Argument from design

[Dylab]

What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?

 

[Yahweh]

What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

We are already aware of many of the "variables" of the universe. This includes the 4 Fundamental Forces of matter (strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity). I could say that if any of these "variables" were changed (for instance gravity was 10 times more intense or 10 times weaker), then life the universe and everything would be entirely different than it is today (if capable of sustaining existance at all).

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

When the clouds form into a shape of a head that begins devouring cities...

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?

I dont understand the question.

 

[Tez]

Unfortunately your hypothetical cannot be logically constructed - for example, the fact that the universe is (hypothetically) parameterised by variables implies the possibility of other universes - namely those for which different values of the variables apply. We could not prove the non-existence of these other universes, since by definition the universe (with its hypothetical precisely tuned parameters) is the sum total of all that we can "prove" exists. [Those sentences do actually make sense, I promise!]

Be that as it may, I am capable of entertaining the possibility of some miraculous discovery which overwhelmingly suggests that intelligence beyond that of humans has intervened in the dynamics of the universe, perhaps in its creation. Personally I'd be intrigued, in fact delighted - nothing better than having your whole worldview overturned (before you die!) However would I immediately run off to the synogogue, or similar? Nope - I'd first ask for some evidence as to the particular predelictions of this newfound deity...

 

[reprise]

Intelligent design my ass.

How intelligent is it to design a species in your own image and give it such a limited capacity for survival? Human beings can only survive within a very narrow range of variables on this planet, let alone elsewhere in the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. Offhand, I can't think of any species on this planet which is capable of surviving under all the conditions found on this planet, let alone elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Yahweh]

Intelligent design my ass.

Succintness equals Impact, I like it!

 

[Dylab]

Ok I'm having trouble explaining myself so I will start as simple as possible.

Assuming the conditions that I stated, which I would assume would be idea for the argument from design, how would it imply a god?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ok I'm having trouble explaining myself so I will start as simple as possible.

Assuming the conditions that I stated, which I would assume would be idea for the argument from design, how would it imply a god?

It wouldn't.

The bottom line is that this argument is utterly empty, because it is based on a grievous misunderstanding. Specifically, that assessments of likelihood made after the fact are meaningful.

Suppose I had you thoroughly shuffle a deck of cards, and then had you tell me what order the cards are in.

Suppose then I said "Look, you must be lying or God must have intervened. Because the odds of the cards being in exactly that order are less than one in ::deep breath:: 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."

Do you see what mistake I would have made?

You can't judge the odds of intelligent life arising, if the only times when there is anyone to do the judging are the times when intelligent life has already arisen.

 

[arcticpenguin]

What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life.

How would they do this? Would they construct a whole series of universes using different values of the variables? Oops, they can't do this because of the condition in your next sentence:

These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?

What if pigs could fly?

 

[Samus]

Intelligent design my ass.

Here's what I came up with. Let me know if it accurately represents your ass.

 

[Dylab]

Re: Re: Argument from design

How would they do this? Would they construct a whole series of universes using different values of the variables? Oops, they can't do this because of the condition in your next sentence:


What if pigs could fly?

Arghh I'm just trying to understand one aspect of the argument for design. Is there a reason why you can't just pretend that it is concievable possible?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Re: Re: Re: Argument from design

Arghh I'm just trying to understand one aspect of the argument for design. Is there a reason why you can't just pretend that it is concievable possible?

Because I'm rational.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Let's look at this piece by piece:

What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life.

The simple laws of the universe do rely on a certain number of variables. This number might be quite large and unknown, but it is certainly finite. It is already true that if these were changed, it would probably not produce life. However, the fact that life was produced makes the occurence of life very probable. 100%, in fact. You cannot assign a probability to something that has already happened.

These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

This is the same as proving that no other universes exist, which is the same as proving that God does not exist. It is impossible. The chance is just as likely that the scientists do not have the ability to observe other universes.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?

This always comes down to Occam's Razor. Once you state that the universe is too improbable to exist and therefore must have been designed, then you have to move on to what is the origin of the designer? The designer would have to be more complex than the universe itself in order to have the ability to design and create a universe.

So introducing a creator makes the probability even lower.

There is no point at which one could automatically imply the existence of a god.

 

[Michael Redman]

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Like Kevin (& Wile, making my post redundant) said, the probability of the universe existing as it does is 100% (should that be expressed as "1:1"?), just as is the probability of the occurrence of any event that has already happened.

Don't get frustrated that you're getting no help in understanding the ID argument. The ID argument doesn't make sense. It's based on the assumption that it's true.

 

[Bikewer]

The arguments for ID are often presented as Theories, much like Creationism is presented as a theory.

At present, with no evidence that there can be any variables, it's at best metaphysical speculation.

And how could you possibly prove only one universe existed?

The physicists/cosmologists tell us there's no reason not to think that there may be an essentially infinite number of universes, both in space (no one has any idea of the extent of "The Void") or in history (how long is infinity?)
Our universe may be a singular event, or just one of a series, or one of many co-existing at the same time.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

OK. Let's say that a uniquely self-existent being willed the universe into existence. It's consistent with the Big Bang theory, and I can't prove it's not so.

But you speak of probability.

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?

I notice that you say "a god" not "God", so we're not necessarily talking about the Big Guy who loves us and treats us like ◊◊◊◊. So what are we talking about? A "god" defined as a final cause, with no other implied characteristics?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

At the risk of sounding like Yogi Berra..

" If things were different, they'd be different .."

And we would be talking about those things, just as rationally as we talk about how things are, as we observe them today..

And to paraphrase somewhat, what I think Reprise alluded to.. ( ... and got me thinking about this.. )

A Bentley, a Rolex and a wafer of silicon with millions of transistors in it are examples of intelligent design; not the raw materials from which they were assembled...

And certainly not the fragile creatures who took millions of years to reach the state that enabled them to construct such devices..

Intelligent design would have produced such creatures out of the box.. Instead, we get a couple of idiots named ' Adam' & ' Eve '......

 

[Dancing David]

If you read up on string theory and inflation, you will find that they both accomodate that there could be some variability in the level of the forces of nature. But given the parameters involved, even with a narrow window for sucsess there could be many universe where life has evolved.

This is essentialy the argument of the ID people and some Immaterial Idealists as well.

1. Life exists, so it must have been designed.
2. My awareness is cool, so it must be the heigth of creation.

It is an anthropocentric argumenet, that doesn't even ask questions like;
What if plants are cooler than we are?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Intelligent design would have produced such creatures out of the box.. Instead, we get a couple of idiots named ' Adam' & ' Eve '......

I think you're being a bit unfair. "Argument from design" isn't the same as so-called "intelligent design".

The thread starter talked about "a god" devising the laws of physics. That could just as easily be from a pagan philosopher as from the Bible.

"Intelligent design" on the other hand, is just Biblical creationism through the back door.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you're being a bit unfair. "Argument from design" isn't the same as so-called "intelligent design".

The thread starter talked about "a god" devising the laws of physics. That could just as easily be from a pagan philosopher as from the Bible.

"Intelligent design" on the other hand, is just Biblical creationism through the back door.

I see I read more into the topic than was intended.. Thanks for pointing it out..

 

[rockoon]

And how could you possibly prove only one universe existed?

Even more daring a question:

If we find the universe is closed (making it a black hole) how could we prove there is nothing outside the event horizon?