Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
68 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat, Tangle (3 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,260 Year: 5,906/14,102 Month: 54/438 Week: 98/83 Day: 0/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 43 of 185 (485290)
10-06-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 7:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
I don't get your point. If 99.99999999% is inimical to life, then how is it that life--the GOAL--is here? By accident? By what probability?

Hi Doubting Too, while I am sure that someone else on this board has pointed this flaw out to you I will point out this specific one. Your statement here falls under a general area of argumentation called a teleological arguement which makes one very important assumption, namely that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is to generate life. While this can form the basis for latter arguements you have to support this assumption first, otherwise your whole logic chain collapses like a house built on sand. For example one can make a reasonable statement that life has a purpose, primarily to replicate itself. The backing for this is that this is something that all life does. It says nothing about the purpose being built in by a higher (or lower) power or where this purpose comes from, but this purpose can be supported by a common denominator accross all forms of life discovered to date, namely that they replicate themselves. As far as I have ever seen no one has ever succeded in creating a logical arguement that the universe has a purpose, generally the arguements come to a final conclusion termed a scotish verdict, essentially case unproven. What basis do you have to support the claim that the goal of the universe is life? And please do not say that the proof is that we (or life) are here because the counter is what was pointed out to you, that the goal could also be to support empty space with everything else a by product, or the goal could be to start and burn stars out, again with life being a by product, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:24 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:08 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has responded

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 99 of 185 (485754)
10-11-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by NOT JULIUS
10-07-2008 4:08 PM


Re: P3 OF POST # 35 APPEARS ONLY TO BE "BEGGING THE Q"
Hi Doubtling Too, sorry for the delayed response, thats the effect of having a 60 to >80 hour work week. Lets deal with the relevant portion of my question first then go on to the other.
quote:
An analogous question will answer this one.

actually it is not analogous to your first comments but it is related to my question
quote:
Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL—the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition—also has a GOAL: Life !

This is correct as far as it goes, you have a defined entity, Gideon, who has stated a defined goal. The problem with your arguement, and the one which you still have not yet addressed, is your claim that the goal of the universe is life. You have made it as a statement or argurments without any real supporting premises mush less data or evidence to suport the premise. This is what you were asked for. Your universe arguement would be a better arguement for a goal of empty space or rocks than life based on supporting evidence. There is also an additional problem with your arguement and conclusion related to your other statements that I willa ddress in an minute.
quote:
I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)—I forgot his name—‘ it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).

This is from the Anthropic Principle, originally coined by BRandon Carter ans is actually anarguement against design although some people (i.e. Hugh Ross) have attempted to modify it to support design.

quote:
Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.

actually this first part was begging the question but you did respond, attempting to use an analogy rather than supporting premises and data, int he part that I alreadya ddressed.

quote:
Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:

- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.

B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?



this is the part that is generally addressed by the anthropic principle.
quote:
Roger Pentose in Emerores New Mind wrote:
The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question-so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!

there is also another response to this though that I enjoy, take a deck of cards and lay it out card by card, the odds of getting that precise sequence is 1 to 8.06 E 67th, surely an improbable event, and yet it happened. Basically this is bacaule you are assuming only a single possible event or means of reaching life. A more accurate arguement is that we know of one, but since we only know of one occurance we can not really calculate the probability of the event unlesswe know of physical reasons of why this is the only way that the event could possibley occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:08 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021