Design Counterarguments

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]Throm- Actually my double-post has you to thank, since you were the first to post twice. Feel free to ignore all my questions, which is personally disheartening, but whichever you want, a new thread, or continue in this already burning one is fine with me.I will re-shape my arguments. Very easy to do.Thrombosis:
I'll wait for your response then. It is already hard enought keeping track of both you and nialscorva. I don't even remember what he and I were arguing at this point. I'm out for the night. I'll look forward to your post in the morning.Zar:
One final thing before i address your comments-argumentum ad hominems are attacking the person who pesents an argument. You did not present an argument for anything- and I was not rejecting them by attacking your character.Throm:
Thanks for the clarifications. Yeah, I know I use that term loosely. I meant personal attacks, not philosophical logic falacies. Thanks for the corrected spelling at the very least.Zar:
Rather I was making a point on why you fail to grasp several concepts- not saying you are wrong because you chose that ridiculous handle Thrombus:
Oh my friend, I'm the clot in the heart of your arguments (and the one in my sanity).Thrombosicken de headium vericosium

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-16-2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]Uno

• Premise 1. If a deity is the cause of order in the universe, then they posses that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence which appears in their known effect, i.e. the universe and nothing else.
• Premise 2. A deity is the cause of order in the universe.
• Premise 3. The universe is not infinite nor is it paradise.
• Conclusion: the gods are neither omnipotent nor are benevolent.

[/QUOTE]Premise one fails. You phrase this quite oddly and ad hoc as necessary:
1. What do you mean by cause of order?
2. What do you mean by order?
3. Does this order exclude freedom and potential?
4. Are there rogue molecules permitted or is this total sovereignly guided order?I have other questions about your justification of the limitation of their powers to the known effect. Both in limitation and in the idea of the known-ness of the effect; however, I'm they'll be cleared up when you define your terms.God as the cause of "order" is a very outdated type of argument. Is this what your "champion of ID" is arguing with you??? I'd might as well argue against evolution as a theory where a bird hatches from a lizard egg. Long gone... In ID, God is the cause of high specification and complexity. Order can easily be produced by nature. Just spend some time looking at nailscorva's crystals.Anyway, your argument is fallaciously vague (falacy of amibuity {simple/equivocal and amphibole}).Please clarify and show the proper relationships of premise one.ThrombosisDon't rush on the last five. We'll get to those after the first five.

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-17-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally by Nailscorva:
wow, this thread just shot up in post count.

---

Zarathustra has been racing me to be the first one to graduate jr. member. Why it is just not possible! He's even double posting just to get ahead of the game. Hmmmm.... He tried to physically overcome me but after a long struggle during the night I touched his hip and put it out of joint. He then asked me to bless him ... Oh... no... wrong story... oops. Anyway. I've been consumed with Zar. I'll probably respond to you on Monday Nailscorva. Sorry for the delay. Just so much one can do in a day!!Thromobosis ideaosis

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-17-2001).]

Thrombo: Premise one fails. You phrase this quite oddly and ad hoc as necessary: Zar:
Care to say why it is "ad hoc?" You are extremely talented at hurling accusations w/o backing them up. In that case, I am not certain whether you do understand the charge of an ad hoc argument. Throm new:
I meant by ad hoc that you make assertions simply because they are conducive to your argument, however, they don’t have a basis in fact. I simply meant that you were making things up as you went without presenting evidence to support them. You seem very well read in philosophy, you should know that it is the responsibility of the one making an assertion to present evidence to support it.INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY PLAYING GAMES WITH TERMS, DO US ALL A FAVOR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ASSERTION PREMISE ONE. If you can’t present evidence to prove your premise one then lets get on to argument number two.Throm 1. What do you mean by cause of order? This is easily answered with the post i replied to Percipent on positions- the sub-argument of design, a nomological argument is a regularity argument, which is the inference that the discovery of regular temporal patterns operate on a vast scale througout the known universe and are understood as simple physical laws. You have described what you mean by order (physical law), but not causation. Unless of course you intend to state that causation is limited to physical law? Listen, let me assure you that I am not playing games with you regarding definitions. You give me way too much credit. I ask you to define terms because your premise makes no logical sense and I am trying to understand how you got the conclusion you did in your first premise. You’re first premise is as follows:

quote:

---

If a deity is the cause of order in the universe, then they posses that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence which appears in their known effect, i.e. the universe and nothing else.

---

It is not clear in this premise why it is true, specifically with the limitation of the deity. You seem to be making an argument for a panentheistic deity? What is the basis of the limiting of the deity to the known effect? I can understand the known effect not contradicting the character of the deity, another argument, but your limitation of the deity to the effect is awkward in my opinion and the causality not understood. Hence my accusation of fallacy of ambiguity. It is your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions. I’ll keep repeating it until you do it.Throm 2. What do you mean by order?
The dictionary states: "A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group."
Thromby- 3. Does this order exclude freedom and potential?
Since you've been pulling a Wittgenstein the entire time, and i smell your linguistic mangling trap a mile away, i must return you the favor: Define "freedom" and "potential." Then we'll chat.Thromby 4. Are there rogue molecules permitted or is this total sovereignly guided order?
Quantum mechanics, i presume? particles that continually pop into existence and out in a sea of foam? Planck time? Heisenberg principle? Dirac Sea? what?
The reason I’ve asked you to define these terms is because of the way you phrase your argument. Again, thanks for the accusation of the linguistic mangling trap. You give me way too much credit. I’ve asked you to clarify whether freedom is possible because the way you’ve framed your argument makes order to mean complete guided causation due to the creation being equal to the deity. However, your dictionary definition does not provide such a comprehensive and demanding meaning for order. By freedom and potential I simply mean that there are true freedoms (alternate possibilities from the order) given to sentient beings within the order. Such freedom provides potential (opportunity not yet realized) for variation from the ideal. If such a scenario is true, then the deity is either not immutable, or is greater than the creation and then in both circumstances your argument fails.However, instead of me continually trying to figure out how you find proof of your assertion, why don’t you finally fulfill your burden of proof and demonstrate why your assertion premise one is true.This is an argument a posteriori that proves the existence of a Deity which resembles a human mind.
Otherwise know as inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not provide proofs but rather probable conclusions which are then weighed against other facts.Thus Spoke Zarathustra~
Again without fulfilling his burden of providing proof for his assertions."I have slain all gods for the sake of morality!"
Including yourself.Thrombosis mitosis symbiosis prognosis

Just stopped by to say that I'll try to get replies posted by Monday. Sorry for the delays, I haven't forgotten about the threads but have been swamped.Thromby