The thought experiment using the deck of cards, is firstly about the order of the deck of cards. When one observes something that seems ordered, and given options as to how such order came to happen between design and randomness most would view design more likely. FTA proposes the that the universe is ordered for embodied, sentient beings like us to exist. — Rank Amateur
Even vary minor differences in many different criteria ( all of these are easily looked up) would make it impossible for beings like us to exist.
When facing such an ordered system FTA proposed design and the most probable hypothesis as to why.
I am not sure what the difference is between your point that there may have been no other options for all these varied criteria than there is than, it was designed. Sounds like a round about way of saying the same thing.
If it could not have been otherwise, then there's no need to posit that someone made it that way. It's just the way things are — Moliere
My point is, if the gravitational constant could only be what it is, and the weak force could only be what it is, and the strong force could only be what its, and on and on for a bunch of other constraints could only be what they are. And if any of those was even marginally different. Life could not exist. That sure sounds like they were designed for that purpose to me. — Rank Amateur
I see no difference is saying things are as the are because they were designed as such , or there was no other alternatives. You are just moving the question up one level - why are there no other alternatives.
I'm sure you'll understand why nobody would take such a proposition seriously. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you meant. Perhaps you can restate it if that's the case, so we can understand what it did mean. — andrewk
This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. — Rank Amateur
Making presumptive, and completely wrong, assumptions like that reveals the emptiness of your argument.Which is the point. You don’t have an issue with FTA because of the issue of probability, you have an issue with FTA, because you have an issue with any answer that allows for a supernatural designer. — Rank Amateur
I don't know what you mean by 'chance was more probable than design', but there are plenty of systems with simple or disorganised inputs that have complex, organised-seeming outputs. Three examples that pop to mind are Conway's game of Life, Mandelbrot sets and interference patterns. I have recently been playing around with continuous endomorphisms of the number plane and found a very simple function that, to my surprise and delight, gave a lovely flower pattern as output. I have attached it below. The alternating red and blue lines are the transformed images of concentric circles.Show me another complex system where you believe chance was more probable than design — Rank Amateur
I would be interested to hear more about this. I'm having trouble relating it to a statement that says something about the constants.because all our scientific theories have a limited domain of applicability (for fundamental physics it is mostly the energy scale; our current theories are low-energy effective field theories). — SophistiCat
One of the most famous examples of fine-tuning is the Hoyle resonance in carbon. Hoyle reasoned that if such a resonance level did not exist at just the right place, then stars would be unable to produce the carbon required by life. — Barnes (2012), p. 547
Hoyle’s prediction is not an ‘anthropic prediction’. As Smolin (2007) explains, the prediction can be formulated as follows: a.) Carbon is necessary for life. b.) There are substantial amounts of carbon in our universe. c.) If stars are to produce substantial amounts of carbon, then there must be a specific resonance level in carbon. d.) Thus, the specific resonance level in carbon exists. The conclusion does not depend in any way on the first, ‘anthropic’ premise. The argument would work just as well if the element in question were the inert gas neon, for which the first premise is (probably) false. — Barnes (2012), p. 547
In Robin Collins’ The Fine Tuning Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, he mentions that one of the objections that challenges the core version of fine-tuning argument is the “Who Designed God” objection. The version from George Smith is:
If the universe is wonderfully designed, surely God is even more wonderfully designed. He must, therefore, have had a designer even more wonderful than He is. If God did not require a designer, then there is no reason why such a relatively less wonderful thing as the universe needed one. (1980, p. 56.)
To put it in an argument form:
1. If the universe is designed by God, then God is more wonderfully designed than the universe.
2. If God is wonderfully designed, then he must have had a designer even more wonderful than He is.
3. If God does not have a designer even more wonderful than He is, then God is not more wonderfully designed than the universe.
4. God did not require a designer.
5. Then God is not more wonderfully designed than the universe. (3,4 MP)
6. It is not the case that the universe is wonderfully designed by God. (1,5 MT)
My response is only applicable to the version of “who designed the designer” objection above. I would like to object premise 1 by arguing that even God is the designer of the universe, he does not necessarily need a designer. To lay out my argument:
1. If God who designed the universe needs a designer, then either the designing of intelligent beings is an infinite set of successive events, or there is an Ultimate Designer who is not designed.
2. The designing of intelligent beings is not an infinite set of successive events.
3. It is not the case that there is an Ultimate Designer.
4. Therefore, it is not the case that God who designed the universe needs a designer.
If the designing of intelligent beings is an infinite set of successive events, then the following must be true:
God, who designed the universe has a designer;
God’s designer, who designed God, has a designer;
God’s designer’s designer, who designed God’s designer, has a designer;
…
Consider each level of designing as an event, it is impossible to traverse to the infinite many events before God’s creation and still have God be designed by His designer, and then designed the universe for us to live in. If we were to put the series of event on a time line, and use the designing of the universe as point 0 on the line, the designing of God as -1, and the designing of God’s designer as -2. If it is impossible to trace back to -∞ from 0, how is possible for a series of successive events started from -∞ to progress to 0. Therefore it is impossible for the designing of intelligent beings to be an infinite set of successive events.
If instead of an infinite set of successive events, there is an Ultimate Designer to trace back to, who is not designed and whose existence is necessary rather than contingent. Since the Ultimate Designer has designed the designer who is just relatively less wonderful than him, eventually this will progress to the designing of God, who is the designer of the universe. However, it seems like each designer that is between the Ultimate Designer and God only exist to design what is relatively less wonderful than himself. If the Ultimate Designer is able to design a designer who is relatively more wonderful than God, he is certainly able to design God, who is the designer of the Universe; then all the levels of designers in between the Ultimate Designer and God do not need to exist. In fact, the Ultimate Designer, who is not designed and whose existence is necessary rather than contingent, can just design the universe himself. Then we can simply refer to this Ultimate Designer as God and avoid the issue of who designed the designer. Therefore, even if the universe is designed by God, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God needs to be more wonderfully designed.
Thoughts? — CYU-5
The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God — Brillig
1. There are no required conditions for the Big Bang
2. If there are no required conditions for the Big Bang, then the outcome of the Big Bang is essentially random
3. If the outcome is random, it cannot be designed
4. Our existence naturally fits into the laws of the universe established by the outcome of the Big Bang
5. The existence of specific laws of the Universe is irrelevant to the design argument (theism) — Ben Hancock
The trick is in the title. It should read, "A Sophistic Argument for the Existence of God," — tim wood
It's from the same family of reasoning that proves a ham sandwich is better than God. (A ham sandwich is better than nothing,,,,) — tim wood
new information and calculations do not support the argument for a creative designer — Brillig
1. If God who designed the universe needs a designer, then either the designing of intelligent beings is an infinite set of successive events, or there is an Ultimate Designer who is not designed.
2. The designing of intelligent beings is not an infinite set of successive events.
3. It is not the case that there is an Ultimate Designer.
4. Therefore, it is not the case that God who designed the universe needs a designer. — CYU-5
The pont of the "who designed the designer argument" is not to ask who designed the designer but to simplify Occam's Razor. It is simpler to say the universe IS than to state the universe was created, — Grey Vs Gray
So it would be a contradiction to then say that God is beautiful and complex but it doesn't need a designer. — Harry Hindu
that you agree with my original point. Am I understanding you incorrectly?This question of why would persist no matter what the preconditions of the universe — Ben Hancock
I could also contend that this is only a problem if we understand the universe as something created. The Big Bang implies a beginning, not a creation. And to put on my (very inadequate) speculative astrophysicist hat, perhaps the Big Bang is not even a beginning, but simply the start of a form that we recognize. We do not know what came before.this is only a problem if we understand God as something created — Ben Hancock
Is it true that we can imagine a perfect universe? What are the specific requirements? I find it hard to imagine a concrete list of attributes that compose a perfect universe. Perhaps I could suggest a few improvements, but by no means does that imply a finite list of steps to take to reach perfection. So, in fact, I'd say we can't really imagine a perfect universe.The Universe is evidently not the greatest of all possible beings, as we can, in our own minds, imagine a Universe that is perfect. God, however, is not dependent on any other if He is the greatest of all possible beings — Ben Hancock
This is to misunderstand Ockham. His principle is that we are not to multiply causes without necessity. It is not, as you suggest, that we have no need for causes. — Dfpolis
We see the universe but we don't see god. The simplest deduction is the universe is and god is not. That does not mean there is no god, it's simply one of the methods I use to justify my opinion. — Grey Vs Gray
Yes, it strikes me as strange no-one tries to formulate a more believable religion than the ones we have currently. A Religion with a creation story rooted in arguments from physics and metaphysics. A religion that would appeal to the rational thinker.My only certainty is that god's of human invention are just that, inventions — Grey Vs Gray
I personally think a non-created universe is more likely but not a certainty. — Grey Vs Gray
Occam's point is to pick the simplest solution when given a choice — Grey Vs Gray
We see the universe but we don't see god. The simplest deduction is the universe is and god is not. — Grey Vs Gray
If god can just be, so can the universe. — Grey Vs Gray
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.