08 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipGiven some object, how does one determine the probability it was designed? We know that computers were designed by us. What's the intrinsic property that one can find on a computer indicating design?Conclusion: Therefore, the universe may possibly, maybe, perhaps have a designer, or not.
Concerning a teleological argument for theism -
So one should we say one answer is more probable than the other, if not conclusively proved?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipHow can you put a probability value on the unknown? We're sitting inside a box. What is outside the box, we don't know. We can imagine a few scenarios:Conclusion: Therefore, the universe may possibly, maybe, perhaps have a designer, or not.
Concerning a teleological argument for theism -
So one should we say one answer is more probable than the other, if not conclusively proved?
1) Literally nothing exists outside the box. No space and no time.
2) Nothing but a timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent mind exists outside the box.
3) Something very similar to what's inside the box exists outside the box.
4) The box has no real boundaries, so there is no "outside" the box.
How are you going to determine a probability value, when you have three scenarios with which you have no experience, and the one that you can easily comprehend leads to infinite regress?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think I see what you're saying now. If we accept "clearly everything around us has the appearance of design" as true, then yes, the argument becomes circular. This is why I want a clear definition of "appearance of design" that can be tested for. I doubt such a definition is possible, but who knows?
What if a premise is dependent on the conclusion?
[b]But if we do have a clear definition:
1) a trait found in all objects for which we know there is a designer,
2) not found in any of the objects for which we know there is no designer,
3) that logically can't be part of a non-designed object, and
4) that also translates to the universe itself (s ...[text shortened]... , or based on observation. I am saying that the observational claim makes the argument circular.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Dec 14
5 edits
Originally posted by C Hess
How can you put a probability value on the unknown? We're sitting inside a box. What is outside the box, we don't know. We can imagine a few scenarios:
1) Literally nothing exists outside the box. No space and no time.
2) Nothing but a timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent mind exists outside the box.
3) Something very similar to what's inside the box exists outside the box.
4) The box has no real boundaries, so there is no "outside" the box.
How are you going to determine a probability value, when you have three scenarios with which you have no experience, and the one that you can easily comprehend leads to infinite regress?
The specific probability value as a specific percentage, you may not be able to calculate. That one situation is more likely generally, I think, you are warranted to believe.
If something exists we may assume that something has always existed.
This is because it is more likely that existence does not come about from non-existence.
At the present time I think I go along with the belief that if anything exists then something must have existed eternally.
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessOk. Creationism aside, and, by the way, I take all our debates seriously. That's why I get all bent out of shape when folks poke fun at me. I guess my skin ain't so thick after all. 😉
That's exactly the problem I'm presenting for premise 1. I've never been told what makes an object appear to be designed. But thinking about the problem, I can only conclude that for something to appear designed such that it must have a designer, there should be properties about the object that cannot be produced through a mindless, mechanical process. What t ...[text shortened]... ed YEC to be a failed position, but I'm curious about creationism that accepts observed reality.
If I'm reading you right you need or want to know how it is that while the stuff of the universe has the appearance of design, how does that mean, or how is that evidence of an intelligent designer?
Do I have that right so far?
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwI may be wrong, but I think he is asking 'what is the appearance of design'?
If I'm reading you right you need or want to know how it is that while the stuff of the universe has the appearance of design, how does that mean, or how is that evidence of an intelligent designer?
Do I have that right so far?
I say that the universe does not have the appearance of design, many creationists say that it does. But if you actually question them, they cannot put it into words.
In another thread RJ shot himself in the foot by claiming that a reasonable human will think a house is designed, but then he defined 'house' as being something known to be designed.
In this thread dasa tried to leave it up to a child's intuition because he was himself incapable of putting into words what constitutes the appearance of design.
I am saying that if you are seeing design in the universe as a whole, you have made the conclusion prior to the premises. ie you see design not because of an inherent property of the universe but because you think it is designed.
If you took a neutral stance and said you don't know whether or not the universe is designed. Then you look around you and look at all the things you know are designed, and all the things that are not and then looked for common properties, then the universe would stick out like a saw thumb as being a total unknown. If your biggest statistic is unknown, then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipWhat I find most amusing about this whole thought experiment is that the more you think about it, the weirder it gets. Of all four scenarios I presented (and I'm sure one could come up with more), only one makes sense from an eternity perspective, and that's the one that leads to infitie regress. Two of them assumes no space-time outside the universe. If there's no space-time, you can't have eternity. Anything that exists in no space-time is automatically eternal since it covers all of 0 time. That means that the universe itself must be "eternal" in those scenarios, since there's no point in "time" where the universe could begin. And one scenario posits that indeed there is no boundary to speak of for the universe, which would mean that space is eternal, but time is finite. Now, I'm sure physics have a lot to say about this, but I sure can't grasp which one is more likely than any other. Are you going to tell me that in this weirdness, your intuitions will guide you to the most probable scenario?How can you put a probability value on the unknown? We're sitting inside a box. What is outside the box, we don't know. We can imagine a few scenarios:
[quote]
1) Literally nothing exists outside the box. No space and no time.
2) Nothing but a timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent mind exists outside the box.
3) Somethin ...[text shortened]... belief that if anything exists then something must have existed eternally.
I for one tend to think that whatever's going on outside the universe is so weird that I can't even begin to imagine it.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by josephwAlmost. I'm questioning the idea of "appearance of design". I'm asking how we can objectively determine what gives the "appearance of design" such that we can conclude a "designer" produced it. Some standard must exist by which we can determine that this object was designed by an intelligent being, and that object took its form through purely natural forces. But the problem is even bigger than that, because once we have such a standard, and it's been tested, we don't know if it applies to the universe itself, since the universe may exist in a reality quite different from our own.
Ok. Creationism aside, and, by the way, I take all our debates seriously. That's why I get all bent out of shape when folks poke fun at me. I guess my skin ain't so thick after all. 😉
If I'm reading you right you need or want to know how it is that while the stuff of the universe has the appearance of design, how does that mean, or how is that evidence of an intelligent designer?
Do I have that right so far?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought that was what you were saying. I'm slow sometimes. Well, who am I kidding, most of the time 😵
I am saying that if you are seeing design in the universe as a whole, you have made the conclusion prior to the premises. ie you see design not because of an inherent property of the universe but because you think it is designed.
If you took a neutral stance and said you don't know whether or not the universe is designed. Then you look around you and loo ...[text shortened]... al unknown. If your biggest statistic is unknown, then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions.
Good point. I'm starting to realise that this is true.
08 Dec 14
From wiki:
Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12][13]
N, the ratio of the strengths of electromagnetism to that of gravity for charged subatomic particles, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]
Epsilon (&epsilon😉, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]
Omega (&Omega😉, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[13]
Lambda (&lambda😉 is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[13]
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[13]
D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
I find this line of argument quite persuasive though it doesn't lead me to a belief in an anthropomorphic God. Many alternative universes, MetaRules or a conscious universe (perhaps recycling itself with contraction and expansion i.e. Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches in a reoccurring pattern) seem to be logically consistent with these observed facts although you can always rely on a "lottery" argument.
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadChildren waste their time all day long with childish endeavours, and arguments against design are time wasting endeavours because if you look North, South, East or West you shall observe design. (its everywhere)
Because we are not children, and we prefer to base our conclusions on something more solid than childish delusions.
However the best use of time is to use your intelligence to come up with the qualities or principle that would make a religion true, as against a religion that is false.
I am inviting you and the others to do a little spiritual research to see if you can find the qualities and principles that make a religion true or false.(they are already established and have been established for eternity)
The principles and qualities for true religion are already established by the Vedic Authority and are found in the Nectar of Devotion (author Srila Prabhupada) and the Bhagavad Gita As It Is. (author Srila Prabhupada) and also in the Srimad Bhagavatam ( author Srila Prabhupada)
Spiritual knowledge is eternal and never changes with time.
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course we can't know what the exact probability of the physical laws that exist in the universe arising by chance are. But the fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different universe is quite interesting at the least. Throwing up your arms and saying "Well who knows?" doesn't seem to be very intellectually satisfying; one doesn't have to claim absolute knowledge but not "drawing any conclusions" seems a rather vapid response to such facts.
I may be wrong, but I think he is asking 'what is the appearance of design'?
I say that the universe does not have the appearance of design, many creationists say that it does. But if you actually question them, they cannot put it into words.
In another thread RJ shot himself in the foot by claiming that a reasonable human will think a house is design ...[text shortened]... al unknown. If your biggest statistic is unknown, then you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Dec 14
Originally posted by C HessMost if not all arguments from design reduce to arguments from incredulity; that is, an argument based on the improbability verging on impossibility of certain things occurring without an intelligent designer.
Almost. I'm questioning the idea of "appearance of design". I'm asking how we can objectively determine what gives the "appearance of design" such that we can conclude a "designer" produced it. Some standard must exist by which we can determine that this object was designed by an intelligent being, and that object took its form through purely natural forces. ...[text shortened]... to the universe itself, since the universe may exist in a reality quite different from our own.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
From the table of contents of that site, one can glean that the "attribute" of an object that screams "I was designed", firstly, would be its complexity, its being an irreducibly complex living system, obviously encoding biological information (from where?) in its DNA, and secondly, the degree to which a living object's environment is "fine tuned" for that object to have life (this being an attribute of the environment, not the object). Non-mathematical probability arguments (which are arguments from incredulity) are based on these attributes.
These boil down to two "appearances:" the object manifestly encodes information (from where?) for the formation of irreducibly complex components, that is, that could not develop naturally from simpler components, and the environment of the object is manifestly fine tuned for that object to thrive, once it has been formed.
This seems to lead to contradiction: the natural environment is fine tuned enough for the object to thrive, but is not fine tuned enough for the object to come to exist such as it is without intelligent design. Old-earth creationists will yield the point that the laws of nature and starting environment were designed such that abiogenesis and evolution can occur, YEC's won't yield this point.
But at any rate, the two "appearances" mentioned above are what is pointed to as sufficient evidence of ID.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Dec 14
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#H3
Of course we can't know what the exact probability of the physical laws that exist in the universe arising by chance are. But the fact that even minute differences in them would lead to a far different universe is quite interesting at the least. Throwing up your arms and saying "Well who knows?" doesn't seem to be very intellectually satisfying; one does ...[text shortened]... bsolute knowledge but not "drawing any conclusions" seems a rather vapid response to such facts.
Extended quote from source cited above:
quote:
...one might be tempted to argue that there is one context in which scientists employ the design inference without already having sufficient reason to think the right sort of intelligent agency exists. As is well-known, researchers monitor radio transmissions for patterns that would support a design inference that such transmissions are sent by intelligent beings. For example, it would be reasonable to infer that some intelligent extraterrestrial beings were responsible for a transmission of discrete signals and pauses that effectively enumerated the prime numbers from 2 to 101. In this case, the intelligibility of the pattern, together with the improbability of its occurring randomly, seems to justify the inference that the transmission sequence is the result of intelligent design.
As it turns out, we are already justified in thinking that the right sort of intelligent beings exist even in this case. We already know, after all, that we exist and have the right sort of motivations and abilities to bring about such transmissions because we send them into space hoping that some other life form will detect our existence. While our existence in the universe—and this is crucial—does not, by itself, justify thinking that there are other intelligent life forms in the universe, it does justify thinking that the probability that there are such life forms is higher than the astronomically small probability (1 in 2^1136 to be precise) that a sequence of discrete radio signals and pauses that enumerates the prime numbers from 2 to 101 is the result of chance. Thus, we would be justified in inferring design as the explanation of such a sequence on the strength of three facts: (1) the probability of such a chance occurrence is 1 in 2^1136; (2) there exist intelligent beings in the universe capable of bringing about such an occurrence; and (3) the sequence of discrete signals and pauses has a special significance to intelligent beings. In particular, (2) and (3) tell us that the probability that design explains such an occurrence is significantly higher than 1 in 2^1136—though it is not clear exactly what the probability is.
Insofar as the legitimate application of design inferences presupposes that we have antecedent reason to believe the right kind of intelligent being exists, they can enable us to distinguish what such beings do from what merely happens. If we already know, for example, that there exist beings capable of rigging a lottery, then design inferences can enable us to distinguish lottery results that merely happen from lottery results that are deliberately brought about by such agents. Similarly, if we already have adequate reason to believe that God exists, then design inferences can enable us to distinguish features of the world that merely happen from features of the world that are deliberately brought about by the agency of God. Indeed, to the extent that we are antecedently justified in believing that God exists, it is obviously more reasonable to believe that God deliberately structured the universe to have the fine-tuned properties than it is to believe that somehow this occurred by chance.
If this is correct, then design inferences simply cannot do the job they are asked to do in design arguments for God's existence. Insofar as they presuppose that we already know the right kind of intelligent being exists, they cannot stand alone as a justification for believing that God exists. It is the very existence of the right kind of intelligent being that is at issue in the dispute over whether God exists. While design inferences have a variety of scientifically legitimate uses, they cannot stand alone as arguments for God's existence.
unquote