Is logical support of theism possible?

Purpose can only be ascribed by an intelligent agency. I would also propose that only the actual creator can state an items true purpose (i.e. what it was made for). Thus, to use such a point as a proposition is circular. It is implicit in your propositions that an intelligent creator exists, and when that is also your conclusion, the argument is circular.

MTW Which systems do we make that you are refering to here? That we can concieve of systems consciously does not mean that they can be created.

I think we could agree on what the universe is. I agree that the universe is a system but I think we probably hold very different ideas of what a system is. I mean merely that it is something with parts that interact. I don't think it has to have a purpose to qualify as a system. What is consciously? and what is made? This is not evident to me. I think system can happen unconsciously, that is I don't think ants or bees or termites consciously create ant hills, beehives, etc.I actually suspect consciousness is the source of the universe. I don't think this could ever be proved because if it is the source then it is beyond the relativeness and discrimination and thus ordinary dichotomies of true/false, good/bad, etc can't apply to it, and hence we can't say anything about it that is true.lfen

Erm, no Mike, you were right the first time. The syllogism is still my argument. I don't begin with an intelligent designer at all, I conclude consciousness only. Not even a specific deity. Not even omnipotency, not even omniscience, - just consciousness. Good point. Infact - only when we have consciousness - can systems be made.The only systems similar to those of nature - and the only systems that function, like Ifen said, are human made. I've already described the function and purpose of things in these systems also, which cannot be denied.- those endeavours - have only been possible with a conscious mind.We really do only get a system when a conscious mind makes them.That's only an example on earth ofcourse. But all other examples thus far have been natural ones.In every species of animal there are structures with purpose within the individual organism, that through numbers alone cannot be denied. It's almost like mass production via standardisation. The obviousness of the functional structures, makes purpose undeniable.In the Mosquito example, the Mosquito also has structures, and is standardly produced over millions of years untill evolution occurs to help it survive.The purpose odf Mosquitos draining blood fromus is inductive, and is not the same purpose I'm talking about. It would look like this;1. Mosquitos take blood from humans.C. Therefore, mosquitos are designed to attack humans.OR, Mosquitos take blood from animals, as part of the animal system - being a small part of this system, which generally takes blood from animals. This other purpose(of it made to attack humans) would be on shakey ground. But the purpose I'm talking about - is demonstratably sound. The function in life is 100%.Go and test it. Not only will every single organism that comes about - have a functioning cohesive structure - but it will have the tools to reproduce that structure. If I am wrong - and their structure isn't purposeful - then many will come out with no order nor structure, and defying their own species.Go further, and see if any animal below humans produce systems. Indeed, the animal most prevailent consciously - produces systems with purpose and function.These are all facts by the way.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 08:00 AM

MTW Are animals conscious?

Is there a difference between true purpose and functional purpose?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

FunctionThe physiological property or the special action of an organ or a body part.
Something closely related to another thing and dependent on it for its existence, value, or significance,I propose that the systems I have outlined, definitely incorporate a functional purpose.I personally think this is common knowledge between both of us Paul. Surely e can see that the function of blood around the body is purposeful. Since all organisms have structure and purpose in this manner, then I think it's reasonable to suggest that systems work together as one, and to place this special functional purpose requires consciousness. This is inductive - you can refute me by showing that there are systems without cohesion. But to do so with something like an organism - you'd have to show a lack of functional purpose IMHO. I will re-read message #28 later on.

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.

That was in referral to concentrating on what we as consciouss beings have made. My argument in full, is deductive, and so far I have no reasons to doubt it. So let me get this right, you see no purpose in blood being pumped around my body?This is a strange position, and morally implies some disturbing implications. Forgive me for not taking your opinion as a satisfactory refutation on this, as I cannot take a few pointers, and disgruntlements as a refutation. If you looked at this objectively, you'd see that it's only the atheist in you stopping you from seeing the obvious purpose in these systems. Not only do we have that, but we also have complementing systems and subsystems working in harmony. This is why purpose becomes even more likely.1. You suggest no purpose to systems. Despite my evidence that shows this in all systems.
2. You've provided no example of systems without purpose, you've just said. "hey - that isn't purpose" despite the purpose being incredibly obvious and demonstratable.PS. The problem is, that even if systems weren't purposeful, they still are consciously made. So even removing purpose would have my argument intact, yet I don't think purpose is removed, through evidence alone.Your disgruntlements and personality trait of taking things personally is endearing, but I have to stick by this one stubbornly.>This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 03:19 PM

Okies, keeping this tightly focused I'll ask one specific question about one system found on earth.Are honey bees conscious? A bee colony and hive appear to me to be a functioning complex system that does quite a number of things.I btw don't have a problem with a definition of consciousness that includes insects but it will have to be distinguished from the self consciousness of homo sapiens.lfen

IfenWould it not be prudent to first establish just what constitutes consciousness in humans first? Is there anyone viewing or participating on this board that can give a rigorous definition that can withstand scrutiny by others?

Ifen, although this is not the kind of specific purpose I am talking about, this is why I suggested systems with no apparent conscious input - as regards to falsifying my argument. So, good point. (This is a good example of how my argument can be falsified).One thing though, are the bees completely responsible, or are they themselves endowed with instinct to be able to do this?>
Systems in place can be self-sufficient, yet have a conscious cause. This is why Occams razor cannot be invoked against my argument. Think hard about this point! This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 05:05 PM

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.

Yet the blood seems to intentionally stay in my body, and is needed as part of my system etc...hence my inductive side-argument about man-made systems). You're ignoring what I've previously said, Re-read the original argument.As for my argument - I'm afraid it is a logically deduced syllogism.You're perfectly entitled to argue against it's validity, truth and soundness. But simply disagreeing where purpose has been proven isn't the way to refute the argument.Here's another deductive syllogism;All dogs are animals
Percy is a dogC. Percy is an animal.(Why you're disputing me I don't know. I suggest it's a personal thing, because in message 27 you seemed quite agreeable, you need to observe that this is not an attack on you.)This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 05:21 PM