Deftil writes:
See that bit in your premise about "toward a goal"? Something that is "toward a goal" must have intention behind it (if it didn't have intention behind it, you wouldn't refer to it as a "goal"). That there is intention behind nature is meant to be your conclusion, but you have assumed it in one of your premises. This is the definition of the begging the question fallacy; assuming your conclusion in your premises. However, if your intention is to be true to logic and reason, and thus to not beg the question in your argument, surely you will not object to your premise being restated in such as way so as to not beg the question. I will do so now to see what effect it has on your argument. (I'll also remove "(the goal)" from P4 which is a carrying over of the question begging, and I'll add "proven to be" in P2 b/c it makes the obvious clearer.)
DT writes:
Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.
P2: If something is proven to be made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth result in life as we know it.
P4: There is life on earth.
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.
Now it becomes clear that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. This is because it doesn't logically follow from the simple fact that life as we know it exists that it was a goal, that it was intended, and that it was designed. It's entirely possible that it wasn't. These things MAY actually be true, but in terms of your syllogism and logic, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You haven't logically proven design.
Now a bit more in regards to your defense of P3:
DT writes:
I am proceeding from this observation: (1) right distance, (2) right condition... and then life. Life obviously is the goal for the preceeding two observable facts. If not, what else? Would chance be a goal... Chance is not a goal. It is a happening, or a frequency, I guess.
Life is not obviously the "goal", but is obviously the "result". Your use of the word "goal", which implies intention and design, is the issue here, and why you are begging the question. You must use language in your premises that does not assume your conclusion, if your logic is to be considered sound. When you go with "result" instead of "goal", your conclusion is a non-sequitur.
DT writes:
Here is another proof why premise 3 is not begging. If the distance is right but condition is not, then no life. If distance is wrong, but condition is right life may exist for a while but eventually will die. So? the two must be present to achieve a goal--life.
Again, same thing. Switch the word "goal" out with something else (which you must do so as to not beg the question) that's neutral in regards to your conclusion and you see that your conclusion doesn't follow. Surely you can see that assuming life is a "goal" is making the assumption that life is the result of design, which is supposed to be your conclusion. To make sure you understand the implications of the word "goal" here is it's definition: "the end toward which effort is directed".
For a while I thought you got me there--changing the word "goal" to "result". Are you a lawyer, by chance?
Now, let me try to show why life is the "goal" AND the "result".
A series of "why" questions--posed by a child would really reveal this, I think. Here is a discussion between a child and his Dad
Child: Why would life and not death result in the right distance of the sun and earth?
Dad: Because it is the result of natural processes.
2nd why: But why? I am not satisfied. Is process and result enough to explain life? Uh...Uh.. feeling unable to answer the question?
Dad: Because, child, the process and/ or the result was what was INTENDED by the designer/ maker. Remember Gideon? Just like our cook Gideon when he specifies these ingredients, and equipment, for baking muffins. His intention (or Goal) is to give us muffins. Kid, while muffins is the result of his baking prowess it is also his goal. He gets satisfaction with that. In other words my child
Results and Goals are do not really contradict each other--they are complementary. Kid, if you still aren't satisfied, here is another. If Dad drives you to this street and that street, what would be the RESULT? We arive at the Mall. But, why would Dad take you to the mall? Because your intention--your
GOAL--is to silence this smart kid.
Dad: Do you now see the point?
Child: Oh, yes I see.
Dad: Now, my child, it's my turn to ask you. Do you know who infected our computer with virus.
Child. No, Dad. It doesn't matter to me. That one who ever he is had a goal AND an annoying result--to bug our PC.
Dad: Now, do you know who designed the earth?
Child: No, his name is not written on it. But, I now know that life is a RESULT and a GOAL.
Dad: Suppose, I tell you he is GOD.
Child: I may believe you, but there seems to be no proof--except that there is
INTELLIGENCEdisplayed here. But, Dad, can we accept INTELLIGENCE without GOD.
Dad: Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you have a functioning brain--the seat of intelligence--without a person?
Child: It's hard to believe.
Dad: Whew! I finally got ya, I think.
Deftil and the rest trying to falsify P3. Did you get the point?
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2