Thread: An Argument to Design

Originally Posted by Maximatic

No. THIS Universe, THE Universe we live in could have been different.

Sure. And so would everything in it. We likely wouldn't even be having this conversation.

IE, the water in the pothole would be conforming to an entirely different shape and depth.

Originally Posted by Maximatic

Why do you think that?

Change a constant as simple as rates of decay and you make huge differences in what is actually seen and possible to exist.

Originally Posted by Questerr

But for OUR universe to exist as it does now, those constants must be necessary.

It doesn't matter if there are infinite other universes with other constants possible. For the one we live in to exist, those constants are a necessity.

Sorry, I read over this.
Yes, that's tautological. In order for our universe to be the way it is, the constants must be what they are.
What I am saying is that the constants and quantities are not what they are by the necessity of their own nature or because of any natural law. They could have been different.

Originally Posted by Questerr

Sure. And so would everything in it. We likely wouldn't even be having this conversation.

IE, the water in the pothole would be conforming to an entirely different shape and depth.

Yes, I understand the Anthropic Principal. We can only observe conditions which are compatible with our existence. It doesn't follow, from that, that the conditions we observe are necessarily so, only that they are in fact so. It is logically possible for us to not exist even though it's not in fact possible.

Originally Posted by Maximatic

Sorry, I read over this.
Yes, that's tautological. In order for our universe to be the way it is, the constants must be what they are.
What I am saying is that the constants and quantities are not what they are by the necessity of their own nature or because of any natural law. They could have been different.

Right, and so would everything else in the universe.

For our universe to exist as it does now, with you and I communicating via the internet on Earth as humans with our millions of years of evolutionary developments, those constants are a necessity and were likely the result of random chance when our universe came into existence, given as you have pointed out things could have been very different.

I'm still not seeing how you can assume that design is more plausible.

Originally Posted by Questerr

Right, and so would everything else in the universe.

For our universe to exist as it does now, with you and I communicating via the internet on Earth as humans with our millions of years of evolutionary developments, those constants are a necessity and were likely the result of random chance when our universe came into existence, given as you have pointed out things could have been very different.

I'm still not seeing how you can assume that design is more plausible.

We can't talk about design being more plausible than chance until you let go of the idea of necessity as an explanation.
I don't know how many different ways I can say it. Just because something is the case doesn't mean it is necessarily the case. You seem to be begging the question. It looks like you're saying that because something is true it could not have been false. An introductory course in Modal Logic will show you that that is not true.

Originally Posted by Maximatic

We can't talk about design being more plausible than chance until you let go of the idea of necessity as an explanation.
I don't know how many different ways I can say it. Just because something is the case doesn't mean it is necessarily the case. You seem to be begging the question. It looks like you're saying that because something is true it could not have been false. An introductory course in Modal Logic will show you that that is not true.

If it was false, the OUR universe wouldn't exist.

Your argument would be like me saying that you could have been born completely differently so therefore the way you are now is not necessary. It breaks down because you wouldn't be YOU anymore, just like if our universe was different it wouldn't be OUR UNIVERSE.

Originally Posted by Questerr

If it was false, the OUR universe wouldn't exist.

Your argument would be like me saying that you could have been born completely differently so therefore the way you are now is not necessary. It breaks down because you wouldn't be YOU anymore, just like if our universe was different it wouldn't be OUR UNIVERSE.

You would have to say "...therefore you are not the way you are now necessarily."
And you would be absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Maximatic

You would have to say "...therefore you are not the way you are now necessarily."
And you would be absolutely correct.

But YOU wouldn't be YOU. In order for you to be you, you must necessarily have come from where you came from.

Originally Posted by Questerr

But YOU wouldn't be YOU. In order for you to be you, you must necessarily have come from where you came from.

Well, that's not exactly right. Say my eyes were brown, or I was born without eyes. I wouldn't say that I would not be me, in that case. After all I could have an operation to change the color of my eyes, or have them removed, and I would still be me.
Do you want to say that my not having been born was never even a possibility?