Quote:

---

shroomydan said:
The physics itself seems magical to me. If the relative strengths of the four forces were changed even slightly, then the universe would never have developed beyond a giant cloud of hydrogen.
What is your explanation for this perfectly ballanced ratio which allows for the universe to develope in complexity until it produces a rational being, capable of contemplating the cause of his rationality?

---

Quote:

---

If the relative strengths of the four forces were changed even slightly, then the universe would never have developed beyond a giant cloud of hydrogen.

---

Quote:

---

shroomydan said:
The physics itself seems magical to me. If the relative strengths of the four forces were changed even slightly, then the universe would never have developed beyond a giant cloud of hydrogen.
What is your explanation for this perfectly ballanced ratio which allows for the universe to develope in complexity until it produces a rational being, capable of contemplating the cause of his rationality?

---

Quote:

---

infidelGOD said:

Quote:

---

shroomydan said:
The physics itself seems magical to me. If the relative strengths of the four forces were changed even slightly, then the universe would never have developed beyond a giant cloud of hydrogen.
What is your explanation for this perfectly balanced ratio which allows for the universe to develop in complexity until it produces a rational being, capable of contemplating the cause of his rationality?

---

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_kelly/wap.html

an open mind is the greatest journey of all

---

That's a very interesting paper, and it looks to me like his logic holds out... until his conclusion.

The WAP makes it clear that the mere improbability of our own universe is not evidence for divine design. Without evidence for divine design, there is no rational basis for belief in a designer.


The WAP makes it clear that the mere improbability of our own universe is not evidence for divine design.

This is true if you take 'evidence' to mean conclusive proof though deductive argument. However, the modern teleological argument is not meant to be deductive proof. If by 'evidence' we are to understand support for a hypothesis using inductive reasoning, then I think this improbability would clearly classify as evidence.

If you were sitting in your living room and suddenly a baseball came crashing through your window, and when you looked outside you saw a kid holding a bat and another kid with a baseball glove, but neither had a baseball, then you would have evidence, and through inductive reasoning you could conclude that there is a very high probability that the kids broke the window with their baseball.

While the teleological argument does not provide deductive proof of a designer, it does provide inductive evidence, supporting a high probability that the laws of physics were authored with the intent to produce observers.

Without evidence for divine design, there is no rational basis for belief in a designer

The author of the paper was not able reduce the the hypothesis of a designer to absurdity. He only managed to establish that it was impossible to conclusively prove through deductive reasoning that a designer was necessary. The opposite hypothesis "there is no designer" can also not be reduced to absurdity. This situation is what Emanuel Kant called an antinomy. In an antinomy, deductive reasoning reaches the edge of its capability and can proceed no further. You can read about antinomies in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html&e=8092

Inductive reasoning however is not limited by these antinomies, and the teleological argument clearly is not intended to be a deductive argument. It merely exposes evidence which points to a probable conclusion. With no conclusive proof either way, it is quite rational to believe in that which is more probable. 

Quote:

---

The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).

---