Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Hi! I see you are presenting us with the Transcendental argument for the existence of a god.I think you have a lot of work to do toa) Prove god
b) Prove it intelligently designed anything. And in philosophy there is much disagreement as to what would make something necessarily true. I see no reason that we must make that assumption. What if necessary truths are only necessary because of the nature of the physical world? Demonstrate that this is true and you will be close to proving the existence of god. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, abstract concepts require minds. Minds only seem to exist when there is a physical object creating one (ie., a brain). So you are going to have first prove the existence of non physically based minds, which has proven difficult. Agreed. Despite this hypothetical physical universe existing and having dimensions - given there are no minds in it there is no talking about what exists within it. Yet it still exists and despite the absence of minds a sphere cannot both exist and not exist.Doesn't that prove your argument to be flawed? You assume that logic and physics are entirely separate. Physics is just practical logic regarding specific things (if it is theoretical then it is basically just logic).If my observation is correct
and if Hawking's equation is accurate
then the prediction is y.If the logic behind the epistemology of science is sound
and if the prediction y is observed in the physical world
then it is likely that my observation is correct and Hawking's equation is accurate.Logic is just fundamental physics: stuff that we have observed or defined or logically deduced as being true. We observe that entities have the property 'existence' which has an exclusive binary condition (true or false). We observe that this is true in all observed cases and cannot define a hypothetical situation where it is false. So we generalise it and say that it is universally true: A = !A is false. Yes, the laws of physics are themselves a concept - so necessarily require an entity capable of conceieving ie., a mind.But the way the universe functions continues regardless of whether anyone knows how. At least, you have given no reason to think so. You have just equivocated around and tried to convince us that an abstract concept needs to be thought up in order for things to happen and therefore in order for anything to happen there needs to be a mind.But then we are just pushing the imaginary problem back since we now have to justify how a mind that exists in a reality with no logic can possibly do anything if the concept of doing things hasn't yet been conceived by the mind?What really happens is that we are born into a world in which stuff happens (such as our birth).We observe stuff happening.We come to realize that objects have permanency (we stop being surprised by peek-a-boo type games).We come to realize that somethings we think of don't exist in the observed world (fantasy vs real).And then we either self discover, or have pointed out to us, other properties of entities both real and imagined. And a system of rules by which those entities seem to follow.So we start applying these general observed principles to more observations.Which leads to science.And therefore to physics.Logic is a way of thinking that is consistent with the way the world seems to function when examined closely given a brain that takes often times erroneous shortcuts in its thinking by default. There is no evidence of logic or any reasoning at all existing before life did. Things did things in a certain way, and some of those things resulted in life, which created simple rules to understand the world, and finally started formulating a more formal system of understanding how things work.It is not a coincidence that things seem to working in a logical fashion around here. What we call a logic is just the way we think things seem to working around here.The universe does not require logic to do its thing. The universe goes on and we try to understand those goings on using logic and observation. But be able to function without logic well enough to conceive of logic without any points of external reference. This is a logicless mind that exists (and yet manages to not not exist) with no time and no space made of no material that then has an idea which then allows for the universe to exist? Really?Like I say - there's a lot of philosophical work left to be done. And it's not an entirely new argument so I'm not expecting it to be completed any time soon.

But you still have a physical medium. You need to demonstrate that an abstract concept can exist without a physical medium to conceive of it. I agree. We created mathematics because of its utility for explaining the world around us. I've noticed. But you said this was an easy proof. The only proof you've put forward has much work to be done, as I previously began to explain. Neuroscientists have been saying for some time that the mind is what the brain does. That's physicalism not positivism. Positivism merely says that in order to decide whether your premises are true, it requires some positive verification. Are you suggesting we should just take your word for it? Or should we try to verify your claims? What is the sensible course of action if we are unable to verify your claims? I basically agree with this. You are making a positive assertion. Can you verify that this is true? Because we use our minds to deduce things about the world, therefore there must have been an earlier mind that injected truths into the world? I don't think that's a logical conclusion to make given the premises you gave. How did you get there? Because its creators wanted to develop a system that could be used to explain the world well. They don't. Some people may deny necessary truths and logic. We call them mad, or solipsists or other things. But those that do agree on it, do so because if they are not used, communication is impossible and so futile and those people want to communicate so they develop communal, often unspoken, assumptions (such as, 'we can rely on what our senses tell us - more or less'). Life evolved material beings that could recognize and respect necessary truths (those that were inclined to act as if they were falsehoods, presumably walked out of a tree into a bears mouth or something). Any old theory can explain the above questions. The question is, which ones are consistent with the way the world actually appears to be, make as few unfounded assumptions as possible, and possibly have a means of verification that can be personally experienced. You assume that a) the question 'How' even makes sense in the context you are using it and b) not knowing the answer merits filling the void with Logos Dragons.It was nonsense when the cartographers did it, it is nonsense now. Until you can allow us to utilize our senses to verify your claims then your argument is literally without sense.Sometimes, if you don't know - the best answer is 'I don't know.' rather than 'What if it was a green being of pure wisdom that thought the word love which shaped the universe which he envelops and protects from the sea of evil chaos that dominates the cosmos? Wouldn't that explain it all?'

But now you are struggling to justify the existence of this reference mind. Why does it need to exist if 'early matter' is capable of 'building' a mind? That requires a logical framework that exists prior to the reference mind. If logical frameworks can exist in a reality with matter and no reference mind, and if those logical frameworks can create minds....then what makes you think we aren't the first minds about?Why the need to postulate an earlier one? Surely we are the reference minds of our own abstract realities? Since you've conceded that logic can in principle exist without a mind - this is not a conclusion that can be relied upon. Where 'you' refers to me, and where 'I' am the respondee to your demand for proof, I submit this post as evidence that there is a responding entity.But it isn't the difficulty that bothers me. So far you haven't entered difficult philosophical waters yet. You just muddied them and think that makes it 'difficult' and 'complex'. It's perfectly clear: You have yet to establish that in order for things to occur in a fashion that we have described as 'logical' - there must exist a 'reference mind' to conceive of it. So far you have just equivocated between the concept of logic (which requires a mind) and the way things actually are in attempt to prove that the way things actually are requires a mind. I didn't say empirically verifiable. That would be empiricism of some kind. I said positively verifiable. I understand the temptation to think of empiricism when someone says 'positively verifiable', but it makes it easier to communicate if you keep the terms straight. I'd suggest that deductive (and even sometimes inductive) logic is a vital process in verification. And I asked you to show how you have verified this is true, in the context of such things as logic?A given bit of matter has some attributes that change but the way those attributes are remains constant. It's charge might change over time - but that one can describe its charge is constant. Likewise with its existence. You are suggesting that the fact that entities have attributes implies there is a mind? It just seems like a massive leap to me and I see no proof at all.Unless you can think of some logical truth that cannot be observed as being true by studying the attributes of things?And I'm not just talking about matter. I'm talking about more fundamental things. I'm talking about whatever existence is 'composed' of. That. Its base bottom there ain't anything more basic than this. That seems to lead to certain intrinsic properties in the known universe regarding 'entities', which are themselves abstractions on those more fundamental building blocks. We've only gone so far in exploring why these properties emerge, and some of the more fundamental properties such as 'existence' may never be answerable and may not have an answer who knows? The point is - you don't and you haven't successfully employed logic to explain the origins of logic simply because it is either impossible to do so or because we have yet accessed sufficient information to give an answer. Why should there be? No it isn't. Nor is the ability for an eagle to fly on a planet with an atmosphere a coincidence. We have the capability to create mathematics because we have a large brain that is capable of modeling the world in great depth. We found methods that allowed for better understanding of the world and over a looooong time period we finally came to formalise mathematics which has continued to develop since. I didn't say anything about genetic illnesses. I talked about the fact that people that disagree with necessary truths are usually either called mad or have an extreme philosophical position like solipsism.By 'normal' people you are simply discarding parts of the data set that are in disagreement and then claiming the entire dataset agrees with you. You are telling me that your question actually was:Why do all human beings that agree on necessary truths agree on necessary truths but differ on everything else?And the answer is a rather banal: because you defined the dataset that way. I haven't said differently. You are the one that is claiming they are separate and require 'injection' by a mind of some kind. I don't think Dawkins is a logical positivist. I think he would be accurately described as a Scientific Realist, a position put forward as a reaction to logical positivism and its problems. They share similarities, but I think are sufficiently different. I'm not sure if he is one, but I have seen him applaud Analytic Philosophers on several occasions - including Dan Dennett and Bertrand Russell.Anyway - it's trivial to prove you wrong about Dawkins attitude towards doubt:

quote:

---

Quinn: You can’t answer the question where matter comes from! You, as an atheist

​

Dawkins: I can’t, but science is working on it. You can’t answer it either.

​

Quinn: It won’t come up with an answer, and you invoked a mystery argument that you accuse religious believers of doing all the time. You invoke a very first and most fundamental question about reality. You do not know where matter came from.

​

Dawkins: I don’t know. Science is working on it. Science is a progressive thing that’s working on it. You don’t know but you claim that you do.

---

From THE RYAN TUBRIDY SHOW. Excellent, now you need to take your Reference Mind with the power to inject logic into universes and apply that standard. I'm not asking you to demonstrate axioms for me. Just the things you are claiming that we don't agree on would be fine. Unless they are, as you said earlier, intrinsic to one another. Then it's no coincidence at all - no more than finding a man with testicles or a star that is too hot for skinny dipping. (the last used because of the amusing cultural synonyms - nobody is too hot to skinny dip, no matter how famous!). But you haven't shown that an abstraction of mind can actually do that in the world. So that's why it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it.

But you aren't removing all of that. Can the mind both exist and not exist? I suggest it can't. And that suggests that the moment you have invoked it as a 'logical' solution to the origin of logic, you've simply pushed the problem back by assuming logic exists in order to explain how logic came about.You HAVE to, otherwise your argument wouldn't be logical. And if you're argument isn't logical, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Since you rely on logic - to describe reality without logic...your argument proves nothing.You are trying to tell us to imagine a world where there are no necessary truths, but a mind exists. But if, in this world, there are no necessary truths, then there exists NO NECESSARY TRUTHS ANYWHERE. Necessary truths, are truths that are necessarily so - regardless. There can be no pre-necessary truth universe that has necessary truths injected into it. It is, by definition of necessary truths, impossible since those truths would necessarily be so in such a pre-necessary truth world which is a paradox.You cannot explain the origin of necessary truths, without first assuming the necessary truths. That's why they are necessary. Really? You haven't shown this to the case. You keep making these huge logical leaps. Right - and I'm arguing that not only do we not know, but it might be impossible to obtain the knowledge of why things are ultimately the way they are. You have no means of accessing this information so calling this a 'proof' is fallacious. There is no problem. If there is no mind, there is no abstraction. It's quite simple. And if you assume the universe exists, logic and axioms automatically come from that. Matter behaves in a way which we have called logical. By definition it cannot do anything other than be consistent with things that are true.However - we would not normally expect matter to be total chaos in a world without logic. Without logic there would be no existence, no matter, no minds, nothing. I answered this in my last post. Evolution. Go look back at it. Yes - the special link is that the mind is capable of understanding (and misunderstanding) things which are true. I already said that some things regarding matter are not unchangeable. Please address the nature of attributes such as existence. Because on the one hand you are measuring physical properties. On the other hand, you are describing ontological properties. Physical properties require measuring instruments that themselves are physical which require being made precise through measurements using other physical devices. That 6 things are not the same as 7 things or the idea that a thing can not both exist and not exist does not require these things.Though there is plenty of fuzziness when you really do get down to it. Ask Bertrand Russell, who spent a thousand pages proving various simple mathematical concepts such as 1+1=2 from root logic. And yet you have not yet demonstrated that they are seperable. Having already insisted that they are intrinsic you are now saying it is a system of three parts which consist of further parts?Can you rule out that all three of these things are simply the same? That energy is a necessary truth? That the way energy interacts is logical and could therefore be described using logic which would be called the laws of physics.Since I know you can't - your argument remains dead. It seems pretty fundamental to me - there may be something more fundamental but you haven't quantified the complexity of the system and haven't demonstrated that a mind must be more fundamental that the fact that something can't both exist and not exist.I doubt you will be able to. And if you will agree with me that the above trifecta are different names for different elements of a single thing which could be regarded as an uncaused cause then all will be resolved. AND there is no need to multiply unnecessarily the number of entites required to explain something. AND it doesn't require the postulation of entities for which there is no evidence So it not only solves the same problems, but does not create any new ones! I fail to see why that warrants an "Aha", I didn't dispute this. I disputed that this supported your argument. Some things changing, other things not changing is nothing to do with abstraction and if you talked as if it were you are either wrong or you have some explaining to do. Creates abstraction? The only thing capable of abstraction is the mind, and it does this by changing. I didn't say anything at all about creating attributes. So your counterargument is irrelevant to anything I said.What I actually said was - you want to argue that because it is not possible to conceive or find any examples of a thing which both has an attribute and does not have that attribute at the same time that this means there must be a reference mind.Now you are arguing that for attributes to exist there must be a mind? Why must there be a mind? Mind does not automatically come in. A rabbit either exists or it does not exist. It does not do both. A mind is not required for this to be the case. I know your position is that it does, but you cannot assume that it does in order to support your position that it does. That is circular logic.So can you show that there must be a mind before a rabbit can exist or not exist and never both at the same time? But you haven't demonstrated that things that change in some ways cannot be constant in others. You haven't demonstrated that constants cannot be created by variables that all change in such a way as to maintain the constant, which itself determines how the variables change.You asserted it as if it were true, but failed to supply the proof. I don't need to show you any persons. And if I did you'd just say people can twist anything so it seems pointless to try. I'm perfectly happy to discuss my existence, I have already provided evidence for you on demand regarding it. Providing evidence and logic on demand is something you might try.I'm just saying that maybe you should have observed that most humans agree on the necessary truths, culture, time, geography, religion etc are only partially influential in this regard (I'm sure many would regard God as a necessary truth for instance). That's right. It isn't. But there are still many mathematical things which we have so far failed to accomplish, proofs left undiscovered - methods unexplored. We may never succeed in some mathematical endeavours, leaving us bewildered about some aspect of the universe forever.So that isn't a coincidence either. The fact is, we have a certain mathematical skill - and using that skill over long periods of time, utilising a memory preservation technique called writing we can grow our mathematical knowledge. No human alive knows everything that all humans together throughout all time knows about mathematics. It is unthinkable that a person born into this world without any schooling of mathematics could develop a numbering system that is efficient enough to allow them enough time to develop calculus before they were dead. The idea that humans are optimised to pick up subtle mathematics should be seem for what it is. It took us hundreds of thousands of years to do it.It is no more a coincidence that we 'coincidentally' tend to find other humans attractive. It is no coincidence that we have live births in a universe where there are advantages to be had in doing so.We have plastic minds, capable learning novel things very quickly. One such thing is our ability to understand quantity. We have formalised this somewhat inherent trait and used our mental plasticity to sometimes specialise in understanding mathematics. Most people only utilize enough plasticity to remember the basics of arithmetic and the mathematical language and so on.Why we, and all other life in fact, seems mysteriously and coincidentally well suited to conditions where they were found...was answered definitively in the 19th Century. Having a brain adapted to learning with evolved hard coded assistance has proven to be quite useful for human beings. Is there some reason you are trying to remystify it? And for the second time I'm telling you that I am not asking you to demonstrate to me that logic exists! Have you noticed how your mind tends to do that? Perhaps there is a bias in there you hadn't detected? I asked you to apply the standard you mentioned to the Reference Mind you described, not to logic itself.As you said: it is hypothetical unless there is a way to prove it.You haven't proven the Reference Mind needs to exist, you have merely argued that you have a logically valid and consistent worldview that contains a Reference Mind. Not only is that claim disputed, but so is you claim that just because your worldview is self-consistent - that is not a sufficiently strong criterion of truth alone to justify its acceptance as true. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not assuming that mind is an intrinsic part of matter. Because it is necessarily so. No it shouldn't. I have a calculator that can do that, and more. It has no mind. Consciousness isn't a noun and it therefore cannot be seen anymore than one can see walking. A simple mind doesn't intelligently design. Regardless of the kind of mind, I'm not just going to take you word that it is necessary. Whether or not quantum physics calls some previously held necessary truths into question doesn't seem to me to be on topic. If anything it would appear to work against your position if easily recognised and undisputed necessary truths (such as an entity cannot both have a property and not have a property at the same time, that is to say: A=!A is true in some circumstances), have been overturned by more detailed empirical research. My point is, that this is not a question of relevance. Matter does not create necessary truths. I am saying that there are fundamental building blocks of reality (say: Quantum Foam or some such). Those building blocks have certain properties. Those properties are necessary truths. Those necessary truths leads to a possible system that could describes them. That system is deductive logic using axioms. The Quantum Foam acting the way it does leads somehow to energy distributions which we call the universe that by inheritance operates in a logical fashion which we describe using physics and 'codifying' what happens using the laws of physics.There is no toolkit available to explain the origins of the necessary truths. I say the question is unanswerable and perhaps nonsensical. There is of course a hypothetical 'bare bones' brain that has the minimum components required to create the conscious state of mindfullness. Well not want to get into a debate on this right now, I'm happy to run with that. Sounds good. A position you haven't bothered to support, but it doesn't matter because my rebuttal doesn't depend on whether matter is fuzzy or not or whether it produces constants. You definitely haven't supported this, and it seems vital for your argument that you do so. The proton-to-electron mass ratio.Though I don't think matter 'produces' constants, nor do I see any reason to think that abstraction can actually do anything.Can you give me an example of any known abstraction producing anything known in the real world?

What capability is required? The capability to produce abstraction? I certainly don't require for matter to be able to abstract (except of course in the processes occurring within our brains) But how do you know it is required? Proton to electron mass does not need abstraction. It doesn't require abstraction to be what it is. Obviously in order to discover that, we utilize abstraction. But in order for the proton mass to have ratio it does with electron mass - you have not demonstrated this fact in itself needs abstraction. It has never 'suddenly' kept its ratios constant. As long as there have been protons and electrons this ratio has been this way. It is as if they can be no other way. As if it was a necessary truth about protons and electrons. No - they don't keep consistent mass between them because they evolved seperately towards different optimum weights/sizes/colour etc and there is variance inherent in the system.But I've never claimed apples and pear mass ratio should be constant, because we both know it is false. I talked about the ratio between two masses of electrons and protons, which is constant.Wait a minute, are you telling me that electrons and protons do know what abstraction is? Or maybe it is just a logical conclusion based on the necessary truths that they could be no other way! Why must they be supervised? Now I've given you an counterexample, you seem to be claiming that all counterexamples would actually be evidence for your position since that shows a supervisionary force!Which is clearly madness. Nothing so bold. I'm asking you how you have ruled that out. And I ask how do you know this? I am still unclear how anything can show a sign of abstraction. Please explain the general principle behind signs of abstraction and how you have come to conclude that this sign can only come from abstraction. But the abstraction doesn't do anything. The abstraction is just in our heads. Abstraction occurs within minds. Unless you have evidence that protons and electrons and basically everything that exists, is just in the imagination of some mind...I fail to see how you can support this claim.So can you demonstrate that any of the things you claim are abstractions...are abstractions?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.