In “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning”, Robin Collins argues for the Intelligent Design of the universe from the Fine-Tuning Argument. Collins’ argument is probabilistic in nature; however, it fails due to its misuse of probability theory. Aided by the work of both Bradley Monton and Mark Colyvan, I will show why Collins’ argument fails. It can be shown that this line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a life permitting universe is zero. Essentially, Collins’ argument does not prove what he claims it does and is too strong to account for the existence of a life permitting universe because it not only misuses probability, but is rendered useless due to the paradoxes inherent in probability theory.
Collins’ representation of the Fine-Tuning Argument is as follows:
1) Fine-Tuning is not improbable under theism.
2) Fine-Tuning is very improbable under the Atheistic Single Universe Hypothesis.
3) Prime Principle of Confirmation: When considering two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability (or is the least improbable) (Collins 8).
4) / From premises 1 and 2 and the Prime Principle of Confirmation, it follows that the existence of Fine-Tuning provides “strong evidence” for the design hypothesis over the Atheistic Single Universe Hypothesis (Collins 2003).
Collins claims that Fine-Tuning is likely under Theism because a deity (such as the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) would be very interested in creating and very likely to create a fine-tuned, life permitting universe. Although the Intelligent Design Hypothesis relies upon the existence of God, Collins does not claim to have any direct evidence of the nature or existenc...
... middle of paper ...
...at the value of k is non-zero (Colyvan 329). However, such a range cannot be picked in a non-arbitrary was. It seems that no natural sense of possibility (e.g. logical possibility or physical possibility) seems likely to produce a range that fits the requirements of the Fine-Tuning Argument through any sort of non-arbitrary means.
If fine-tuning is to provide evidence for the intelligent design of the universe, it seems that arguments based in probabilistic reasoning are not the most tenable due to the many objections raised throughout this essay. While fine-tuning may very well serve as evidence for intelligent design, the proponents of such a view must either form a novel argument that does not rely on probability theory as the current Fine-Tuning Argument has or find a way to resolve the probabilistic paradoxes that the current argument has been plagued with.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
Within William Rowe’s Chapter two of “The Cosmological Argument”, Rowe reconstructs Samuel Clark's Cosmological Argument by making explicit the way in which the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or PSR, operates in the argument as well as providing contradictions of two important criticisms from Rowe’s argument.
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question. Ultimately, the teleological argument is an inadequate and dated explanation for the creation of the universe.
In the case for our universe, the existence of fine tuning (our specific set of parameters that allow intelligent life to exist in the universe) seems more probable to be the result of intelligent intentional design consistent with theism as opposed to atheism which simply accepts fine tuning as in inexplicable inarguable fact. Collin’s lists various observations of the universe, such as the initial strength of the Big Bang, and explains that had this or any number or physical attributes of the universe been different, that life would be impossible. This is what leads one to believe or at least accept the possibility of the universe being designed intentionally with intelligent life in
McCloskey starts with disputing the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states, "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968). Evans and Manis argue that for everything to exist there had to be a creator that created them. "Ultimately, the explanation of any contingent beings existence will be incomplete unless it culmi...
"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory." AAAS. N.p., 2002. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
...etts Institute of Technology. (2014, February 20). Closing the 'free will' loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell's theorem. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 23, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
NOTE: This paper was written for an English class and a non astronomy audience. Thus, several arguments were left out to make the material easier to understand for the target audience. These arguments would include (but are not limited to) dark energy, dark matter, and the inflationary model of the universe. If I later have time I may revise this paper to cover such topics and be more comprehensive.
The "Intelligent Design" pbs.org. PBS, 5 Aug. 2005. Web. The Web. The Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
According to Philo Cleanthes’s argument of design does not work because it is a bad comparison. Arguing that the universe is like a machine as imaginative as it may seem, does not work, because it is a comparison of a part of a whole and that is problematic because there is no way to compare a part of something, to that something is part of that something is completely unknown. By saying “observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?” in page 24, Philo reveals a fatal weakness in Cleanthes’s comparison. Just like it is impossible to know the generation of a human being by observing how his hair grows, it is impossible to understand the universe in its entirety by understanding how a machine. Philo contends that Cleanthes’s comparison may be too narrow for a universe with so much diversity, in page 25 “When nature has so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe; can we imagine that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a
William Paley set out to create a logical argument called “The Watchmaker Argument” which proves the existence of a creator, and therefore, the existence of God. In “Natural Theology”, Paley argues that due to the complex nature and resemblance of purpose in reality, the universe must have had a creator. Paley’s argument would seem to make sense, however, when put under modern day scrutiny, it does not hold up to the degree that it was originally intended to. Throughout this essay, I will argue that Paley’s watchmaker analogy is not a logical argument by pointing out the major flaws contained in it, and how they coexist to prove the argument is false. I will firstly give a quick overview of my argument, followed by Paley’s argument for reference.
The existence of God or rather an intelligent being with define abilities has been a contentious issue of discussion since time immemorial. There are as many people advocating for divinity in the creation of the universe as there are people doubting the existence of this Supreme Being with unique and really frightening capabilities who designed and created the universe. Among the chief advocates of the thought of the existence of God and perfect order in the creation of the universe is William Paley. William Paley brings forth among the best arguments ever brought forward advocating for the existence of God and the nature in which the universe is bordered as sufficient evidence of the existence of this divine being responsible for the materialization of the universe and its exact design. William Paley begins his argument by talking about a scenario, which involves him walking along a path. “During his walk he hits his leg on a rock but pays very little attention to the rock” (Paley, 2000, p.12). This is because at the back if his mind he knows that the rock has been there for a very long time verging on forever. William Paley creates an alternate scenario with him walking down the same path. In this alternate scenario he just so happens to hit his leg on a watch. The reaction to the watch is very different from the reaction to the rock. William Paley says that this disparity to the watch in comparison to the rock is caused by purpose. Thus William Paley introduces the concept of telos. Telos means purpose. It is a term that refers to the exact purpose of a given object in the universe and exactly how this purpose relates to the object as well as the level of perfection and prowess to which this object in question fulfill...
We have been struck dumb, however; we can no longer be incautious with such temptations to believe, with such sirens sounding for sensible, systematic sureness. The Design Argument has been mortally wounded by David Hume. The god arrived at by arguments on the one-way street of effect to the cause is dead; we should never have allowed him to live. In Section XI of the Enquiry, and throughout the Dialogues Hume subjects the Argument from Design to searching and searing philosophical analysis, to the point in his mind that it is forever dead, and to the point in our minds that we wonder why the world has not yet received the obituary.