Smashing Teleology

Author: Sum1hugme ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 16
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    1. If some constant in some possible Universe could be changed to create a life preventing Universe;
    2. Then, any number of constants could be changed to produce infinite possible life producing Universe's.
    C: There are an infinite number of possible life producing Universe's.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,893
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    Did I just read it as "Smashing technology" and thought of flyswatters?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,199
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    IF we are not able to observe any other universes THEN we cannot use any other universe as evidence in our arguments. 

    P1 there are an infinite number of "possible" universes
    P2 there is one observable universe
    C the number of "possible" universes is absolutely unremarkable and unhelpful in discovering truths about this one.

    On a separate note 
    P1 there are an infinite number of "possible" gods.
    P2 there are no observable gods
    C the number of "possible" gods is absolutely unremarkable and unhelpful in discovering truths of any kind.


  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    'Twas a response to the fine tuning argument specifically. 

      We have precedent in the fact that our universe exists and we can say that if hypothetically, one constant could be changed to prevent life, then it would follow that any amount of changed constants could be changed to allow life.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,199
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    The fine tuning argument says far more about the human propensity for seeing patterns in nature (whether meaningfull or even real) than it does about the universe. The SETI program discovered the first pulsars specifically because the regular "bursts" of energy they produced were mistakenly taken as a purposeful attempt at communication from some extra terrestrial intelligence but when investigated we found that the regular pulses were merely the result of large unstable stars whose spinning on their axis caused the constant stream of energy they were mindlessly emitting to register as regular "bursts" to the equipment available to the program. 

    I see no reason to doubt that if we were able to investigate sufficiently the apparent "design" of the universe is not equally simply a natural unguided phenomenon which we as pattern seekers are eagerly overinterpreting.
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    --> @Sum1hugme
    "1. If some constant in some possible Universe could be changed to create a life preventing Universe;
    2. Then, any number of constants could be changed to produce infinite possible life producing Universe's.
    C: There are an infinite number of possible life producing Universe's."

    And who or what is changing these constants? You can't have changing constants without a constant changer.  

    The constants in the universe are so unfathomably fine tuned. Occam's razor dictates the more likely explanation is one Designer as opposed to an infinite number of universes being pumped out by a universe generating machine


  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Soluminsanis
    "You can't have changing constants without a constant changer"
      That's a nice assertion, but you can't prove that.

    "The constants in the universe are so unfathomably fine tuned. Occam's razor dictates the more likely explanation is one Designer as opposed to an infinite number of universes being pumped out by a universe generating machine
      Fine tuned for what? Because it isn't fine tuned for life, since most of it equals instant death.

      And sure, if those were the only two options. But the fact that life exists or is improbable does not imply intention. Asserting an intelligent designer makes far more assumptions than eternal universe models, and has no evidentiary basis. 

      It's also a god of the gaps. The list goes on...

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,199
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Soluminsanis
    And who or what is changing these constants? You can't have changing constants without a constant changer.  
    No real reason to think it isn't a what. Say mindless processes guided by natural forces for example but whether there is a god or not there isn't one in evidence and whether there are other universes or not none is in evidence so really there is no answer readily available. In fact with just the one universe and no real notion where it came from or what happened before its formation if where and when are even terms that have meaning in that context. Honestly this one physical universe is already to big to fully explore and to mysterious to fully understand at least for the foreseeable future so maybe positing things outside of it is a little beyond what we might consider reasonable.
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    --> @Sum1hugme
    "Fine tuned for what? Because it isn't fine tuned for life, since most of it equals instant death."

    This is simply not true. There are constants in the universe that are so precisely tuned it is truly alarming. The cosmological constant, the strength of gravity, strong nuclear force,  weak nuclear force.  Just a few that if altered by an infinitesimal number would preclude the universe from even existing in a fashion where life could even evolve to begin with




  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,199
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Soluminsanis
    This is simply not true. There are constants in the universe that are so precisely tuned it is truly alarming. The cosmological constant, the strength of gravity, strong nuclear force,  weak nuclear force.  Just a few that if altered by an infinitesimal number would preclude the universe from even existing in a fashion where life could even evolve to begin with
    How have you calculated the base odds that any given potential universe would or even could develop differently? Is there some reason to believe that this isn't just what naturally occurring universes look like? This is the gamblers fallacy.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Soluminsanis
    To which I would respond with my initial post. 

    1. If some constant in some possible Universe could be changed to create a life preventing Universe;
    2. Then, any number of constants could be changed to produce infinite possible life producing Universe's.
    C: There are an infinite number of possible life producing Universe's

    You can't possibly know the chances of life arising in every combination of possible universal constants. And if there's infinite possible ways they could be arranged to produce life, then it actually isn't suprising that life was able to form in this universe
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,819
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Maybe not. There is the possibility that there is only one way to create a universe.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @janesix
    Can you demonstrate that
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,819
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Sum1hugme
    No, but I'm not that smart. God is though.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 18
    Forum posts: 644
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @janesix
    Well unless you can prove god, then that is a baseless assertion.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 1,819
    3
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Sum1hugme
    correct.