Design Counterarguments

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board. [/QUOTE]Funny, for someone from Baghdad, your english is impeccable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[b]Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board.
Restriction on the conclusion
If the gods are the cause of order in the universe, then they possess that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence, which appears in their known effect, which is the universe, and nothing more.

• Premise 1- When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and must never ascribe to the cause any qualities other than what is sufficient to produce the event.
• premise 2- if the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities other than what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer other effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.

If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the world is evidence against gods of moral characters the theistic relgions attribute to him/them/it.[/QUOTE]There is no such thing as natural evil. Why don't you try to define it for us since you have offered it. Please feel free to include a justification for the recognition of evil.

quote:

---

If valid, the design argument could establish a number of alternative conclusions that are incompatible with monotheism:

---

It is not valid. Justify your intial argument for natural evil and then we will procede.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nialscorva:
[b]My personal favorite is an information argument against design. As you bring up in the "Restriction of the Conclusion", it can be shown in information theory that you cannot infer a context of interpretation without prior (assumed) knowledge of the appropriatness of that context. For example, in cryptography, the message is assumed to be from a human source, then interpretted within that context to outcome (natural language). SETI is based upon the assumption that an alien intelligence, somewhat like ours, would think like us and try to broadcast certain patterns (which carries less information than static, SETI actually looks for a lack of information to imply intelligence).[/QUOTE]

​

When an anthropologist distinguishes the marks and shape of a rock to be intelligently designed (an arrowhead) verses naturally caused, how does he do that?

​

[QUOTE] I prefer this one because it castrates one of the most mistaken arguments for design, and shows that they actually have to assume a designer before they can prove it (begging the question), whereas biochemical interactions don't have to be assumed.[/b]

---

There is no castration as the evidence for a creator is ubiquitous in other fields, namely cosmology. The kalam argument is sufficient to warrent belief in a creator. It may not be sufficient to prove such, however, science does not move on such proofs but on reasonable probabilities as it moves towards proof. The design inference is as reasonable and more so than the inference of design to an arrowhead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Thrombo:
There is no such thing as natural evil. Why don't you try to define it for us since you have offered it. Please feel free to include a justification for the recognition of evil.
Zarat:
Quite simple, Thromby- just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil and you've got "natural" evil left over.

---

Huh? Try again. Just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil? Why don't you start with defining what evil is. How do you distinguish what is evil? Where did you get this concept? Sounds pretty theistic to me. Are you a theist?

quote:

---

Zarat:
I define moral evil as the evil that results from behavior or failure of action.

---

You keep using the word evil in your definitions. You need to explain where you got this word. What in the world does it mean?W

quote:

---

Natural evil arises through no fault of man. Man has no control over natural evil, and has no ability to prevent it from taking place. Usually an excruciating painful death or suffering results from a incurable and terminal disease- this is suffering a natural evil, as well as natural disasters of earthly phenomena- earthquakes, volcanoes, hrricanes, floods, tornandoes, future ice ages.

---

You are not being clear. While I can see why many of the things you listed would be undesirable for personal comfort, I have not seen you make any case as to why they are evil, let alone defining what evil is.Thrombosiladius

[QUOTE]There's plenty of evidence from QM that strict causality is not a reality.[/B][/QUOTE]You overstate your case. There is plenty of evidence from QM that physical laws may not work and apply the same way as they do in non-quantom fashion, however you are welcome to provide the type of evidence that proves that causality is not a reality.Thrombolionesium Baracudum

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Funny, for someone from the USA, your sense of humor is lacking.

​

~Zarathustra~

---

I just noticed the joke: Baghdad, Persia. Should have seen it. You get a token laugh. Ha, ha, hee, hee, hee. Ahem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nialscorva:
Now, you can argue that just because it doesn't have a known cause that an unknown cause is excluded. However, I can argue that just because two things appear to be caused does not imply causal connection. Either way, we'd both be making unprovable assertions, as it deals with things that we have no knowledge of. This puts us back on metaphysical ground. Bear in mind that we must distinguish between a teleological cause and physical cause as well. The khalam *might* show the need for a physical cause, but not a teleological one.

---

1. When only unprovable assumptions are possible, then one leans on what is known. Your argument from QM is still an argument from ignorance (not yours, but all of science). With hope in a few years you will either have a great argument or further evidence of a transcendent creator.
2. Even a quantom world exists in a material realm. If it were true that the quantom world did not operate in a causal fashion-something you don't at all know to be true-it would still be operating in the material realm. The Kalam in union with relativity and Hawking/Penrose argues convincingly for all of the material world including time coming into existence from nothing.
3. The teleological cause is convincing argued from the anthropic fine tuning necessary to have life at all anywhere in the universe.Thrombolina

Aaaahhhhh!!! Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!! Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!I typed a reply three times to Nialscorva and each time closed my browser by accident and lost the post.I'll get one out tomorrow. I'm too frustrated to do it again now.Thrombosis

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nialscorva:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thrombosis:
1. When only unprovable assumptions are possible, then one leans on what is known. Your argument from QM is still an argument from ignorance (not yours, but all of science). With hope in a few years you will either have a great argument or further evidence of a transcendent creator.
NC:
So would you care to show what is known in this situation? Is causality known, or is it a presupposition? Philosopher's have been trying for years to identify a rational basis, could you enlighten us with your proof? Throm:
Causality is well understood by natural law. There is no known exception to causality. Without causality there would be no rational world in which we could exist and discuss things in an Aristotalian logic.NC:
I must take exception with your accusation of arguing from ignorance. I am pointing out holes in your argument, not presenting one of my own. I'm not presenting reasons as to why ID is invalid, I'm presenting arguments as to why arguments for it's validity fail. You are in fact appealing to ignorance by saying that because we don't know that something isn't true, we must consider it to be true.

​

When discussing an unprovable statement, we can only deal with what is known. We *know* that quantum looks acausal with respect to everything else that is observable. To speculate otherwise requires us to talk about something that we do not have knowledge of. For all knowledge we have, quantum is acausal.

​

My point about QM stands.Throm:
I don't believe your point about QM does stand. I'll give you an example to support causality from light. We now know that light acts as both a particle and a wave. By certain manipulations, we can cause the light to act as either a particle or a wave. However, when we "blind" the light to our manipulation, it still acts the way the way it would if the causation was known. We have no idea why or how it does this. However, it does, and it is consistent. Alpha decay is an example of purely random occurances. However, it does decay. This is causality. We know that it will decay. If there is a probalistic factor that is reliable, then causality is active.Throm:
2. Even a quantom world exists in a material realm. If it were true that the quantom world did not operate in a causal fashion-something you don't at all know to be true-it would still be operating in the material realm. The Kalam in union with relativity and Hawking/Penrose argues convincingly for all of the material world including time coming into existence from nothing.Nialsy:
[i]So? What's your point?It's not as clear cut as this either, Penrose was a mathematician, not a physicist, and Hawking, while amazing, isn't the final authority on the beginning of the universe. Even if there was a big bang, that doesn't mean the universe "came to be", as "coming to be" requires the presence of time before time started, which we do not have knowledge of.[/b]Throm:
This of cource is the strength of the Kalam argument. It is a compelling and reasonable argument.Nialsy:
I see a stack of rocks in the woods. The stack obviously "came to be" at some point. Does this tell me anything about who/what created it? Not without prior knowledge.Throm:
A stack of rocks by themselves have no inference to design. Prior knowledge is not as critical as you demand. The reason for this is that there is a limit to natural causation. Intelligent causes can produce effects that unintelligent causes cannot. For example, if we were to find a structure like an Egyptian pyramid on Uranus, we would have no clue as to who put it there, however, there would be no question that it was produced by intelligence.Throm:
3. The teleological cause is convincing argued from the anthropic fine tuning necessary to have life at all anywhere in the universe.NC:
It may be convincing, but it is certainly not sound. In the spirit of not talking about what is not known, could you please show us why you think fine tuning is necessary? You make this assertion without supporting it, and I'd like to see the numbers and/or logic behind it.Throm:
1. Strong nuclear force constant:
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hece too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars3. Gravitational force constant:
if alrger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production.4. Ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding5. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation
if smaller: same effect6. Mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming7. Supernove eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on this planet (may yet happen)
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy elements ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon (in cosmological history): not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiationThrombosiosis Myosis Delitorium

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Zar:
Evil is a "theistic" concept that originated with Zoroastrianism- dueling dualistic concepts of Good as Ormazd (ahura-mazd) and Evil (ahriman). Throm:
Not quite, but an amusing anecdotal history.Zar:
The argument of Evil within the design argument appropriates the theistic concept of evil and consequently reduces theism to sheer absurdity. Evil is what the theist defines as either breaking the divine commandements of the particular doctrines of the deity. Throm:
The only absurdity here is your posts which have yet to make any internal coherent sense. No, that is not how theism defines evil. Who are you reading??? It would benefit you to define your own terms and make your own posts make sense rather than incorrectly defining other's points of view.Zar:
In this manner I define moral evil as the privation of the proper relation between an action or its omission and the moral law.Throm:
Moral law? Where did you get this idea that there is a moral law? Your talking like a theist again. Do me a favor and try to make coherent sense in your own view as you make your arguments. Your utter dependence upon theistic realities is quite disheartening and serves to reduce your arguments to absurdity.Thromby: You keep using the word evil in your definitions. You need to explain where you got this word. What in the world does it mean?Zar:
You are right, i have been sloppy. There are different aspects of evil, as in "X evil" is "the privation of an X good." and the aspects are Apparent, Objective, Ontological, Physical, Real, Relative, Subjective, and etcetera. Evil is something that is unsuitable for a natural tendency or appetency, i.e. the privation of a required good. Throm:
"Required good?" You're doing it again. You must be a theist in disguise. Why don't you just come right out confess your theism and simplify your life. It is clear that your mind cannot reason beyond the theistic paradigm. Zar:
Evil has various definitions for different folks. There are two kinds of people- the noble people and the slaves and their moralities are inverse copies of one another- What the noble see as evil is weak and cowardly and common, while what the slaves think is what is harmful and independent and dangerous is evil.

​

However, it is my personal belief that there is no objective method of formulating morality. If we follow a moral system or a religious doctrine we are pretending we cannot act otherwise, an exercise in self-deception, by denying that we have the enormous responsibility of determining our choices. I am of the belief that the individual must create their own moral code- and act authentically- make choices with the clear understanding that we are responsible for creating our perspectives, our opinions, our moral codes. Throm:
Ohhh.... Okay. There it is. So then, now that you have defined evil as subjective and non existant objectively, what was your point? Your argument has fallen apart into absurdity.Thromby:
You are not being clear. While I can see why many of the things you listed would be undesirable for personal comfort, I have not seen you make any case as to why they are evil, let alone defining what evil is.ThrombosiladiusZar:
I hope what i mentioned above illuminates the topic a bit. However, i would like to hear why you think evil does not exist.Throm:
For the same reason that a donut-hole (not the small round balls but the hole in center of a donut-you know what I mean) does not exist.Zar:
~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~Throm:
But not too wisely.Thrombosiosis Validicuterias Balonium

FOR PERCIPIENT AS WELL AS ZARATHUSTRA. (Percipient see below in bold).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Glad you asked- since Thromby is bent on pissing in the well instead of carrying out a fair debate, I can only speak for my positions.

---

The only well I've pissed in is your self-referencial incoherence. Let's pull all this back together for all to see. YOU said:

quote:

---

by Zarathustra in first argument:
"If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the world is evidence against gods of moral characters the theistic relgions attribute to him/them/it."

---

YOU clearly argued:
1. The existence of natural evil.
2. Therefore evidence against gods of moral character.I challenged your illogical claim that natural evil exists. IF natural evil does not exist, your argument is pointless. You hedged and hawed until you finally admitted that there is no such thing as natural evil. Your appeal to deontological theory is a red-herring. You made an argument that you could not substantiate.Let percipiant be the judge. Look at his original argument. Did Zar not make the claims I demonstrate him making. Does his argument not fall apart if there is no natural evil? Have I not caused him to confess that he believes in no objective natural evil? Am I unfairly debating as accused here? Zarby:
~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~Throm:
IncoherentlyThrombolicious Icecreamadicious PS. Lighten up!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Ha! Attempting to belittle instead of debate sounds like your forte. Once you show how theistic realities is disheartening, then you have a case. And you haven't any leg to stand on other than jeering comments so far.

---

Zar,
I have a boisterous attitude and have fun while I do this. I don't attempt to belittle in any post. I may use sarcasm too much, however, I mean my points seriously. I'm sorry if you have read my posts as jeering. No jeers intented. A beer perhaps, but not a jeer. If you hunt, I'll offer a deer, but unfortunatly won't join you. Don't mean to give you fear, but then that's spelled with an "A", however, I respect you as a peer, not necessarily queer, well, I'm out of options.My serious apologies if you felt any personal attacks or hits below the belt. NONE were ever intented to offend.Thrombosis

I have cleary done as you asked in your first post. I'll repost more of it in context for ALL to see again. I appealed to Percipient to judge not because I claimed to have defeated all your arguments, just the one. Here is your original post: [QUOTE][QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[b]Hello everybody. I am proud to announce that this is my first post in this board.I am embroiled in a running debate with this champion of ID, who tries to fill in the 'apparent' missing holes of evolution/big bang cosmology with a 'god of the gaps' shtick.Some of the arguments aren't exactly for evolution, but focuses on the weakness of the design argument.I have rounded up a few counter-arguments to the design argument, feel free to comment or dismiss, [/QUOTE]Before we continue, lets review that last comment. Ahem..."feel free to comment or dismiss," This was in reference to what?... to a "few counter-arguments to the design argument." Clear as mud? Let's continue. Here is the FIRST of A FEW counter arguments you gave.

quote:

---

Restriction on the conclusion
If the gods are the cause of order in the universe, then they possess that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence, which appears in their known effect, which is the universe, and nothing more.

​

• Premise 1- When we infer a particular cause from an effect, we proportion the one to the other and must never ascribe to the cause any qualities other than what is sufficient to produce the event.
• premise 2- if the cause is known only through the effect, we ought never add any qualities other than what is essential to produce the effect. Nor is it prudent to infer other effects from the cause beyond what is already known to us.

​

If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the world is evidence against gods of moral characters the theistic relgions attribute to him/them/it.

​

If valid, the design argument could establish a number of alternative conclusions that are incompatible with monotheism:

​

• The product of a committee of designers.
• A discarded experiment or a creation of a third rate entity.
• A creation that has been left to run on its own devices ever since.

---

That was ONE COMPLETE ARGUMENT. We'll come back here in a second. I just want you to see the clean break to the next argument...

quote:

---

Unique Cause Objection

​

It is only when we observe two...

---

Thus new argument clearly delineated by formatting, bold print, title etc.Everyone clear? Now lets look at the first argument. What do we find there? Well, look at that, a reference to natural evil, in context, and central to that COMPLETE argument.Without an objective natural evil that you can prove you have no case and your argument fails. You appeal to deontological theory, however, without theism moral duty is incoherent beyond subjective duty to the individual and pragmatic duty for a sociey. Neither are objective and the breaking of neither of which amounts to an objective evil.Your first argument is wrong. Admit your loss or prove an objective natural evil. You've already admitted that one doesn't exist. You seem incapable of simply admitting your argument fails. Why ask for people to dismiss it when you refuse to accept any evidence that it is false?Thrombosis.Edited to remove unnecessary flaming, derogatory remarks, and to focus on the issue.

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-16-2001).]

Zarathustra double posted. This is a response to the first post before reading the second.You're almost there. Soon you'll be able to post without an ad-hominum. I have compassion on your low self esteem and am happy to provide you with fodder to make yourself feel important.I don't answer ten arguments at one time. You commit a falacy in presenting ten and demanding that all be accounted for at once. Give me a break. One at a time. Here we go again. I'll adress them as you break them up. I connected arguments that you present seperate because some of what you call arguments are assertions, not arguments. The burdon of proof of an assertion is upon you. You seem intelligent. You should know at least this much.Zar:
Argument 1
If a deity is the cause of order in the universe, then they possess that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence which appears in their known effect (the universe) and nothing else.

​

The two premises in my first post are inferences from this first argument. Did not hear any objection to this one.Of course you didn't hear an objection, it is not an argument!! I don't respond to assertions unless they are substantiated.Just in case you don't understand the difference, an argument has both premises and a conclusion. The premises if accurate produce a proof in the conclusion if the reasoning is valid. This is called a sound argument.As assertion is something declared or stated positively with no support or attempt at proof. For example, this is an assertion, "Life was planted as seed spores on earth by Marwadin, the colossal kingpin of the underground civilization on Uranus, second only in command to Zarathustra."Thrombosis PS. I didn't answer some of your other questions because they were irrelevant to the main topic. Why I don't agree with your belief on the origin of the idea of evil is irrelevant to its existence as an objective entity. Even if you were correct, it still would not be objective.

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-16-2001).]

​

[This message has been edited by thrombosis (edited 08-16-2001).]

Zar,
Now we've got two parallel threads. Which one do you want me to move on. How about making the second one focus just on deontological ethics since you find this type of ethic objective? I also think that this can quickly be cleared up by defining objective. It seems that we use this word differently.Either way. What do you want to do? I'd prefer just to move forward again point by point as my first response began to do. However, if you see that as a sign that I flee your comments then we'll keep this double thing going.Thrombosis