Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Teleological Argument

Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:36:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hello. As many of you know I am a theist; however, I feel that the either the teleological argument is weak, or my understanding of it is. Therefore I challenge all theists to justify it. I am hoping that in the thread we can have rational discussions and not simply throw out every logical fallacy we have ever heard of whether or not it applies to the teleological argument (I'm looking at you, Rational_Thinker and Fool). I'm willing to reject a prominent argument for the existence of a God on a rational basis, so I hope that the atheists will remain civilized as well. That is not to say that I do not expect the same from the theists. I don't want to hear warrantless assertions in support of the teleological argument. With that said, this is the teleological argument as I have come to understand it:

1. The character of our universe is determined by physical laws and constants.
2. If these laws and constants had been different, life would probably not have arisen.
3. The laws and constants which led to this suitability for life must have been determined by either physical necessity, chance or design.
4. The laws and constants have not been determined by physical necessity.
5. The laws and constants have not been determined by chance.
6. Therefore our universe was designed.

Here are my two primary objections. The first is rather simplistic and should be predictable. Premise 5, to the extent of my knowledge, has been justified by stating that the scientific probability of a finely tuned universe by chance is so minuscule that to claim chance be the cause of our universe is simply absurd. I ask, why? Isn't the chance of winning the lottery rather minuscule as well? Is it equally absurd to state that nobody wins the lottery by chance, but instead somebody consciously determines the winners.

I apologize if this objection is answered thoroughly in apologetic literature, for I have spent my time thus far reading about modality and cosmological arguments.

My second objection is to the second premise. I concede the validity of this premise insofar as we are talking about life as we know it. I do not see why life could not exist that, for instance, did not require proper hydration to survive, or an external source of heat. Sure, all of the forms of life that we know of share these qualities, but it does not follow that they must. Perhaps the idea is better argued by Douglas Adams,

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging onto the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to watch out for.


You see, just as a puddle would misguidedly believe that the hole it rests in was designed to have it in it, I believe that humans may be wrong in claiming that the universe was designed to have them in it. Indeed, it seems certain that life as we know it could only exist in a universe as finely tuned as this one and in the manner that this one has been tuned, but I hold that there is no reason to doubt that other forms of life could have existed in a universe that had been tuned differently.

With that, I open the floor for discussion.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 2:07:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bump.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 8:24:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with P2 is we don't know if the constants could have been different, or can be different, so the argument is baseless.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

We see randomly designed nature all the time in rainbows, snow flakes, and constellations that are certainly not purposefully caused.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 4:40:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:38:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"



We see randomly designed nature all the time in rainbows, snow flakes, and constellations that are certainly not purposefully caused.

In otherwords, it is an emergence. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 5:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

Intelligence is not needed to produce complexity and intricate patterns that repeat at all, and arguing over the semantics revolving around the word "design" isn't going to get you an intelligent designer.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 8:50:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

The term "Designer" specifically relates to humans. Were speaking in terms of analogy, and yes, nature is the designer.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:10:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mestari: Hello. As many of you know I am a theist; however, I feel that the either the teleological argument is weak, or my understanding of it is. Therefore I challenge all theists to justify it.

Hegel: "One bold assertion is as Good as the next."

Mestari: I am hoping that in the thread we can have rational discussions and not simply throw out every logical fallacy we have ever heard of whether or not it applies to the teleological argument (I'm looking at you, Rational_Thinker and Fool).

Socrates: "Clever of you, [Mestri] clever enough to know what would happen if you were to ask someone what twelve is and then give him warning before he answered, ‘now look here!! don't go telling us that twelve is twice six, or three times four, or six time two, or four times three, I am not going to take any nonsense of that sort from you.'" Plato's The Republic


Mestari:
I'm willing to reject a prominent argument for the existence of a God on a rational basis, so I hope that the atheists will remain civilized as well.

Bertrand Russell: There is no rational supporting argument, for it to need rejection. ‘If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.' Bertrand Russell

5. The laws and constants have not been determined by chance.

Mestari: Premise 5, to the extent of my knowledge, has been justified by stating that the scientific probability of a finely tuned universe by chance is so minuscule that to claim chance be the cause of our universe is simply absurd. I ask, why? Isn't the chance of winning the lottery rather minuscule as well? Is it equally absurd to state that nobody wins the lottery by chance, but instead somebody consciously determines the winners.

Alfred Jules Ayer: "If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstratively, certain premises must be certain; for, as the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in the premises, any uncertainty there may be about the truth of the premises is necessarily shared by it. But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable. It is only a priori propositions that are logically certain. But we cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition. However if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. But in fact this is not possible. It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations." Alfred Jules Ayer
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:16:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 4:38:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:00:36 AM, tkubok wrote:
Another problem here is the conclusion. This does not point to God, it could be, for example, nature. Nature designs things all the time, and we do not have to go to God or intelligence to suppose that crystals or snowflakes are designed by them, they are designed by nature.

I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"



We see randomly designed nature all the time in rainbows, snow flakes, and constellations that are certainly not purposefully caused.

How are they "certainly" not purposefully designed? Sounds like begging the question to me. I'm asking how nature, a non-intelligent process, can produce order.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:20:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.

Let me ask another way. If I have ten sticks and I throw them all on the ground, what are the chances I'd get a perfect square from the sticks? Or what are the chances they'd spell the word "hello"? Why should I accept that a natural process can create order?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:23:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, Fool on the Hill, your "quote" of me in your sig is misleading. The reason I didn't respond is not because I have no proof, I didn't respond because I didn't read your response to my comment.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:24:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:20:12 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.

Let me ask another way. If I have ten sticks and I throw them all on the ground, what are the chances I'd get a perfect square from the sticks? Or what are the chances they'd spell the word "hello"? Why should I accept that a natural process can create order?

"It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations." Alfred Jules Ayer
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:30:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
KeytarHero:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:35:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.

Gravity produces order, it is natural and not intelligent. Natural Selection is natural and non-intelligent, and it produces order. The chemical reactions that take place in clouds produce the order and patterns you see in snow flakes, certainly there aren't sentient beings making them in the clouds now are they? This would be absurd, and I could go on forever with examples. Assuming that just because intelligence can create order, that everything else that is ordered must originate from intelligence is fallacious.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:36:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally, I'm not a fan of the fine-tuning argument. I much prefer a teleological argument along the lines of Swinburne's or Aquinas's 5th way.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:37:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: its amazing how long two groups of people can argue without defining the most important word in question.. Intellegent. LET ALONE SUPERNATURAL INTELLEGENCE.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:44:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:37:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its amazing how long two groups of people can argue without defining the most important word in question.. Intellegent. LET ALONE SUPERNATURAL INTELLEGENCE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:20:12 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.

Let me ask another way. If I have ten sticks and I throw them all on the ground, what are the chances I'd get a perfect square from the sticks? Or what are the chances they'd spell the word "hello"? Why should I accept that a natural process can create order?

How exactly are you equating forces and mechanisms in nature with throwing sticks on the ground? You act like like anything non-intelligent has to be 100% random or something, this means you clearly do not understand the implications of any kind of science unfortuntely. If a pale of pure water is subject to below zero temperature and nothing else, toxic gas will not randomly be produced, it will be solid ice every time even including patterns in the ice formations. This is how nature produces order all around us, to think nature can't produce order is absolutely outrageous.

You should accept that natural processes produce order because it's the only logical conclusion based on observation.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:27:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:36:07 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Personally, I'm not a fan of the fine-tuning argument. I much prefer a teleological argument along the lines of Swinburne's or Aquinas's 5th way.

Could you please elaborate?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, so I've read up on everybody's arguments and have for the most part only seen rejections. The first question seems to be, "Why must we attribute design to a personal creator?" While I still maintain that the Teleological argument is not sound, this objection does not appear to be valid to me. It seems that people have claimed that evolution by natural selection proves design by nature. I would claim that this shows causation due to physical necessity rather than design. The theory of natural selection states that the most fit creatures will survive and the least fit will die. I do not see this being by design at all. Surely we can agree that nature causes change, but it in no way designs that change, but forces it via physical necessity.

Another objection stating that nature can design the universe is the claim that rainbows, snowflakes, and other natural occurrences are clearly designed. Microsuck seems to admit, however, that they appear to be "randomly designed." I would claim that design cannot be random and randomness must be attributed to chance. If he were to rebut this by stating that their uniqueness demands design I would claim that uniqueness has nothing to do with design at all, and can again be attributed to chance.

Indeed, it seems that nature cannot account for a designed universe. However, I maintain my original position that one cannot prove the universe to be designed and cite my argument about a puddle's view of the world and how his hole was created specifically for him. It was clearly not, he was simply compatible with the hole, yet from his view the only answer was design rather than physical necessity or chance.

I think these responses also answer Rational_Thinker's question about why natural processes work in an ordered fashion. I would state that it is due to physical necessity rather than design. This is the same problem I have with the Teleological Argument to begin with: We can't simply state that something is designed by looking at it in retrospect and deeming it too complex for any other explanation to hold a grain of truth.

Finally, Contradiction postulates alternative versions of the Teleological Argument. I eagerly await his contribution.

If I have missed any arguments, I apologize. And yes, I am specifically not responding to The Fool and she has done exactly what I asked her not to in the OP. I thank Rational_Thinker, alternatively, for providing excellent contributions to the discussion and clearly proving my past beliefs about him wrong.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 10:40:03 PM, Mestari wrote:
Okay, so I've read up on everybody's arguments and have for the most part only seen rejections. The first question seems to be, "Why must we attribute design to a personal creator?" While I still maintain that the Teleological argument is not sound, this objection does not appear to be valid to me. It seems that people have claimed that evolution by natural selection proves design by nature. I would claim that this shows causation due to physical necessity rather than design. The theory of natural selection states that the most fit creatures will survive and the least fit will die. I do not see this being by design at all. Surely we can agree that nature causes change, but it in no way designs that change, but forces it via physical necessity.

Another objection stating that nature can design the universe is the claim that rainbows, snowflakes, and other natural occurrences are clearly designed. Microsuck seems to admit, however, that they appear to be "randomly designed." I would claim that design cannot be random and randomness must be attributed to chance. If he were to rebut this by stating that their uniqueness demands design I would claim that uniqueness has nothing to do with design at all, and can again be attributed to chance.

Indeed, it seems that nature cannot account for a designed universe. However, I maintain my original position that one cannot prove the universe to be designed and cite my argument about a puddle's view of the world and how his hole was created specifically for him. It was clearly not, he was simply compatible with the hole, yet from his view the only answer was design rather than physical necessity or chance.

I think these responses also answer Rational_Thinker's question about why natural processes work in an ordered fashion. I would state that it is due to physical necessity rather than design. This is the same problem I have with the Teleological Argument to begin with: We can't simply state that something is designed by looking at it in retrospect and deeming it too complex for any other explanation to hold a grain of truth.

Finally, Contradiction postulates alternative versions of the Teleological Argument. I eagerly await his contribution.

If I have missed any arguments, I apologize. And yes, I am specifically not responding to The Fool and she has done exactly what I asked her not to in the OP. I thank Rational_Thinker, alternatively, for providing excellent contributions to the discussion and clearly proving my past beliefs about him wrong.

The Fool: and which part was that again. !!!??? <(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:54:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 10:53:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/14/2012 10:40:03 PM, Mestari wrote:
Okay, so I've read up on everybody's arguments and have for the most part only seen rejections. The first question seems to be, "Why must we attribute design to a personal creator?" While I still maintain that the Teleological argument is not sound, this objection does not appear to be valid to me. It seems that people have claimed that evolution by natural selection proves design by nature. I would claim that this shows causation due to physical necessity rather than design. The theory of natural selection states that the most fit creatures will survive and the least fit will die. I do not see this being by design at all. Surely we can agree that nature causes change, but it in no way designs that change, but forces it via physical necessity.

Another objection stating that nature can design the universe is the claim that rainbows, snowflakes, and other natural occurrences are clearly designed. Microsuck seems to admit, however, that they appear to be "randomly designed." I would claim that design cannot be random and randomness must be attributed to chance. If he were to rebut this by stating that their uniqueness demands design I would claim that uniqueness has nothing to do with design at all, and can again be attributed to chance.

Indeed, it seems that nature cannot account for a designed universe. However, I maintain my original position that one cannot prove the universe to be designed and cite my argument about a puddle's view of the world and how his hole was created specifically for him. It was clearly not, he was simply compatible with the hole, yet from his view the only answer was design rather than physical necessity or chance.

I think these responses also answer Rational_Thinker's question about why natural processes work in an ordered fashion. I would state that it is due to physical necessity rather than design. This is the same problem I have with the Teleological Argument to begin with: We can't simply state that something is designed by looking at it in retrospect and deeming it too complex for any other explanation to hold a grain of truth.

Finally, Contradiction postulates alternative versions of the Teleological Argument. I eagerly await his contribution.

If I have missed any arguments, I apologize. And yes, I am specifically not responding to The Fool and she has done exactly what I asked her not to in the OP. I thank Rational_Thinker, alternatively, for providing excellent contributions to the discussion and clearly proving my past beliefs about him wrong.

The Fool: and which part was that again. !!!??? <(8D)

Mestari:-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 11:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mestari: I am hoping that in the thread we can have rational discussions and not simply throw out every logical fallacy we have ever heard of whether or not it applies to the teleological argument (I'm looking at you, Rational_Thinker and Fool).

Socrates: "Clever of you, [Mestri] clever enough to know what would happen if you were to ask someone what twelve is and then give him warning before he answered, ‘now look here!! don't go telling us that twelve is twice six, or three times four, or six time two, or four times three, I am not going to take any nonsense of that sort from you.'" Plato's The Republic
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 11:30:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 10:27:27 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:36:07 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Personally, I'm not a fan of the fine-tuning argument. I much prefer a teleological argument along the lines of Swinburne's or Aquinas's 5th way.

Could you please elaborate?

Sure. Here's Swinburne's argument: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...

His argument is based on the mere presence of laws of nature and regularities -- not how fine-tuned they are.

Aquinas's argument is based off the mere existence of goal-directedness. There isn't really good online material on it (other than Aquinas's original writings), but check these out: http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk..., http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 12:19:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 9:24:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:20:12 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:17:14 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/14/2012 9:12:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/14/2012 4:35:21 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm curious. How can nature, a non-intelligent process, design things? Doesn't "design" point to a "designer?"

You've never heard of evolution by natural selection?

Of course I have. I'm asking for justification that a natural, non-intelligent process, can create order.

Let me ask another way. If I have ten sticks and I throw them all on the ground, what are the chances I'd get a perfect square from the sticks? Or what are the chances they'd spell the word "hello"? Why should I accept that a natural process can create order?

"It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations." Alfred Jules Ayer

This doesn't answer my question. At all.