Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Hi, MrQ. When you say "absolutely absolutely nothing," do you mean to include mind in that "nothing"?Because, you should.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ.I realize that English probably isn’t your first language, and I’m not entirely certain whether my inability to understand you is due to a language barrier or just due to your esoteric logic. Are you familiar with the term reification? Basically, reification is treating something abstract as if it were concrete. This is what you are arguing: that abstract concepts, such as mathematics and logic, exist in the same sense that concrete things exist.Reification is universally regarded as a logical fallacy: there is no evidence that ideas are restricted by the same set of rules as physical objects, and no evidence that ideas and objects are interdependent.The only time reification is not considered a fallacy is when it is used metaphorically. This means it functions only as a literary device, and not as a valid component of a logical arguments. So, any argument that incorporates reification (such as yours) is either metaphorical or fallacious.----- Has it ever occurred to you that the human mind is the only example of a mind that we actually know of?
Given this, it shouldn’t surprise you that, when people search for an example, they choose the human mind. This does not mean that they cannot fathom the idea of a non-human mind: it only means that they do not know of another example of a mind to use in their analogies.These are intelligent people, and they do understand logic: give them a little credit.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Theodoric. Taz didn't misrepresent a logical argument, but he did say this: That's what AdminSlev is responding to.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ. Personally, I think you're doing well. I'm impressed that you could even try discussing this topic in a foreign language. I speak Mandarin Chinese fairly well, but I wouldn't even attempt a discussion like this.What is your native language?----- Because math is a system of logic created by humans to explain reality. If our system for explaining reality didn’t explain reality, it would be stupid of us to try to use it to explain reality.Do you really believe that, if something can be explained, it must have been designed?
If so, how were you able to explain to us what a non-designed universe would be like here and here?----- Nobody has yet agreed with what you have said about necessary truths.
And, you disagreed with me that the logical fallacy of reification is actually a logical fallcy.
So, I think we can safely say that not all human beings agree on necessary truths and logic.----- Can matter be reprogrammed to not recognize and respect necessary truths, without actually changing the matter itself, like a computer can?If not, then we must conclude that your software analogy is inaccurate, and regard necessary truths as simply an innate part of matter.Edited by Bluejay, : fix dBCodes

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ. I didn't see that coming. ----- I should point out here that you are trying to explain that reality lines up with our thought processes to a bunch of people whose thought processes you feel do not line up with reality.The fact that you have to make this argument suggests that there really isn’t as much correlation between our thought processes and reality as you want us to believe. Since this debate is happening, your argument is false in the case of at least some of us.However, my impression is that the exact opposite from what you say is true. I’ve found that people are generally very bad at thinking logically. Many people are, in fact, completely incapable of even recognizing what logic is. And, let’s not even start talking about how bad we are at mathematics.It takes a lot of effort to get our thought processes to line up with the way the world works. This is not consistent with your viewpoint.----- I don’t really get a sense of order when I look at the world around me.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ. This brings us right back to, "If we can explain it, it must have been designed." As far as I can tell, this is a non sequitur.----- You perceive the universe as obeying a certain set of rules. Thus, it looks orderly to you.
I perceive the universe as being the result of the interactions among a small set of processes. Thus, it does not look orderly to me.I do not pretend to have an explanation for why this small set of processes is happening. I simply observe that this is what is happening, and I view the laws as patterns in the occurrence of events.On the other hand, you assert that this small set of processes is happening because it is being actively imposed on the universe. Therefore, you view the laws as rules regulating the occurrence of events.Where I see patterns, you see rules. You assert that patterns cannot happen without rules, and that rules cannot exist without an intelligence to create them. I only see patterns, and admit that I cannot actually know what is required for those patterns to happen. Thus, I refrain from accepting that formal rules and intelligence are required to make patterns.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ. I did go one level higher, MrQ.
When I did, I found that there was nothing up there but bare assertions and circular logic.
So, I came back down to where there is evidence.
You would do well to do the same.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, MrQ. How does this differ from your argument that necessary truths were not necessary before some other intelligence came about?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.