Teleological Argument vs. Weak Anthropic Principle

[QED]

As an introduction to this long-overdue debate I could not sum up the position of the Teleological Argument vs. the Weak Anthropic Principle any better than this:

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is considered by many to be one of the strongest arguments for the existence of god(s). Many proponents of this argument point to the improbability of a universe existing with properties compatible with the existence of observers as evidence that the universe was designed. This fine-tuning argument argues that the probability of the universe existing with the features compatible with our existence is prohibitively low and therefore necessitate a divine designer.

In many other debates Harvey takes the Teleological Argument as evidence for God and here he denounces the WAP calling it a "conceptual scheme for the denial of the evidence for God":

This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

By "conceptual schemes that deny the evidence of God" you're probably referring to the WAP. Well, unless you have tangible evidence other than the eminent suitability of our environment to our existence, then yes, this observation is denied as evidence.

The WAP doesn't explain why something exists as it does,

Agreed -- it doesn't set out to do this. What it does tell us is that there can be circumstances where we should not be surprised at what might otherwise seem like remarkable coincidences. It is this element of surprise that is the motivation for seeing the apparent fine-tuning as a deliberate and purposeful act. Harvey's take on this is as follows:

it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different.

This sounds like an attempt to play down the importance of the WAP, which other than telling us that things could have been different, tells us that sometimes we should not be surprised at remarkable coincidences when our existence depends on them. So when he follows up with an example:

For example, in our air the percentage of nitrogen and oxygen is approximately 78/21%, but the WAP doesn't tell us why there are people that breathe air--it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different. Perhaps there could have been people who breathe a slightly different percentage of composition of air. That's not to say that the WAP explains how there could have been people had there been no air.

The real importance of the WAP in this example is that it shows that there is nothing remarkable about the fact that the ratio of gasses in the atmosphere is just right for us to breathe. I think Harvey should have emphasised this more in his example. Instead it looks as though he has chosen, once more, to stress the fact that the WAP offers no actual explanation for why there is an atmosphere. Clearly if there wasn't, we wouldn't be debating the point and that in itself might be evidence for God -- but Given that we would probably also be able to contemplate different ratios for the gasses (i.e. other ratios that could also support intelligent life) then the particular ratio we have now should not be viewed as being "tailored to us", rather it is far more probable that we are "tailored to it". Likewise, it can be argued, it is also unnecessary for the universe to have been tailored for us.

So, the WAP is not sufficient reason to deny Hoyle's insight that the big bang insinuated God's existence. In my view, since Hoyle's time the big bang has been perceived differently by the atheist because the atheist has had no choice but to perceive it differently to remain an atheist. As part of that re-perceptual process they have ignored the significance of the evidence. But, who are we really kidding here? In my opinion it's not that most atheists aren't aware of the significance of a beginning, it's that they purposely choose to not be aware of this evidence. That's enmity of God, and that's why I say that most atheists have this enmity. That's okay to have enmity for a concept if it helps them get over their puppy who was run over when they were five, but I think that enmity is a motive to ignore evidence--tons and tons of evidence.

So the question for debate is this: Does the WAP cast serious doubt on the "tons of evidence" that so convinces Harvey and others -- when our environment may just be one of many, perhaps most of which would be unsuitable for life?

[Dons]

I think we do know the total sum it is 1. Either it exists or it doesn't therefore it is 50/50. I might be off on the math.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, your math is off. Let me explain. In order to known the probability of something happening, or the chances of something happening we have to know the totality of the set shown by this common model.


Take a deck of cards—there are 52 cards, and each card is given a name with a symbol. What are the chances you would draw the Queen of hearts? 1 out of 52. If on your first draw it is not the Queen of hearts what are the chances of your next card being drawn the Queen of hearts? NO, not 1 out of 52, but rather 1 out of 51, because we have removed one card; keep going until we get to the very last card; it is a count down till we get to zero and at any time we could draw the Queen of hearts.


When it comes to the universe, and with life in it, (You are alive right, I mean I don’t want to be talking to a dead person.) we don’t know the names of the cards, we do not know the number of cardds, nor the symbols on the cards, nor how to draw.

So what do we know? NOTHING, to figure the odds of, chances of, nor the probability of anything happening other than looking 20/20 hind sight and saying YES, the universe did happen with life in it, so it was 100% chance of it happening, because it did happen.


You can not even figure 50/50, as you do not know how many universes existed before this one, if any at all. That is not 50/50, that is us being in ignorance, and ignorance never proves a things. Ignorance in not proof of anything, does not prove a god to exist or not to exist.


Go back to the deck of cards and you will see we are not ignorant, we know the total number of cards, the symbols and the name of the cards, and how to draw. We know plenty to figure the odds as limited to a deck of cards. How do you think you figure odds, probability of, and chances of something happening?


What would you think if I handed you a deck of 52 cards and I told you the chances of you drawing the Queen of hearts is 5,000 to 1. It would be pure stupidity; or how about 50/50, as that would be 50% of all the cards are the Queen of hearts, and that can not be either. You would be right to think that the deck has been stacked, and we are not playing with 52 common cards, you do not know the names of all the cards, nor the symbols on them, so you can’t figure the odds.


You take a deck of cards, that has an unknown number of cards, unknown number of symbols, unknown number of names, and you draw one card and it is the “Xbyt9” card. What was the chances of you drawing that card? 100%, because that is the card you drew.


Don

[Dons]

In many other debates Harvey takes the Teleological Argument as evidence for God and here he denounces the WAP calling it a "conceptual scheme for the denial of the evidence for God":

harvey1 wrote:
This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The problem with what Harvey 1 wrote about, “deny the evidence of god” is very simple. What does a god look like, smell like, taste like; what is its nature? What definition of this god are you going to use? Is this god all powerful, all anything? What do you know about a god?

We can throw out the contradictions, an all powerful god could create a rock too heavy for himself to lift, so the argument of “all anything”, is nothing but silliness.


How can you look for evidence of something if you do not know what you are looking for? You can’t and be serious about it, but it makes a good cartoon. Perhaps god is a cartoon?


It is said that god is beyond human understanding; then there is NO evidence for such a god. How would you know the evidence is valid if you found it, if what you are looking for is beyond your understanding?


If you or anyone would like to make a definition of a god, go for it. I’m all ears.


But I like this wording also, “atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God”. What god is he talking about? There have been over 2,000 gods that have been popular over time that cultures have believed in but are now rejected, from fertility gods to devil worship, and all the human carnage that followed, what one is the right one?


If asking valid questions and exploring a person’s god claims and finding them all to date nonsense is a “scheme” then so be it, let the person that makes the claim show the evidence, and show it unto exclusivity where all other options are ruled out.


I will even give your choice of the rules of evidence: beyond a reasonable doubt or the preponderance of the evidence. Either way you will have to define the god first.


Don