A minimal teleological argument

[punkforchrist]

I presented this on the Infidels forum, and I received mixed responses. I don’t intend to demonstrate a whole lot, at least not prima facie. Any feedback will be appreciated.

1. Everything that has order is guided by a unifying force.
2. The universe has order.
3. Therefore, the universe is guided by a unifying force.

At first glance, this “unifying force” could be anything. However, is at least this much of the argument agreeable? And secondly, what would be required in order for this to qualify as a sufficient proof for God? If it had intelligence, would that suffice?

 

[rpp]

It is an interesting argument. On the other hand, it is so minimal that it can serve only as the most basic of foundations. As you yourself pointed out, it a person could argue that that unifying force is a force of nature, from which the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) come.

I also noted that you seemed to have minimized “theological” in the title of your thread too. Or are you talking about television (that is only one force of nature)?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi rpp,

Thanks for the response.

It is an interesting argument. On the other hand, it is so minimal that it can serve only as the most basic of foundations.

This is indeed the case if we leave it at that. However, I think there’s potential to demonstrate more about this unifying force. What do you think?

As you yourself pointed out, it a person could argue that that unifying force is a force of nature, from which the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) come.

Right, that would be a sort of theory of everything (or rather, the concrete manifestation of the theory).

I also noted that you seemed to have minimized “theological” in the title of your thread too. Or are you talking about television (that is only one force of nature)?

Lol

 

[ateista]

I presented this on the Infidels forum, and I received mixed responses. I don’t intend to demonstrate a whole lot, at least not prima facie. Any feedback will be appreciated.

1. Everything that has order is guided by a unifying force.
2. The universe has order.
3. Therefore, the universe is guided by a unifying force.

At first glance, this “unifying force” could be anything. However, is at least this much of the argument agreeable? And secondly, what would be required in order for this to qualify as a sufficient proof for God? If it had intelligence, would that suffice?

Unless you can demonstrate the 1) is true, the whole argument collapses. The word “guiding” is already an anthropomorphic utterance, and as such its usage is dubious.

Unlike “design” which would require a designer, “order” does not require and “orderer”. One example will suffice: imagine three twigs of the beach, where the end of each twig happens to touch the end of another one. You have a traingle. A triangle exhibits order. There absolutely no need to assume an “orderer”. The random forces of wind and tide can explain the occurrence of order.

Therefore your 1) assumption is false.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi ateista,

Unless you can demonstrate the 1) is true, the whole argument collapses. The word “guiding” is already an anthropomorphic utterance, and as such its usage is dubious.

I considered that, and perhaps there is a more suitable term. For the time being, I just wouldn’t read anything into the word “guiding”.

Unlike “design” which would require a designer, “order” does not require and “orderer”. One example will suffice: imagine three twigs of the beach, where the end of each twig happens to touch the end of another one. You have a traingle. A triangle exhibits order. There absolutely no need to assume an “orderer”. The random forces of wind and tide can explain the occurrence of order.

Therefore your 1) assumption is false.

I think a notable difference is that these twigs do not produce patterns of regularity. They can easily become disordered. Laws of nature, on the other hand, are much different. Gravity is something that is constantly observed and has an objective reality in our world, do you agree?

 

[ateista]

I considered that, and perhaps there is a more suitable term. For the time being, I just wouldn’t read anything into the word “guiding”.

Ok.

I think a notable difference is that these twigs do not produce patterns of regularity. They can easily become disordered.

Sure, but still they exhibit order, albeit a “fragile” or temporary one. In your argument - as presented - you did not specify anything more “stable”, just “order”. And thus the presence of “order” does not lead to the assumption of an “orderer”.

Laws of nature, on the other hand, are much different. Gravity is something that is constantly observed and has an objective reality in our world, do you agree?

I agree with it, but what is the significance? Certainly, we observe all different kinds of laws of nature. Some are actually stochastic, like the second law of thermodynamics. The existence of these laws is the result of the fabric of matter and energy. They cannot be used to point at anything “beyond” nature.

 

[punkforchrist]

Sure, but still they exhibit order, albeit a “fragile” or temporary one.

Yes, they exhibit what we might call “accidental order”.

In your argument - as presented - you did not specify anything more “stable”, just “order”. And thus the presence of “order” does not lead to the assumption of an “orderer”.

Point taken. Let me clarify that by “order” I mean those things that have patterns of regularity.

I agree with it, but what is the significance? Certainly, we observe all different kinds of laws of nature.

Right, but is there something that keeps all of them from becoming chaotic?

Some are actually stochastic, like the second law of thermodynamics.

I wouldn’t call the second law of thermodynamics stochastic, or random. Although the individual events may not be predicted, there is a steady pattern on the macro level.

The existence of these laws is the result of the fabric of matter and energy. They cannot be used to point at anything “beyond” nature.

I think that’s jumping the gun a bit. I’m not actually arguing that this force must exist beyond nature, at least not yet.

 

[jimmy85]

Perhaps the order could account for the antrhopic principle. If there wasent order we woudlnt be here to notice it.

 

[ateista]

Point taken. Let me clarify that by “order” I mean those things that have patterns of regularity.

Like a snowflake? Or the growth of a crystal?

Right, but is there something that keeps all of them from becoming chaotic?

I have no idea what you mean. If there are laws, then they are the reason that reality will not change into chaos.

I wouldn’t call the second law of thermodynamics stochastic, or random. Although the individual events may not be predicted, there is a steady pattern on the macro level.

“Stochastic” does not equal “random”. The second law simply says that on the long run, in a closed system the entropy will grow. It still allows the entropy to decrease temporarily. A clear stochastic law - has nothing to do with chaos or randomness.

I think that’s jumping the gun a bit. I’m not actually arguing that this force must exist beyond nature, at least not yet.

Ok.

 

[rpp]

Unlike “design” which would require a designer, “order” does not require and “orderer”. One example will suffice: imagine three twigs of the beach, where the end of each twig happens to touch the end of another one. You have a traingle. A triangle exhibits order. There absolutely no need to assume an “orderer”. The random forces of wind and tide can explain the occurrence of order.

Therefore your 1) assumption is false.

I do not believe this argument adequately refutes his first premise. He is not saying that an observed random event cannot take place, he is saying that everything is guided by a universal force. The triangle is a random and temporary result. The fact that the twigs float on the water and that waves carried them to shore represents the order he is referring to.

Presuming you meant three relatively undifferentiated twigs, from the same tree perhaps. Would would not be orderly is if one twig sank like a rock, another floated away in the air and the third sucked the ocean dry. And that they did this without anyone being able to anticipate it or explain why. That is disorder.

 

[punkforchrist]

"jimmy85:

Perhaps the order could account for the antrhopic principle. If there wasent order we woudlnt be here to notice it.

That’s a good point. William Lane Craig argues similarly in his version of the fine-tuning argument.

Like a snowflake? Or the growth of a crystal?

Actually, I’d say these things have a lot of order (not accidental order) inherent in them. Weather patterns, geological phenomena, etc., are responsible for these things.

I have no idea what you mean. If there are laws, then they are the reason that reality will not change into chaos.

Basically, I mean to ask whether all of these laws have some kind of unifying force that prevents them from destroying each other and ending in chaos.

“Stochastic” does not equal “random”. The second law simply says that on the long run, in a closed system the entropy will grow. It still allows the entropy to decrease temporarily. A clear stochastic law - has nothing to do with chaos or randomness.

What I meant to say was that they include random elements to bring about appearances of order. In fact, I think there is a real underlying order to this law, as you seem to suggest.

 

[ateista]

That’s a good point. William Lane Craig argues similarly in his version of the fine-tuning argument.

Actually, I’d say these things have a lot of order (not accidental order) inherent in them. Weather patterns, geological phenomena, etc., are responsible for these things.

Basically, I mean to ask whether all of these laws have some kind of unifying force that prevents them from destroying each other and ending in chaos.

What I meant to say was that they include random elements to bring about appearances of order. In fact, I think there is a real underlying order to this law, as you seem to suggest.

Ok. So, let’s clarify. “Guidance” does not really mean “guidance”. “Order” does not really mean “order”.

Your OP said:

1. Everything that has order is guided by a unifying force.
2. The universe has order.
3. Therefore, the universe is guided by a unifying force.

Why don’t you rephrase it, so it will become more accurate? So far you argue that there are laws of nature. No one denies that. On the other hand, you also seem to argue that there is “one” unifying force. (Star Wars, anyone?)

Let’s cut to the chase.

Theist points to something he cannot explain and says: “Look, a miracle! Surely it is the sign of God!”.

Then theist points to something perfectly “orderly”, explainable by the laws of nature, and exclaims: “Look, NO miracle! Surely it is the sign of God”.

What did the church lady say? “How conveeenient!”…

 

[punkforchrist]

How does this sound?

1. Everything that has patterns of regularity is directed by a unifying force.
2. Natural phenomena have patterns of regularity.
3. Therefore, natural phenomena is directed by a unifying force.

I’m not sure “directed” is any improvement from “guided”. Any suggestions?

I’m not making an argument for miracles, though. And yes, I thought of Star Wars when I was writing this, too.

 

[davidv]

How does this sound?

1. Everything that has patterns of regularity is directed by a unifying force.
2. Natural phenomena have patterns of regularity.
3. Therefore, natural phenomena is directed by a unifying force.

I’m not sure “directed” is any improvement from “guided”. Any suggestions?

I’m not making an argument for miracles, though. And yes, I thought of Star Wars when I was writing this, too.

Regarding premise 1: The rewording does nothing to make its truthfulness more evident. There is still plenty of room to argue that is not. If it (premise 1) isn’t self evidently true then the argument fails based on a faulty premise.