|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Design Counterarguments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
Hi,
I think I have another way to determine when a complex(rare) event implies a creator. When the event is not necessary to the existence of the observer, one would perceive it in its true frequency. So if it happens too frequently, one can say it was designed. (ex.: arrowhead complexity) But when the event is necessary to the existence of the observer, one would perceive it as being more frequent than it actually is. So, even rare, random events would seem frequent when they happen. And, in this case, one can not tell if it was designed. (ex: DNA complexity) sorry for the english (im not from Bagdah)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nialscorva Inactive Member |
quote: The only problem is that this is an ad hoc system. We can easily use this criteria to say that object X is designed, and object Y is not. The problem is that we don't *know* that they were or were not, except by virtue of our own criteria. In the example of arrowheads, we know that there are/were arrowheads being created by people. The problem is that ID wants to do this with objects that we don't know as being created. It's an entirely different question, the search for artifacts asks "Is this object consistent with the arrowheads created by humans?". SETI asks "Is this signal consistent with an intelligence like ours trying to send a message?". ID is asking "Is this object/pattern consistent with something that is created by an unknown thing?". We don't know the "thing", so we don't know if the pattern is consistent.
quote: No worries, it looked just fine to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zarathustra Inactive Member |
Ah, it's good to be back. On with the debates!
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.
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.
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).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zarathustra Inactive Member |
Percipient: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").
How was the reaction? A slack-jawed one or an angry retort that demanded you to speak english? 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. It would be even a greater miracle if Thromby stopped dodging all my questions and made a substantial objection, though. Consider this post just an interlude and continue the debate, I'll just quietly summarize my ignorance and tiptoe from the room. Your "ignorance" is heartening- at least somebody understand what i'm trying to argue about! 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. Any objections, flaws, holes the size of Thromby's skull you see in my "logical process" ? 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. Actually, Nials' first argument , the 'information argument' is similar to my "restriction of the conclusion" just reworded in a technical sense. :-) -Zarathustra, ultimate skeptic. ------------------"I have slain all gods for the sake of morality!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
I didn't get the point...
The analysis I mentioned does not need any pre-defined criteria. You can apply it in anything from rock formations to physical constants and get a good idea if there are any reasons to one claim ID. Dozens of little rocks with the same cutting/piercing shape are too improbable to happen by natural erosion. And we does not need to be looking for arrowheads do drawn this conclusion. The same can be said about radio pulses ordered in the prime number sequence coming from outer space. But when you wonder why the universe is so adapted to support our existence you can't say the same thing because of the motive I explained before: even the rare events would be expected to seem frequent. It does not disprove a creator, it just forbids one from using the design argument to prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
thrombosis Inactive Member |
Thrombo: Premise one fails. You phrase this quite oddly and ad hoc as necessary:
Zar: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. Throm new:I meant by ad hoc that you make assertions simply because they are conducive to your argument, however, they don’t have a basis in fact. I simply meant that you were making things up as you went without presenting evidence to support them. You seem very well read in philosophy, you should know that it is the responsibility of the one making an assertion to present evidence to support it. INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY PLAYING GAMES WITH TERMS, DO US ALL A FAVOR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ASSERTION PREMISE ONE. If you can’t present evidence to prove your premise one then lets get on to argument number two. 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. You have described what you mean by order (physical law), but not causation. Unless of course you intend to state that causation is limited to physical law? Listen, let me assure you that I am not playing games with you regarding definitions. You give me way too much credit. I ask you to define terms because your premise makes no logical sense and I am trying to understand how you got the conclusion you did in your first premise. You’re first premise is as follows:
quote: It is not clear in this premise why it is true, specifically with the limitation of the deity. You seem to be making an argument for a panentheistic deity? What is the basis of the limiting of the deity to the known effect? I can understand the known effect not contradicting the character of the deity, another argument, but your limitation of the deity to the effect is awkward in my opinion and the causality not understood. Hence my accusation of fallacy of ambiguity. It is your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions. I’ll keep repeating it until you do it. 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." 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? The reason I’ve asked you to define these terms is because of the way you phrase your argument. Again, thanks for the accusation of the linguistic mangling trap. You give me way too much credit. I’ve asked you to clarify whether freedom is possible because the way you’ve framed your argument makes order to mean complete guided causation due to the creation being equal to the deity. However, your dictionary definition does not provide such a comprehensive and demanding meaning for order. By freedom and potential I simply mean that there are true freedoms (alternate possibilities from the order) given to sentient beings within the order. Such freedom provides potential (opportunity not yet realized) for variation from the ideal. If such a scenario is true, then the deity is either not immutable, or is greater than the creation and then in both circumstances your argument fails. However, instead of me continually trying to figure out how you find proof of your assertion, why don’t you finally fulfill your burden of proof and demonstrate why your assertion premise one is true. This is an argument a posteriori that proves the existence of a Deity which resembles a human mind. Otherwise know as inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not provide proofs but rather probable conclusions which are then weighed against other facts. Thus Spoke Zarathustra~ Again without fulfilling his burden of providing proof for his assertions. "I have slain all gods for the sake of morality!"Including yourself. Thrombosis mitosis symbiosis prognosis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zarathustra Inactive Member |
If nothing else you have proved to be entertaining, Thromby. Thank you for fattening my thread.
Throm old:I meant by ad hoc that you make assertions simply because they are conducive to your argument, however, they don’t have a basis in fact. Then you imply that the argument for design is not a fact, but. . ...? The design argument is not a fact but actually a hypothesis put forth by theists and deists. It is substantiated by several various arguments- the teleological, the nomological and the Argument from analogy. What are you trying to pull here? If you're arguing against the design argument I have no beef with you. After all, the first 3 arguments are "Restrictions of the Conclusion" which at least gives the design argument validity. But if you are trying to tell me the design argument is invalid, we have nothing further to discuss. I think the design argument is a poorly implemented ad hoc argument in itself, full of anthropomorphic leanings. Are you willing to defend theism or deism? If not, then what are you really arguing about? Same old Thromby: I simply meant that you were making things up as you went without presenting evidence to support them. You seem very well read in philosophy, you should know that it is the responsibility of the one making an assertion to present evidence to support it. Actually the responsibility for the person who makes an argument is to avoid logical fallacies. This is how you can help me whip my arguments into sparkling pristine order. Instead, the well is regrettably overflowing with your piss. Thromb: INSTEAD OF CONSTANTLY PLAYING GAMES WITH TERMS, DO US ALL A FAVOR AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ASSERTION PREMISE ONE. If you can’t present evidence to prove your premise one then lets get on to argument number two. The evidence is the universe. What do you see? Do you see order? Or total chaos? If it's the former, then doesn't that imply, however very improbable, a greater force that maintains the laws of nature? If it's the latter, then you do not subscribe to the uniform theory of nature, which is the backbone of all science. Which is it?Throm: You have described what you mean by order (physical law), but not causation. Oh, here I see the hidden implication in this statement- you are claiming that the universe is created ex nihilo. That not every effect has a cause and the big bang is an example. Is that it? Or have I credited you with far too much ingenuity once again?Thromby: Unless of course you intend to state that causation is limited to physical law? No, I intend to state that causation is limited to our psychological bent that one event must follow another, by virtue of experience. From this repeated experience, we build a cache of contingent statements into an intellectual framework we call science today. Causality is not a natural law, like you stated to Nials in the first page of this thread, not at all a relationship between two things, but actually a perception. All we observe is consistent association of two events. In other words causality is a psychological conditioning, a habit of experiencing causes with effects. Listen, let me assure you that I am not playing games with you regarding definitions. You give me way too much credit. I ask you to define terms because your premise makes no logical sense and I am trying to understand how you got the conclusion you did in your first premise. You’re first premise is as follows: No logical sense? Allright, I will give you examples, possibly poor, of experienced cause and effect. When you see a soccer ball landing into the net, but not the cause itself - by virtue of experience, you expect the required power to launch the ball into the net was a well-placed kick and nothing more. You do not assume a megaton nuclear bomb took place that launched a soccer ball 20 feet across the heads of opponents into the net. It would be over kill. Another example is you are at the rose bowl, searching for a seat. All of sudden, the crowd roars. You missed what happened on the field, eyes whirling around frantically. You assume either a touchdown or a defensive play must have taken place that caused the crowd to erupt in applause. You do not assume something else insignificant, such as a little squirrel running across the field or somebody dropped a hotdog in the nosebleed seats was sufficient to cause the entire 100,000 to get on its feet and cheer. That said, the cause must be proportioned to the effect, and nothing more. Hence my first premise of limiting the attributes of the deity to its effect, the universe is an empirical claim. Unless you care to cite examples in your experience where the cause was disproportionate to the effect, then you have no real objection here. Where do you exactly have a problem with this "assertion?"Thromby: It is not clear in this premise why it is true, specifically with the limitation of the deity. You seem to be making an argument for a panentheistic deity? Eh? A panentheistic deity is a being that contains everything and beyond. I don't think so, my friend. Rather I am arguing against the theistic attributes to this designer. In no shape or fashion am I claiming that the deity must contain the universe- merely the argument of the cause itself and the slip-shod inferences theists try to get away with. Throbs What is the basis of the limiting of the deity to the known effect? Empiricism- where all knowledge/ideas/information is derived from experience. Thromby: I can understand the known effect not contradicting the character of the deity, another argument, but your limitation of the deity to the effect is awkward in my opinion and the causality not understood. I hope my longwinded answer above helped, if at all. Thromby: Hence my accusation of fallacy of ambiguity. It is your responsibility to provide evidence for your assertions. I’ll keep repeating it until you do it. * putting on a deist's hat * Evidence is around you, mate! Are you blind? Is there order in the natural world? Yes. Is there a reason for this order? Here we are, arguing about what could have brought this about, how, and why. * deist hat off *Throm:The reason I’ve asked you to define these terms is because of the way you phrase your argument. Again, thanks for the accusation of the linguistic mangling trap. You give me way too much credit. I’ve asked you to clarify whether freedom is possible because the way you’ve framed your argument makes order to mean complete guided causation due to the creation being equal to the deity. Slowly, but surely, your resistance is proving to be not much else other than just semantic quibbling. By freedom do you propose that order as in natural laws can be broken? Could you cite examples of freedom and potential?Thromby: However, your dictionary definition does not provide such a comprehensive and demanding meaning for order. Sheesh. More proof of your pretending at ignorance. If the dictionary is not "comprehensive" or "demanding" enough, I wonder what really is?
[b] Thrombs: By freedom and potential I simply mean that there are true freedoms (alternate possibilities from the order) given to sentient beings within the order. Such as..? Examples, man. If I take the liberty to put words in your mouth, am I to understand your implication of freedom as being free of the natural order in the universe? As if mankind could, at whim, defy the laws. Is this a weak attempt at attacking determinism? Thromby: Such freedom provides potential (opportunity not yet realized) for variation from the ideal. If such a scenario is true, then the deity is either not immutable, or is greater than the creation and then in both circumstances your argument fails. What ideal? You are being ambiguous here or the 20 dollar words are beginning to render you incoherent. I assume you are arguing for freedom from the natural order, causality, the laws of physics, non-contradiction, et.al. Go in-depth, please. Thromby: However, instead of me continually trying to figure out how you find proof of your assertion, why don’t you finally fulfill your burden of proof and demonstrate why your assertion premise one is true. There is no proof- rather a hypothetical claim, which is from the regularity argument- the specific argument of design I am attacking here. If you are asking for facts, then you may as well as go fly a kite. Arguments in themselves are hypothesis, not brute facts. And the burden of "proof" against an argument is to find a counterargument. Where's yours? Thromby: Otherwise know as inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not provide proofs but rather probable conclusions which are then weighed against other facts. Facts, such as. . . ? You are correct that all design arguments are merely inductive in nature. Easier to rebut, refute than a priori ones. I see your famous talent for leaving loose ends untied has not diminished one bit over the weekend while I was gone. Not to mention picking and choosing from my posts to bitch and moan about instead of answering my questions. ~Zarathustra~
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nialscorva Inactive Member |
quote: The analysis itself is a set of criteria for producing "design" or "not design" as an answer. Yes, you *can* apply it to anything, but the question is whether you *should* apply it. I can say that anything that's brown is designed, but that doesn't make it true. Using it's frequency/probability or necessity as criteria isn't any more accurate, unless you can justify it.
quote: I misunderstood you earlier, I thought you were arguing that design could be inferred by necessity and frequency. However, I don't think that we can prove that something was *not* designed either, as it is just the negation of the design argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
I thought i had justified. What is missing on the explanation?
And the analysis doesn't answers "designed" or "not designed". It just answers if an complex event implies a designer or not. It's slightly different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nialscorva Inactive Member |
quote: I'm not sure I see this. We have an attribute we wish to identify (design) presence or absence of. We need a way to do so, which is the criteria. What I'm saying is that "design" does not exist as an attribute in isolation, it's always conditioned, such as "design by primitive americans", "design by humans", or "design by god". The question of "is it designed?" requires us to ask "designed by what?" of "define design" before it can be meaningfully answered. A peice of the puzzle is missing in ID, and they assume the consequent for this critical question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
Hi,
I think the opposite. The first natural step is to check if the event implies ID. Then, we choose an explanation based on the best we know at the moment. Medieval people would identify ID in a Martian arrowhead even if they weren't looking for ET's. They just would have a different explanation that from us. Maybe they would say it is God-made. Or man made, if they don't know where it comes from. But they will be correct on the first conclusion anyway. So, I think this shows the secondary importance of the "Designed by what?" question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nialscorva Inactive Member |
quote: What would something designed, but not by a human, look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
Anything that happens more frequently than expected. (I think this is the creationist definition.)
They say this ALWAYS proves that it can't be happening by chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jairo Inactive Member |
Anything that happens more frequently than expected. (I think this is the creationist definition.)
Do you comply with it?If not, why? And I remember there is a situation when the "designed by what" question matters. It's when the event seems random. When you know what you are looking for, apparently usual events can provide complex information. But we are analyzing complex-looking events. (No desing argument uses random-looking ones.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
thrombosis Inactive Member |
Just stopped by to say that I'll try to get replies posted by Monday. Sorry for the delays, I haven't forgotten about the threads but have been swamped.
Thromby
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024