Is there a legitimate argument for design?

If that is the case, then all why questions are actually how questions?As has been mentioned before, the definition of the word why is not limited to the one you give it. And if we make the restriction you are insisting on, then all questions are how questions.Both of those arguments are direct rebuttal of your position of how vs what. Your only response so far has been to repeat your position, sometimes with a different question.If instead you want to ask, what ultimate purpose for the sky being blue, for which that ultimate purpose has no predecessor, then why don't you phrase your question that way instead of pretending that you are in charge of the dictionary.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And you accuse me of moving the goal posts. No, why questions should have why answers just as how answers are for how questions. Curiously I feel that using different words to mean different things improves clarity in debate, while confusing definitions of one word with another allows for equivocation and confusion. Your argument is based on repeated confusion of one with the other rather than a real rebuttal. That would be moving the goal posts ...Which is unnecessary as it is irrelevant to the issue of "why" questions vs "how" questions and having answers that provide testable predictions that can be pursued with science -- and the fact that all the answers you have provided thus far for what can provide testable predictions that can be pursued with science are the answers to "how" questions.Enjoy

I'm mostly just trying to follow along in this discussion you're having with RAZD, but I thought I'd add my two cents. The way I see it, most words have more than one meaning and more than one sense in which they can be used. Sometimes someone asks "why" and wants to know the reason or purpose, e.g., "Why did you hit me?" Other times they want to understand the causes or mechanisms, e.g., "Why did the plane crash?" If I've been reading you right then I think we agree that one can't assign a single approach to interpreting "why" questions.--Percy

I don't think we all agree on that. I don't see any way to approach RAZD's responses as saying anything other than that "why did the plane crash" is not an appropriate question if the answer you are looking for is something like engine failure or pilot error.ABE:In fact, even a reason such as the pilot developed a paranoid delusion that the passengers were aliens intent on taking over earth, and so he flew the airplane into a mountain just tells us how the plane crashed and not why? As I understand RAZD's position, no answer that gives a natural, probabilistic, or human volition reason for any action is the answer to a true why question.In fact, I doubt that a why answer, scientific or not exists under the definition being insisted on.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I yield.

If I read you right, you and I agree. That's what I thought RAZD was saying. Makes no sense. Words have multiple meanings. "Why did the plane crash?", "What caused the plane to crash?", "How come the plane crashed?", they're all the same question.--Percy

You seem, for good reason, to be avoiding saying that the color of the sky in universe 1123434 is not a scientific question. I don't know if such a proposition will ever be testable, but I don't see any metaphysical reason that it must be ultimately untestable. You might want to reconsider your answer.If you indeed believe that such a question has only a how answer, (science deduced or not) and that is indeed what I asked you for, then we should not be surprised if either science or a ouija board fails to provide an answer.If in fact all possible answers to that question are actually how answers, scientific or not, then what you are saying is that science is as successful as every other line of reasoning at answering the question.My proposition is that using your definition there are no true why questions. I am asking you to demonstrate that I am wrong by making up a why answer to a question of your choice.ABE:In the spirit of providing openness, what I intend to do is to follow up your why question and answer with yet another why question that relegates your chosen Q&A to mere how.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, :

You've reminded me of an incident from elementary school. One of my 3rd grade buddies had an annoying habit of asking me infinite why questions. I'd answer one question from him about anything, and he'd ask me why and i'd feel compelled to answer only to have him ask why again. Rinse, lather, repeat. One day I after the 9th "Why?' in a row, I told him never to ask me why again. He then asked me "How come?".As I remember it, the two of us laughed all through recess about his 'work around'. Not sure now what was so funny, but I'm convinced that laughing was the right response.As you suggest, 'why', 'what for', 'how come', 'by what cause or agency', 'by whose say so', 'for what reason', 'explain the incident in terms of God's plan for man' are all questions that we might intend when we ask 'Why?. But those questions are not synonyms, and in some cases one or more of those alternatives are not even in play.As best we know, true accidents do occur, non-deterministic processes do exist, humans have free will, hurricanes obey natural laws, and bears do defecate in the woods without getting a hall pass. Not everything can be tied to volition or plan. When such is the case, the why obviously refers to something else, and it is no lack or limitation when one method or another does not answer an inappropriate question.

Yes, that about covers it.I can also agree with RAZD that "why questions should have why answers just as how answers are for how questions," with the stipulations that why questions can be stated without the word "why," and how questions can be stated without the word "how."--Percy

Sure. Whatever your statement turns out to mean, surely it is true. Do you have an example of such a question?Why isn't the question in this sentence a why question? Why is the question in this second sentence a why question?

'Fraid you've lost me. The only thing I can contribute to this discussion is that words have no fixed meaning. I may not know what someone means, but if they're saying that a word always means the same thing then I'm pretty sure they're wrong.--Percy

If I lost you, perhaps that illustrates the point. The second question announces itself as a why question. Perhaps from the context of the discussion I may have successfully communicated that I am expecting a different type of answer from the two questions leading with Why.But even knowing that one of the questions is intended to be 'more why' than the other, it is still unclear exactly what kind of responses are appropriate. It would at this point be ridiculous if you provided an answer, and then I responded by saying that your answer was wrong and that you were confused about the meaning of why. Surely the responsibility for not being clear is mine and not yours.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I still feel I'm not getting you, you may be slicing the onion too thin for me, but what you say reminds me how difficult it can sometimes be to be unambiguous, especially with someone with radically different views.--Percy

Looks like it's just an illustration that does not illuminate well. My bad.

That's exactly the point I was making to RAZD. ABE: see Message 534And that his insistence that the "why" questions must be ones of ultimate purpose is just Begging the Question.Am I not correct?Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.