Is logical support of theism possible?

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..

MTW You have committed a logical error known as Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise as can be found on this site.http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afromneg.html

Paul, firstly - the ps was a compliment, as I enjoy your baba in debate.Look at the construct of syllogism again. Since sytems have been consciously made by the most conscious organism on the planet - and since (if looking at those made systems) - since we can answer the questions about function/purpose in those systems, then I suggest you show a system with no functionings. Call it purpose or function if you want, it doesnt matter because consciousness answers how the function, purpose or umpalumpa is so darn cohesive. Is it coincidental that we make systems, TVs, heart machines, engines, that all answer the question of purpose, function or umpalumpa?It matters not what you want to call it because the [b]question is answered[/i] concerning systems, and it is consistently demonstratable.The only systems similar to those ones in nature with structure - are those built by consciousness. You keep ignoring this. Yet with all systems we make, intelligent input is the answer.SIMILAR functionings and structure are in nature - just why can't it be an answer of intelligence?Remember, only when we were intelligent, did we become able to create systems. Again coincidental? How many times do I have to say these things? Pardon? All of the aboce is FACT. Humans do make systems. Are you understanding my posts? And what evidence?You suggest I fail, fail fail, but then - you're grumpy and are taking things personally. but you simply haven't provided enough to rid my argument. Read this post three times please, to fully understand my argument.

In both cases in those examples from the link NOT is the negative. I have not included any nots in my one. (Where you just testing me?) I think you're just testing me eh. Naughty baba. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 06:14 PM

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.

I didn't say it was. Only now are you realizing what I meant by the inductive part of this. Please quote where I said that human systems having a conclusion of consciousness pertaining to all systems was deductive. But my argument isn't the strawman you're providing anyway.It is;The universe is a system (You seemed to agree with this)
All systems are purposeful and therefore consciously madeC. The universe is a system, consciously made.You are right that it's inductive to take some and then say all, hell - I'll even show an example to show how you're right;The only socks I've ever found are redC. All socks are redYou see, I really did say this previously anyway - but then I explained about coincidences. (WHY do you think I asked for examples of systems with no cohesion? because my argument REASONS that cohesion of systems = consciousness. Hell, I even said to Ifen his example was a good one. *Sheesh*.It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it really isn't -....Well, you seem grumpy - I'll leave off for now and let you cool down.(I don't seek heated debate concerning this one)You ignored message 63. It should be because of what I have previously said, which you ignored.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 06:49 PM

MTWMy mistake mike as I misread that,however,let us return to the agreed upon premises/conclusion reached earlier. #2 and #3 need to be better correlated.As it stands it is not clear because of the word "things" not being equivalent in meaning to system.Did you mean to say {3.Purposeful systems are created.}?

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

Endowed?You could guess I would answer they evolved the behaviours.What about the organization that plaque bacteria arrive at on teeth after about 24 hours with channels and such to maximize their survival?What is consciousness?lfen

MTW,If I'm reading you properly (and I really don't know if I am), then your argument is very close to evolution theory in the following way:- Consciously designed things can have no purpose--for example, when somebody designs a really ugly scultpure when they're bored. The only purpose was to waste time--the thing itself has no further purpose. I'd like to forget about these things for now.- The world can be divided into two sets of things--human artifacts and ... those that are not (i.e. 'natural' things). Due to my assumption above, there's no need to question whether artifacts are designed and have a purpose--they do. We'll revisit this assumption only if necessary later. In the meantime, this means that ONLY 'NATURAL' THINGS NEED TO BE EXAMINED.- your idea of 'purpose' seems to map to the idea that evolutionary systems are selected by how they handle 'selective pressure.' In other words, evolutionary theory postulates that ALL systems that live over the 'long-term' do so by their ability to survive. I believe that you would ALWAYS be willing to attach the term 'purpose' to 'survive.'- your idea of 'system' seems to map directly to 'that thing which can undergo evolution'--in other words, you seem to identify a system by finding things that have 'a purpose.' In evolutionary terms, the 'purpose' is to reproduce genes. Maybe I missed a post or something, but that's the best I could understand of your word 'system'.So, if I'm right about your thinking and about evolutionary theory, then evolutionary theory predicts, in your own terms, the world to have 'systems' that have 'a purpose.' In other words, both proposals are consistent. What do you think?-----------If I'm on the right path, then suggestions such as lfen's won't work as counter-evidence--the 'purpose' behind bee dancing is SURIVIVAL. We'd need to look at some very different kind of evidence. So... before searching for more evidence, I want to see what your thought is on this.Thanks!
Ben

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.

I will, for now, withdraw my claims of circularity. The argument still is circular, I think, but we can leave that for later when we have clarified a few issues.In addition to circularity, I think your second and third propositions are not factual, but before I can accurately show that, we must agree on definitions.I propose the following definitions, from the Oxford English Dictionary:Purpose: the reason for which something is done or for which something exists.System: a set of things working together as a mechanism or interconnecting network.

System (pertaining to biological system; The appropriate action of any special organ or part of an animal or vegetable organism; as, the function of the heart or the limbs; the function of leaves, sap, roots, etc.; life is the sum of the functions of the various organs and parts of the body.Function; Something closely related to another thing and dependent on it for its existence, value, or significance. (This definition is applicable because parts of any organism depend on other things within the organism for their existence in this very fashion, and are significant etc.Since there is function in systems - as we can see, function includes significance, significance includes;A meaning that is expressed.
A covert or implied meaning.Meaning leads to;To have as a purpose or an intentionSo we can see the logical progression. We can define words untill the cows come home but if we are HONEST, we all know what I'm talking about and we already know what these words imply.PS> There are too many requests at the moment - but I think this post satisfies a lot of them. These aren't my definitions, they are the dictionaries.Also - I'm put off by Paul's belittling, belligerent attitude, and immoral position of thinking that my blood has no purpose in my body. Quite obviously then, he wouldn't mind sticking a knife in it - and letting the blood out - afterall, there's no purpose in my blood circulating my body according to him.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-07-2004 06:07 PM

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.

To begin, are your charges of dishonesty directed at me? If they are, I will discontinue this discussion.Now, on to business. I accept your definitions, but are you sure you want to use them? The reason I ask is that your first proposition is that the universe is a system, and under your definition it is not, so we would have to decide if your argument works with only propositions 2 and 3. I can leave that for later.Sticking with the matter at hand, the definition given in your last post for function states "...existence, value, or significance." The "or" signifies a non-inclusive set of qualities, (if it were otherwise, the conjunction would be "and") so by your definition, existence without value or significance is sufficient to meet the definition. That being so, your "logical progression" falls apart.Perhaps this demonstrates how one might honestly ask for clear definitions in a debate over logic. Once you gave your definitions, it became clear that at least one part of your argument is weak.

Sorry Paul - Your "distinction" has been explained away. I've shown how function leads to purpose, if you can't accept it - argue with the guys at dictionary.com.As for my statement about the blood - you did say there was no purpose in blood being pumped around the body , save the purpose I invoke. This means you don't see any purpose in blood being pumped around my body - and thereby wouldn't care if it left my body. or - you can state it's obvious purpose and end your silliness.These connections I've made are all logical and any member can check them on dictionary.com if they want.I said "you don't understand my argument", then you said "you don't understand your argument" - that's how you belittle me, because quite obviously - I do, because I made the deductive syllogism. I say "you're belligerent" - then you say "you're belligerent". I mean - that's just childish.Gone on say it for the fifteenth time "mike, your argument aint valid etc etc..." - Sorry, but that won't make you right, but knock yourself out if it makes your ego feel comforted.