than I) conveniently forgets about this, or else some of everyone else is too limited to see this.
I agree that apocalyptic Prophets and commercial Crystal Ball Readers sometimes make absurd claims. But economic analysts and weather forecasters are more scientific in their methods. They don't claim to "know what can't be known". So, you shouldn't tar them with the same brush, as the psychics, whose predictions are all over the map. Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. We now know that evolution began as a Planck-scale speck of Potential, and has produced an immeasurable Cosmos with billions of galaxies, and at least one planet with living & thinking organism. Is it absurd to conclude that something important is going on?
Anyway, the philosophical concept of Teleology is not about personal prospects or divine retribution, but about the rational inference of progression & purpose in evolution. That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face.
But in evolution, the stick-wielder is hidden behind a zillion solar cycles of misty Time. So the original imparter of momentum must be rationally inferred from our experience with causation-in-general. It's not absurd to assume that every chain of causation has an initial link (the Causal Agent), and a terminal link (The End). Aristotle labelled the Prime Mover as the "First Cause". But, he also noted that motion in a non-random direction must have an intentional impetus, which he defined as the "Final Cause". And if the chain makes upward progress from simple to complex, or from seed to tree, we can logically infer that the Prime Cause was not an accident, but intentional.
Hence, even if the future End State is unknown & possibly unknowable, we can deduce the general future trajectory of the causal chain, and logically label its final state the "Purpose" of the unknown Originator. That's the function of Reasoning : a> to fill gaps in knowledge ; b> to predict the future from past experience. Yet, such Prognostication is not an exact science -- it's merely an exercise in rational philosophical speculation. :cool:
Psychic Predictions :
Super Bowl LVI will be played on February 13th 2022, at SoFi Stadium (Cal. Predictions diverged, there was no unanimity amongst our psychics, mediums and ...
A philosophy of teleology sees purpose in ends rather than stated causes, making the outcome the actual, or "final" cause.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/teleology
I don't know that his is true. It certainly isn't true for today's philosophers and scientists. Do you have specific information on beliefs over time?
Quoting Gnomon
Many evolutionary biologists do not believe evolution is progressive. I looked on the web for information about the distribution of biologists' opinions on the subject, but I couldn't find any.
IF our world was designed, then it wasn't designed very well. Consider all of the screwy things that can happen to healthy bodies. Rabbits, for instance, are forced to re-chew some of their pelletized feces to extract their required nutrition. Coprophagy is cosmically undignified. How would you feel about the designated designer if you had to pick through your feces every day to find the ones that needed further mastication?
Volcanos are a good thing--when they happened a long time ago. What did the Pompeiians do to deserve being flash-fried? Nothing. Tonga? Ditto.
Upward? Upward? Surely you must be joking, Mr. Gnomon. Our species reached it's most pleasant plateau about 150,000 years ago, back when we hunted stags and gathered berries on the Elysian Fields. It's been downhill ever since, and getting steeper by the day.
The cosmos APPEARED to be designed because it was already 13 billion years old when we cosmic arrivistes started out with tails, swinging from branch to branch.
"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). :roll:
Only "hard to deny" for Aristotlean pre-moderns (i.e. pseudo-science peddlers like e.g. various "creationists", Lamarckians, Chardinites, Sheldrakeans) who fail to understand Darwinianism. :sweat:
Teleological explanations for the evolution of "endless forms most beautiful" are certainly not mainstream today, in secular science. But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. Randomness is inherently non-directional and patternless. So, it must be the unknown, but implicit, standard-setter of "Natural Selection" that mandated the fitness criteria for propagating the next generation of natural forms. Moreover, the 'natural laws" that regulate all causes in the world, must either be taken-for-granted, without explanation, or attributed to some logical organizer.
I won't take the time to produce a history of teleology in philosophy. But, I will point-out that, until Darwin & Wallace proposed their theory of Natural Selection, nobody had any better explanation for the orderly & constructive progression of Nature than an intentional First Cause. Some deep thinkers, who pondered the process we now call "evolution", imagined a super-human Lawmaker, while others proposed a more abstract principle, such as LOGOS. As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. And, sitting atop the pyramid of progress is the human brain, often described as "the most complex object in the universe. :nerd:
Natural Selection, Teleology, and the Logos: From Darwin to the Oxford Neo-Darwinists, 1859-1909 :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/301989
Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Yet, as a recent spate of books by scientists suggests, science itself may have room for a new form of teleology, a new way to quantify and grasp a goal-driven directionality in nature, one more robust than the Aristotelian version, but one unafraid to acknowledge a progressive movement in the evolution of life toward consciousness.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2016/06/08/why-teleology-isnt-dead/?sh=79f3c3a06d69
Teleological Notions in Biology :
The manifest appearance of function and purpose in living systems is responsible for the prevalence of apparently teleological explanations of organismic structure and behavior in biology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.
"There are few places in natural sciences where asking teleological questions is allowed: one is biology," writes SFI Professor Michael Lachmann."
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/evolution-evolving-darwin-day-2021
You seem to be using the term "designed" in the religious sense of the creator of a perfect Garden of Eden. But, even the storytellers of that myth were aware that the world they inhabited was far from perfection. So, they imagined that the world began in a perfect state, and had nowhere to go but downhill.
However, those who propose secular Teleology today are not the blind buffoons you make them out to be. Instead, they understand that perfection is the end of an evolutionary process, not the beginning or middle. The path to perfection is an uphill climb. So, your criticism is aimed at the wrong target. Open both eyes, and you'll focus better. :smile:
PS__Evolution is a heuristic (trial & error) process. But you are focusing on the errors instead of the marvelous advances that instill feelings of awe in unromantic scientists..
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein
Name-dropping is not a philosophical argument. :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
Name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:
If you only look at the top lines of a Google search, you'll only see the most popular ideas, not the most perceptive. The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions. :smile:
Teleological Notions in Biology :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
However: I do not think evolution is upward-bound. Evolution takes place whenever two animals or plants mate. The life around us is the consequences of trillions and trillions of matings. Meiosis and mitosis ad infinitum.
The results "appear progressive", maybe even "designed" in some way, because what we see is a system that works. The system that worked before blue-green algae poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen was much different than the one that worked for blue-green algae, and there were successive systems that worked up until the next major extinction event came along, and then they didn't work anymore. Evolution didn't "start over" or "try again" it just kept on going, working with whatever was left over at the time.
Lots of matings don't work either. Something goes wrong in the post fertilization development and you end up with a dead or unproductive offspring, end of the line. Love is blind and so is random mating. Evolution isn't a process that occurs over millions of years. It occurs in vanishingly brief moments of biological union. True, there are limits imposed. A frog and a grasshopper can not mate. Neither can a carrot and a pineapple. Carrots have to stick to its own kind, as do pineapples, frogs, and grasshoppers.
I understand how 'teleology' can be read onto evolution, history, spirituality, and so on. It isn't evil or harmful, but it does seem (to me) to be a mistaken notion. It places us, and other species, on a metaphorical conveyor belt to the stars. WE can progress, but by dint of very hard work during our own lifetimes, and the successive life times of others. That seems to me to be the only progress we can make.
Even if a teleological process existed (in evolution) we are not going to live to see it, or document it. "we" are the result of one mating, then we live for decades. We mate and another batch of decades goes by. Evolution is slow. Hundreds of generations will have passed before any differences develop. We will be the ancient pre-history of the generation that notices an improvement, if they notice at all.
Maybe we can genetically engineer our way as a fast track to the future? What could possibly go wrong with that?
Oh yes. I notice on this forum that "Teleology" is a hackle-raising four-letter-word for some people. For them, it implies an obsolete anti-science ideology. But my personal philosophical worldview is compatible with the ambiguity & uncertainty of post-quantum cutting-edge science, if not with the black & white certainty of 19th century Classical Physics.
From my peripheral perspective, the Metaphysics of Aristotle seem quite prescient. However, when challenged by the physics-is-Truth disciples, I rely on modern scientific specialists instead of a pre-scientific generalist. But, I still insist on calling the uncharted uncertainties of Quantum Queerness "Meta-Physics" (i.e. grudgingly accepted, but not yet explained by physics). And that medieval term raises the hackles even more. Still, I enjoy the philosophical exercise of chewing on controversial questions. :cool:
That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions.
Both Progressive Evolution and Digressive Devolution are opinions based partly on prior attitudes and partly on partial evidence. So, while my non-expert opinion is more sweetly optimistic than your bitter pessimism, I'm encouraged by the pioneering sober scientists, who take the risk to row against the tide of stuffy academic authority. :joke:
Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. After all, our esteemed selves, the paragon of animals and the crowns of creation, are the result of evolution. You know, we are pretty smart. It just when we start playing God, as we often do--one way or another--we land in deep shit pretty quick.
God, being all omniscient about everything, knew in advance how plan A, Plan B, Plan C, on down to Plan ZZZ, would turn out. So, whatever he chose to do, he knew how it would turn out through to the end of time. We, on the other hand, can't start frying an egg with certain knowledge of how it will turn out. Genetic engineering with the attention span and predictive capacity that results in burnt fried eggs? God help us all.
I believe this is not true. Do you have some references?
Quoting Gnomon
I never said that there aren't people who believe that evolution is teleological. I only responded to the following comments:
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
As I noted, I believe these statements are incorrect.
Quoting Gnomon
The SEP article you referenced includes the following statement:
[i]Nevertheless, biologists and philosophers have continued to question the legitimacy of teleological notions in biology. For instance, Ernst Mayr (1988), identified four reasons why teleological notions remain controversial in biology, namely that they are:
A fifth complaint is that they are not empirically testable (Allen & Bekoff 1995)...[/i]
This demonstrates my point - there is widespread belief among appropriately qualified scientists and philosophers that evolution is not teleological. It is not hard to deny that evolution is progressive. Qualified people do it all the time.
Yes....well...ahem.
Great! I was just playing with your screenname. :smile:
I too, am cautiously optimistic that evolution is moving toward an improved version of the paradoxical world we now inhabit. That's because I tend to focus on the sensible stuff, instead of the absurdities, At least, I don't have to worry about sabre-tooth tigers sniffing around my cave. I don't expect to be around to evaluate the next incremental upgrade --- maybe beating our bombs into plowshares. But the history of progression from next-to-nothingness to awesome everythingness (97 light-years across), is evident. And we now expect to see more of our cosmic history with the new James Webb way-back-machine.
Also, it's the undeniable progression in organization that I refer to as "Teleology", moving toward an improved future for all of us passengers on the Blue Marble. Of course, progress in inter-personal morality seems to be much slower than in impersonal technology. However, I do agree with Steven Pinker that human societies have improved in many ways, even as over-population and ecological devolution present newer & bigger problems for each generation to deal with. Together, we can work it out.
Human Culture hasn't yet created an artificial Garden of Eden. But we're getting there, with two steps forward and one step back. That's all you can expect from the heuristic (trial & error) mechanism of random variation and natural selection. Buzz Lightyear defined Teleology as "to the future, and beyond". :nerd:
Yes. I provide links to expert opinions in all of my posts, to provide support for my layman's opinions. As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview.
You can check-out my other threads if you are interested in references. And my blog goes into even deeper detail, with links & details. But then, you are entitled to your own opinion. So, I won't argue with you.
References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke:
Why Evolution is Progressive :
One of the outstanding recent scandals of biology has been the notion that evolution is not progressive, a concept that flaunts the evidence of our eyes.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814350501_0011
POSITIVE PROGRESSION ?
If we are agreed on that, then we agree on the claim this:
Quoting T Clark
That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done.
Quoting Gnomon
Again - you're not responding to the claim I made.
Quoting Gnomon
I think the illustration you have provided is enlightening. It shows evolutionary "progress" from chimpanzee to human, but humans are not ancestors of chimpanzees. I think that shows the oversimplicity of the argument you are trying to make.
I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. They are not scientific factual assertions, but personal philosophical perspectives. My opinions may sound confident, because I have given them a lot of thought, and presented my thesis on a webpage. Besides, I have replied to similar "claims" repeatedly ad infinitum on this forum. For example, the post linked below in the FreeWill thread treats the Teleological argument without specifically mentioning it.
If you need more than that, my blog has several posts on the topic of Teleology : Post 7 -- Enformation : Process of Creation (teleological tendencies) : Post 15 -- Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism (teleological implications) ; Post 33 -- What is EnFormAction? (teleological direction) ; Post 60 -- Teleological Evolution (phase changes, emergences, speciations). If you will PM me, I can give you links to to these and many other detailed essays on similar topics, each with lots of explanatory sidenotes & links to other information. My opinions are definitely not expressed as "unquestionable". There is a blog forum where you can post your criticism in more specific terms. :cool:
Evolutionary Emergence of Freewill :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/654052
I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny.
We can all agree that there must exist some uncreated things. That's not evidence that everything is uncreated.
Complex things need creators. Simple things do not. Indeed, to ask what created a simple thing is simply to manifest a failure to understand the nature of a simple thing. For a simple thing has nothing from which it can be created.
So, if there exist complex things, then there must exist some simple things. And the ultimate creators of complex things are simple things.
Clearly, then, one cannot get from "simple things are uncreated" to "complex things are uncreated". And the universe is a complex thing, and God is a simple thing.
So your case must rest entirely upon the claim that God is 'better' than the universe. But I don't understand how you get from the claim that God is better than the universe, to "therefore the universe does not need a creator".
Denial is easy; understanding is hard.
Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. But, if you compare the present state of the universe to its original state, the cosmic scale of change is undeniable. It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events.
If you are thinking in terms of Moral progress though, then that's an ethical question, which is always up for debate, because there is no objective empirical evidence, just subjective personal beliefs. Philosophical questions are seldom "obvious", even though some axioms are considered to be "self evident" --- progress is not axiomatic or factual. So, we argue analogies & metaphors.
Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. Of course "teleological" or "logical" or "ethical" progression is another story. What kind of evolutionary change would you look for to determine whether evolution is "progressive" or "digressive" or "static"? You'll need to define your terms. :smile:
Evolutionary Progress? :
That the history of life on Earth manifests some sort of progress has seemed obvious to many biologists.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/5/451/264248
FWIW, If you Google "progressive speciation", you can make your own list of expert opinions.
"Speciation results from the progressive accumulation of mutations . . ."
"species represent progressive stages . . ."
"Progressive levels of trait divergence . . . "
"Adams suggests that there is such a thing as moral progress, ..."
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Barrow and Tipler didn’t invent the notion of an Anthropic (human oriented) Principle in Nature. They merely digested many different cosmological theories over centuries into a form that is amenable to the technical and mathematical format of modern science. They “traced the history of the underlying world-view in which it has germinated”. . . . However, the authors prefer the term “eutaxiological”, which means that the end state is unknown (i.e. no prophecy), and implies that the Process may be the Purpose. But first, they address the Copernican assumption (rule of thumb), underlying most of modern cosmology. Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
excerpt from BothAnd Blog, post 116
If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all. Calling something self-evident requires a consensus among the parties to the discussion. There's no consensus here. And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do.
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
I will acknowledge that the complexity of life has increased over the last 500 million years since the the Cambrian Explosion, but that's because it started out with bacteria, the simplest organisms possible. There was nowhere to go but more complex. But that's not progress or purpose. That doesn't show that evolution is directed. It's just probabilities. If you start with 100 black marbles in a box and then start exchanging one marble at a time at random, black marbles for white ones and white marbles for black; eventually you will end up with 50 black marbles and 50 white. That doesn't show progress toward diversity of marble color.
Quoting Gnomon
No. It doesn't depend on personal perspective. Somebody's right and somebody's wrong. I think I'm right. Am I 100% positive? No, but I'm certain enough to make the claim I have made.
Quoting Gnomon
I never said there weren't a lot of people who think evolution is progressive. But as I said, if there is not a consensus, it is not obvious.
Quoting Gnomon
My skepticism for the strong anthropic principle is as strong as my skepticism about progressive evolution. It's not science it's.... I don't know what it is.
I changed the first sentence of my first paragraph to read "If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all," because I think the way it was originally was ambiguous.
You put your finger on the difference between my general philosophical worldview and your specific scientific paradigm. I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. Someone once asked him where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.
Most "hard" scientists, in their dissection of nature, take a reductive & analytical approach to their work. But philosophers are dealing with imaginary metaphysical Ideas, not carving reality at its physical joints. So, you might expect that their methods should be adapted to their invisible & intangible subject (non-)matter. Ironically, some philosophers, perhaps goaded by physics envy, attempt to apply the same methods that work on the whats of material objects, to their study of the whys of mental concepts.
Aristotle distinguished between hard & soft science by dividing his treatise into two books. He considered both to be relevant to Phusis (Greek for Nature). But recognized that objective nature and subjective human culture required different approaches. That's why the book we now know as The Meta-Physics is not based on direct observation & physical dissection, but on conversation & rational analysis.
What I'm saying here is that we are talking past each other. When I present concepts of "soft" science, you interpret them as-if they are assertions of "hard" science. That's why you still don't understand what I mean by "progressive" evolution. You may interpret that to mean Quantitative improvement, while I'm talking about Qualitative advancement. But, there is no natural empirical evidence for Qualia. So, all we have to go on is human opinions. Are you better-off than a cave-man? Your opinion (or belief) is just as true as mine : it's a no-win tug-of-war, because the rope is stretchy.
That's why hard science makes rapid physical progress in controlling Nature, while soft philosophy keeps rehashing the same old questions about Human Nature & Culture. Beliefs & Opinions, even those of experts, are always debatable. And Philosophy is not progressive in any empirical sense. Hence, the threads on this forum that go in circles for months without reaching a consensus. The only intellectual progress is within the individual mind. My personal worldview is sharpened by grinding against the rough edges of hard science. :smile:
Hard vs Soft Sciences :
Hard sciences use math explicitly, they have more control over the variables and conclusions. They include physics, chemistry and astronomy. Soft sciences use the process of collecting empirical data then use the best methods possible to analyze the information. ... They include economics, political science and sociology.
https://www.usu.edu/today/story/whats-the-gripe-between-hard-and-soft-sciences-the-debate-rages-on
Teleonomy :
[i]Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Teleonomy and Evolution :
Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/teleonomy-and-evolution/
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer :
"Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized."
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567
My problem with this is that the question of whether or not evolution is progressive is not a qualitative soft science or metaphysical question. As I said - it's either right or it's wrong, and I believe it's wrong.
And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of.
No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations.
Yes, really. :smile:
The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. This then-novel notion was not quite as outrageous as some made it out to be. Darwin based his own term on the future-oriented intentions of human breeders, who deliberately set-out to produce sheep with more wool, and dogs with specialized sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Of course, Darwin was reluctant to express the obvious religious implication of design in nature. Yet, ACP is still technically Natural selection, because it predates human Cultural Selection
However, those theoretical physicists, a century later, were aware of Darwin's dilemma : both theists and atheists were outraged at his unorthodox theory. So, they were hesitant to use the touchy term "Teleology", and substituted the less familiar words "Teleonomy" or "Eutaxiology". That minor distinction only meant that they didn't claim to "know" (e.g. by revelation) the ultimate goal of the progressive process. They merely interpreted the evidence to-date as Anthropological or Anthropogenic in direction.
Since then, some have looked even further into the future, envisioning "trans-human" cybernetic successors to the homo sapiens species. Anyway, the fierce ferment among theorists has resulted in a hierarchy of interpretations of the abstract numerical evidence presented. The Weak AP was merely a current status report, as you noted. But the Strong AP says that "Our existence is the end goal of a plan". And the authors of the book go on to propose an even more radical "Final AP".
So, if this 21st century version of Teleology sounds un-orthodox to you, it's in good company with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Schrodinger et al, who introduced disruptive novel paradigms into the philosophical conversation, and in the expanding scientific understanding of the ever-surprising underlying actuality of apparent Reality.. But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos. :wink:
Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes ...
___Wikipedia
Note -- How could human purposefulness arise from a random confluence of atoms?
Eutaxiology (from the Greek eu – good, and tax – order) is the philosophical study of order and design. It is distinguished from teleology in that it does not focus on the purpose or goal of a given structure or process, merely the degree and complexity of the structure or process
___Wikipedia
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .” In fact, they extrapolate beyond Carter’s limited WAP to speculate on the ultimate destiny of the universe, taking not only a Strong interpretation (SAP), but going so far as to present a Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). They express their confidence in no uncertain terms : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. ___Barrow & Tipler, physicists,
BothAnd Blog, post 116
"prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” ___J.A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist.
BothAnd Blog, post 116
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. ____John D. Barrow
https://philpapers.org/rec/BARTAC-2
I'm sorry if I blasphemed your idol by calling him "soft". I meant no disrespect. Instead, I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. For those not conversant with the arcane conventions of mathematics, he described his thought experiments in metaphorical imagery, such as trains & elevators. Would you like to suggest a less offensive way to denote the difference between pragmatic demonstrative science and theoretical speculative philosophy? :nerd:
:ok: The ignorance manifest by this statement is stunning. Good job, G! :sparkle:
No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, stating the selection effect the fact that we exist has on our possible observations. It doesn't involve any purpose or intention on the part of the universe. And the "strong" anthropic principle proposed by people like Tipler is completely speculative (as they themselves admit) and not generally accepted or based on any actual empirical results.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms. Its not applicable to cosmology or the cosmos, except as an analogy or metaphor (as in Smolin's "Cosmological Natural Selection").
And the stuff about "seemingly intentionally" and "directed towards the emergence of.. life and eventually intentional mind" is also completely baseless and speculative. I don't doubt that some scientists hold such beliefs as a personal matter of faith, but that's all it is- a personal belief about theology or metaphysics, not an established scientific result or model. More theology than science.
Quoting Gnomon
Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience... :lol:
There are two principles. The weak anthropic principle is as you say - it's a restatement of the obvious, i.e. we live in a universe where conditions suitable for human life exist. The strong anthropic principle is different. It states that the improbability of the conditions we find ourselves in here means that the universe must have been set up to promote the evolution of humans or someone like us. It's the fine tuning argument.
This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. His work is not "qualitative" although he worked hard to explain his findings to non-technical readers in a non-mathematical way. Much of modern physics is based on the work he did.
And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? It tells us God is of limited intellect, he too was created, and he engages in meaningless play, doing those things he chooses to pass the day away.
The telological argument can at best tell us that those complex events around us were created by something, but it says nothing about the origins of existence, omniscient creators, or of the purpose of our existence.
Our creator could just be an average dude hitting balls into pockets for no deeper reason than he's bored, passing the time waiting for his father to pick him up for soccer practice.
I agree 100%! :100:
While information on computers may blow towards infinity at the "Omega" point in the future, the world we put information about on computers deteriorates exponentially just the same. Flora and fauna has become extinct on a global scale and the surface of the Earth has been redesigned to unprecedented level. We are born like strangers in a strange lost world, and when we look out of the classroom window to look at the butterfly outside hopping from flower to flower, instead of keeping our attention to a teacher writing out strange symbolic problems to be solved on a green school board with white squeaky chalk we're labeled ADD. As if life is about solving symbolic problems. Math is nice. Application to real life disastrous.
Right, and as already noted its completely speculative and baseless, and the fine-tuning argument in particular rests on a claim about probability that can't be sustained. The only form of the anthropic principle that is credible is the so-called "weak" anthropic principle, which is more or less just a tautology.
Attributing purpose or intentionality to the universe is a personal matter of faith concerning theology and metaphysics, it has nothing to do with any established or accepted science.
People who believe in the quantum multiverse or the anthropic principle are like people who think that if you flip a coin four times and get four heads you are more likely to get a tail than a head on the fifth flip.
Oh really? The book I reviewed is indeed not "generally accepted". And the authors were aware that they were going beyond the conservative interpretation of WAP, to propose a more radical perspective. So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. Obviously, their proposed new paradigm of cosmology is not accepted by the old guard who defend a more traditional reductive worldview. :smile:
Weak, Strong, and Final Cosmologies :
But this book is mostly concerned with the anthropogenic implications of current scientific knowledge. Which, they claim, reveals a “series of mysterious coincidences between the numerical values of the fundamental constants of Nature”. And they also contend that “our picture of the universe and its laws are influenced by an unavoidable selection effect . . . this self-selection principle . . . is usually called the Weak Anthropic Principle”(WAP). Since the WAP is essentially a tautology, it only implies that those coincidental values and laws are consistent with the emergence of Life, but doesn’t imply design or specify the humanoid species.
BothAnd Blog, post 116
Quoting Seppo
I agree that your emotional response to a brief overview of a complex scientific proposal is "a mess". But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. Theirs is a Cosmological Argument based on 20th century science instead of medieval theology. Their rationale is an attempt to scientifically explain the emergence of homo sapiens, instead of dismissing such an improbable event as a mere random accident of impersonal Fate. :cool:
Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion [WAP}. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .”
BothAnd Blog, post 116
Anthropocentric vs Cosmocentric :
"Voltaire’s contemporary, skeptical philosopher David Hume, following the new deductive & reductive scientific methodology, reasoned that “the Design Argument is unscientific”. Which is true, because it is an inductive & holistic form of reasoning, which allows inference to leap over gaps in knowledge. But then, Inference, from known to unknown, is always based on incomplete information."
BothAnd Blog, post 116
Quoting Seppo
Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. Science is not "settled" or static. Like sharks & evolution, Science must progress or die. I don't agree with all of the authors' speculations. But theirs is not a "religious" or "pseudoscience" notion. It is not presented as an argument from authority, but from evidence. And is always open to counter-evidence. In any case, your scandalized outburst is not a philosophical critique. It sounds more like a religious defense of divinely revealed Truth. :nerd:
SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
The purpose of this non-profit organization Science Is Never Settled is to remind people of what all good scientists know, science is never settled.
https://scienceisneversettled.com/
Is the science settled? No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties.
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics.
And the problem with "the technical data" is the same problem I originally pointed out wrt the fine-tuning argument; we can construct models where the physical constants can take on arbitrary values, and we can even marvel at the improbability of them taking on a certain value out of an arbitrary range, but unless/until we actually know what ranges of values these constants can take, their conclusions simply don't follow.
Quoting Gnomon
Sure I do, its called charity; it would be extremely uncharitable of me to assume that the hot mess of an argument is a good representation of their views since, as scientists, they are far less likely to make those sorts of errors than a random layperson on an internet forum is.
Quoting Gnomon
Which would be problematic for the reasons already mentioned. But I'm hesitant to take your word for what their views and arguments actually are, because professional scientists aren't likely to be as incompetent as you're making them out to be.
Quoting Gnomon
Oh really, they intend to 'dis-establish" evolution via natural selection for biological organisms on the planet Earth? :lol:
I'm afraid the problem here is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quoting Gnomon
I realize you really want me to have an "emotional reaction" or be defending "revered Scientific Truth" so you can pretend that you're a Bold Internet Truth-Speaker, but sometimes we don't get what we want and should adjust accordingly.
So, nice try, better luck next time, I guess?
Quoting Gnomon
Yep, science isn't ever settled. And cosmology is even less settled than most science. But that doesn't mean we need to uncritically accept any/all baselessly speculative proposals anyone dreams up.
I didn't say that Einstein was "incorrect", I merely noted that he was a theoretical scientist instead of an empirical researcher. So, I agree with the second part of your reply. But, the first part completely missed my point. Smells like raw sausage. Yum! :joke:
The analogy points to how we distinguish intentional patterns from random activity : by rational inference from physical evidence. If you imagine the unknown Intender as the Bible-god, that's your prerogative. But. I don't.
The authors of the book I reviewed went into great detail to show how they arrived at the conclusion of premeditated creation behind the mathematical patterns of physical reality. A court of law uses the same reasoning to decide between an accidental death and intentional murder. But such inference cannot identify the one who did the planning, unless there is circumstantial evidence, such as blood stains or powder burns on the accused.
That's why the authors provide a trail of evidence pointing to an unknown perpetrator that is not in the courtroom, hence outside the system of space-time. They didn't pretend to know the unknowable. They just projected the trail of evidence into the future, to imply that the full intention has not yet been achieved. So the Cause of the creative pattern is still at large. :nerd:
legal definition of intent :
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › intent
And you know this absolute scientific fact how? Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. That's why the first rule of both Science and Philosophy is to keep an open mind. And the second rule is to be skeptical of your own settled beliefs.
The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. We are indeed in a revolutionary era, that perhaps began with Big Bang & Relativity & Quantum & Information theories. They were stubbornly resisted by believers in the Classical Materialism of 17th & 18th century worldviews. But the aftershocks & implications of those matter-melting revolutions are still unfolding in the 21st century.
For example, Neuroscience and Information science are expanding the boundaries of the establishment belief system of earlier paradigms to include the observer in the observation. We are no longer able to ignore the effects of the observer's beliefs & intentions on the statistical foundations of Reality. That's why hypothetical (speculative) proposals --- to make sense of quantum nonsense and cosmic mysteries --- abound. For instance, Cosmic Inflation was an unproveable hypothesis, intended to avoid the implication of Big Bang as a creation event. Do you want to forbid any questioning of settled opinions, as the Amsterdam Rabbis reacted to Spinoza's "heretical" critique of the Torah? :cool:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :
His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. . . . According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. . . . This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought except under extreme circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
The power of intention has the ability to literally change the shape of our brains. This process is known as neuroplasticity - the brain's soft and interchangeable potential, stimulated through repetition of a particular behaviour.
https://www.balance-festival.com/Journal/February-2019/The-Powerful-Science-Behind-Setting-Intentions
Why is speculation forbidden in science? :
Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/27/why-is-speculation-forbidden-in-science/
Cosmic Inflation? :
A final question lies at the very borderline of science, but has recently become a subject of scientific speculation and even detailed model-building: How and why did the big bang occur? Is it possible to understand, in scientific terms, the creation of a universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/cosmic-inflation
Yes, absolutely, that's one of the most interesting parts about contemporary cosmology (imo at least); eternal inflation, conformal cyclical cosmology, cosmological natural selection. Very cool and exciting. Heck, even string/superstring/M-theory is speculative in the sense that its never made testable predictions, let alone ones that have been observationally corroborated.
But looking into speculative proposals doesn't mean believing them, or conflating them with observationally well-established proposals.
Quoting Gnomon
And that's a bridge we cross if/when we come to it, not before.
Quoting Gnomon
No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening.
No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the topic, except indirectly, by referring to a book of scientific speculation with a tentative un-traditional interpretation of cosmic evolution..
I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza, I'm not a genius or a martyr. But, I do see a resemblance of the "dogmatic traditionalists" on this thread with the defenders of the Faith who anathematized him, while avoiding his calm rational philosophical arguments. It's a good thing you can't hurl rocks over the internet. :joke:
"By the decrees of the Angels and the proclamation of the Saints, we hereby excommunicate, ban, and anathematize Baruch d’Espinoza,"
Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror"
Nope. Being critical isn't being reactionary, nor is distinguishing between speculation and empirically-established proposals. And if anything, its your interlocutors who are threatening your claims with investigation (to which you react with this over-the-top hyperbole about reactionaries).
So, sort of an amusing pot/kettle situation here.
Quoting Gnomon
You're only further proving my previous assessment with the silly comment above about reactionaries: you're quite invested in this notion of the bold truth-teller and the rigid dogmatists. The problem is that this has no basis in reality. There are no reactionaries in this thread, nor are you boldly telling any truths: you're pushing speculation and religious philosophy, and receiving criticism for it. And have, apparently, built up an entire personal mythology about the situation, and for what? Protecting your ego?
Quoting Gnomon
You literally just did, thereby adding yet further confirmation of this ridiculous delusion you've built up. Unfortunately, criticism still isn't victimization or dogmatism.
Quoting Gnomon
:lol: Imaginary outrage. Disagreement isn't outrage, any more than criticism is.
I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice.
Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.
My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into the gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe. :cool:
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"
Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan
My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein
John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/history/faculty-history/john-wheeler
IRONIC RACISM
In every single post you've made, you've explicitly told us the reactions you wish you were receiving: outrage, feeling threatened, being reactionary, and so on.
But like I said, sometimes we don't get what we want, and so you should probably adjust your rhetoric to the reactions you actually are getting.
Seppo ; this is not addressed to you personally. Because you've made it clear that you are not listening. I'm just mulling over the possible reasons for our failure to communicate. I prefer not to adjust my philosophical argumentation, to "react" with political feuds, as you suggest.
My blog has gone into great detail regarding the pros & cons of the long-running Teleological debate. However, the arguments I presented in favor of a non-theistic Teleonomy are not my own, but those of professional scientists with unorthodox views. Which I assumed would be at least given the benefit of the doubt. But the disbelief & denial were categorical, and I'm not even sure what category that is. So, I don't take the ad hominems and accusations of apostasy personally. They are directed at a some kind of faceless barbarian horde that I may not personally identify with. I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic.
The retorts don't even respond to anything specific I present, but to a general ideological category such as Atheism vs Theism. So, the nay-sayers have nothing positive to add to the conversation. They just cover their ears and say thru clenched teeth : "wrong, wrong, wrong . . .:" Obviously, I expected at least some minimal philosophical argumentation. But all I get in response is Ideological proclamations. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on the latest political divisions in philosophy & science. Maybe you can clue me in, to which outcast class you think I belong in. Perhaps a pigeonhole for either the intrinsic functions of Darwinism, or the extrinsic purposes of Theism. Or neither. :cool:
Teleology (from ?????, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and ?????, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.
Apostasy : the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
I've underlined my contribution to your list. In what sense does "I believe this is not true," represent outrage? All it means is that I think you're wrong. And for the record, I am not a believer in "random determinism." I don't think determinism is a useful way of looking at the world in most situations.
I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject.
This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. A quick summary:
We only have access to information from one universe, this one right here. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of an event when we have information from only a single sample from a population of unknown size. For that reason, we have no basis for estimating the probability of there being intelligent life in our universe or any universe. And for that reason, there is no basis or need for speculation about an anthropic principle, fine-tuning argument, or multiverse to address this issue.
In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you.
As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation.
OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:
Quoting T Clark
Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.
The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.
Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.
See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters. :wink:
PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.
Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia
Fine Tuning Odds :
[i]In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension[/i]
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/List-of-Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf
Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck
Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect
That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation. :cool:
Quoting Seppo
Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair. :nerd:
"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Seneca
Quoting Gnomon
They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. They are just about the most basic possible statistical and probabilistic judgements. Let's say I have a box. You can't see inside the box so you don't know if there's anything in it. I tell you there are somewhere between 1 and 1,000 marbles in it. I reach in and pull out a black marble and show it to you, then put it back in the box. Now, can you tell me how many black marbles there are in the box? All you can tell me is that it's at least one and no more than 1,000, assuming I'm telling the truth. If I reach back in the box and pull out a marble at random, what is the probability it will be black?
We can't tell the likelihood of pulling a black marble out of the box and we can't tell the likelihood that other possible universes will have life in them.
Heh, hardly; I'm not the one deliberately misconstruing reasoned criticism or disagreement (criticism that went without rebuttal, I might add) as "reactionary outrage". And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways.
(btw, tu quoque is a fallacy, an invalid inference, not just you thinking someone did the same thing they accused you of doing... even if you weren't mistaken about that)
Actually, this is one of my favorite philosophical arguments, as elucidated by that great American philosopher P.W. Herman.
OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".
The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.
The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart". :nerd:
The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/4-Randomness.htm
Anthropic Coincidences :
[i]The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .[/i]
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/06/anthropic-coincidences
Cosmic Jackpot :
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot
You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse? :joke:
PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.
I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere.
I don't agree with your math. Let's reduce your number from 1000 to 2 to make this clearer. You know one marble is black. You also know there is only 1 or 2 marbles in the box. What we therefore know about our box is that it has one of the following combinations:
1 black marble
2 black marbles
1 black marble and one not black marble
There are three scenarios, one guarantees black, two guarantees black, and the third guarantees a 1/2 black and 1/2 non-black. I'm going with 5/6 chance for black based on the information provided.
How that plays out with 1,000, I don't know, but the analysis could be done.
My statistical analysis could be wrong above, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a statistical analysis that can be done here.
I'd also say the likelihood of there being life on another planet approaches 100% as the number of other planets approaches infinity.
I started out with the assumption that there are a finite number of marbles in the box. I chose 1,000 for the illustration because it's a pretty big number. I didn't choose 2 because it isn't. I acknowledged we know there's at least one marble and no more than 1,000. One or all of them might be black. So, if I take another marble out of the box, the odds of it being black are anywhere between 0.001 and 1. The range of probabilities for any possible event is between 0 and 1. So, I have slightly better than no information at all about how unusual black marbles are. All I really know is that they're possible.
So... do I need a special theory to explain why the marble I pulled out of the box was black?
I was trying to keep things simple, but there could be a trillion marbles in the box. Or a google (10^100). Or a googleplex (10^100)^(10^100). Given the current theories of multiverse formation (quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation) the number would probably be very big. Or maybe not. Maybe just one.
OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.
I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward. :up: :up: :up: :grin:
PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."
I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend.
Quoting Gnomon
We have no idea of how rare life is in this universe.
Quoting Gnomon
Sorry, I don't know what this means in the context of this discussion.
Ok, ok. No more. This is fun but we're not going anywhere.
Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens. :smile:
What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6
evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/biology-general/evolutionary-trend
Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.
My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. You disagree and want to keep on examining the issue. I'm not going to convince you. You're not going to convince me. We've run through the same arguments over and over.
I don't see any point in going on.
If there was a designer, given the cirucumstances, evolution via random genetic mutation is exactly what this designer would have opted for. Mind, no mind, there's no difference.
OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.
I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.
I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.
Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning. :smile:
20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-apocalyptic-movies-on-netflix/
"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is-philosophy-important/
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers
Quoting SwampMan
I think that both versions of the teleological argument have significant flaws.
1st version:
1) What do you mean exactly by "fine-tuning data"? How does the term "fine-tuning", used normally in computer sience, apply to philosophy, and esp. in the present context? Whatever is the case, the statements involving this term can be rejected just because of the ambiguity factor.
2) "The fine-tuning data are not improbable" makes no sense grammatically: it should be either "The fine-tuning of data" or "The fine-tuned data".
3) The 1st statement, "The fine-tuning data are not improbable under theism", doesn't mean much, considering that anything is possible. But worse, there's no evident relation between such data or process and theism.
4) The 2nd statement, "The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism", is even more arbitrary..
Finally these statements are presented as facts, not as hypotheses. In the second case, they might make some sense.
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument as a whole, for all of the above reasons.
2nd version:
It's a little better, because al least it is based on the hypothesis "If God exists". However,
1) The term "God" needs first to be defined or described, e.g. It is assumed that "God" is --or the term "God" refers to-- a primordial entity, existing from the beginning of time, or something similar. So, OK, let's assume that.
2) It should not to be repeated in the next statementsl; It has to be only once, at start: "It is assumed that God exists". The reason for that is evident: besides redundancy, the existence of God has to be repeatedly assumed, which creates a kind of doubt: "But isn't it already assumed that God exists?" Anyway, we can skip this weakness too.
3) The 2nd statement, "If God exists, then he is more wonderful* than the universe", is not consequential: there's no reason why this is so. I exist before a tsunami is created, but I'm not more powerful that it.. Even if it is assumed that God has created the universe --which, BTW, is anothet missing assumption!-- it doesn't ensue that He is more powerful than it. If I create a bomb, I will be not more powerful than it: it can explode at any moment and kill me!
At this point, I have to reject this version of teleological argument too as a whole, for all of the above reasons.
So, I'm really sorry, but, independently of your conclusion on the teological argument, you don't have a case. :sad:
However, you could have a case, if you had shown that these two formulations of the teleological argument are unbased, as I did.
No. As someone who prides himself on time management, i.e. someone lazy, why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer?
Quoting Gnomon
You and I are about the same age.
If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.
It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.
Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.
And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen? :nerd:
The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue-44-october-december-2003/the-invisible-script-on-the-visible-mathematics
Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.[/i]
BotAnd Blog Glossary