It so happens, Frank Turek's questioner and Frank Turek himself don't give the puddle analogy in very much detail.
This is what Genetically Modified Skeptic criticises first about a Turek video, in this video: "Atheists can't answer this question!" ...But We Can.
Now, before adressing it, I'll adress the puddle analogy.
I think I already did, but here is Douglas Adam's analogy in his own wording cited after a post about it:
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.
From : The Truth Will Make You Mad : The Puzzle of Existence and a Puddle of Doubt
https://thetruthwillmakeyoumad.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-puzzle-of-existence-and-a-puddle-of-doubt/
Well, holes do fit puddles very neatly.
A universe in which ground is uneven, in which water is heavy trying to get down to a centre of gravity and takes its shape from what hard objects stand between it and that centre of gravity, and in which water comes and goes over the ground is certainly meant to have puddles in it. Because puddles are good and desireable. Up to a point where you find a child having jumped in one needs to get the clothes changed, especially shoes and socks and probably pants, or if a girl stockings.
There is more to be said, if the puddle actually could think, the puddle would be an image of God - and already for that reason be a reason there is a universe.
The thing is, Adams seems to have two arguing points against teleological argument:
- 1) How about arguing equally persuasively that the universe was created for sth Christians do not say it was created for?
- 2) How about showing the egotism behind argument of fine tuning is not getting its way when it comes to guarantee the own survival?
And puddle analogy fits both points well at once.
First, Christians state the universe was created for man and in general for life, and a puddle is neither a man nor even a biological entity at all.
Second, puddles do individually dry up.
So, while the universe was more made for man than for wolves and more for wolves than for puddles, the universe was made for puddles too. Christians need to start saying the universe was made for puddles. Though not in the first place.
And while that puddle would be wrong in thinking it would individually survive, it would have been right to conclude instead (especially while starting to dry up) "I might not always be around, but the universe was made for the likes of me, and if I dry up, another will take my place, sooner or later!"
But as said, the analogy as presented breaks down because puddles do not think. They are not images of God.
It's about the same trick as when Heliocentrism was advertised in the 18th Century heavily with arguments like "Sirius (or any other star) must exist to be the sun of some planet, that planet must have inabitants, and those inhabitants, if trusting their senses, would also conceive of their planet as centre of the world, which it could be as well as Earth or as ill as Earth, but not concomitantly with Earth, therefore arguably neither planet is the centre."
Here we don't have a hypothetical sentient inhabitant of an exoplanet, we have hypothetical sentience of a puddle. And in both cases, the hypothetical parallel by a hypothetically as sentient as we being concluding with hypothetically equal absurdity or congruity to be central in one way or the other, as to place or as to purpose, is used as a very hypothetical reductio in absurdum.
But apart from that, any child who likes jumping into a puddle will tell you the universe ought to have puddles in it! And any parent would answer, the puddle was made for the child, so he could enjoy the puddle, and therefore the universe was made for that child. Which is much closer to very strict truth.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
Sts Peter and Paul's vigil
28.VI.2019
PS : Now I'll read "The Puzzle of Existence and a Puddle of Doubt" before watching the video by GMS.
