Although his purpose was to prove the existence of the 'God' of Abraham, and he failed miserably in doing so, Spinoza did hit the nail on the head and then dropped the ball as a result of his overwhelmingly restrictive belief system. Fortunately, Einstein picked up the ball and ran with it. What Spinoza realized was that from our frame of reference, we can only perceive empirical happenings, and those are skewed by our abilities. Ontological 'knowledge' is always assumed by thinking that the nature of the universe is somehow displayed by what we can observe. That is not a logical conclusion, it is a huge assumption. In other words, we cannot know the nature of our existence simply by our observations, because those are limited to our perceptual capabilities as humans. We frame our understanding based upon our life experience, and what we have previously accepted as true. Because of that and thta alone, we have no choice but to be in that box. All we can hope to be able to is increase the dimensions of it, we cannot get outside of it. It is life.

Science knows that we do not know nearly enough to be able to draw a valid conclusion about the universe being a design. All of hard science agrees on that. The only way one can carry scientific fact into something ontological is to assume some things.

This holds true regarding placing the label of design upon the universe. Throughout our history, it has been reasonably shown that humans must be able to recognize patterns in order to successfully function as humans. We are physically weak in so many ways compared to most other animals that if it were based upon that alone(assuming we have always been that way), we would have surely perished long ago. Our reasoning capability is one of our most unique strengths, and it enables us to predict the liklihood of an outcome regarding familiar conditions by comparing those with past events. Because of the inherent consistency of things, we can recognize the potential of similar conditions to produce similar outcomes. We depend upon that, we are innately logical creatures, in that sense. We can recognize the cause and effect relationships around us and remember them. While this has proven to be quite helpful for our survival as a species, it can also fool us in remarkable ways.

I would like to show an example again. It has been alreay shown, but it is a great example which clearly demonstrates exactly how easy it is to become too entrenched in what we think we can safely assume based upon what we already know.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

That argument(logical demonstration) is irrefutably sound. The first premise is true. The second premise is true, and because the conclusion necessarily follows, it must be true as well. The form is valid. It is a logically sound argument, and that is as close to absolute truth as it gets. The next argument seems the same, although it is not. It is actually far from it, however most people would not see the fallacy in it because most people think this way... unfortunately so.

All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man.

Although the first and second premise along with the conclusion are true, the argument is invalid. It is an illogical argument, and therefore cannot be sound. This is easily shown to be the case by substituting the term 'cow' for 'Socrates'.

All men are mortal. A cow is mortal. A cow is a man.

The exact same form produces an obviously false conclusion. Why? The first premise is a true statement. The second premise is a true statement. In order for the conclusion to be true it must first be shown that only men are mortal. That is a critical step in the logical progression, which easily goes unnoticed when using 'Socrates' but is not passed off so easily with the change to 'cow'. This is because of the fact that all things mortal are not men, therefore although a cow is mortal, it cannot be considered a man, because lots of other things are mortal as well.

The mistake is called an undistributed middle. The term 'mortal' is the middle term upon which the second premise and the conclusion rest their validity.

This is the mistake in all Intelligent Design arguments.

All design has a designer.

Designer's have intent, reason, purpose, and sometimes produce an orderly design.

The universe seems to have order.

The universe is a design.

It does not follow.

Designs necessarily have a designer. A designer necessarily has intent, purpose, and/or reason. Designs are meant for something. Without knowing the designer we cannot possibly know the designer's reasons, therefore we cannot possibly conclude with any amount of certainty what those are.

Nothing is left to examine. In this thread, our recognition of scientific laws and repeatable observation has led to the idea that the universe possesses order. Although it is often the case, designs do not necessarily have order. Because this has been shown to be true, we also cannot reasonably conclude that just because we seem to recognize order, the universe must be a design. For that to be true, all order must be conclusive evidence of design. It clearly is not.

The only evidence which almost necessarily points to design is the existence of what we label as order.

What else is left to consider?

You just prove my point more and more each time you answer me....lol

It is okay, carry on with what you do.

You have no point.

To you and only you is that true.

And even an idiot knows that science also has no evidence to draw a valid conclusion of happenstance either

So we're right back to precisely what JB, myself and Sky have been saying all along.

Science isn't in a position draw any conclusions about this question at all.

Period.

It's just not a question that science is capable of addressing.

Abracadabra wrote:



Your the only talking about happenstance. Read my very first response...

It obviously went unrecognized by you. That is a certainty based upon your mental meanderings which you have insisted on. Here is my first response to his thread...



I am sure that you can understand that. So then, why act(for 30 or so pages) as if I am arguing a point which I am not?

Was it not earlier asked where the 'presupposition' was coming from?

Great question!

Nobody can understand that drivel.

Besides, we have presented plenty of evidence. You just don't recognize it or see it as evidence.

So why didn't you just post this in the religion thread and ask for proof or evidence of GOD if you are not going to use a philosophical approach?

Everyone knows that there is no proof of a God one way or another. That is why your position is a ridiculous one. Its a waste of time. You are not willing to be the least bit philosophical. You ask for evidence when there is no evidence in existence that you would even consider. Your desire is to beat your opponent into submission for your own self gratification.

Well I hope you are gratified. I'm bored.

Some can, I assure you.



Now you know my desires?

Don't deny it. The Tarot never lies. King of Cups reversed.

Nice reading.



Assuming something can be wrong but nice anyway.

I implied that was your desire back on page 10...



I am honestly disappointed that some of the more inteligent people didn't realise this was a futile argument....

Oh we realized it. We just like beating each other up.

* * * What kind of a designer designs an unmanageable system?

A hundred galaxies hasn't been enough!

Thousands of galaxies? Millions of galaxies?

The designer got carried away... and created an Infinity of galaxies (for it's own amusement) -- each one with billions of stars and zillions of planets... All the while, the designer populates some of those planets with billions of living creatures, all of whom demand the designer's attention...

If I'd been a designer, I'D QUIT!!!

_______________ :sigh: ______________

So what?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic or facetious or anything here. I’m serious.

Without empirical knowledge, there is would be knowledge at all. All of everything man knows is fundamentally based on empirical knowledge. So what does it matter if that knowledge is not ontological? It’s the only thing we’ve got to work with. So our only option is to assume it’s true or assume it’s false. There’s no other option. (Well, I guess one could not make any assumption at all. But that would be kinda weird – “I don’t assume that there is a wall in front of me so I’ll keep walking straight ahead.”)

And my “in other words” are: There is no other way to know the nature of our existence. So it seems to me the only conclusion is that we can never know anything. And I’ll tell you that I think that is perfectly logical – but completely unworkable.

Well, from the logical/scientific perspective that is absolutely true. That is exactly what science and logic tell us. And that is the very reason I don’t consider science and logic as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.

Now that you’ve said that same thing for the umpteenth time, I will give my reply for the umpteenth time. I don’t need “certainty”. All I need is workability. It works within the entire system of my personal observations, evaluations and beliefs. There is no contradiction with any other part of that system. But removing it would create contradictions. So why should I remove it? Why should I break something that works?

I’ve told you what works for me. And I totally understand that it does not work for you. And that’s fine with me.

But to tell me that it’s wrong or illogical or unscientific or anything else doesn’t change it’s workability for me.

And again we’re back to the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Inductive logic does not require “conclusive” (in the sense of “requires a specific conclusion”) evidence. All that it requires is evidence that supports a conclusion.

And the observation of order supports an assumption of a designer. It doesn’t require that conclusion, but it does support it.

Some of us may have quite brave conjectures... But what are they worth? (nothing more than a self-gratification!!!)

{as Abra mentioned earlier}: ...in the words of Richard Feynman a Noble Prize winner in Quantum Electrodynamics:



Do you realy intend to argue with such a distinquished opponent?!!!

If A then B. B therefore A.

...children cry when they don't get candy. This child is crying. It couldn't possibly be a genuine medical condition and they must just be whining about candy.
...

Naw, I don't think it works. That one is the affirming the consequent fallacy by the way.

I believe he said "It works for me."

For him, that is all that matters.

Nope. We DO KNOW THINGS. We don't know everything but the null is the minimum we can say with what we do know. I've illustrated repeatedly that we all innately understand that it's foolish to inflate things past that.

The null is fairly atheistic but you're right in not calling it support. It's just the reasonable stance to take when you aren't having your faith choose your stance.

You'd agree with me more if you knew what I was talking about?

Yes, the null.

Naturalism explains.

I'm going to treat you're deaf if you keep equilibrating those two terms because they have very different meanings. JB was pretty annoyed by my picking apart the psychology of her sharing her opinion and arguing for it when it wasn't asked for but what you're doing is much worse.

So basically you're saying "God is the single source of all meaning and purpose and he either created us with those things or we are just meaningless random chance and anyone who thinks differently than me doesn't get their own options because they are less that human."

Now, I've been trying to stay on the science subject here but you seem pretty fixated on atheists so: they agree with you about most things. We have a purpose, there is good in the world, you should rape kill and plunder your neighbors, etc. The thing that is different is that they say there are reasons for all of those things other than God. Those things are there, and there are reasons for them, and atheists say there's no God.

They are rejecting "God is the origin of all things good," not that there are things that are good.

...well, ok, there are the nihilists but saying they represent all atheists would be like saying the flat Earth society represents all Christians.

And so with this I am giving you one more chance to show that you are capable of empathy and some God damn human dignity. If you're still acting like naturalism can't be anything but happenstance after page 35 I guess we'll all know what kind of person you are.