In math and physics too I suppose, it's more difficult to simplify than complexify. Thus the simpler something is, the more likely there's a powerful mind at work/behind it.

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!

Why do you dismiss the idea of God having been "designed"?

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.

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. — SwampMan

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:

The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism. — 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.

Getting the multiverse involved is meaningless and confusing. — T Clark

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))

I don't think so, and a great way of showcasing this is the following analogy (not my own):

Suppose you're going to be shot by 100 sharpshooters from ten feet away. The order to fire comes, the shots ring out, and you're still alive.

Wouldn't the fact that you exist be surprising to you? Wouldn't you conclude there was a non-accidental reason for why you're alive? — RogueAI

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.

Some thoughts.

First, what does this have to do with the multiverse? — T Clark

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.

[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.
3 hours ago

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.

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 atheis — SwampMan

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 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. — Seppo

The current thinking is that the values could have been other than what they are. They are not derivable, at present.

The current thinking is as I stated, that we have no idea whether they can take on any values other than what they are, because we've only ever observed one universe with one set of values, and do not understand what physical mechanisms determine them- they must be measured, they are not predicted by any theory. It is hypothesized, in various speculative models (theories which have not been corroborated or established), that these constants can take on other values, but this is speculative and not routed in any observations or well-established theory.

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.

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. — RogueAI

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.

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. — 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.

I am more wonderful than this post. — Cuthbert

Infinitely more wonderful! Infinitely more wonderful! :up:

I don't object to the gist of the argument presented, I just find that particular objection – "who created the creator?" – weak for implicitly conceding that the universe was "created" in the first place.

:fire: :fire:

Other objections to consider:

Dysteleogical Argument (for the "Creator" being morally unworthy of worship!)

Saying the universe is unlikely is not even wrong. — 180 Proof

... "fine-tuned" for lifelessness — 180 Proof

... nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

... nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

Evolution also fine-tunes us to fit into this world.

Evolution also fine-tunes us to fit into this world. — T Clark

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" ...

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" ... — 180 Proof

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.

The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism. — SwampMan

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

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. — Gnomon

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.

The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. — Steven Weinberg, Nobel Physicist

"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.

I'm going to say something that is obvious, but everyone likes to ignore it, because it renders their pontifications null and void. In other words, I'm going to point you at the futility of your arguments, which is probably going to be a very unpopular thought for you all:

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.

that it is "absurd" to claim to know what cannot be known here and now. — 180 Proof

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

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. — Gnomon

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?

That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. — 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.

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. — Gnomon

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.

Anyway, the philosophical concept of Teleology is [ ... ] about the rational inference of progression & purpose in evolution. — Gnomon

"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). :roll:

That evolution is progressive is hard to deny.

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:

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? — T Clark

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

IF our world was designed, then it wasn't designed very well. — Bitter Crank

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

"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). — 180 Proof

Name-dropping is not a philosophical argument. :smile:

Only for Aristotlean pre-moderns (pseudo-science peddlers like e.g. Lamarckians, Chardinites, Sheldrakeans) who fail to understand neo-Darwinian evolution. — 180 Proof

Name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

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. — T Clark

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/

And as you'll notice from the article, teleology in biology remains controversial, and even its proponents are quite explicit that they're talking about something different from teleology as e.g. Aristotle would have understood it (chiefly, in jettisoning the theological/metaphysical elements in favor of a naturalistic approach).

I was in joke-mode, so don't take what I said as an argument.

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?

And as you'll notice from the article, teleology in biology remains controversial, and even its proponents are quite explicit that they're talking about something different from teleology as e.g. Aristotle would have understood it (chiefly, in jettisoning the theological/metaphysical elements in favor of a naturalistic approach). — Seppo

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: