Design Counterarguments

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

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.

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).]

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~

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

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~

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]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.Thrombosis:
I'll wait for your response then. It is already hard enought keeping track of both you and nialscorva. I don't even remember what he and I were arguing at this point. I'm out for the night. I'll look forward to your post in the morning.Zar:
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.Throm:
Thanks for the clarifications. Yeah, I know I use that term loosely. I meant personal attacks, not philosophical logic falacies. Thanks for the corrected spelling at the very least.Zar:
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 Thrombus:
Oh my friend, I'm the clot in the heart of your arguments (and the one in my sanity).Thrombosicken de headium vericosium

​

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

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).]

wow, this thread just shot up in post count.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
[B]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.

[/QUOTE]Premise one fails. You phrase this quite oddly and ad hoc as necessary:
1. What do you mean by cause of order?
2. What do you mean by order?
3. Does this order exclude freedom and potential?
4. Are there rogue molecules permitted or is this total sovereignly guided order?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.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... 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.Anyway, your argument is fallaciously vague (falacy of amibuity {simple/equivocal and amphibole}).Please clarify and show the proper relationships of premise one.ThrombosisDon't rush on the last five. We'll get to those after the first five.

​

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

quote:

---

Originally by Nailscorva:
wow, this thread just shot up in post count.

---

Zarathustra has been racing me to be the first one to graduate jr. member. Why it is just not possible! He's even double posting just to get ahead of the game. Hmmmm.... He tried to physically overcome me but after a long struggle during the night I touched his hip and put it out of joint. He then asked me to bless him ... Oh... no... wrong story... oops. Anyway. I've been consumed with Zar. I'll probably respond to you on Monday Nailscorva. Sorry for the delay. Just so much one can do in a day!!Thromobosis ideaosis

​

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

Thanks for the clarifications of positions. I didn't know the meanings of deontological, teleological, nomological, and so forth, but I have since looked them up and have been dropping them into normal conversation ("These grapes sure are teleological, I think I'll have some more").My interest perked up at mention of the nude photograph - do you have a link, or am I missing the point?I'm sure there's a difference of opinion hiding in all the verbiage, but darned if I can find it. I hope you guys believe in miracles, because that's what it'll be if I end up making sense of all this.Consider this post just an interlude and continue the debate, I'll just quietly summarize my ignorance and tiptoe from the room.Zar doesn't believe in the objective existence of evil. He merely postulates it as the first step of a logical process that arrives at a contradiction, thereby implying the initial primise ("There is an IDer") is false. Either that or he disproved Lent, I'm not sure which.While Thrombo and Nials agree with Zar in principle, they do not accept the premises and processes by which he develops his conclusions. Or not.Okay, I give up. Next batter!--Percy (moderator intimitado)