If nothing else you have proved to be entertaining, Thromby. Thank you for fattening my thread.
Throm old: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.
Then you imply that the argument for design is not a fact, but. . ...? The design argument is not a fact but actually a
hypothesis put forth by theists and deists. It is substantiated by several various arguments- the teleological, the nomological and the Argument from analogy. What are you trying to pull here? If you're arguing against the design argument I have no beef with you. After all, the first 3 arguments are "Restrictions of the Conclusion" which at least gives the design argument validity. But if you are trying to tell me the design argument is invalid, we have nothing further to discuss. I think the design argument is a poorly implemented ad hoc argument in itself, full of anthropomorphic leanings. Are you willing to defend theism or deism? If not, then what are you really arguing about?
Same old Thromby: 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.
Actually the responsibility for the person who makes an argument is to avoid logical fallacies. This is how you can help me whip my arguments into sparkling pristine order. Instead, the well is regrettably overflowing with your piss.
Thromb: 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.
The evidence is the universe. What do you see? Do you see order? Or total chaos? If it's the former, then doesn't that imply, however very improbable, a greater force that maintains the laws of nature? If it's the latter, then you do not subscribe to the uniform theory of nature, which is the backbone of all science. Which is it?
Throm: You have described what you mean by order (physical law), but not causation.
Oh, here I see the hidden implication in this statement- you are claiming that the universe is created ex nihilo. That not every effect has a cause and the big bang is an example. Is that it? Or have I credited you with far too much ingenuity once again?
Thromby: Unless of course you intend to state that causation is limited to physical law?
No, I intend to state that causation is limited to our psychological bent that one event must follow another, by virtue of experience. From this repeated experience, we build a cache of contingent statements into an intellectual framework we call science today. Causality is not a natural law, like you stated to Nials in the first page of this thread, not at all a relationship between two things, but actually a perception. All we observe is consistent association of two events. In other words causality is a psychological conditioning, a habit of experiencing causes with effects.
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:
No logical sense? Allright, I will give you examples, possibly poor, of experienced cause and effect. When you see a soccer ball landing into the net, but not the cause itself - by virtue of experience, you expect the required power to launch the ball into the net was a well-placed kick and nothing more. You do not assume a megaton nuclear bomb took place that launched a soccer ball 20 feet across the heads of opponents into the net. It would be over kill. Another example is you are at the rose bowl, searching for a seat. All of sudden, the crowd roars. You missed what happened on the field, eyes whirling around frantically. You assume either a touchdown or a defensive play must have taken place that caused the crowd to erupt in applause. You do not assume something else insignificant, such as a little squirrel running across the field or somebody dropped a hotdog in the nosebleed seats was sufficient to cause the entire 100,000 to get on its feet and cheer. That said, the cause must be proportioned to the effect, and nothing more. Hence my first premise of limiting the attributes of the deity to its effect, the universe is an empirical claim. Unless you care to cite examples in your experience where the cause was disproportionate to the effect, then you have no real objection here. Where do you exactly have a problem with this "assertion?"
Thromby: 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?
Eh? A panentheistic deity is a being that contains everything and beyond. I don't think so, my friend. Rather I am arguing against the theistic attributes to this designer. In no shape or fashion am I claiming that the deity must contain the universe- merely the argument of the cause itself and the slip-shod inferences theists try to get away with.
Throbs What is the basis of the limiting of the deity to the known effect?
Empiricism- where all knowledge/ideas/information is derived from experience.
Thromby: 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.
I hope my longwinded answer above helped, if at all.
Thromby: 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.
* putting on a deist's hat * Evidence is around you, mate! Are you blind? Is there order in the natural world? Yes. Is there a reason for this order? Here we are, arguing about what could have brought this about, how, and why. * deist hat off *
Throm: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.
Slowly, but surely, your resistance is proving to be not much else other than just semantic quibbling. By freedom do you propose that order as in natural laws can be broken? Could you cite examples of freedom and potential?
Thromby: However, your dictionary definition does not provide such a comprehensive and demanding meaning for order.
Sheesh. More proof of your pretending at ignorance. If the dictionary is not "comprehensive" or "demanding" enough, I wonder what really is?
[b] Thrombs: 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 as..? Examples, man. If I take the liberty to put words in your mouth, am I to understand your implication of freedom as being free of the natural order in the universe? As if mankind could, at whim, defy the laws. Is this a weak attempt at attacking determinism?
Thromby: 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.
What ideal? You are being ambiguous here or the 20 dollar words are beginning to render you incoherent. I assume you are arguing for freedom from the natural order, causality, the laws of physics, non-contradiction, et.al. Go in-depth, please.
Thromby: 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.
There is no proof- rather a hypothetical claim, which is from the regularity argument- the specific argument of design I am attacking here. If you are asking for facts, then you may as well as go fly a kite. Arguments in themselves are hypothesis, not brute facts. And the burden of "proof" against an argument is to find a counterargument. Where's yours?
Thromby: Otherwise know as inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not provide proofs but rather probable conclusions which are then weighed against other facts.
Facts, such as. . . ? You are correct that all design arguments are merely inductive in nature. Easier to rebut, refute than a priori ones. I see your famous talent for leaving loose ends untied has not diminished one bit over the weekend while I was gone.
Not to mention picking and choosing from my posts to bitch and moan about instead of answering my questions.
~Zarathustra~
™ Version 4.2
