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]

Originally posted by 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.
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]

Originally posted by reprise
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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by reprise
Intelligent design my ass. Here's what I came up with. Let me know if it accurately represents your ass.

[Dylab]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

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]

Originally posted by Dylab

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:

Originally posted by 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.


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.

Originally posted by Dylab


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.

Originally posted by Dylab


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]

Originally posted by Dylab
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]

Originally posted by 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?


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. :rolleyes:


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 s**t. 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]

Originally posted by Diogenes
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]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


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]

Originally posted by Bikewer


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?

[Prospero]

Originally posted by 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?

To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite. Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope). What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.

Our universe couldn't exist in any other way than the way it does, thus the argument that it exists the way it does because there was a creator is pointless. It could only exist this way. If there was a Creator, it would have to be this way. If there wasn't a Creator, it would have to be this way.

As for the point at which it would be too improbably that a god not exist, well, if there happens to be a Rapture in the near future, then I'll be inclined to think otherwise.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Prospero
To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite. Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope). What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.
Hey, welcome to the world of Infinities!

I think the idea of "infinite universes" is interesting (I dont believe it, its just interesting to me), it leads to me to assume:
Given infinite space, infinite matter (as what would exist if we had an infinite number of surrounding universes), then logically there should be another Yahweh in another universe typing the exact same thing as I am typing right now.

Its also the same thing that says "if there is any possibility of an action occuring, than somewhere in another universe it did occur". Somewhere, in another universe there is another Yahweh who made a spelling error. Of course "possibility" is not a term that means "boundless", I would think if parallel universes existed, the matter (as well as Physics and fundamental forces) in them would be no different than in this universe.

Dont think about it too much or you'll get a bloody nose...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Prospero
As for the point at which it would be too improbably that a god not exist, well, if there happens to be a Rapture in the near future, then I'll be inclined to think otherwise.
What?!

Obviously all the Christians decided to up and hide, or perhaps they went to Mars... whatever it was, all the atheists will celebrate and unite because the planet is ours and we're gonna party like its 1999!

[homunculus]

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.

This is a variation on the so-called "anthropic principle". In its "weakest" form, it says that were the universe not exactly as it is, we would not be here to comment on it (which is a mere tautology). Some take it further, however, and conclude - from the fact conditions locally seem perfectly attuned to the existence of life - that the universe is here for our benefit!

But, even if we were to posit the existence of conscious beings of radically different chemical make-up to humans, flourishing in conditions entirely hostile to all Earthly creatures (or perhaps, in a whole other universe, completely different in every respect from our own) the argument would still work for them!

But, if ours is the "only" universe?

Hm. Well, I don't see what we could conclude from this. We might feel tempted to declare, because how the universe got here - in a form so splendidly adapted for the evolution of Earthly life - is largely inexplicable, that "God" must have created everything. But does this solve our problem? The "problem" now just shifts to a new one: the "how" (and what) of "God". An inscrutable tendered in place of an inscrutable is no explanation.

Paul.

[wollery]

Originally posted by rockoon


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?
Just two points here;
1. We're pretty sure that the Universe isn't closed, the results from the WMAP experiment show that it's flat.
2. Even if it were closed that wouldn't make it a black hole, it just means that it will eventually collapse back into the singularity from whence it came!

Originally posted by Prospero
To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite.

Errr....., No, there are several parameters in physics which if altered by only a small amount would result in the Universe being very different from the way it is. For instance, alter the strong nuclear force just a bit and you make fusion of light elements into heavier elements a lot harder, the result is that there's little or no Iron, Silicon etc., all of which are vital for life on this planet, alter the electromagnetic force and you alter the energy balances of all chemical reactions.

Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope).

A Hubble sphere is defined as a sphere whose radius is one Hubble length, a Hubble length is the distance light travels in a Hubble time which is the age of the Universe assuming that the rate of expansion of the Universe is constant over time and has the current rate of expansion. None of the above have anything to do with the Hubble telescope, except that they were all named after Edwin Hubble who discovered the expansion of the Universe by measuring the redshifts of galaxies.

What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.

Ummm, depends on what you mean by bordering, certainly not in any three dimensional sense of them being all packed neatly like boxes, and although theoretically there could be an infinite number of universes there's no evidence one way or the other, and it's almost certain that there never will be any such evidence!!

[Dorian Gray]

Sure if things were a little different, life as we know it could not exist. But what about life as we do NOT know it?

[jj]

Originally posted by 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?

Since modern work suggests that there may be many separate "universes", I'd have to suggest that the only reason you're around to make that observation is because the one you're in happened to turn out that way.

In other words IT IS SHEER LUCK, and the fact you're able to exist JUST HAPPENED.

[jj]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Sure if things were a little different, life as we know it could not exist. But what about life as we do NOT know it?

More to the point, in a different universe we wouldn't be here to observe it.

The entire argument is entirely circular, we're here because the universe happened to come out that way, this time. That's all, thanks for playing, bzzzt.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Sure if things were a little different, life as we know it could not exist. But what about life as we do NOT know it?

I think I said that..

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

[steinhenge]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I think I said that..

:)

Actually, to me this sounds a bit more "Yogi":

If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

[rockoon]

This all gravitates towards Observer Theory.

[jan]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Hey, welcome to the world of Infinities!

I think the idea of "infinite universes" is interesting

Then maybe this article could be interesting:

Scientific American: Parallel Universes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000)

[Jet Grind]

This is just a restatement of the "anthropic" cosmological argument, and argument that has been all but discredited by modern physics as well as mathematics (none the less, it still seems to enjoy wide circulation. I wonder why.). Modern physics implies a multiverse (an infinity of universes, an article on this is SciAm has already been posted). We happen to live in a 10 dimensional one (refer: http://fimenet.8m.com/hyperspace.htm). Saying that because a slight difference in the balance of forces would not have allowed our appearance God must exist is like saying someone must have rigged the seven decks of cards in spider-solitare (in such a scenario, the likelihood of any result is astronomical). In addition, our universe may be an open, self-replicating system within the multiverse. If the hypothesized "Hawking Radiation" is confirmed (refer: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html) then this will be well established. The implication of that is our particular region of the universe may simply be part of a process that's been going on for quite some time (so to speak, as we don't know whether the temporal dimensions are the same for all universii in our particular system, if they even exist). This all renders theological explanations of the universe exceedingly vacuous.

[jan]

Originally posted by 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.


It has already be explained how unlikely all these assumptions are. But for the sake of the argument, let us assume we could

-somehow prove that there can't be any simpler laws than those that rely on a certain not too low number of variables (difficult)

-show that a universe with slightly different values for these variables can't contain life

-prove that our universe is the only to exist (rather unlikely)

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


I would agree that such a situation would demand an explication. But you still would have to show that god is a valid explanation (you say the universe is unlikely, I say god is unlikely, so what? What does the assumption of the existence of god explain?), and that he is the only possible explanation. I haven't tried yet, but I guess I could come up with a dozen alternative metaphysical explanations, if I really had to.

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

You seem to say the existence of life indicates a final cause. Hm. All this eat-each-other seems rather redundant and without any higher purpose to me. But even if we discover the universe has a final cause, once again: is the assumption of the existence of god a valid explanation? The only possible?