Sunday, 06 November 2005
THEISTIC BLOG REVIEW
For: Mr. Jargon
About: A friend of his’ 12 page blog concerning his personal justification for theism
My mission: poke holes
Part: 3 of 15
“2.2. Argument 2: The Inductive Teleological Argument”
If your argument for justifying believing God exists hinges on an inductive one…that right there tells you that you don’t have a real relationship with this deity.
“Inductive logic is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it.”
I’m not saying no inductive logic should apply at all, there’d just have to be something better than that or there is no justification other than you just want it to be true. In other words, there shouldn’t be room for inductive atheistic arguments for you to have a serious relationship with deity. In my opinion, if theism doesn’t win, it loses.
“This first argument is stronger because it is harder to refute. However I will make a probabilistic argument to show that the universe is actually likely to be designed, not merely the case that one is justified in thinking so.”
“The universe is probably designed.” What kind of justification is that? “I probably have parents.” “They probably pay the bills.” “My girlfriend probably loves me.” The “certainty” of this that dovetails into doctrine and martyrdom is astounding. Like I said, these aren’t appropriate personal standards.
“This argument is deliberately geared to avoid the objection from physical necessity that I believe is the most efficacious argument against the fine-tuning principle. It is in the form of reductio ad absurdum of atheistic cosmology.”
Maybe if it was just physical necessity, but there is more possible context to it than that which supersedes Christian theism’s God, the Father, in my opinion if we absolutely have to pick between options.
”1. There is no god or inherent design or purpose in nature, existence is indifferent to humans”
So far, so good enough.
”2. That we know of, there is no inherent reason why for our universe it is physically necessary that it supports life”
But there is also no reason why it must not be able to support life. On the other hand, there is no inherent reason why the necessary being must be a complex divine mind…but that’s probably okay with you and other theologians…
“3. Life exists”
Cinnamon Life exists as well…and it is very, very good. ;)
”4. (3) is improbable under (1) and (2).”
What exactly is the probability of a universe being able to support life again? Just a ballpark estimate will suffice.
”The reason why I have set up (2) is that one might always say that the laws of physics are physically necessary. If our laws are physically necessary it essentially means that given our universe, the laws cannot be other than the way they are. This does not, importantly, mean that any universe could not have different laws (otherwise we would not be talking about physical, but logical necessity) rather our particular universe must have the laws it does.”
Wait, who in the world is arguing against teleological theistic arguments with physical necessity? The universe needs constants to be a certain way… “They need to be that way…how else could the universe, um…do that thing…um…that it set out to do…you know…stuff. I mean, it might do something else if it were setup in a different way…and the universe couldn’t have that…like it cares.”
”So given this, why the life in it? If the universe is all that there is or ever will be, and it is logically possible the laws could be different (in a different universe) why is it the case that our laws are supportive of the existence of life, faced with the overwhelming fact there is no inherent purpose or plan or likelihood of life at all in an impersonal cosmos? It all seems a bit improbable.”
Well unless reality is about everything. It’s not improbable if every possible universe is. It is actually quite certain. There’s no plan…but then there’s no plan to make sure there isn’t anything resembling a plan either…or even a plan to make sure that something doesn’t counteract some plan to make there not be a plan!
”There are some possible answers to this argument. Firstly, there may be other universes as in the Lee Smolin hypothesis. I assume that there are in fact, not other worlds.”
So the assumption of design is kudos which is outlandish with a no show designer, but other universes…even more preposterous since no ultimate designer would even be required.
“Also the Weak Anthropic Principle (Douglas Adam's famous 'puddle' objection) could force us to accept life as a 'brute fact' of our observation. I will purposefully sidestep these arguments for the moment.”
I will purposefully not sidestep it…so I can come to a completely different conclusion.
“he mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle.”
“But assuming my argument is correct then we can conclude that:”
Which is all anyone can really do, since this is not an argument at all, but just a belief that avoids rational objections…just because it’s a nice belief. It is an argument that you continue to believe it…but not much more.
”5. Life seems improbable under atheism”
Life just is…if it ever was a matter of probability…it no longer is, just as every coin toss that came before is already decided. You might as well assess the probability of God creating humans and not Merdukalukians.
6. Under theism, life is not in the least bit improbable”
How would you know? Have you assessed the probability that maybe a deity wouldn’t want to create life?
”Clearly the comparison between (5) and (6) in the light of (3) shows theism is superior.”
You have at least shown theism is superior in your mind.
”In any case, those are both my two arguments, and I will now commence with evaluating the objections to the argument to design.”
To the extent that I have not brought these objections up as well, I will further defend them in subsequent posts…if they are worthy.