Design Counterarguments

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,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.

Unique Cause ObjectionIt is only when we observe two particular objects to be constantly conjoined that we can infer one from the other. If an lone, singular effect is present and cannot be understood under any other reference, there can be no way to form a conjecture or inference at all that concerns the cause.Weaknesses in the analogyThe analogy between the objects we know to have been fashioned by design and any natural object is slight, too remote to suggest a similar cause.The analogy argument in syllogism form:

• A 's are similar to a's
• A's are caused by B's
• Therefore, a's are caused by b's.

A few objections are: there is no reference to the main element, or how good is the analogy or how close the similarities are between the A's and a's.Rewording the syllogism in another way:

• A is similar to a in features X1, X2, ... Xn.
• A's are caused by B's
• Therefore, a is caused by b.

The crucial weak spot is how high is the variable 'n' (how many similarities are there between a and A, or God and man) E.g., both a lion and man can move. Man enjoys music. Therefore lions, like men, enjoys music too.The essential balance of the analogy in the design argument between anthropomorphism and incomprehensible remoteness is difficult to maintain.Another counter is that the order, arrangement, or the adjustment of final causes is not of itself any proof of design, but only so far as it has been experienced to proceed from that principle.Possible sources of OrderIf an intelligent agent is required to account for the 'order' in nature, then the intelligent agent will in turn need to be explained. But if we stop there and not explain anything, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? How we can satisfy ourselves without going on in ad infinitum? After all, what satisfaction is there in infinite progress?Is there a system, an order or an economy of things that matter can preserve that perpetual agitation (which seems to be essential) and yet maintain a constancy in the forms which it produces?The most prudent defense is that our lifetime and knowledge and empirical method is too short to fathom such an immense abyss.Thank you, and i want to hear replies being posted!
~Z~

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thrombosis:
[b] [QUOTE]Funny, for someone from Baghdad, your english is impeccable.[/b][/QUOTE]Funny, for someone from the USA, your sense of humor is lacking. ~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.Quite simple, Thromby- just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil and you've got "natural" evil left over. I define moral evil as the evil that results from behavior or failure of action. W/o the act or omission of an act by a human agent moral evil would not happen. i.e. murder is an evil brought about by a human agent. therefore it is a moral evil. Even though a murder victom's death was caused directly by a blade severing his jugular, the ultimate agent of the victim's demise was the murderer responsible for introducing schlick razor blades a bit too roughly.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.Which brings up an antinomy (taking a page out of Kant) This is an issue of theodicy- the thesis is the world is intrinstically good, and comforts our suffering. Were it otherwise, pessimism is the default position and renders suffering useless and wasteful, since they are beared and sustained for nothing. Suffering/evil must be justified for something, otherwise life is existentially absurd! If there is a God, hopefully an omniscient one, then this by definition guarantees all events that take place must contain purpose, despite the limits of our ability to understand. The antithesis is that the world is NO GOOD. Were it so, this ridicules the position of evil especially the enormous (holocaust, black plague) or constant on-going ones. Evil would be "instrumental good" and be rendered meaningless themselves,a nd we end up in the superficial mocking position of the onlooker who consoles the suffering that "what happes is for the greater good." If there is a god, he could accomplish his 'mysterious ways" sans the horrific events that occured in history.Thrombo: It is not valid. Justify your intial argument for natural evil and then we will procede. So the design argument is not valid?~Zarathustra~

Fancy meeting you here, Nials! how goes the Quinian assignment?~Zarathustra~

my first double post in a year's worth of UBB posting.

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-10-2001).]

ThrombyHuh? 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?No, i have no theistic urges. You're correct. Evil is a "theistic" concept that originated with Zoroastrianism- dueling dualistic concepts of Good as Ormazd (ahura-mazd) and Evil (ahriman). 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. In this manner I define moral evil as the privation of the proper relation between an action or its omission and the moral law.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?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.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.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.ThrombosiladiusI hope what i mentioned above illuminates the topic a bit. However, i would like to hear why you think evil does not exist.~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Zar,Arguments against ID based upon the presence of evil are not scientific, which is I think why some of the responses are seeking clarification of the term. However, your two initial premises seem sufficient to scientifically exclude ID, ie, there's no evidence for an IDer.

---

Ethics is not a science, yes, however, my arguments are directed against the theistic religions that appropriates ID as their sole means for proof of God's existence, albeit indirectly.

quote:

---

I don't understand why you introduced evil into the discussion of ID. Do you believe evil has an objective existence outside the minds of men?--Percy

---

I introduced evil as a theistic concept to trip the believers who give license to the ID argument and draw religious inferences from that foundation. Read my personal stand on this issue i posted above: 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.How's that?~Speaker 4 the death of God~

Thrombo:Not quite, but an amusing anecdotal history. Unsupported objection. State your reasons why 'not quite.'Thromby:The only absurdity here is your posts which have yet to make any internal coherent sense. No, that is not how theism defines evil. Zarathustra: Unsupported objection. Show me the money- state how theism defines evil.Thrombo! 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.It is you who are crying the sky is falling when it is not. Show me why they do not make sense instead of saying so. Take the time to show where i make bloopers, instead of championing your ignorance. Are you this shallow? Come up strong and state why.Thrombo: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.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.Thrombo: "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. You say my concept of evil is not theistic, and yet, here you say i sound like a theist. Which is it? D'oh. Both "moral law" and "required good" are deontological terms and not all deontology is theistic. Deontological ethics is an attempt at objectifying the good and evil/bad. It is quite clear to me that you cannot reason beyond the adam sandler paradigm. Was that a low blow? okay okay, how about Pauley Shore? Thrombo: 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.Remember, a part of my counterargument is aimed at the theist. the rest is for the deist. That said, not all my arguments depend on the theistic concept of evil Quite an overreach you've got!Thromby: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. Sounds like you think good exists, but not evil- as a socratic ethic: Evil is the lack of the good. Am i anywhere close to the pitcher's mound in the ballpark? The bleachers? the nosebleed seats?Throm-a-throb:But not too wisely. Thrombosiosis Validicuterias Balonium perhaps, for i know one thing, and that is i know nothing. Consequently you are nowhere close to a coherent rebuttal, much less a sniffing distance of the hotdogs outside the ballpark. Nice interjection of mocking, though. I think there's a spot open at the Apollo theatre. Run along, little chico. ~Zarathustra~

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-15-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
For the sake of those of us trying to follow along, could someone state in simple language what the opposing positions are? Thanks!--Percy (moderator)

---

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.There are two distinct sub-arguments of design: one is a "purposive contrivance" and the other is simply "order." The former is the teleological argument (from telos = end), while the latter is the regularity or "nomological" argument (from Nomos = law).The regularity argument is the inference that the discovery of regular temporal patterns operate on a vast scale througout the known universe and are understood as simple physical laws.The teleological argument results when the parts of an entity combine to serve a purpose in the whole entity (as the stomachs of a cow) or when the entity increases the end of life/man's existence (helium layer in the atmosphere).My arguments amounted to a fine-tuning of the design argument (both versions) and its implications- especially in the "restrictions on the conclusion." given the first two premises, an example may illustrate why i find the design argument a very weak one at best for affirming sufficient proof of a diety's existence.If i found a scandalous nude photograph of a long-deceased model, i can confidently conclude what i see or have heard about the origin of photographs is that it began in the activity of the photographer, and from what i know about human beings i can infer that the photographer had a body temperature of 98.4F. But from the naked chick alone i cannot conclude that the cameraman was also a football player.The design argument assumes we are already familar with what gods are, and if our inspection of the universe suggests a designer of limited power and is indifferent to human affairs, we cannot then conclude that he is a god of infinite power concerned with human good. this is the first attack of major theism.This is not a true refutation of the design argument- rather it is an improved version, given the remote possibility that there is a deity or dieties that did create the universe. it only limits the conclusion to what we actually can infer from the phenomena.~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~

Thromby, thromb, o Thrombo! You've made my week! What a riot! You're beginning to establish an unsurmountable lead on everyone for the Raspberry award for utter buffoonery. Have you started writing your acceptance speech? Need help in proofreading it? Thromby
YOU clearly argued:
1. The existence of natural evil.
2. Therefore evidence against gods of moral character.O, to hope for understanding, yet what alas! to be totally misunderstood! This is the only thing you have understood. Regrettably, everything that follows isn't. Thrombo: I challenged your illogical claim that natural evil exists.Only because you failed to describe it. Much less even explain why it is "illogical." And it is not my claim, get it through your thick head. Since theism is a strong source of the good/evil dichotomy, therefore it is easier to appropriate their elements and use it in a contradictory fashion to reduce the design argument to absurdity. My argument amounts to rug-pulling- where the theist builds his claim on the design argument as a moral judgment. he introduces attributes not found in the universe, and contradicts with the "perfect" moral character of the deity of his religion. How many times should i say this until a hole is drilled in your six-inch thick skull and a firewire slot is plugged in for instant data transmission?Once more unto the breech.THEIST- GOD is perfect. God makes universe. God makes imperfect man. man proves his imperfection by rebelling against God. Man is evil for rebelling and is thrown out of paradise.DEIST- The universe is orderly in nature. orderly objects imply an architect. therefore an architect created the universe.My argument against this is to limit the moral inferences from the architect and found "perfect" moral attributes to the designer. Get it? From the Dialogues of Natural Religion:Atheist: "Is God willing [to prevent evil] but not able? then he is impotent. Is God able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both willing and able? WHENCE THEN IS EVIL?"Thromby: IF natural evil does not exist, your argument is pointless.Presupposing a designer exists, natural evil exists in a universe not well designed or well built. After all a deity of perfect attributes is incapable of creating substandard work, which means elements that causes life unnecessary suffering. Is he? For evidence to the contrary, turn on the 6 o clock news. Thrombo: You hedged and hawed until you finally admitted that there is no such thing as natural evil.By introducing the counter arguments i demolish ID and deism, which is the most common argument for theism. After i reject the idea of a perfect God that guarantees a meaning to life, i reject all guarantees of anything. I end up in a forelorn state- an existential one. My belief progresses from an illogical, irrational belief in a projection of the ego to a skeptical attitude of anything and everything. Thrombo: Your appeal to deontological theory is a red-herring. You made an argument that you could not substantiate.You haven't shown how i "could not have substantiate" the argument. Your posts are full of rhetoric and bluster but not much substance. Plus, do you know anything about deontological ethics?Thrombo: 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? Will you answer the questions in the last post i made instead of claiming victory in hasty retreat? So far you have been raising a dirt cloud and complaining you cannot see. You haven't done much other than state natural evil does not exist. Boy, i'm impressed. Care to say why? What do you call irresistible suffering a designer is responsible for, other than natural evil? annoyances? a means to a greater end? What?And one more time: that is only ONE FACET OF A LONE ARGUMENT I PRESENTED. Not everything depends on the "moral argument"- got 9 others for you to try and pull your semantic nonsense on. ~Zarathustra~P.S. Take some courses on ethics.

Not a problem, Thromby, since you were unsurprisingly unable to answer my questions in your post, i will spell out my arguments for the addle-brained. You made a second valid point, which is a rarity, and may have exceeded your quota for a month, that my composition could have been better. Once more with feeling!!! 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.Argument 2
If the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the universe is evidence against a deity possessing the moral characteristics the theistic religions claim.Separate, stand alone criticism of te design argument. a lot of hubbub was raised about the definition of natural evil, much ado about nothing, and resulted in even more shuffling.Argument 3
If the design argument is valid, it could establish a number of conclusions incompatible with monotheism:

• A. the universe is a product of a committee of designers
• A leftover experiment in universe creation or the efforts of a third rate god
• a creation that has been running ever since by its own device

Separate argument. polytheism has as much validity as monotheism here. Did not hear any objection to this one.argument number 4
Only when two particular objects are experienced constantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other, and we are presented with a singular effect which we do not understand under any other known species, we cannot form any conjecture or inference at all about the cause.a one-time event weakens the causality argument. Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 5.
Analogy between objects we know to proceed from design and a natural object is flimsy at best, and at worst, too remote to suggest anything similar.when causes of event are exactly similar, then the analogy is dead-on, and inferences we draw from it has cash-value as a stand alone inductive conclusion. But concerning objects that do not have quite the similarity, the analogy is weakened. the inference is less certain, and dependent on the resemblance and similarity. Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 6
The order, arrangement, or an adjustment of final causes is not any proof of design, but only that we have experienced it to proceed from that principle.This is an attack on the teleological form of the design argument. Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 7
The narrow beam of the analogy in the design argument between anthropomorphism and incomprehensible remoteness is impossible to balance on.either choice weakens the claim of the deist. Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 8
If the designer is required to account for the order in nature, then the designer itself will need to be accounted for.
Once we stop at the designer, why go only so far? why not stop at the material world? What is the satisfaction in infinite regress?if a cause cannot be explained, then this argument is no objection. Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 9
Is a chaotic system possible, one that maintains a constant form?A prebuscent preliminary idea of natural selection starts here.Did not hear any objection to this one.Argument 10
Our lifetime and knowledge and empirical method is too feeble to fathom such a grand cosmological question.here we end up in alice's wonder land, and have bypassed the edges of our theories. once we are dancing in metaphysics nonsense, we have no reason to trust arguments, nor do analogies or probabilities have any claim to authority. Did not hear any objection to this one.So you're 0 for 10, Thromby. NEXT!
~Zarathustra~

Ah, you edited your message while i was typing out my post. Allright. Let's see what you got...Thromb: 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. Actually it's the 2nd argument. Tsk tsk.Thrombo- Without an objective natural evil that you can prove you have no case and your argument fails.What is the eruption of a volcano? the unhealthy dance of the earthquake? the unyeilding winds of a tornando or a hurricane? The unforgiving and indiscriminating ravages of a disease? The potential destruction a wayward comet may cause? all these are objective events that causes prohibitive results. All of these are natural. All of these are 'Bad.' Unless you are willing to re-define evil in another way, a different method (which i haven't heard so far and is why i think you're full of hot air) my contention stands as OBJECTIVE NATURAL EVIL.Thromb- You appeal to deontological theory, however, without theism moral duty is incoherent beyond subjective duty to the individual and pragmatic duty for a sociey.
Oh for cripes sake. Let me bring you along, step for step, slowly on what deontological ethics means and why it is independent of theism (from a previous essay in ethical theory):Nonconsequentialism, another word for deontology, designate that some acts either should never be done in any circumstance- or at least hold some independent moral credibility against them. Several tenets of duty include fidelity (promise keeping), reparation (repair gaffes), beneficence (good unto others), nonmaleficence (do no harm), and self-improvement (improve virtue and knowledge). This stems from Ross’ prima facie principle, which holds that we ought to do or not to do certain kind of things. A prima facie duty is a fresh idea that establishes duty; yet can be superseded by other factors. Duties can and do conflict with one another and the stronger sense of duty ought be chosen in moments of crises.Here i reject deontological ethics as a valid system for behavior...Consider a situation where deontology comes into effect- you are a lifeguard at a beach, duty bound to save people. You receive news that two groups of people are in dire danger out in the ocean one mile apart. After you rush over to the intermediate point between the two groups- you receive further news- in one group there are ten people, and in the other, only one. Duty demands you to rescue the greater number of people. However, the value of a human person changes once it is a family relative, or a loved one. Suppose that before the choice is made, you receive further information that the lone person is your most valued person in the world? Does duty, to be precise, altruism, have any moral credit in this situation? Just which sense of duty is and ought to be stronger is largely a debatable matter. Nonconsequentialism fails to establish the holy grail of an objective theory of morality. Moral realism, that some things are objectively right or wrong, independent of what anyone might think or feel, is unfeasible.You should be paying me for giving you a semester's worth of lessons in deonto ethics.Thrombo-Neither are objective and the breaking of neither of which amounts to an objective evil.Deontological ethics is an objective moraily. Objective means independent of the subject, universal. Deontological ethics are irrespective of consequences. You understanding of deonto is utterly laughable. Get thee to a junior college and sign up for an ethics class.Thromb- Your first argument is wrong. Admit your loss or prove an objective natural evil. You've already admitted that one doesn't exist.My first argument wasn't even adderssed. Youre talking about my 2nd one, where you do not think natural evil exists, but prefer to call it ......? Show me your cards. Clock's running out, and i'm way ahead. 2nd place is another name for the first loser.Thromb- 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?I am capable of admitting an error, if pointed out. You have instead jumped up and down saying incorrect, rather than list why objective evil according to theism does not exist. Loud rhetoric done wrong ends you up with a myopic perspective. I asked people to either comment or dismiss- as in say something or ignore it. dismiss, not reject. You are free to reject my arguments by commenting.More? I guess some people are a glutton for intellectual brow-beating.~Zarathustra~

Throm- Actually my double-post has you to thank, since you were the first to post twice. Feel free to ignore all my questions, which is personally disheartening, but whichever you want, a new thread, or continue in this already burning one is fine with me.I will re-shape my arguments. Very easy to do. One final thing before i address your comments-argumentum ad hominems are attacking the person who pesents an argument. You did not present an argument for anything- and I was not rejecting them by attacking your character.Rather I was making a point on why you fail to grasp several concepts- not saying you are wrong because you chose that ridiculous handle examples of ad homs:

• Abusive Ad Hom: You're arguing for design, but you are just following a fad. Or
• Ad hom Circumstantial: We should ignore what Thromby says about evolution because he won't evolve. Or
• Ad hom Cricumstantial: We should disregard Thromby's argument because he is being funded by Dubya. Or
• Ad hom tu quoque: You say I shouldn't mock, but you have not been stoic in forever.

Ca-peeesh?~Zarathustra~

Uno

• Premise 1. If a deity is the cause of order in the universe, then they posses that degree of power, intelligence and benevolence which appears in their known effect, i.e. the universe and nothing else.
• Premise 2. A deity is the cause of order in the universe.
• Premise 3. The universe is not infinite nor is it paradise.
• Conclusion: the gods are neither omnipotent nor are benevolent.

2.

• P1. if the design argument is valid, then the existence of natural evil in the universe is evidence against a deity possessing the moral characteristics the theistic religions claim.
• P2. The design argument is valid.
• P3. natural evil exists.
• Conclusion. The deity is not the morally perfect theistic god.

3.

• P1. If the design argument is valid, then it probably establishes alternate possibilities- polytheism, discarded experiment
• Premise 2. the design argument is valid
• Conclusion: the designer is not a perfect god.

Cuatro

• p1. we infer causality after observing a particular cause and effect that are constantly conjoined.
• P2. we experience a singular effect that never occurs again.
• Conclusion: we cannot form any conjecture/inference at all about the cause.

Cinco
Analogy syllogism:

• P 1. A's are similar to a's
• P 2. A's are caused by B's
• Conclusion. a's are caused by b's.

Analogy syllogism, improved:

• A's are similar to a's in features of x1, x2, . Xn.
• A's are caused by B's
• Therefore a's are caused by b's.

If n is low, the analogy is weak.
If n is high, the analogy is strong.
This method of reasoning can never have place with regard to a Being, so remote and incomprehensible, who brears much less analogy to any other being in the universe than the sun to a waxen taper. Enquirywill post the next 5 tomorrow. I'm off to intense meditation.~Zarathustra~

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-17-2001).]

Ah, it's good to be back. On with the debates! Thrombo: Premise one fails. You phrase this quite oddly and ad hoc as necessary:Care to say why it is "ad hoc?" You are extremely talented at hurling accusations w/o backing them up. In that case, I am not certain whether you do understand the charge of an ad hoc argument. Any argument that is ad hoc in nature is adjusted to match the facts once the prediction of the argument in question fails. an example would be the Marxist theory of government, where Karl Marx predicted a worldwide revolution of the proletariat. When the revolution did not occur, Lenin and other russian proponents of Marxism rendered the theory ad hoc by limiting the prediction to russia alone.Throm 1. What do you mean by cause of order?This is easily answered with the post i replied to Percipent on positions- the sub-argument of design, a nomological argument is a regularity argument, which is the inference that the discovery of regular temporal patterns operate on a vast scale througout the known universe and are understood as simple physical laws. Throm 2. What do you mean by order? The dictionary states: "A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group." Cleanthes' design argument paraphrased: If you take a good look at the world, and consider the whole and the particular, you will be tempted to see a giant machine that is subdivided into smaller ones, and further divided into still smaller ones beyond the human level of senses. Each and every machine, even the least useful working part is adjusted in an orderly fashion, with awesome precision, and consequently inspires a deep admiration in all humanity. The means to ends in nature does resemble the efforts of human innovation, design, idea, purpose, and intelligence- although it may far exceed such a comparison. The similar effects indicate an analogy that the causes are also similar- that an "author of nature" resembles the mind of man, albeit blessed with infinite/incomprehensible attributes necessary for the task. This is an argument a posteriori that proves the existence of a Deity which resembles a human mind.Thromby- 3. Does this order exclude freedom and potential? Since you've been pulling a Wittgenstein the entire time, and i smell your linguistic mangling trap a mile away, i must return you the favor: Define "freedom" and "potential." Then we'll chat. Thromby 4. Are there rogue molecules permitted or is this total sovereignly guided order?Quantum mechanics, i presume? particles that continually pop into existence and out in a sea of foam? Planck time? Heisenberg principle? Dirac Sea? what?Thromb: I have other questions about your justification of the limitation of their powers to the known effect. Both in limitation and in the idea of the known-ness of the effect; however, I'm they'll be cleared up when you define your terms.Hope you did your homework on causality.Thromb- God as the cause of "order" is a very outdated type of argument. Is this what your "champion of ID" is arguing with you??? I'd might as well argue against evolution as a theory where a bird hatches from a lizard egg. Long gone... The 'champion of ID' isn't a theist, yet believes that evolution is false and thinks carbon dating is 'so flawed' that it measures the dirt surrounding the bones, not itself, and is a hardcore Behe fanatic. Thromby- In ID, God is the cause of high specification and complexity. Order can easily be produced by nature. Just spend some time looking at nailscorva's crystals.Define nature. You accuse me of using an 'outdated' term (god) and yet here you are putting forth a cause of "high specification and complexity" as God? Tsk tsk. The word God, in my arguments, isn't as 'outdated' as you would so fain wish- it remains meaningful these days- and wears many hats: "Hegelian Absolute," "Ding-an-sich (thing-in-itself)," "Master architect," "Author of Nature," "Universal Will," "Deux ex machina," "the hyphen in binary opposites," "Lord," "Yahweh," "Allah," and even "etcetera!"Thromb-Anyway, your argument is fallaciously vague (falacy of amibuity {simple/equivocal and amphibole}).Putting the cart before the horse, aren't we?Please clarify and show the proper relationships of premise one.Hopefully in your next post you will amount to more than just unsubstantial denials."That's not what order means!""No, that's not how an argument of design is formulated!""are you an evidentialist? Just come out and say it."None of that 'nebulous hop-scotch' tomfoolery, chico. ~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~------------------
"I have slain all gods for the sake of morality!"

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-22-2001).]