davien:
Funny how the criteria for determining intelligently designed systems is not given but largely ignored as the assumption itself is all that is needed...

jayriginal:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Douglas Adams

Refuting the Puddle Analogy
AUGUST 3, 2013 BY JASON PETERSEN

Written by Jason Petersen

Updated: 11/23/15

Introduction

The puddle analogy is an analogy that was developed by an atheist named Douglas Adams as a response to teleological arguments. Teleological arguments are arguments concerning the fine tuning of the universe or other things such as the complexity of living organisms.

The Analogy

Douglas Adams wrote:

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Now, the puddle analogy was developed to show what Douglas saw as a short coming of teleological arguments. It is more of a satirical and rhetorical analogy so to speak. I am going to briefly lay out some of the issues with the argument.


Specified Complexity

What is complexity? It is quite common for people to conflate (confuse) the word “complex” with “complicated.” Complexity involves something that has multiple interrelated parts. The Christian can point to scientific data to show that 30+ constants that are independent of the laws of nature falling into the range that allow for life to exist is not only implausible, but rather, statistically impossible. If any of these 30+ constants were off, life would not be able to exist.

Lack of Good Reasons to Accept the Desired Implication of the Analogy

If one were to claim that the universe was not fine tuned for the existence of life, they ought to be able to give us some good reasons for thinking that the universe is not fine tuned for the existence of life. Alas, no reasons are given in the puddle analogy. Atheists will just say “Humans think the same thing as the puddle does in the analogy and it’s rather silly.” But why? What good reasons are there to think that it is silly? Just claiming it is silly and trying to ignore all of the data that suggests the universe is fine tuned for life is not going to be enough to convince anyone that the thought is silly. There are better, more concrete reasons to accept that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life than to accept that it isn’t fine tuned for the existence of life. False bravado gets the atheist nowhere!

Bad Analogy

We just talked about specific complexity. Read the analogy again and notice that the puddle analogy fails to address specific complexity. Rather, all it does is appeal to the naturalistic presupposition that “it just so happens that life is able to exist because the constants are where they should be to permit life.” By assuming that the universe is the similar to the puddle, the atheist effectively begs the question, for he is simply assuming what he is trying to argue.

Further, the analogy is weak. The hole symbolizes the universe and the puddle symbolizes humanity. However, the hole does not have specified complexity in the instance of this analogy. Further, there is no evidence given that the universe is anything like the puddle other than a mere assertion of “the universe/puddle can support life/water because that is just the way it is.” An unbeliver would never let a Christian assert something without basis, therefore, we have no reason to allow them to assert such a argument without proof.

Bad Logic

As was briefly mentioned earlier, the analogy is a bare assertion. Arguing for the analogy will involve assuming what one is trying to argue.

Conclusion

In light of what has been discussed in this article, some philosophical nuances must be kept in mind. First, scientific data is tentative so we should never argue that the data concerning the fine tuning of the universe allows us to prove that God exists. This is because the scientific method is incapable of proving anything. What the Christian should instead argue is that there are propositions (such as the data concerning the fine tuning of the universe) that are consistent with what has already been revealed in scripture. In contrast, the believer has no frame of reference in which to derive the notion that there is data in science that corresponds with their position. Where would the unbeliever start? Induction cannot lead to knowledge, and if there is no knowledge, how can the unbeliever say that they have data that supports their position? 1

Objections

Atheists have also attempted to defend the puddle analogy against the arguments that were given in this article. This is a list of them along with this author’s responses.

Objection: Organisms, like puddles, are constantly being eliminated, which suggests that the world is not designed to keep them alive.

Response: The objector assumes the intentions of the creator, but the objector has no way of knowing the creator’s intentions. Why is the atheist assuming that the universe was created to sustain all life on a permanent basis? Clearly, the Bible disagrees with this atheist’s assumption (Ecclesiastes 12:7). And certainly, death is a central part of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Since the objector has no way of knowing (or having any idea) what the Creator’s intentions are, the objection is insufficient.

Objection: Puddles conform to holes, due to the natural properties of a liquid; these holes are not intentionally designed in order to store volumes of water that have a certain shape and size. In other words, puddles are forced to fit in holes. Likewise, life has evolved to survive and reproduce within the conditions on earth, due to descent with modification. The earth probably was not made to suit our needs, especially considering the persistent struggle for survival among living organisms. The earliest forms of life did not have all of the same requirements for survival that modern organisms have. What happened was, as life evolved, some species took advantage of natural resources that gave them a competitive advantage over other species. Eventually this led life to develop a dependence on these resources present in the environment. Now, after the fact, it seems as though the environment could have been intelligently designed with the knowledge that it would allow life as we know it to exist, when in actuality life was forced by selective pressures to fit these conditions.

Response: There is a lot of question begging in this objection. How does the atheist know that puddles are not designed? God is directly behind all of the forces that are at work in this universe. God decreed that puddles form on earth on lower levels of ground just as he decreed that streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans form. The forces that causes puddles to stay in place are of God himself. The objector is merely assuming that puddles form due to natural causes, but the objector has no way of demonstrating this claim. The Christian epistemology is informed by scripture. 2 Christians have a frame of reference in which they can show that the data in science (concerning the delicate balance that is needed to allow for life) is consistent with the propositions that are revealed to us in scripture. The objector may accuse the Christian of begging the question, but if the objector wishes to complain, he ought to stop begging the question.

Insofar as the appeals to a naturalistic evolution is concerned, science is not able to lead to knowledge. See this article for a a superior philosophy on science.

Footnotes:

1. In induction, even if the premises are true, the conclusion can still be false. Therefore, the induction cannot produce truth, and if there is no truth, there can be no propositions that are consistent with the unbeliever’s own position.

2. See Gordon H. Clark’s book, “A Christian View of Men and Things” for a more detailed explanation of Christian epistemology.

Notes:

vooks:

I have seen your moniker peeping about, it's good to know you have discovered your voice after an extended leave. Hoping you are well my broda.


I just wrote this on a sandy beach. Supposing you came across it and you never saw me writing it, what criteria would you use to conclude it was intelligence behind it and not some random waves?

malvisguy212:
they probably will say "it a luck" or the law of nature wrote it.

vooks:
Good evening Amateur Septic(sic)

it's so obvious that I really hate saying it.
It's also so obvious that Hawking, Dawkin and EVERYBODY talks about it.
Sadly, most downplay this for reasons known best to themselves.

Specifically, I want to pick your brains on Multiverse Theory
1. What are your views on this relatively new attempt at explaining away fine-tuning?
2. Do you have alternative spins?

You can start here if multiverse is a vocabulary
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

Judas2013:

vooks:

Fool,you are not creative

Mickey7:

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3159011_img20151119170755_jpeg4e9245b9bd1a515f82185944c57775ca

SirWere:
Truly, a little knowledge is a bad thing.

timonski:
@op. Why is everything finetuned for I-pads?

timonski:
@op. Why is everything finetuned for I-pads?

AlfaSeltzer:


doG did it
I don't know how but he did

vooks:

Steve Jobs and his gang did it. Now m0ron, please find a better place to piss and blaspheme

Dnacode:
Its because things evolved in the earth so there is a natural fine tuning.

Dnacode:
Its because things evolved in the earth so there is a natural fine tuning.

vooks:

Fine tuning is not about animals
Google is your friend but I can help you along

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

KingEbukasBlog:


Pls change your username , it actually mocks you because you can't PROPERLY explain the origin of the DNA (assumptions and more assumptions ) when you omit or fail to admit the creation of a designer

AlfaSeltzer:


who designed the designer?

KingEbukasBlog:


Pls change your username , it actually mocks you because you can't PROPERLY explain the origin of the DNA (assumptions and more assumptions ) when you omit or fail to admit the creation of a designer

Dnacode:


Did I just say there was no designer?
Nonsense.

vooks:

Fool,you are not creative

KingEbukasBlog:


Sorry . I usually assume that evolutionists are atheists because very few are theistic evolutionists

KingEbukasBlog:


God is uncaused - uncreated . So can you show me how LIFE HAS OR NEEDS NO DESIGNER ?

AlfaSeltzer:


Life is uncaused - uncreated . So can you show me how god HAS OR NEEDS NO DESIGNER ?