What don’t you get about explanatory scope? Start with teleology.
Why would I start with the illusion of purpose? Or God’s actual purpose? Nothing in the material world begs purpose or transcendent cause apart from existence itself. And that transcendent cause does not have to be purposeful. If God is the transcendent cause, there is no trace. Apart from the witness of the early Church. What other, further explanatory scope is there?
No one is talking about illusion. We are talking about explanatory power. Explanatory power can be conjectural, you know.
Be careful what you accuse others of. I’m doing just fine with the explanatory power of uniformitarianism. Intrinsic teleology is an illusion and extrinsic is dependent on their being a purposer. And?
@Dale and @Klax
Whatever this little spat is, it is not enlightening anyone about ID, which is the topic of this thread. Either get back on topic or take it to PM please.
3 Likes
…wasn’t mentioned. Teleology was only mentioned in the context of the explanatory power of hypothetical fine-tuning.
Sorry. I thought that intelligent design, i.e. ultimate extrinsic teleology was being claimed.
We were talking about lowercase intelligent design.
Why did you mention intrinsic teleology then? Oh, you edited to add extrinsic, after the fact.
As there is no fine tuning, there is no explanatory power. If there were, if it could be scientifically proven, like YEC on that other thread, that fundamental physical constants could have any value so why are they impossibly anthropic, then yes, teleology could be considered.
Until then.
You merely believe there is none.
If God is the Fine-tuner, how are you going to do that?
Does your dwelling have indoor plumbing?
If God is the creator, fine tuner He creates, fine tunes as if He didn’t.
Does your universe have an impossibly necessarily precise cosmological constant when it could have been anything?
We wouldn’t be here if it weren’t.
The floor is yours and you may keep it. (Sweep up when you’re finished.)
We are here because it is what it has to be in the first place.
No I did not.
…for us to be here.
I would sweep up if I could. Sorry, moderators.
No. There is no intrinsic teleology. It [is] what it is because that is what it has to be period.
If it were different, we wouldn’t be here to know it. That’s not about intrinsic teleology. Period.
Intrinsic or immanent teleology is concerned with cases of aiming or striving towards goals; extrinsic teleology covers cases where an object, event or characteristic serves a function for something. Teleological explanations attempt to explain X by saying that X exists or occurs for the sake of Y.
It can’t be different. Therefore there is no teleology at all. Unless God exists.
You can keep saying that as many times as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that we wouldn’t be here to observe it if it were. So in that sense, yes, it cannot be different.
Absolutely.
There we go.
1 Like