Why the Teleological argument falls flat on it's face.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well I don't think Einstein believed in a personal god, so this would presumably not arise in his conception of it.

But a conventional Christian might see the order in nature (I mean the "laws", not the products of their operation) as something set up  - and even maintained? -  by a creator god of the type described by the Abrahamic religions One  Catholic priest I've spoken to (an educated man and not a creationist) seemed to see it that way.  After all, the laws of nature "just are", according to science - there is no reason why they are as they are (conservation laws excepted, I suppose). 

Absolutely, @MSC is presenting 'the' teleological argument as if it's the only one that has any value.

Quote

 

adjective

teleological (adjective) · teleologic (adjective)

philosophy

relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise:

"teleological narratives of progress"

 

There's more than one reason for the invention of god/s by people.

[dimreepr]

The old man and the fish sea,by Hemingway, is a reasonable parable/book to read, on the subject.

Edited June 4 by dimreepr

[MSC]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

You claimed in the OP that “those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently.” and the point is that we rarely just duplicate the designs we find in nature.

Ahhh you said "we rarely just" as opposed to "rarely". And you're missing the key phrase which is patterns. Patterns from nature being incorporated into design. Patterns can be anything from geometry to frequency of events/phenomena. 

My point is that we did either duplicate or emulate designs from nature in order to begin what we call today civilization and creative intelligence. 

My main argument isn't hard to grasp and honestly none of these criticisms have come close to dismantling the main argument, which is; what intelligence is, what it looks like, what technology is and isn't possible is entirely decided upon by the state of the universe and the laws of physics. Laws of physics came first, then intelligence. 

Maybe we should simplify things a bit @swansont. Do you believe the universe was designed intelligently by some form of creator? Whether that's a god or someone running a simulation. Do you believe any variation of the teleological argument at all?

Based on everyone's arguments so far, it seems like almost everyone is saying in one way or another that the way the universe is and the way humans design things, are not similar enough to claim that the universe is designed intelligently. Is this a fair assessment?

[MigL]

Why all the comparisons of human designed airplane wings to bird wings ?
The first flying machines were balloons, and had no wings.

Oh, and I could design a much better system than these crappy eyeballs I have in my head. The Nikon autofocus and stabilized lenses for my camera aren't prone to hi pressure and image loss due to glaucoma.

Edited June 4 by MigL

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Maybe we should simplify things a bit @swansont. Do you believe the universe was designed intelligently by some form of creator? Whether that's a god or someone running a simulation. Do you believe any variation of the teleological argument at all?

No. There’s no evidence that actually supports it, and depending on the version, there’s evidence that actively contradicts it.

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Based on everyone's arguments so far, it seems like almost everyone is saying in one way or another that the way the universe is and the way humans design things, are not similar enough to claim that the universe is designed intelligently. Is this a fair assessment?

Of one is going to use “design” as a description, then there’s a lot of unintelligent design in nature.

[MSC]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Of one is going to use “design” as a description, then there’s a lot of unintelligent design in nature.

I think the naming conventions of the theory of intelligent design are in some ways forcing my usage of it, which now that I think of it seems framed to suit the purposes of it's proponents more then we detractors. Designing is a form of creation that requires wilful planning whereas as far as we can tell the forces of nature that created and shaped the universe have no such will.

Maybe the temporal argument works better by highlighting not intelligence or design but planning. As far as we can tell, life as we know it, was not present at the beginning of the universe but is an emergent property of the universe whereas the laws of physics are inherent properties.

Non-living matter does not make plans.

Emergent properties cannot predate inherent properties. 

If life and the ability to plan things, are emergent properties, and the laws of physics are inherent, then life and the ability to plan cannot predate the laws of physics. 

Therefore, the laws of physics could not have then been planned. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Oh, and I could design a much better system than these crappy eyeballs I have in my head. The Nikon autofocus and stabilized lenses for my camera aren't prone to hi pressure and image loss due to glaucoma.

I'm assuming you also wouldn't kickstart everything by having an almost equal amount of matter and antimatter annihilation fest just for kicks.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, MSC said:

Based on everyone's arguments so far, it seems like almost everyone is saying in one way or another that the way the universe is and the way humans design things, are not similar enough to claim that the universe is designed intelligently. Is this a fair assessment?

Not really, the OP is basically conflating a very specific argument with a very diverse idea; the idea that a rediculess statement (not an argument), in some way reduces spinosa's version of god-

Quote

Spinoza addressed himself to the question: what exists? ‘God’ outlines Spinoza's arguments regarding divine existence and the notion of a divine being. Whereas previous philosophers had taken the ontological argument (which proves the existence of something from the conception of that thing) to show that at least one thing (God) exists, Spinoza believed the argument showed that at most one thing exists, and hence that everything which exists is ‘in’ God. What does Spinoza mean by using the word ‘in’? The hidden assumption of Spinoza's philosophy is that reality and conception coincide. It follows from Spinoza's theory that God is not distinct from the world but identical to it.

-Is ironic, IOW what are you trying to prove?

[sethoflagos]

As I understand it (I may not), Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory postulates that every emitter is coupled to a future absorber. If this is the case, then it introduces an interesting aspect to the teleological argument: that there exists in the (possibly far distant) future, sufficient, and sufficiently diverse structures to provide all necessary absorbers.

This suggests that the past is influenced by the consequences of its state and dynamics on its future evolution. 

Edited June 5 by sethoflagos
Sp

[MSC]

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory postulates that every emitter is coupled to a future absorber. If this is the case, then it introduces an interesting aspect to the teleological argument: that there exists in the (possibly far distant) future, sufficient, and sufficiently diverse structures to provide all necessary absorbers.

Doesn't this just relate to thermodynamics? Not really sure how to conceptualize this in regards to intelligent creators.

[sethoflagos]

7 hours ago, MSC said:

Doesn't this just relate to thermodynamics? 

Perhaps in the sense that the time evolution of the universe is 'just' thermodynamics.

However, it's apparent preference for universes similar to ours, amenable to the evolution of life without appeal to either the anthropic principle or a 'creator', seems a valid enough point.

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

As I understand it (I may not), Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory postulates that every emitter is coupled to a future absorber. If this is the case, then it introduces an interesting aspect to the teleological argument: that there exists in the (possibly far distant) future, sufficient, and sufficiently diverse structures to provide all necessary absorbers.

The requirement of time-reversal symmetry plays havoc with causality.  In FWAT, emitters and absorbers are interchangeable.  I think later interpretations like Cramers TIQM have tried to resolve this.  

Or maybe one just throws out all the advanced wave solutions and restores the traditional arrow of time?  You don't have to use ALL the math.  😏

[sethoflagos]

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The requirement of time-reversal symmetry plays havoc with causality...

... so some say. 

I'm in no position to defend the concept at a deep technical level, however, others are and do so. Admitting the advanced wave solutions seems to offer neat solutions to some otherwise seemingly intractable phenomena such as EPR.

Perhaps more pertinently, the apparent and 'unlikely' flatness of our universe just shouts 'negative feedback - asymptotic approach' to me. Okay, that sense implies some sort of retrocausal effect.

It's a tough call, but I'd sooner trust to Feynman's gut feel than the dim designer of the OT.