Is logical support of theism possible?

I think that your argumnet needs more explanation.Take your premise P1

quote:

---

P 1. Everything in existence has a possible purposeful use.

---

Can you explain how it applies to the planet Pluto ?Can you offer an example of something that might possibly exist but would not have a "possible purposeful use" ?

In my opinion:1) The valid syllogism identified by Mike Hager does not fully sum up MtW's argument (most clearly it has no place for MtW's P1).2) MtW's argument has not been presented with sufficient clarity or detail to conclude if it is logical or not.3) IMHO - and this is what my questions were meant to investigate - the likely meaning of P1 is vacuous and does not support MtW's claims. Since MtW has failed to clarify his meaning as I requested we are left with no way to judge even that issue.Even if this thread is only concerned with validity then clarifying the argument is an important issue. Personally I would accept that showing that the universe was created to the plan of a conscious being would at least be a good argument for the existence of God and therefore further discussion is warranted.

Mike, I don't disagree with your Premise 1 - in fact I am not certain what it means and I agree with what I think it means. But if it means what I think it means then it can't play any useful role in your argument.My first post to this thread suggested that you explained your argument more and asked two specific questions intended to clarify your P1.You answer my questions and help me to understand what you mean and I'll tell you where I think the problems are.

This seems to be heading in the direction I thought but let's clarify the second question because it is very important.What I'm trying to find out is if there is anything imaginable that is both likely to exist and doesn't have a "possible purposeful use".The real issue is whether the idea of "possible purposeful use" represents something basic about those things which do exist or simply demonstrates our ability to imagine possible purposes.Then we can get onto the rest of your argument for which I need your definition of "system" and your justification of the claim that all systems are purposefully made.

Although I already mentioned something of the sort in a previous post, Mike, perhaps you can explain your definition of "system" such that both premises 1 and 2 are - in your words - "common knowledge".

At this point I usually distinguish between "function" and "purpose" with the distinction that "purpose" reflects conscious intent.Your argument shows "function" but not "purpose" (because showing "purpose" requires showing that there was conscious intent). At this point you have to make an evidential argument rather than a purely logical argument - because if you could show conscious intent in the creation of animals your entire argument would be redundant.But your evidential argument will also fail unless you address the question of evolution - a simple analogy which fails to consider relevant data or properly deal with alternative explanations is not a valid evidential argument.

No, I can't see a "purpose" as I have defined it in the circulation of blood at all. I have no direct evidence to conclude that the circulation of blood was intended by anyone or anything.And no, you don't have a true inductive argument for the reasons I've already stated.

No, as I pointed out you don't have a sound deductive argument either.And I really suggest that you go back and read the distinction I made between function and purpose. The circulation of your blood has a function but there is not a shred of direct evidence that that function is the product of an intentional act.And I haven't even tried to provide examples of systems without purpose because you havn't defined "system" yet. So I haven't been saying "hey - that isn't purpose" as you claim.As for your P.S. I care about the truth. Too bad you don't.

Mike, I made the distinction between function and purpose for a reason. Can you at least understand the definitions I am using instead of just telling me I'm wrong ?You also need to understand that you need to adequately support your premises - you can't claim that they are true by default. And if you won't define your terms rigourously you don't have even a valid deductive argument.And the reaon I'm not agreeing with you is because you haven't made an adequate case yet. You've got a LONG way to go.And if I'm getting a little grumpy it's because of your own digs (like the P.S. in Message 55 ) as well as your refusal to deal seriously with the points I raised in Message 52Lets take it again.Your deductive argument fails because function (as I defined it) is not enough to logically infer intelligent input. There is no sound argument which will do that.Your attempted inductive argument fails because it rests on a weak analogy and ignores evidence that is more relevant..

You can't logically conclude that all systems are consciously designed simply because some are. Even if you had a valid inductive argument (and you don't) that isn't valid deductive logic.And as I've already stated I make a distinction between function and purpose specifically for these arguments (it is a matter of rigourously defining terms - as is absolutely required for a valid logical argument). And the difference is intent - if a function is consciously intended then only then is it a purpose.In my last post I pointed out that you cannnot put your own premises forward as the default and still have a rational argument - yet you are still trying to do exactly that. THe answer to "why can't it be ?" is "why [I]should[/b] it be?". The burden of supporting your claims is yours - if you can't adequately support them your argument fails.As for your claim "only when we were intelligent, did we become able to create systems" I have to ask - yet again - for yout definition of "system".

quote:

---

Pardon? All of the aboce is FACT. Humans do make systems. Are you understanding my posts? And what evidence?

---

Yes I am reading your posts - you're just not reading mine (if you had you would have a very good idea of the evidence I was talking about). But the fact is that the jump from "human created systems are created" to "all systems are created" is based solely on a weak analogy. That's not a valid logical argument or even a good inductive argument - at best it's a starting point for investigation. So like I said you're a
LONG way from an argument that actually works.And I suggest you read my posts three times. Because on the current showing I understand your argument better than you do.

ROTFL! Mike, I'v known what your so-called inductive argument was all along and I've alredy said why it was invalid. As I said if you read my posts you would understand your argument better.And I'm still waiting for your definiton of "system". When we've got that then we can say if the Unerse is a system or not.And no, I didn't ignore your message 63. I answered it in message 65 even quoting part of it. And I explained why your arguemnts were not adequate there.I suggest you reread my post 65 and actually try to come up with a decent response which actually addresses the point.

Your definition of system is inadequate since it clearly applies purely to biological systems. The rest, I am afraid is simple word games based on equivocation and therefore invalid.And Mike, I am bein less belligerant than you are. And less immoral. Why you should take offence at a statement you can't even be bothered to understand is beyond me. But there is nothing immoral in makinfg such a statement - after all I cannot be responsible for your refusal to understand. Your misrepresentation of my statement completely ignores the distinction I made between function and purpose - and in fact alleges that I claimed that blood lacksd function. Which is a plain falsehood.That you should choose to make such baseless and false attacks is clearly both belligerant and less than moral behaviour.

No, my distinction has not been explained away. Indeed as it is a matter of definition it cannot be unless it is shown to be meaningless (and it clearly is not).When I said there was no purpose the blood being pumped around the body I was quirte clear about the distinction betweem function and purpsoe and explained why I stated that there was no purpose. You ignore all that in favour of grossly misrepresenting what I said and accusing me of making "immoral" statements. I really have no idea why you are doing this - again. Either you can't even manage to read what I said and are just throwing a childish tantrum based on some emotional reaction or you are just lying through your teeth. I don't know which is worseAnd your equivocations are certainly not the fault of dictionary.com. So there is no reason to take the matter up with them. It's not their fault that you choose to abuse and misrepresent their service.I've already explained why your arguments aren't valid. You can choose to pretend that the problems don't exist, but they won't go away no matter how mcuh you pretend.

In other words you are tired of being caught in misrepresentaions and distortions so you are going to falsely claim victory and run away.