Here’s a theistic proof that I found in an on-line debate between a muslim and an atheist:
In the atheistic perspective, the universe does not care about intelligent life. Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life in this universe is low.
In the theistic perspective, the creator of the universe cares about intelligent life. Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life is high.
In this universe, there is actually intelligent life.
Therefore, this fact is best explained by theism.
I dispute this. I see no obvious grounds to suggest that the chances of life are low in a creatorless universe.
btw, heres my own rendition:
If the cocoa plant does not care whether i have a tasty snack, the chances of chocolate existing are low.
If the cocoa plant did care whether i have a tasty snack, the chances of chocolate existing are high.
I have a tasty chocolate snack.
Thus, the cocoa plant probably cares about me.
I agree with this. While parasites are the greatest proof for evolution (life that exists for the lowest common denominator. It exists off of other creatures.) intelligent life is the exact opposite. Evolution would strive for the lowest common denominator. The easiest way to get something done.
while this is simple, it misses the plants that DO care whether we have a tasty snack and we’ve had to breed the poisons out of them.
Evolution ‘strives’ (if you can ever give a blind process intention) for the most successful species; best at producing as many offspring as possible that will live to reproduce themselves. There are a variety of ways to doing this, not just a single common denominator.
You miss the point, its a spurious conclusion. The plant has no feelings on the matter what so ever.
I don’t think intelligent life equals a creator God, or a cosmic male parent. I don’t however think that intelligent life was unintentional. But no one ever seems to give thought to the idea, that maybe, just maybe nature is self-moving. Its power comes from within, and not without. Nature being self-moving solves a lot of problems. Because otherwise, you always have the question of, who created God? what’s God’s method of creation?
I always wondered if God has a wife. How come we never here about her? lol.
Even if your proof did work (and it doesn’t) it tells us next to nothing about this thing you call “God”. What it says is that there is an intelligent creator. That by itself is just deism, not theism (theism: a god who cares about us and is involved in the world). And deism is practically equivalent to atheism – it makes no difference to us whether or not a deistic god exists. So this proof, whether or not it’s true, doesn’t matter (as is the case with all the proofs you’ve presented in my recent memory).
But you don’t take into account the fact that men did look for this snack. This snack did not come into your mouth by itself.
You don’t take into account the fact that men are suited to their environment, otherwise they would have been eliminated by natural selection. Therefore, it is less astonishing that they are able to eat the product of cocoa plant. It has a survival value.
But the usual story about random mutations and natural selection does not rule out this kind of theistic proof.
It’s better than the cosmological argument, who only says: there is a first cause, and the ontological argument, who says nothing about the relationship between God and the universe.
This statement is guilty of anthropomorphisizing the concept of ‘universe’, and as such is begging the question. The conclusion, “the likelihood of intelligent life in this universe is low,” is therefore a non-sequitor.
While it may be true the likelihood of intelligent life is low (or high), this has nothing to do with whether the universe ‘cares’ about its occurence, and as such reduces the entire argument to rubbish. Simply faulty logic.
Well then you have the question, if the universe didn’t care about intelligent life, why would it emerge? The last time I checked there’s usually a reason why things exist.
Why did anything emerge? Asking questions that are presently without answers does not imply divine intelligence, it implies our ignorance.
Hi,
I think that the argument runs as follows: we mentally consider the universe as it should be if atheism were true, and we deduce some of his likely properties. But, one of the properties we deduce is that the universe is unfit for life, since the universe is not made 'for' life (because that implies a cosmic purpose) and since life is a phenomenon depending on the conjunction of many variables. We should expect a void universe.
However, if we consider the universe as it should be if theism were true, the existence of intelligent life is not at all surprising, since there is a God who wants intelligent people to know him and to live for him.
Therefore, theism is in a better situation as for the explanation of intelligent life.
Do you imply that Science may discover a law or a set of laws making the appearance of life necessary (without design)?
I never said God did I? The word God usually implies a monarchical boss. I said the universe cares about intelligent life.
How does a universe care, precisely?
Is this another joke, Sâmkhya? (Forgive me for asking.)
SilentSoliloquy is on the right track, as I see it. (and anyone else whose like-minded response I did not read)
Typically the word ‘care’ is used as a kind of proxy or ‘metaphor’, as the atheist would not say either that the universe ‘cares’ or does not ‘care’. It’s a false dichotomy because it’s predicated on the assumption that the universe either can or does hold any ‘affective’ or ‘intentional’ states at all.
Is this meant to be a logical inference? Perhaps intelligence thrives on adversity or elsewise requires this ‘friction’, and that is why it is so likely?
I could think of dozen other speculative explanations, and really all we are doing is sleeping in a bed which we have already made, if you catch my meaning.
Also, keep your eye on this;
So it would seem that pantheism is a better explanation anyway, based on your reasoning.
…
Also consider that ‘likelyhood’ is not derived apriori in this case, I don’t think. I don’t even know what such a derivation might look like. As such, it is probably necessary to give a quantitative definition of ‘care’ - meaning that, the more intelligent life there is, the more the universe ‘cares’, and vice versa. Now keep your eye on this;
(1) ‘Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life in this universe is low.’
(1a) ‘Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life is high.’
(2) ‘In this universe, there is actually intelligent life.’
Actually to the best of my knowledge, the likelyhood of life is considered quite low, though of course there is much disagreement here. If it is low then, on your reasoning, this means that ‘care’ is low as well. Now the question becomes; 'how much care is needed to ‘prove’ the existence of a Creator? Thence the problem of using a quantitative argument. Which I imagine is why you switched from probabilities to actualities - i.e. to avoid this difficulty. But as I said above, you kind of need this argument to make your conclusion stick.
If you remove the false dichotomy in what appears to me to be at least an attempt at a metaphysical argument, then you will be forced to conclude that there is nothing about the existence of intelligence which can be forced into the service of the conclusions you seek - namely that the condition of the possibility of intelligence, is a ‘Creator’ of some description.
What I really want to know though is this; Why do you post this kind of stuff, Sâmkhya?
Regards,
James
Thank you for taking the time to rephrase things, but what makes you think I don’t understand the argument? All respect, it seems instead you’ve not understood my response.
It is by analogy that I say that the universe “cares” about us. It amounts to saying: “we are meant to be here”, or “the laws of the universe depend on our existence”.
Because I found this intriguing argument somewhere on internet and I wanted to test it.
Regardless of the validity of the argument, couldn’t the enormous number of stars and planets just as easily explain the fact that there is intelligent life in the universe?
Your last premise is merely that there is intelligent life in the universe–Not that there is an abundancy of intelligent life, just some. Now, when one takes into account the sheer size of the universe, the likelihood of some intelligent life existing in the “godless” universe could very well rival the likelihood of some intelligent life existing in the “god” universe.
So the argument you presented isn’t sound.