"Now, this is an interesting place I find myself in. It fits me rather nicely. In fact, it fits me so perfectly, that surely it must have been made to have me in it."
Imagine you're walking on a beach, and you see a pocket watch being gradually assembled from the ground up by natural chemical processes, with no apparent divine action present or required. The watches grow and reproduce completely independent of any external agency, just continuously spawning more watches as a consequence of their basic operation. Now imagine you dissect this watch, and discover it contains thousands of gears in a dizzying array of complex pathways, but only a handful of those pathways actually allow the watch to function. The vast majority are broken, not connected to anything, or just spin around in a pointless loop that doesn't have any obvious function. Then, further imagine you investigate the process by which the watch builds itself, and discover a method by which the watch passes down an imperfect copy of its design to future watches, and some of these altered designs make the watch more or less likely to function well as a watch. Ergo, those with a superior design (for a watch) will by sheer mathematical necessity become the dominant form of watch. Finally, in reexamining the design of these watches, you can now identify a very clear and obvious pattern of alterations in all existing watches, which allows you to sort them into lineages based on the various designs that they've adopted over time. Do you still think the watch needs a designer?
Or just ask them how they determined the probability of the universe forming in a certain way when we literally have only one example we can observe. Just because we can *imagine* the physical constants being different than they are in our universe, there is no reason to assume they *could* have actually been different in *this* universe. Until we know why the constants are what they are, we have no basis for assuming they could've been otherwise.
I think they're caught in a circular loop: Everything is either designed/created by beings inside the universe or by god. That then is evidence that god exists, so that everything not designed/created by beings inside the universe can be designed/created by him.
@@adrianthom2073 Which is like a microcosm of the universe itself. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it is utterly inimical to ANY form of life, no less humans. If a god did design this universe specifically to have life in it, then he clearly sucked at his job. It goes back to the same fundamental issue as the Problem of Evil. You're claiming that this being is the absolute epitome of perfection, the greatest conceivable being that could possibly exist, and yet THIS is the BEST it could do? How pitiful this god must be if it's absolute best effort is an endless void of nothing with a few scattered rocks that might possibly be able to hold life on them if the conditions are juuuuuust right.
If Paley genuinely sees design in everything, when reading his analogy in his own words I'm left with the question as to why the answer he gives for the watch he never thought to give for the stone. "In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." - William Paley, Natural Theology (1802) Surely he's relying on an implicit understanding that the stone is not designed as a point of comparison with the watch. However, if he really fully commits to his own bullshit, he ought to have said the design of the stone is also overpoweringly complex and "there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the stone] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction etc". But he doesn't treat the stone that way. And if he did, he'd have nothing to compare the watch to qua design. But he does think that everything is designed, including the stone. And ne'er the twain shall meet. He thinks it's not easy to show the absurdity of his answer, well, he needed to get out more. He needed to hang with smarter people. As Paley wrote it, it's very poor.
Among the problems for the teleological design are -A presupposition that everything is and has to be designed and created, thus cementing confirmation bias. One such example of which is when they look at probability. -A false notion that appearance of design equals design. -An absurd assumption and/or implication that low probability events cannot happen without artificial interference when in fact they occur all the time. -Attempts to formulate probability where there is no observable sample size (saying that the universe as it is has to be designed because it is too low in probability for it to contain life otherwise overlooks the fact that there are no other universes out there in existence that we know of to compare with as a sample size to even have any semblance of mathematical probability that can be calculated or demonstrated). -The incorrect notion that complexity is an indication of design (when in actuality simplicity is considered better for design purposes as we know them to be). -A presumption that their divine designer followers the same sort of design processes that humans do when in fact their own holy book describes the exact opposite (more evidence I think that it was man that created gods and continue to project their own traits and understanding of things onto those gods). -A complete absence of design principles with which to define the reasoning or goal of design for anything they proclaim to be designed. For the most part they simply assume those goals and principles and, surprise surprise, they turn out to be completely human centric. This of course leads to hilarious situations where they completely ignore any evidence to the contrary (which is like the vast extent of reality) while resorting to selection bias to only display the criteria which fir their design hypothesis. It's why IDers can continue to confidently declare that this universe was created for the specific purpose of having life, particularly the sort of life we are familiar with and specifically human life, even though the vast extent of the universe is devoid of life due to being so extremely inhospitable to life that none can exist within it. -Ignoring other explanations for apparent design like evolution to fit environments rather than designing creatures to fit them. Basically the puddle argument. In fact the claim that life exists in a universe that is perfectly suited for life is NOT a good claim for a supposed designer designing everything. If however life can exist in circumstances where life should actually not exist at all, then THAT is far more likely an indication that something external, possibly a designer's intervention, is at play (though one would have to reconsider what "design" isn't is since this is clearly an indication of life not "designed" to live in their environment but somehow managing to). -Special pleading which overrides the main prong of their claims that "creation needs a creator". Sure they try to assert that their creator is somehow not created. However that runs contrary to the logic that underlies how everything that exists is somehow "created" which is used to power their "creation needs a creator" line.
Also: the absurdity of contrasting a watch against a beach to illustrate the difference between "designed" and "undesigned", only to use that example to try to demonstrate that the beach itself was also designed. 😂
One thing that drives me nuts about this line of apologetics is the apparent lack of understanding regarding complexity, especially since they use the mouse trap to argue for "irreducible complexity", because the reason the mouse trap design has remained virtually unchanged for several generations is its efficient simplicity. The "complexity" we see in the natural world isn't a sign of intelligent design, it's a sign of either random processes, or a designer who is incompetent and/or crazy.
Every individual piece of a mousetrap is useful for some other purpose too. A spring by itself can do any number of things. A small plank of wood can do any number of things.
Life as we know it has resulted from the accumulation of direct genetic changes or changes to genetic expression. That or a designer is merely using us as bloatware carrier systems. 🤷♂️
Given that the underlying premise of the teleological argument is that a supernatural being named God poofed the universe into existence, why does anything have to be fine tuned or require constants. Magic is the anthesis of design and order. Did the magic stop after creation?
Excellent point! If a god exists, better evidence is things existing where it shouldn't be able to. If humans could live in the vacuum of space but had no mechanism to do so, that, while not conclusive, would be much better evidence of a god.
Paley was wrong about the watch argument in that the basis for it standing out isn't that it's complex or designed, it's that it's artificial. It is unlike the natural things around it. The natural things around it would also have been created, so Paley can't use the complexity of something as evidence of design when a simple rock is also a product of design in his worldview. With the watch in a field as presented here, then the watch is being compared to plants, and theists think plants are examples of intelligent design because of their complexity and order. Cells are sometimes referred to as factories housing tiny machines. So why does the watch stand out if what it is being compared to are also complex and ordered? The inference fails. In the FTA, proponents need to show the constants are independent or their probabilistic conclusion is invalid. If C1 constrains C2 to values for illustration between 4 and 6 inclusively out of a possible set of values between 1 and 10, the probability pool has been reduced. Out of the set of 10 values, C1 forces C2 to only possibly have 3 of them, not 10. Take 2 dice. If I create a rule that says, if I roll above a 4 on the first die, I must roll a 10 sided die on the second roll, but if I roll 4 or below, I must roll a 6 sided die, then the probability outcomes have been affected. The possible values of the second roll are contingent on the outcome of the first roll. In actual fact, constants fall out of equations, and equations were formed by people to describe how the universe operates *as we find it.* We can ask why the universe appears this way rather than some other way, but we can't ask how a description is fine-tuned to what it's describing.
The fine structure constant seems to be the one constant that relates a whole bunch of stuff. Also, 100% of all universes examined have the same sets of "finely tuned" constants, so assuming a uniform distribution seems incorrect.
As with other logical arguments for deities having created the universe, this one is circular; the universe is designed because it looks designed, because - obviously - designed things look designed.
There is also Christopher Hitchens rebuttal "I will give you all that, now please prove it was YOUR god not one of the other thousands humans have worshipped!"
I do that quite a bit, especially with the bible. I tell people, "I will grant literally every single mundane claim in the bible. Everything natural. 100%. I will even grant that the people talking honestly believed what they were saying was correct. This is way more than anyone should ever do, but I am giving you everything I can. Now, how does any of it lead to an actual god existing or any miracles happening. You need to show that."
But why the gods that humans have worshipped? There could be thousands of civilisations in the Universe with trillions of gods, with, perhaps, most of the species claiming that they were made in the image of their gods.
Where the fine tuning argument falls down is that there is no reason to presume that those constants are selected randomly, and every reason to believe that they have the only values that they could possibly have. I would require examples of these constants having different values before I'll believe they can Even if they could have different values, however, the weak anthropomorphic principle applies - if the universe were not such that we can exist, we wouldn't be here to notice Indeed, the apparent fine tuning of the universe speaks against special creation - if an all powerful deity created the universe, said deity would not require specific conditions for life to exist - he'd just make it happen with his magical powers Also, if the universe is fine tuned for anything, it's black holes and empty space, not life I prefer not to resort to the multiverse hypothesis as it's not verifiable, and is unnecessary to debunk the idea of fine tuning.
SMH The teleological argument just seems so fundamentally stupid to me. Three of the four premises cited in the beginning are just wrong. (And of course, complexity is not a sign of design.)
Exactly my point! Whenever someone brings up ID, I ask the question "if you see two things, one we know is designed and one we know is natural, how to do distinguish the designed thing from the natural thing?"
@@darkofalltrades Which can be addressed to IDers who do see ID as a science rather than a religious tenet (which, amusingly, I think it has become in the minds of some), "What is the unit of complexity and how do you measure it? What is the boundary, in units of complexity, that separates the natural from the designed and how was that boundary determined?"
The problem is more the assumption random chance is needed. It could be the only way the universe can form. Or it could be one of many universes like it with universes that do not support life and those that do but ours was predictable making it not so random.
This reminds me of something I heard a while back. A theist was talking about ID with an Atheist, and it got to a point where the Atheist just asked "what does a non-designed universe look like? Tell me about a non-designed universe. What are its properties?" And that just shut the IDer down. It was pretty interesting to see.
@@darkofalltrades we have one example of few things. One is life, we only have DNA/RNA. We can't tell what non DNA/RNA life would be like. One example for a life supporting planet so we can't tell what other planets could and one universe. I call it the one example law. If you can not give a second example you can make far less assumptions. Also as a side note I'm not an atheist. I'm a pearlist. I call myself by what I accept. Christians it's Christianity. For me, I accept physical evidence and reasoned logic. Pearl for short. It also lets me use this phrase. Do not throw pearls to swine, with a new meaning.
IMO you cover this material far better than I ever could. I'll just add that what I like most about your videos is how, without ever being arch or condescending, you point out the flaws in these popular arguments. Also much appreciated is your lack of cursing. Not that blue language bothers me (it doesn't). But it would make your videos impossible to share with believers, who are notoriously prissy.
That is the goal of my channel, to reach people that others don't. I want to force the theist to confront the argument and not deflect to irrelevant issues like the language used. As a teacher, my students don't know what I am going to teach them. So, teachers can't be condescending to the students who don't know the material yet. I want to provide the lesson and let the students take it from there. It is a lot of layers, and it won't resonate with everyone, but as long as it resonates with one person. If it helps a single person figure it out, then all of the work is worth it.
Some apologists like to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis as a wild sci-fi notion, but they've done nothing to actively dispute it. Until they can prove that the hypothesis is invalid (using the same snide definition of "prove" that they use when they demand that we "prove" that there is no god even if we haven't made that claim), they can't claim that their favourite deity is the "only" explanation.
a multiverse that creates every possible world is the exact kind of explanatory dead end as an omnipotent god that could create any possible world, which is very funny.
@@joshridinger3407 except it's not a "dead end" because it's not being proposed as the solution or answer to anything, it's a response to the assertion that a supernatural deity is the ONLY explanation. Nobody is saying "multiverse is real, therefore there is no god", they're saying "multiverse is possible, therefore God isn't necessary".
@DC_Prox muhammed's fuckholes, what inane gymnastics. it's not an explanatory dead end because it's not an explanation, it's just a competing explanation with theism... dude come on
Dc_Proc is correct here. The point of the multiverse idea shows that a god is not necessary. Is it true or even likely a good explanation? Probably not. But it doesn't violate Occam's Razor like a god does. Are they nearly as undemonstrable? Maybe. I'll grant that they are roughly equally unreasonable to accept. However, multiverse theory shows that theism adds at least one entity unnecessarily.
@@darkofalltrades multiverse adds orders of magnitude more entities than theism, but occam's razor isn't a problem (reality doesn't owe us simplicity). it's the explanatory irrelevance.
I think the biggest problem that these arguments suffer from is after the assumption that there is a why. For virtually every purpose apologists claim… there are counter examples of this purpose not being fulfilled. The death and degradation of biological components, eyes formed blind from birth, mass extinctions, VAST amounts of empty, uninhabitable space, the apparent heat death of the universe. THEN the special pleading happens for why the failure of the purpose to be demonstrated happens. And if “unlikeliness” is a hallmark of design… it often only takes 1 extra layer of intricacy to show that anything seen as a potentially reasonable purpose is only seen as such because of some emote attachment. You think the existence of human life is too unlikely to be a coincidence ? What about the existence of shoes? That’s even more unlikely! This proves the universe is not finely tuned for the existence of human life.., it’s finely tuned for the existence of shoes. Doesn’t make sense? Exactly.
imagine you're waling along a beach with a Creationist, and the two of you encounter a watch. Now, you know the watch is a manufactured item, because you know about watches. You notice the watch because it is the only manufactured item on the beach that you and the Creationist did not bring with you. To the Creationist, on the other hand, the beach is made of sand, which he believes to be manufactured. The see is there, which is also, in his mind, manufactured. The fish are similarly manufactured. The seaweed, the rocks, the clouds, the birds in the sky, the Sun, all of it are manufactured. So, why does the Creationist even notice the watch? What makes it special? If the Creationist where being intellectually honest, he wouldn't even notice the watch, as it is just one watch amongst a myriad of watches.
There are other issues with the Watchmaker Argument and Fine-Tuning Argument that may not debunk them but still poke some holes. The Watchmaker Argument leads to the assumption that everything was designed, but if so then there's nothing undesigned to show what something undesigned would look like. How can complexity be used as a measuring rod if a pocketwatch is complex (and therefore designed), but a rock is also designed (and therefore...complex)? Meanwhile, the Fine-Tuning Argument assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life because of the Universal Constants, yet so much of the universe does NOT support life. If the universe were indeed fine-tuned for life, wouldn't we see it on more than just one blue dot in the cosmos? And even here on our world there are so many challenges to life, human or otherwise. Most of the water supply on Earth is undrinkable by humans and many other animals, numerous environments are extremely unfavorable to most species, and other factors lead to the extinction of species on the regular, not to mention the mass prehistoric extinction events. All that to say these arguments have numerous issues which have been addressed in this video, added in the comments and elsewhere, and will likely have more discovered in the future.
For you point on the watchmaker: my point exactly when I ask, "How do we know if something is designed?" For your point on fine-tuning: I believe it was Stephen Hawking who said something like, "If the universe is fine tuned foe anything, it is for the creation of black holes." (May not be an exact quote)
It's not a watch on a beach, it's a watch on a beach made of watches. In order to say something is designed we contrast it with something natural and that utterly falls apart when everything is designed.
Part of the problem is the argument of awe - that isn't this universe so wonderful/beautiful/perfect as to allow our being here, on a planet *designed so we can live so well on it* contains a confirmation bias - were we on a planet where we never would have been put/borne on, or one that if we somehow got to absent an environmental suit, we would not be having this conversation - there would be no "you" or "me". Most of the world is not habitable by humans - it's 4/5 water to start with, then there are ice sheets, deserts, and other areas where people just cannot be - without a (human-made) biological suit of some type. If we make that same argument about it being so beautiful or wonderful, only a very tiny amount of space, by volume, contains objects. A tiny amount of that material is in planets, and a small amount of that are rocky planets in the habitable zone from their star. IOW, the universe has a lot of unused space.
@@darkofalltrades Moreover, even the temperate or tropical areas on earth, where people live, is not especially suited to humans - without aid from human-made assistance, thanks to humans' big brains. This includes heat to keep things comfortable and livable (hard when it's -20 and snowing). Fires and fireplaces, etc helped significantly, but modern heat devices help a lot more. It can include cooling, which has only been widely available since the 1960s. Then there's food preservation, which has in some form been around for thousands of years in some form, much better in the 21st century than previously, but without it, nearly all of the world would leave humans without access to all of the foods required to keep us out of deficiency diseases, and susceptible to attacks from microbes. What on EARTH was Gawd thinking when He created the Guinea worm? Or rabies? Or Ebola? Or the Black Plague? Or.... Then there are the bigger predators. Beyond the classic "Lions and tigers and bears" and wolves and.... there are poison things from spiders to reptiles to fish. Ask any Australian about how nature is set up to kill you. There is a reason that it took from the beginning until roughly 1850 for the world to contain 1 billion people, whereas now we've got over 8 billion. This isn't Gawd's doing, but humans. Look in any cemetery that's been in use before about 1900, and you'll see a LOT of young children who died, and their mothers who died shortly after their birth. This is bad design.
These are excellent examples of bad design. I thought about talking more about it in the video, but it was already pretty long, so I just briefly mentioned "bad design."
What would something not designed look like? Must we exist by necessity or intention just because we exist? Where is the cut off point for complexity under determinism?
Premise 1 conflates the appearance of design with actual intentional design. Natural forces and processes can exhibit the appearance of design and order. This means premise 2 is an equivocation. It appeals to actual intentional design when the universe may only exhibit the appearance of design. Premise 3 is a bald assertion and although bald assertions might exist in a valid argument, the argument can only be sound if the premise is true and there is nothing to support that the premise might be true. Premise 4 confuses the inference from the previous 3 premises that has been built up with an explanation. There is no explanation for design and order in the universe due to an intelligent designer, so it can't be the best explanation out of all possible explanations. Thus due to these many failings, the conclusion doesn't follow.
If William Paley had found a watch, he'd have recognised it, and wondered who had dropped it. But if he had found a piece of aluminium laying on the ground; 150*100*6mm (6"*4"*1/4"), with rounded edges and corners, polished and shiny. He wouldn't have recognised the metal (which wasn't discovered until after his death (I know it's an anachronism, just bear with me)), but he would certainly have recognised that the object was an artifact, made to a design, although a very simple one. I believe this thought experiment shows the falsity of his analogy.
If the existence of "purpose" and "meaning" could be discerned anywhere outside a person's opinion, I might be more convinced by these arguments. But if the only argument is "we perceive structure in the universe and think it's notable", why must that be a property of the universe and not simply a property of our minds?
I will say though, i can understand why people think there is a creator since its amazing our universe has the physics to suport life and didn't "start out" (expand) with different physical laws that would make any self awareness impossible. Just imagining a dead universe with nothing experiencing it is strange to comprehend. I don't know if there is or isn't a creator, but if there was, it most likely would be something that's uncaring/apathetic. Like nature documentary where you observe animals in the wild but you also just let animals do what they do and let nature run its course. (Think Sims where the characters have more agency) Edit: I also want to add, I'm not saying everything was zapped into existence, it still starts with physics doing its thing and life evolving to what we have now
I find the idea of "nothing" that theists seem to claim atheists "must believe" as such a strange concept. Like a void of what? I tend to put forth the idea that it is theoretically possible that existence is the default state of things. It is the layer on which we put attributes. Existence is the base, perhaps it is an axiom, but I haven't figured out that far.
Watchmaker argument. You can tell the watch is designed but the field is not. Also: You can tell the watch is designed and the field is designed.. how? The dishonesty smuggled in is there by design.
You can demonstrate that there is a designer of man-made objects, because it's made by people by default. You can't demonstrate that the universe was created by anyone, let alone which of the myriad gods, goddesses, etc are supposedly responsible for the complexity of the world, because we have a sample size of ONE.
Evolution as a theory is about the inherent nature of life to adapt to it's environment and it's ability to adapt it's environment to itself. That is, it broadly describes the telos of all life in general and so cannot be used even in principle against the teleological argument. The anthropic principle doesn't really get off of the ground as it has never been demonstrated that another universe is possible. When the constants of the physical laws of the universe are turned into mathematical formulas this only serves as an abstraction from the physical reality that presents those laws to us in the first place, and changing or tweaking those mathematical symbols and formulas doesn't reflect the possibility that those physical realities could be otherwise. This is similarly defeating for the multiverse hypothesis, since again mathematical abstractions on paper aren't responsible for making universes happen. When it comes to the argument from ignorance, this would be an eternal bulwark for naturalistic atheism since the only verifiable means for obtaining knowledge depends on epistemic materialism and anything that causes the physical universe would have to precede physicality as such. The idea that teleology shuts down all scientific explanation and exploration is also false, as all physical phenomena would still be physical and still be able to be inquired into or examined by human beings. Issues such as final or formal causality, issues which I can't help but notice don't get brought up in this video by name, don't get in the way of material examination. In the post hoc ergo prompter hoc objection, life cannot adapt to the universe if it doesn't exist in some sense first as non-existent things don't adapt due to their non-existence. And the simplest response possible to confirmation bias is simply that the road goes two ways here and this can also be a problem for the atheist, and the objections I've raised above certainly point out that that is possible.
Thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts. It's clear you've put a lot of consideration into these issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with them. I want to very briefly address what I see as your main points. (Helpfully sorted by topic ^_^) 1. Evolution and Teleology I can see how one might interpret evolution as having a "telos," but I disagree with this perspective. Evolution by natural selection, as understood in the scientific community, operates without any inherent goal or purpose. The adaptations we observe are the result of random mutations and the non-random survival of organisms best suited to their environments, rather than an overarching purpose guiding the process. 2. The Anthropic Principle You bring up a valid point regarding the lack of empirical evidence for other universes, which complicates the anthropic principle. However, the principle is often used to illustrate how our observations are conditioned by our existence rather than to prove the possibility of other universes. While I can grant that it is speculative for the sake of this conversation, I believe it still offers a valuable framework for discussing why our universe has the conditions it does, even if it isn’t definitive. 3. Multiverse Hypothesis I need to start by saying, I don't necessarily accept the Multiverse Hypothesis. I will disagree with the notion that mathematical models don’t reflect physical possibilities. While they are abstractions, these models are grounded in our best understanding of quantum mechanics and cosmology. They don’t claim to create universes but rather to describe potential realities. It’s true that the multiverse remains a hypothesis, but it’s one supported by theoretical frameworks, not just mathematical abstraction. On top of that, Modal logic, which explores possibilities and necessities across different possible worlds, also supports the idea that different configurations of the universe could exist. These frameworks don’t claim to create universes but rather describe potential realities. While the multiverse remains a hypothesis, it’s one supported by both theoretical models and modal logic, not just mathematical abstraction. 4. Argument from Ignorance I understand your concern regarding the argument from ignorance, but I think there’s a slight misinterpretation here. Many atheists don’t claim that the lack of evidence for a deity is evidence against one; rather, they withhold belief until evidence is presented. While naturalistic atheism does often reject supernatural explanations due to lack of evidence, it does not claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; rather, it withholds belief until evidence is provided. This approach is about avoiding unwarranted conclusions, not necessarily making definitive claims based on ignorance. 5. Teleology and Science I agree that teleology historically didn’t shut down scientific inquiry, and some great scientists operated within teleological frameworks. However, in modern science, explanations based on purpose or final causes are generally avoided because they aren’t empirically testable. This doesn’t mean teleology is irrelevant, but it does explain why it’s less prominent in scientific discourse today. 6. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Your point about life needing to exist before it can adapt is true, but I believe it misses the mark regarding the post hoc fallacy. The fallacy concerns assuming causation from mere sequence, not the necessity of existence for adaptation. While existence is a prerequisite for adaptation, this doesn’t necessarily address the fallacy in the teleological argument. 7. Confirmation Bias I completely agree that confirmation bias is a concern for everyone, regardless of belief. It’s essential for both theists and atheists to be mindful of this cognitive bias. We should all strive to critically examine our beliefs and be open to challenging them, which is why discussions like these are so valuable. I appreciate your engagement and the thoughtful way you’ve raised these points. While we may not agree on everything, this kind of dialogue helps us all refine our understanding and think more deeply about these important topics.
@@darkofalltrades I think a lot of the discrepancy between our views on telos can be more attributed to Paley and the history of Western thought as it passed through the territory of Deism, which eventually had the strange love child of "intelligent design". For Paley, it seems that life is an artifact that has it's telos imposed on it from without, rather than the teleological characteristics being understood as properly immanent in the lifeform itself or even "life" in general. My own school of thought is Platonic rather than Deistic, and so intelligent design is a non-starter for me. As for 2 and 3, hypothetical or theoretical frameworks are fine and I don't object to them tout court, I guess I would just say that there are broader frames one can operate in. On to 4. A deity, any deity, exists first and foremost as Themselves, and not for the sake of some other. A God is not first and foremost an explanation for the universe, for a law of physics, or some natural phenomenon of weather or human behavior. I'm aware of how monotheists have gummed up the issue in an attempt to causally determine and therefore reduce the number of deities to a singularity, but that's not actually how it works in Platonism, and it's the very reduction brought about by those self-same monotheists that's kicked off a lot of what we see in mainstream atheism. I will also simply state that if the atheists are only going to accept empirical evidence and nothing else, there has been or will be a failure to communicate. 5. Science avoiding issues of final causality is all well and good so long as there is the resultant humility that they have no way to say it isn't real and do not proceed to deny its existence. 6. So far as it goes for this, I would simply say again that much of the apparent discrepancy between the views expressed between us depends greatly upon the difference of extrinsic telos and intrinsic telos. 7. Thank you.
And of course: We have only observed *material* designers, so by the argument itself that implies that the *universe must have a material designer* . This rather unsurprisingly excludes the non material god they are hoping to handwave into existence.
Excellent point! This is right with the problem with analogies. Everything we know to be designed had a material designer. Therefore, god must be material. I don't think theists would go for that.
@@darkofalltrades every designer we are aware of: mortal, material, fallible. That’s oddly consistent with how the universe is “designed” as well, but doesn’t conform to many god concepts we are offered.
There is even the argument that "one can't give something to another that one does not have" as a way of saying that things like whatever the cause is must be conscious. Same concept.
If he universe as we know it formed differently as we know it, then life on earth would have come into being and evolved differently as it is now. No "intelligent designer" needed. And if an "intelligent designer" could be conclusively proven to exist, that DOES NOT prove the god of the Christian bible. An "intelligent designer" doesn't have to be any religion's god. Nor does said designer have to meet any generally recognized definition of a god. There could be multiple designers, which would put the legitimacy of any monotheistic religion in jeopardy. Or maybe the answer is "We simply do not know." And humanity may go extinct, never conclusively answering that question.
fine tuning can't even get us to classical theism (the designer would have to be finite and constrained, rather than infinite snd omnipotent), let alone to the abrahamic god, which has supposedly created living conscious beings that require no physical world at all, let alone this very specific one.
The universe doesn’t have an inherent purpose and a watch doesn’t either. If you didnt come from a culture teaching you the concept of time keeping or seconds, the regular ticking wouldn’t have any more purpose than water dripping regularly. It only has purpose because we bring purpose to it. If you knew what a sundial was, you could see the purpose of the hands moving but otherwise you’d never recognize the pattern unless you stared at it so long that you’d seeing patterns in anything, like reading tea leaves. Is the complex arrangement of tea leaves designed? Some people say yes but not most theists.
What if I don't need to tell time? What if I need a paperweight. I could repurpose a watch to be a paperweight. Therefore, that watches "purpose" is to be a paperweight. Thus showing that humans can dictate the purpose of things, and EVEN IF there was a god handing out purpose, we don't need to stick to the opinions of any being. We make our own purpose, and until we can show a reliable way to determine a person's "purpose," we could only speculate and have NO idea if we are correct or not. Giving ourselves a purpose is a way to objectively know if you have a purpose and what it is.
There are several problems with this argument as has been pointed out, but probably the most damaging is in the comparison of human artifacts to natural systems. If I came across a watch I would assume it was designed by a human, because I am aware that humans make watches. I would not assume that it was placed there by a dragon or a `cosmic clock god.` IF we saw universes being created by gods, then sure it would be reasonable to assume a god probably created our universe as well, but we don't observe that nor do we see any evidence of an actual god. In the end, it's starting with a conclusion and looking for an argument to apply it to.
Exactly! We know designed things like watches are designed because we have countless examples, and we know the process of designing and making a watch. We have investigated countless examples of watches and can compare them to something natural, like a rock. How many universes have we investigated? A small fraction of 1. We don't have other examples of extant universes we can examine.
I post on many channels, Atheist and Theist. I preach, share opinions, listen and learn. My post "creation requires a creator" is simple and could be easily ignored and lost in a sea of other comments. This is common. Instead this post caused more push back than I have ever seen and this is not my first rodeo. The reason for this seems to be the idea of worldview, and there appear to be two. One provides a sense of comfort and stability while the other, panic and fear. It's obvious what most of the world chooses. This is not the first time I've seen this and it won't be the last.
It is evident that the “god must exist, because reasons” arguments had to be invented, due to the obvious lack of supporting evidence for ancient religious claims. Disbelief in extraordinary, or even outright ridiculous religious claims (such as the nonsensical Jesus Christ sacrifice), is nothing new.
@@tabularasa0606 Yes. These arguments were nothing more than a desperate effort to make the religious claims appear rational. They actually prove nothing.
The multiverse seems like a desperate attempt to explain something that’s quite simple. Yes, the universe is unlikely but simply put, unlikely things happen all the time. Everything that happens is virtually impossible if you think about it. Even if the multiverse has evidence in higher physics, it’s so weird and complex that bringing into a layman’s argument seems like we’re grasping at straws for any excuse, even one that sounds equally unrealistic as theism does.
Physicists have two ideas of multiverse: an infinite number of universes with different "fine tuning constants" (destroying that argument) or the "multi-world interpretation" where it's exactly the same particles in you as are in the other universe and has nothing to do with actual "other universes".
I am not necessarily a proponent of multiverse theory. However, it would account for the issues theists try to justify with the teleological argument. Occam's Razor strikes again.
@@darkofalltrades There's "eternal inflation" which would be the kind of multiverse where the "fine tuning" parameters might differ. There's "multi-world interpretation" of quantum mechanics in which you are currently living in all of the multiworlds, because it's the same collection of particles in every world, and not some of this silly MCU stuff. Like, the particle that goes through both slits? Even in "multi-world interpretation" it remains a single particle.
If God is even just minimally sufficient to create the universe, the mind of God would need to contain a perfectly accurate and exhaustively detailed model of the universe as God cannot create a universe that she doesn’t know how to create. The mind of God would need to contain as much information content as that which describes the universe. The mind of God would need to satisfy the same list of special characteristics and finely tuned parameters as that which the universe must satisfy in order to be life containing. For every way in which the universe could have been different, there would exist a corresponding way in which the mind of God could have been different. Only a special god satisfying a peculiar combination of special characteristics would be sufficient to create such a peculiar universe as this. If finely tuned metaphysical constructs cannot exist as brute facts but require further explanation (the theist’s assertion, not mine), then the design argument becomes self refuting. It simply is not obvious how any probabilistic or explanatory advantage is obtained by replacing the universe with a god who just happens to be up to the task of creating it. Theists will sometimes try to side step this point by arguing that God is a “necessary being” and only a contingent god would be subject to the aforementioned critique. My response to this would be to point out that a valid ontological argument would be the only reason to think that god exists necessarily and no valid ontological argument has ever been presented. The theist could simply assume that god exists necessarily without having a good argument to justify this assertion but then the atheist could employ the same trick and simply assume that the universe simply exists necessarily and call it good. Falling back on God’s “necessariness” to avoid having to deal with her apparent finely tuned characteristics and improbable character means that god’s necessity is what’s actually doing all the work in their argument, not god’s intelligence. The teleological argument becomes superfluous as it becomes self defeating as a stand alone argument if it doesn’t have a valid ontological argument to buttress it. Theists also argue that god is a simple being. I would dispute that a simple god could create the universe as god cannot be simpler than the content of her mind and god’s mind cannot be simpler than the universe as god’s mind must contain the universe (or at least, a perfect model of it). Also, the teleological argument is usually understood as an argument from analogy. Human inventors can create complex things only by virtue of the fact that humans are complex constructs themselves. If god can create complex things without being complex herself, the process by which she does this would have to be radically dissimilar to the process by which humans create which greatly undermines the analogy.
Why does god need to fine tune things? Why does god need to form things? The world, the universe should be 6000 years old because god can just poof things into existence with magic. We would have square planets, 3 earth, 2 suns, THAT would undoubtedly prove god, things that defy logic and possibilities but no. The truth is what they are describing is the universe formed itself naturally and they just shoe horned god in front of it.
I assure you I am real and use my real voice when recording. I hear that those voice training programs can be expensive, so I didn't even look into them.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Now, this is an interesting place I find myself in. It fits me rather nicely. In fact, it fits me so perfectly, that surely it must have been made to have me in it."
It falls apart right from the start. It assumes the current state of the universe was a goal, and does so for no reason.
Imagine you're walking on a beach, and you see a pocket watch being gradually assembled from the ground up by natural chemical processes, with no apparent divine action present or required. The watches grow and reproduce completely independent of any external agency, just continuously spawning more watches as a consequence of their basic operation.
Now imagine you dissect this watch, and discover it contains thousands of gears in a dizzying array of complex pathways, but only a handful of those pathways actually allow the watch to function. The vast majority are broken, not connected to anything, or just spin around in a pointless loop that doesn't have any obvious function.
Then, further imagine you investigate the process by which the watch builds itself, and discover a method by which the watch passes down an imperfect copy of its design to future watches, and some of these altered designs make the watch more or less likely to function well as a watch. Ergo, those with a superior design (for a watch) will by sheer mathematical necessity become the dominant form of watch.
Finally, in reexamining the design of these watches, you can now identify a very clear and obvious pattern of alterations in all existing watches, which allows you to sort them into lineages based on the various designs that they've adopted over time.
Do you still think the watch needs a designer?
Also, the presence of predatory Neverland ticking crocodiles might hasten the process.
Imagine you're scaling a mountain of watches, stumble upon a deposit of sand, and exclaim to yourself "how clever!" 😂
The easiest way to destroy the fine tuning argument is to ask them to actually define finely tuned.
Or just ask them how they determined the probability of the universe forming in a certain way when we literally have only one example we can observe.
Just because we can *imagine* the physical constants being different than they are in our universe, there is no reason to assume they *could* have actually been different in *this* universe.
Until we know why the constants are what they are, we have no basis for assuming they could've been otherwise.
I think they're caught in a circular loop: Everything is either designed/created by beings inside the universe or by god. That then is evidence that god exists, so that everything not designed/created by beings inside the universe can be designed/created by him.
It's finely tuned to the claims of their holy book
I just advised them how little land mass on the earth is actually suitable for human life.
@@adrianthom2073 Which is like a microcosm of the universe itself. The vast, vast, VAST majority of it is utterly inimical to ANY form of life, no less humans. If a god did design this universe specifically to have life in it, then he clearly sucked at his job.
It goes back to the same fundamental issue as the Problem of Evil. You're claiming that this being is the absolute epitome of perfection, the greatest conceivable being that could possibly exist, and yet THIS is the BEST it could do?
How pitiful this god must be if it's absolute best effort is an endless void of nothing with a few scattered rocks that might possibly be able to hold life on them if the conditions are juuuuuust right.
If Paley genuinely sees design in everything, when reading his analogy in his own words I'm left with the question as to why the answer he gives for the watch he never thought to give for the stone.
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
- William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)
Surely he's relying on an implicit understanding that the stone is not designed as a point of comparison with the watch. However, if he really fully commits to his own bullshit, he ought to have said the design of the stone is also overpoweringly complex and "there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the stone] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction etc".
But he doesn't treat the stone that way. And if he did, he'd have nothing to compare the watch to qua design.
But he does think that everything is designed, including the stone.
And ne'er the twain shall meet. He thinks it's not easy to show the absurdity of his answer, well, he needed to get out more. He needed to hang with smarter people. As Paley wrote it, it's very poor.
He should conclude that the watch found in nature was manufactured and put there by God, but he doesn't.
Paley: I can tell this watch is designed because it's around a bunch of things that are obviously designed by God and the watch looks differe- wait...
Among the problems for the teleological design are
-A presupposition that everything is and has to be designed and created, thus cementing confirmation bias. One such example of which is when they look at probability.
-A false notion that appearance of design equals design.
-An absurd assumption and/or implication that low probability events cannot happen without artificial interference when in fact they occur all the time.
-Attempts to formulate probability where there is no observable sample size (saying that the universe as it is has to be designed because it is too low in probability for it to contain life otherwise overlooks the fact that there are no other universes out there in existence that we know of to compare with as a sample size to even have any semblance of mathematical probability that can be calculated or demonstrated).
-The incorrect notion that complexity is an indication of design (when in actuality simplicity is considered better for design purposes as we know them to be).
-A presumption that their divine designer followers the same sort of design processes that humans do when in fact their own holy book describes the exact opposite (more evidence I think that it was man that created gods and continue to project their own traits and understanding of things onto those gods).
-A complete absence of design principles with which to define the reasoning or goal of design for anything they proclaim to be designed. For the most part they simply assume those goals and principles and, surprise surprise, they turn out to be completely human centric. This of course leads to hilarious situations where they completely ignore any evidence to the contrary (which is like the vast extent of reality) while resorting to selection bias to only display the criteria which fir their design hypothesis. It's why IDers can continue to confidently declare that this universe was created for the specific purpose of having life, particularly the sort of life we are familiar with and specifically human life, even though the vast extent of the universe is devoid of life due to being so extremely inhospitable to life that none can exist within it.
-Ignoring other explanations for apparent design like evolution to fit environments rather than designing creatures to fit them. Basically the puddle argument. In fact the claim that life exists in a universe that is perfectly suited for life is NOT a good claim for a supposed designer designing everything. If however life can exist in circumstances where life should actually not exist at all, then THAT is far more likely an indication that something external, possibly a designer's intervention, is at play (though one would have to reconsider what "design" isn't is since this is clearly an indication of life not "designed" to live in their environment but somehow managing to).
-Special pleading which overrides the main prong of their claims that "creation needs a creator". Sure they try to assert that their creator is somehow not created. However that runs contrary to the logic that underlies how everything that exists is somehow "created" which is used to power their "creation needs a creator" line.
Looks like you really went in-depth with it! Well done!
Also: the absurdity of contrasting a watch against a beach to illustrate the difference between "designed" and "undesigned", only to use that example to try to demonstrate that the beach itself was also designed. 😂
One thing that drives me nuts about this line of apologetics is the apparent lack of understanding regarding complexity, especially since they use the mouse trap to argue for "irreducible complexity", because the reason the mouse trap design has remained virtually unchanged for several generations is its efficient simplicity. The "complexity" we see in the natural world isn't a sign of intelligent design, it's a sign of either random processes, or a designer who is incompetent and/or crazy.
Every individual piece of a mousetrap is useful for some other purpose too. A spring by itself can do any number of things. A small plank of wood can do any number of things.
Indeed. Simplicity is a hallmark of design. Complexity is a hallmark of randomness
Life as we know it has resulted from the accumulation of direct genetic changes or changes to genetic expression. That or a designer is merely using us as bloatware carrier systems. 🤷♂️
Given that the underlying premise of the teleological argument is that a supernatural being named God poofed the universe into existence, why does anything have to be fine tuned or require constants. Magic is the anthesis of design and order. Did the magic stop after creation?
Excellent point! If a god exists, better evidence is things existing where it shouldn't be able to. If humans could live in the vacuum of space but had no mechanism to do so, that, while not conclusive, would be much better evidence of a god.
Paley was wrong about the watch argument in that the basis for it standing out isn't that it's complex or designed, it's that it's artificial. It is unlike the natural things around it.
The natural things around it would also have been created, so Paley can't use the complexity of something as evidence of design when a simple rock is also a product of design in his worldview.
With the watch in a field as presented here, then the watch is being compared to plants, and theists think plants are examples of intelligent design because of their complexity and order. Cells are sometimes referred to as factories housing tiny machines. So why does the watch stand out if what it is being compared to are also complex and ordered? The inference fails.
In the FTA, proponents need to show the constants are independent or their probabilistic conclusion is invalid.
If C1 constrains C2 to values for illustration between 4 and 6 inclusively out of a possible set of values between 1 and 10, the probability pool has been reduced. Out of the set of 10 values, C1 forces C2 to only possibly have 3 of them, not 10.
Take 2 dice. If I create a rule that says, if I roll above a 4 on the first die, I must roll a 10 sided die on the second roll, but if I roll 4 or below, I must roll a 6 sided die, then the probability outcomes have been affected. The possible values of the second roll are contingent on the outcome of the first roll.
In actual fact, constants fall out of equations, and equations were formed by people to describe how the universe operates *as we find it.* We can ask why the universe appears this way rather than some other way, but we can't ask how a description is fine-tuned to what it's describing.
The fine structure constant seems to be the one constant that relates a whole bunch of stuff. Also, 100% of all universes examined have the same sets of "finely tuned" constants, so assuming a uniform distribution seems incorrect.
As with other logical arguments for deities having created the universe, this one is circular; the universe is designed because it looks designed, because - obviously - designed things look designed.
There is also Christopher Hitchens rebuttal "I will give you all that, now please prove it was YOUR god not one of the other thousands humans have worshipped!"
I do that quite a bit, especially with the bible. I tell people, "I will grant literally every single mundane claim in the bible. Everything natural. 100%. I will even grant that the people talking honestly believed what they were saying was correct. This is way more than anyone should ever do, but I am giving you everything I can. Now, how does any of it lead to an actual god existing or any miracles happening. You need to show that."
But why the gods that humans have worshipped?
There could be thousands of civilisations in the Universe with trillions of gods, with, perhaps, most of the species claiming that they were made in the image of their gods.
@pineapplepenumbra I bet triangles have 3 sided gods.
@@davidbudge8359 Wait, does that mean that the "christians" who believe in the trinity are just triangles?
If the left recurrent laryngeal nerve was "designed" the designer was badly hungover and incompetent
One of my favorite examples of bad design in animals.
The arrogance of a species on a tiny sphere that can't swim, fly or hibernate thinking that the entire universe was created with them in mind
Where the fine tuning argument falls down is that there is no reason to presume that those constants are selected randomly, and every reason to believe that they have the only values that they could possibly have. I would require examples of these constants having different values before I'll believe they can
Even if they could have different values, however, the weak anthropomorphic principle applies - if the universe were not such that we can exist, we wouldn't be here to notice
Indeed, the apparent fine tuning of the universe speaks against special creation - if an all powerful deity created the universe, said deity would not require specific conditions for life to exist - he'd just make it happen with his magical powers
Also, if the universe is fine tuned for anything, it's black holes and empty space, not life
I prefer not to resort to the multiverse hypothesis as it's not verifiable, and is unnecessary to debunk the idea of fine tuning.
I agree 100%. The issue people using the teleological argument have is that it attributes the cause without adequate justification.
SMH The teleological argument just seems so fundamentally stupid to me. Three of the four premises cited in the beginning are just wrong. (And of course, complexity is not a sign of design.)
I agree! Even to the point where I could say that simplicity is a better hallmark of design (though it isn't necessarily indicative of).
If everything is designed, how can you tell the difference between designed and undesigned stuff?
Exactly my point! Whenever someone brings up ID, I ask the question "if you see two things, one we know is designed and one we know is natural, how to do distinguish the designed thing from the natural thing?"
@@darkofalltrades Which can be addressed to IDers who do see ID as a science rather than a religious tenet (which, amusingly, I think it has become in the minds of some), "What is the unit of complexity and how do you measure it? What is the boundary, in units of complexity, that separates the natural from the designed and how was that boundary determined?"
The problem is more the assumption random chance is needed. It could be the only way the universe can form. Or it could be one of many universes like it with universes that do not support life and those that do but ours was predictable making it not so random.
This reminds me of something I heard a while back. A theist was talking about ID with an Atheist, and it got to a point where the Atheist just asked "what does a non-designed universe look like? Tell me about a non-designed universe. What are its properties?" And that just shut the IDer down. It was pretty interesting to see.
@@darkofalltrades we have one example of few things. One is life, we only have DNA/RNA. We can't tell what non DNA/RNA life would be like. One example for a life supporting planet so we can't tell what other planets could and one universe. I call it the one example law. If you can not give a second example you can make far less assumptions. Also as a side note I'm not an atheist. I'm a pearlist. I call myself by what I accept. Christians it's Christianity. For me, I accept physical evidence and reasoned logic. Pearl for short. It also lets me use this phrase. Do not throw pearls to swine, with a new meaning.
@@darkofalltrades and for the record yes, that last part just means I don't debate theists.
IMO you cover this material far better than I ever could. I'll just add that what I like most about your videos is how, without ever being arch or condescending, you point out the flaws in these popular arguments. Also much appreciated is your lack of cursing. Not that blue language bothers me (it doesn't). But it would make your videos impossible to share with believers, who are notoriously prissy.
That is the goal of my channel, to reach people that others don't. I want to force the theist to confront the argument and not deflect to irrelevant issues like the language used.
As a teacher, my students don't know what I am going to teach them. So, teachers can't be condescending to the students who don't know the material yet. I want to provide the lesson and let the students take it from there.
It is a lot of layers, and it won't resonate with everyone, but as long as it resonates with one person. If it helps a single person figure it out, then all of the work is worth it.
@@darkofalltrades You do it very well. I really appreciate your excellent videos.
Some apologists like to dismiss the multiverse hypothesis as a wild sci-fi notion, but they've done nothing to actively dispute it. Until they can prove that the hypothesis is invalid (using the same snide definition of "prove" that they use when they demand that we "prove" that there is no god even if we haven't made that claim), they can't claim that their favourite deity is the "only" explanation.
a multiverse that creates every possible world is the exact kind of explanatory dead end as an omnipotent god that could create any possible world, which is very funny.
@@joshridinger3407 except it's not a "dead end" because it's not being proposed as the solution or answer to anything, it's a response to the assertion that a supernatural deity is the ONLY explanation. Nobody is saying "multiverse is real, therefore there is no god", they're saying "multiverse is possible, therefore God isn't necessary".
@DC_Prox muhammed's fuckholes, what inane gymnastics. it's not an explanatory dead end because it's not an explanation, it's just a competing explanation with theism... dude come on
Dc_Proc is correct here. The point of the multiverse idea shows that a god is not necessary. Is it true or even likely a good explanation? Probably not. But it doesn't violate Occam's Razor like a god does.
Are they nearly as undemonstrable? Maybe. I'll grant that they are roughly equally unreasonable to accept. However, multiverse theory shows that theism adds at least one entity unnecessarily.
@@darkofalltrades multiverse adds orders of magnitude more entities than theism, but occam's razor isn't a problem (reality doesn't owe us simplicity). it's the explanatory irrelevance.
One correction: it's larynx, not larnyx. The second syllable is like "sinks" without the first 's'.
Thank you for this. I may have been speaking too quickly and got my syllables mixed up.
I should show how much I slow down my final audio sometime.
I think the biggest problem that these arguments suffer from is after the assumption that there is a why.
For virtually every purpose apologists claim… there are counter examples of this purpose not being fulfilled.
The death and degradation of biological components, eyes formed blind from birth, mass extinctions, VAST amounts of empty, uninhabitable space, the apparent heat death of the universe. THEN the special pleading happens for why the failure of the purpose to be demonstrated happens.
And if “unlikeliness” is a hallmark of design… it often only takes 1 extra layer of intricacy to show that anything seen as a potentially reasonable purpose is only seen as such because of some emote attachment.
You think the existence of human life is too unlikely to be a coincidence ? What about the existence of shoes? That’s even more unlikely! This proves the universe is not finely tuned for the existence of human life.., it’s finely tuned for the existence of shoes.
Doesn’t make sense? Exactly.
imagine you're waling along a beach with a Creationist, and the two of you encounter a watch. Now, you know the watch is a manufactured item, because you know about watches. You notice the watch because it is the only manufactured item on the beach that you and the Creationist did not bring with you.
To the Creationist, on the other hand, the beach is made of sand, which he believes to be manufactured. The see is there, which is also, in his mind, manufactured. The fish are similarly manufactured. The seaweed, the rocks, the clouds, the birds in the sky, the Sun, all of it are manufactured.
So, why does the Creationist even notice the watch? What makes it special? If the Creationist where being intellectually honest, he wouldn't even notice the watch, as it is just one watch amongst a myriad of watches.
Excellent explanation!
A+
There are other issues with the Watchmaker Argument and Fine-Tuning Argument that may not debunk them but still poke some holes.
The Watchmaker Argument leads to the assumption that everything was designed, but if so then there's nothing undesigned to show what something undesigned would look like. How can complexity be used as a measuring rod if a pocketwatch is complex (and therefore designed), but a rock is also designed (and therefore...complex)?
Meanwhile, the Fine-Tuning Argument assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life because of the Universal Constants, yet so much of the universe does NOT support life. If the universe were indeed fine-tuned for life, wouldn't we see it on more than just one blue dot in the cosmos? And even here on our world there are so many challenges to life, human or otherwise. Most of the water supply on Earth is undrinkable by humans and many other animals, numerous environments are extremely unfavorable to most species, and other factors lead to the extinction of species on the regular, not to mention the mass prehistoric extinction events.
All that to say these arguments have numerous issues which have been addressed in this video, added in the comments and elsewhere, and will likely have more discovered in the future.
For you point on the watchmaker: my point exactly when I ask, "How do we know if something is designed?"
For your point on fine-tuning: I believe it was Stephen Hawking who said something like, "If the universe is fine tuned foe anything, it is for the creation of black holes." (May not be an exact quote)
Watches require watchmakers so gods require godmakers? Is it turtles all the way down? 😂
Infinite regression. This is why theists invented the "god exists outside of space and time" non-argument.
It's not a watch on a beach, it's a watch on a beach made of watches.
In order to say something is designed we contrast it with something natural and that utterly falls apart when everything is designed.
Part of the problem is the argument of awe - that isn't this universe so wonderful/beautiful/perfect as to allow our being here, on a planet *designed so we can live so well on it* contains a confirmation bias - were we on a planet where we never would have been put/borne on, or one that if we somehow got to absent an environmental suit, we would not be having this conversation - there would be no "you" or "me". Most of the world is not habitable by humans - it's 4/5 water to start with, then there are ice sheets, deserts, and other areas where people just cannot be - without a (human-made) biological suit of some type. If we make that same argument about it being so beautiful or wonderful, only a very tiny amount of space, by volume, contains objects. A tiny amount of that material is in planets, and a small amount of that are rocky planets in the habitable zone from their star. IOW, the universe has a lot of unused space.
Well said! Definitely pointing out a slightly different point than what I made for confirmation bias. Good job!
A+
@@darkofalltrades Moreover, even the temperate or tropical areas on earth, where people live, is not especially suited to humans - without aid from human-made assistance, thanks to humans' big brains.
This includes heat to keep things comfortable and livable (hard when it's -20 and snowing). Fires and fireplaces, etc helped significantly, but modern heat devices help a lot more. It can include cooling, which has only been widely available since the 1960s.
Then there's food preservation, which has in some form been around for thousands of years in some form, much better in the 21st century than previously, but without it, nearly all of the world would leave humans without access to all of the foods required to keep us out of deficiency diseases, and susceptible to attacks from microbes.
What on EARTH was Gawd thinking when He created the Guinea worm? Or rabies? Or Ebola? Or the Black Plague? Or....
Then there are the bigger predators. Beyond the classic "Lions and tigers and bears" and wolves and.... there are poison things from spiders to reptiles to fish. Ask any Australian about how nature is set up to kill you.
There is a reason that it took from the beginning until roughly 1850 for the world to contain 1 billion people, whereas now we've got over 8 billion. This isn't Gawd's doing, but humans. Look in any cemetery that's been in use before about 1900, and you'll see a LOT of young children who died, and their mothers who died shortly after their birth. This is bad design.
These are excellent examples of bad design. I thought about talking more about it in the video, but it was already pretty long, so I just briefly mentioned "bad design."
P1) the PS5 is complex, plays Blue Ray discs, and costs $599 USD
P2) the Universe is complex
C) the Universe costs $599 USD
Exactly!
Showing the problem with the analogy.
sick vid again, glad you enjoy makin em! thanks and keep it up!!👍
I am glad you like what I am doing! At least I know I am doing something right.
What would something not designed look like?
Must we exist by necessity or intention just because we exist?
Where is the cut off point for complexity under determinism?
Premise 1 conflates the appearance of design with actual intentional design. Natural forces and processes can exhibit the appearance of design and order. This means premise 2 is an equivocation. It appeals to actual intentional design when the universe may only exhibit the appearance of design. Premise 3 is a bald assertion and although bald assertions might exist in a valid argument, the argument can only be sound if the premise is true and there is nothing to support that the premise might be true. Premise 4 confuses the inference from the previous 3 premises that has been built up with an explanation. There is no explanation for design and order in the universe due to an intelligent designer, so it can't be the best explanation out of all possible explanations. Thus due to these many failings, the conclusion doesn't follow.
Excellent analysis. I am glad you understood it! Even to the point of breaking it down differently than I did.
A+
If William Paley had found a watch, he'd have recognised it, and wondered who had dropped it. But if he had found a piece of aluminium laying on the ground; 150*100*6mm (6"*4"*1/4"), with rounded edges and corners, polished and shiny. He wouldn't have recognised the metal (which wasn't discovered until after his death (I know it's an anachronism, just bear with me)), but he would certainly have recognised that the object was an artifact, made to a design, although a very simple one. I believe this thought experiment shows the falsity of his analogy.
The universe is fine tuned for chemistry. Life is just a consequence of exotic chemistry.
If the existence of "purpose" and "meaning" could be discerned anywhere outside a person's opinion, I might be more convinced by these arguments. But if the only argument is "we perceive structure in the universe and think it's notable", why must that be a property of the universe and not simply a property of our minds?
Well said!
I would even add that things can have multiple "purposes" or "meanings." Limiting it to one "ultimate" one is actually severely limiting.
I will say though, i can understand why people think there is a creator since its amazing our universe has the physics to suport life and didn't "start out" (expand) with different physical laws that would make any self awareness impossible. Just imagining a dead universe with nothing experiencing it is strange to comprehend. I don't know if there is or isn't a creator, but if there was, it most likely would be something that's uncaring/apathetic. Like nature documentary where you observe animals in the wild but you also just let animals do what they do and let nature run its course. (Think Sims where the characters have more agency)
Edit: I also want to add, I'm not saying everything was zapped into existence, it still starts with physics doing its thing and life evolving to what we have now
I find the idea of "nothing" that theists seem to claim atheists "must believe" as such a strange concept. Like a void of what?
I tend to put forth the idea that it is theoretically possible that existence is the default state of things. It is the layer on which we put attributes. Existence is the base, perhaps it is an axiom, but I haven't figured out that far.
Watchmaker argument.
You can tell the watch is designed but the field is not.
Also:
You can tell the watch is designed and the field is designed.. how?
The dishonesty smuggled in is there by design.
You can demonstrate that there is a designer of man-made objects, because it's made by people by default.
You can't demonstrate that the universe was created by anyone, let alone which of the myriad gods, goddesses, etc are supposedly responsible for the complexity of the world, because we have a sample size of ONE.
Evolution as a theory is about the inherent nature of life to adapt to it's environment and it's ability to adapt it's environment to itself. That is, it broadly describes the telos of all life in general and so cannot be used even in principle against the teleological argument.
The anthropic principle doesn't really get off of the ground as it has never been demonstrated that another universe is possible. When the constants of the physical laws of the universe are turned into mathematical formulas this only serves as an abstraction from the physical reality that presents those laws to us in the first place, and changing or tweaking those mathematical symbols and formulas doesn't reflect the possibility that those physical realities could be otherwise. This is similarly defeating for the multiverse hypothesis, since again mathematical abstractions on paper aren't responsible for making universes happen.
When it comes to the argument from ignorance, this would be an eternal bulwark for naturalistic atheism since the only verifiable means for obtaining knowledge depends on epistemic materialism and anything that causes the physical universe would have to precede physicality as such.
The idea that teleology shuts down all scientific explanation and exploration is also false, as all physical phenomena would still be physical and still be able to be inquired into or examined by human beings. Issues such as final or formal causality, issues which I can't help but notice don't get brought up in this video by name, don't get in the way of material examination.
In the post hoc ergo prompter hoc objection, life cannot adapt to the universe if it doesn't exist in some sense first as non-existent things don't adapt due to their non-existence.
And the simplest response possible to confirmation bias is simply that the road goes two ways here and this can also be a problem for the atheist, and the objections I've raised above certainly point out that that is possible.
Thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts. It's clear you've put a lot of consideration into these issues, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with them.
I want to very briefly address what I see as your main points. (Helpfully sorted by topic ^_^)
1. Evolution and Teleology
I can see how one might interpret evolution as having a "telos," but I disagree with this perspective. Evolution by natural selection, as understood in the scientific community, operates without any inherent goal or purpose. The adaptations we observe are the result of random mutations and the non-random survival of organisms best suited to their environments, rather than an overarching purpose guiding the process.
2. The Anthropic Principle
You bring up a valid point regarding the lack of empirical evidence for other universes, which complicates the anthropic principle. However, the principle is often used to illustrate how our observations are conditioned by our existence rather than to prove the possibility of other universes. While I can grant that it is speculative for the sake of this conversation, I believe it still offers a valuable framework for discussing why our universe has the conditions it does, even if it isn’t definitive.
3. Multiverse Hypothesis
I need to start by saying, I don't necessarily accept the Multiverse Hypothesis. I will disagree with the notion that mathematical models don’t reflect physical possibilities. While they are abstractions, these models are grounded in our best understanding of quantum mechanics and cosmology. They don’t claim to create universes but rather to describe potential realities. It’s true that the multiverse remains a hypothesis, but it’s one supported by theoretical frameworks, not just mathematical abstraction. On top of that, Modal logic, which explores possibilities and necessities across different possible worlds, also supports the idea that different configurations of the universe could exist. These frameworks don’t claim to create universes but rather describe potential realities. While the multiverse remains a hypothesis, it’s one supported by both theoretical models and modal logic, not just mathematical abstraction.
4. Argument from Ignorance
I understand your concern regarding the argument from ignorance, but I think there’s a slight misinterpretation here. Many atheists don’t claim that the lack of evidence for a deity is evidence against one; rather, they withhold belief until evidence is presented. While naturalistic atheism does often reject supernatural explanations due to lack of evidence, it does not claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; rather, it withholds belief until evidence is provided. This approach is about avoiding unwarranted conclusions, not necessarily making definitive claims based on ignorance.
5. Teleology and Science
I agree that teleology historically didn’t shut down scientific inquiry, and some great scientists operated within teleological frameworks. However, in modern science, explanations based on purpose or final causes are generally avoided because they aren’t empirically testable. This doesn’t mean teleology is irrelevant, but it does explain why it’s less prominent in scientific discourse today.
6. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Your point about life needing to exist before it can adapt is true, but I believe it misses the mark regarding the post hoc fallacy. The fallacy concerns assuming causation from mere sequence, not the necessity of existence for adaptation. While existence is a prerequisite for adaptation, this doesn’t necessarily address the fallacy in the teleological argument.
7. Confirmation Bias
I completely agree that confirmation bias is a concern for everyone, regardless of belief. It’s essential for both theists and atheists to be mindful of this cognitive bias. We should all strive to critically examine our beliefs and be open to challenging them, which is why discussions like these are so valuable.
I appreciate your engagement and the thoughtful way you’ve raised these points. While we may not agree on everything, this kind of dialogue helps us all refine our understanding and think more deeply about these important topics.
@@darkofalltrades I think a lot of the discrepancy between our views on telos can be more attributed to Paley and the history of Western thought as it passed through the territory of Deism, which eventually had the strange love child of "intelligent design". For Paley, it seems that life is an artifact that has it's telos imposed on it from without, rather than the teleological characteristics being understood as properly immanent in the lifeform itself or even "life" in general. My own school of thought is Platonic rather than Deistic, and so intelligent design is a non-starter for me.
As for 2 and 3, hypothetical or theoretical frameworks are fine and I don't object to them tout court, I guess I would just say that there are broader frames one can operate in.
On to 4. A deity, any deity, exists first and foremost as Themselves, and not for the sake of some other. A God is not first and foremost an explanation for the universe, for a law of physics, or some natural phenomenon of weather or human behavior. I'm aware of how monotheists have gummed up the issue in an attempt to causally determine and therefore reduce the number of deities to a singularity, but that's not actually how it works in Platonism, and it's the very reduction brought about by those self-same monotheists that's kicked off a lot of what we see in mainstream atheism. I will also simply state that if the atheists are only going to accept empirical evidence and nothing else, there has been or will be a failure to communicate.
5. Science avoiding issues of final causality is all well and good so long as there is the resultant humility that they have no way to say it isn't real and do not proceed to deny its existence.
6. So far as it goes for this, I would simply say again that much of the apparent discrepancy between the views expressed between us depends greatly upon the difference of extrinsic telos and intrinsic telos.
7. Thank you.
And of course: We have only observed *material* designers, so by the argument itself that implies that the *universe must have a material designer* . This rather unsurprisingly excludes the non material god they are hoping to handwave into existence.
Excellent point! This is right with the problem with analogies.
Everything we know to be designed had a material designer.
Therefore, god must be material.
I don't think theists would go for that.
@@darkofalltrades every designer we are aware of: mortal, material, fallible. That’s oddly consistent with how the universe is “designed” as well, but doesn’t conform to many god concepts we are offered.
There is even the argument that "one can't give something to another that one does not have" as a way of saying that things like whatever the cause is must be conscious.
Same concept.
The telilogical arguement is basically - Im too stupid to understand
If he universe as we know it formed differently as we know it, then life on earth would have come into being and evolved differently as it is now. No "intelligent designer" needed.
And if an "intelligent designer" could be conclusively proven to exist, that DOES NOT prove the god of the Christian bible. An "intelligent designer" doesn't have to be any religion's god. Nor does said designer have to meet any generally recognized definition of a god. There could be multiple designers, which would put the legitimacy of any monotheistic religion in jeopardy.
Or maybe the answer is "We simply do not know." And humanity may go extinct, never conclusively answering that question.
fine tuning can't even get us to classical theism (the designer would have to be finite and constrained, rather than infinite snd omnipotent), let alone to the abrahamic god, which has supposedly created living conscious beings that require no physical world at all, let alone this very specific one.
@@joshridinger3407 I always love people using JWST and LHC to prove that god created the world in six days.
Good video for a sleep aide. Only made it 2 minutes in and already falling asleep.
I'll take that as a compliment on my voice.
The universe doesn’t have an inherent purpose and a watch doesn’t either. If you didnt come from a culture teaching you the concept of time keeping or seconds, the regular ticking wouldn’t have any more purpose than water dripping regularly. It only has purpose because we bring purpose to it.
If you knew what a sundial was, you could see the purpose of the hands moving but otherwise you’d never recognize the pattern unless you stared at it so long that you’d seeing patterns in anything, like reading tea leaves. Is the complex arrangement of tea leaves designed? Some people say yes but not most theists.
What if I don't need to tell time? What if I need a paperweight. I could repurpose a watch to be a paperweight. Therefore, that watches "purpose" is to be a paperweight.
Thus showing that humans can dictate the purpose of things, and EVEN IF there was a god handing out purpose, we don't need to stick to the opinions of any being. We make our own purpose, and until we can show a reliable way to determine a person's "purpose," we could only speculate and have NO idea if we are correct or not. Giving ourselves a purpose is a way to objectively know if you have a purpose and what it is.
There are several problems with this argument as has been pointed out, but probably the most damaging is in the comparison of human artifacts to natural systems. If I came across a watch I would assume it was designed by a human, because I am aware that humans make watches. I would not assume that it was placed there by a dragon or a `cosmic clock god.` IF we saw universes being created by gods, then sure it would be reasonable to assume a god probably created our universe as well, but we don't observe that nor do we see any evidence of an actual god. In the end, it's starting with a conclusion and looking for an argument to apply it to.
Exactly! We know designed things like watches are designed because we have countless examples, and we know the process of designing and making a watch. We have investigated countless examples of watches and can compare them to something natural, like a rock.
How many universes have we investigated? A small fraction of 1. We don't have other examples of extant universes we can examine.
Well stated.
I post on many channels, Atheist and Theist. I preach, share opinions, listen and learn.
My post "creation requires a creator" is simple and could be easily ignored and lost
in a sea of other comments. This is common. Instead this post caused more push back
than I have ever seen and this is not my first rodeo. The reason for this seems to be the idea
of worldview, and there appear to be two. One provides a sense of comfort and stability
while the other, panic and fear. It's obvious what most of the world chooses.
This is not the first time I've seen this and it won't be the last.
You put this in a previous thread, and I responded there.
It is evident that the “god must exist, because reasons” arguments had to be invented, due to the obvious lack of supporting evidence for ancient religious claims. Disbelief in extraordinary, or even outright ridiculous religious claims (such as the nonsensical Jesus Christ sacrifice), is nothing new.
Exactly, if god really existed there would be no need for apologetics.
@@tabularasa0606 Yes. These arguments were nothing more than a desperate effort to make the religious claims appear rational. They actually prove nothing.
The multiverse seems like a desperate attempt to explain something that’s quite simple. Yes, the universe is unlikely but simply put, unlikely things happen all the time. Everything that happens is virtually impossible if you think about it.
Even if the multiverse has evidence in higher physics, it’s so weird and complex that bringing into a layman’s argument seems like we’re grasping at straws for any excuse, even one that sounds equally unrealistic as theism does.
Physicists have two ideas of multiverse: an infinite number of universes with different "fine tuning constants" (destroying that argument) or the "multi-world interpretation" where it's exactly the same particles in you as are in the other universe and has nothing to do with actual "other universes".
I am not necessarily a proponent of multiverse theory. However, it would account for the issues theists try to justify with the teleological argument.
Occam's Razor strikes again.
@@darkofalltrades There's "eternal inflation" which would be the kind of multiverse where the "fine tuning" parameters might differ. There's "multi-world interpretation" of quantum mechanics in which you are currently living in all of the multiworlds, because it's the same collection of particles in every world, and not some of this silly MCU stuff. Like, the particle that goes through both slits? Even in "multi-world interpretation" it remains a single particle.
I always enjoy hearing people using results from JWST and LHC as evidence that god created the earth in 6 days.
Then ask what a "day" is in the bible. See people disagree on it.
If God is even just minimally sufficient to create the universe, the mind of God would need to contain a perfectly accurate and exhaustively detailed model of the universe as God cannot create a universe that she doesn’t know how to create. The mind of God would need to contain as much information content as that which describes the universe. The mind of God would need to satisfy the same list of special characteristics and finely tuned parameters as that which the universe must satisfy in order to be life containing. For every way in which the universe could have been different, there would exist a corresponding way in which the mind of God could have been different. Only a special god satisfying a peculiar combination of special characteristics would be sufficient to create such a peculiar universe as this. If finely tuned metaphysical constructs cannot exist as brute facts but require further explanation (the theist’s assertion, not mine), then the design argument becomes self refuting. It simply is not obvious how any probabilistic or explanatory advantage is obtained by replacing the universe with a god who just happens to be up to the task of creating it.
Theists will sometimes try to side step this point by arguing that God is a “necessary being” and only a contingent god would be subject to the aforementioned critique. My response to this would be to point out that a valid ontological argument would be the only reason to think that god exists necessarily and no valid ontological argument has ever been presented. The theist could simply assume that god exists necessarily without having a good argument to justify this assertion but then the atheist could employ the same trick and simply assume that the universe simply exists necessarily and call it good.
Falling back on God’s “necessariness” to avoid having to deal with her apparent finely tuned characteristics and improbable character means that god’s necessity is what’s actually doing all the work in their argument, not god’s intelligence. The teleological argument becomes superfluous as it becomes self defeating as a stand alone argument if it doesn’t have a valid ontological argument to buttress it.
Theists also argue that god is a simple being. I would dispute that a simple god could create the universe as god cannot be simpler than the content of her mind and god’s mind cannot be simpler than the universe as god’s mind must contain the universe (or at least, a perfect model of it). Also, the teleological argument is usually understood as an argument from analogy. Human inventors can create complex things only by virtue of the fact that humans are complex constructs themselves. If god can create complex things without being complex herself, the process by which she does this would have to be radically dissimilar to the process by which humans create which greatly undermines the analogy.
Why does god need to fine tune things? Why does god need to form things? The world, the universe should be 6000 years old because god can just poof things into existence with magic. We would have square planets, 3 earth, 2 suns, THAT would undoubtedly prove god, things that defy logic and possibilities but no.
The truth is what they are describing is the universe formed itself naturally and they just shoe horned god in front of it.
If god needed to fine tune the universe for life would imply heaven doesn't exist.
If heaven existed, it shows that god doesn't. (I did a video on that)
This sounds like ai
I assure you I am real and use my real voice when recording.
I hear that those voice training programs can be expensive, so I didn't even look into them.
@@darkofalltrades hard to tell these days.
Creation requires a creator. Children know this.
Cakes requires cakers, and stones require stoners.
@@olexalex8874 And comments require writers.
Sure!
Now what is the justification for calling it a "creation?"
@@darkofalltrades What's "it"?
What you call "creation."