Ugh, i'll try this again. The teleological argument has been debunked using science(physics, chemistry and biology) and Formal Logic.
Try to pay attention.
It isn't debunked! LOL at most, the counter argument is as flawed as much as the whole fleeting understanding of how the universe came to be. It's a theory.
To debunk the argument for complexity and design you'd have to answer with empirical evidences several reasons why and how random molecules and physics formulas are so complex and fine tuned for permitting life.
Skeptics only have theories and hypotheses at BEST. Using hypothesis to debunk another hypothesis? That isn't debunked.
Besides, there is no understanding from cosmology that says the physical constants could have been anything else: no other way is necessarily possible. Stephen Hawking, in his book ‘The Grand Design’, says that the physical constants are self-regulating.
There is also not an understanding in biology that says that intelligent life could not arise in a different set of constants. If it could, in a different set of constants different intelligent life would be using the same argument. The premise gives too much significance to a particular intelligent life form: humans.
See what I mean? This argument stems from the point that our universe isn't extraordinary, which you and I believe it to be. Not a very solid theory is it?
P2: The ‘fine tuner’ of the universe must have been very powerful and very intelligent
Humans have a tendency to infer intelligence from patterns, and see patterns where there is none. Stephen Hawking’s idea of the physical constants being self-regulating removes both the idea of power and intelligence from the process.
Think of the patterns that humans used to ascribe to a Higher Intelligence, but are now forced to admit they are solely natural processes caused by natural laws(God Of The Gaps Fallacy): the orbits around our sun, the relative rising and setting of the sun, the tides, the seasons, crops etc.(Coral! )
I keep telling you that natural processes don't refute an intelligent designer. An average programmer can make software that automatically or "ooo naturally" reoccurs on the internet, but we all know just because it automatically occurs doesn't mean it self existed. Natural processes can be the constructs of intelligent design!
Stating "evolution" or "natural" processes does not rule out the fact that a designer used those methods as constructs of design. Stating the fact that a watch is MAN-MADE and comparing it to coral which exists NATURALLY does not speak on the scale of the origins of the universe
, nor does it speak to the natural processes
of how coral came to be, BOTH of which you and I can accept to be complex things.
P3: God is the only thing that is that powerful and that intelligent
This should read “the concept of God…”. But that is never how this premise is presented. P3 necessitates God’s existence when that is the very thing that needs to be proved: it begs the question. That is a logical fallacy. It is also a fallacy of equivocation(that's called Formal Logic) in that it says “God” in P3 and means the concept, but in the conclusion will mean a God that exists in reality.
This is your only strongest argument really, but it still leans in my favour. I'l show you how.
Yes it's true, that not necessarily a God is the fine tuner. Maybe it's aliens out there, maybe its a magical unicorn... from the argument thus far a bit of a leap to go from fine tuner to GOD right? But here is where the infinite regression pops in. This other "fine tuner" .. if it isn't God... it's probably something that IS NOT eternal. At which point is complex on its own. So who made this designer? Infinite regression points back to a GOD in the end.
I'l ask you one more time. If you took random molecules in the universe, mixed it up, say 10^100 trillion years, would you get coral? Coral - something much more complex than a computer monitor.
Edited by dajusta, 22 September 2012 - 11:44 AM.