100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
No one has ever said that evidence which looks like it must be a design equates to a design. Every argument for design does this Sky. The person observes things which s/he call a design, and conclude that because it is a design, there must be a designer. I feel the same way you do. We, as humans, necessarily categorize things for our own need for understanding the world around us. Pointing to something in which we have observed consistency in behaviour and calling such a design is wrongful thinking. We can and often do attribute purpose, reason, and intent to things which do not necessarily have those things. We anthropomorphize things in an attempt to gain understanding. From our point of view it makes sense, however, our point of view is irrelevant for assessing that which lay beyond it. But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. In other words, I think that what lay beyond it is of secondary importance to our point of view. Which means that if anything is irrelevant, it is "what lay beyond" and not "our point of view". Or one could say it this way: our point of view is what determines relevance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/11/09 06:32 PM
|
|
Creative said: We can and often do attribute purpose, reason, and intent to things which do not necessarily have those things. This is true and I will go even further with this thought: Nothing has any purpose other than what we assign to it. It is the same with symbols and with the Tarot cards. Every image, every object, everything is/are meaningless until we (the conscious observer) decide to give it meaning. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 11/11/09 06:46 PM
|
|
No one has ever said that evidence which looks like it must be a design equates to a design. Every argument for design does this Sky. The person observes things which s/he call a design, and conclude that because it is a design, there must be a designer. I feel the same way you do. quote]Well I appreciate your viewpoint. But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. In other words, I think that what lay beyond it is of secondary importance to our point of view. Which means that if anything is irrelevant, it is "what lay beyond" and not "our point of view". Or one could say it this way: our point of view is what determines relevance. I'm not sure who you quoted there Sky (although I do have a guess), but it seems to me that the following comment is a bit absurd in regard to the question of whether or not there exists a "designer": "We, as humans, necessarily categorize things for our own need for understanding the world around us. Pointing to something in which we have observed consistency in behaviour and calling such a design is wrongful thinking. We can and often do attribute purpose, reason, and intent to things which do not necessarily have those things. We anthropomorphize things in an attempt to gain understanding. From our point of view it makes sense, however, our point of view is irrelevant for assessing that which lay beyond it." If all we're going to do is deny the very meaning, and human definition of design, then what sense does it even make to ask if there is a "designer"? All we'd be doing in that case is asking for evidence of a "designer" and then "denying" that anything qualifies as a "design". That's basically a trick question.  It's like asking if there exists a "designer" and then denying the very concept of "design" itself. How could any such approach ever be fruitful? It has already denied the very thing that it's asking for evidence for. It's basically saying, "I refuse to recognize the design inherent in anything. Now give me evidence for a designer." That doesn't even make any sense. The very premise that nothing can be considered to be a design automatically denies the need for any designer. It's a self-fulfilling denial. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 11/11/09 06:51 PM
|
|
Because as soon as a designer is reached, our notion of logic stops. The designer would then have an "explanation" that goes beyond what we normally consider to be logical. Well shucks if we are going to throw logic out the window then no argument can be made that isnt valid. So universe creators are made by invisible pink pixi's BY DEFINITION, and also by defintion pink pixi's require no explanation. BAM< DEFEATED! Infinity +1 YO. But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. Sure but when you have a topic bigger then human perspective you must get past human perspective, into objective data, to be able to make sense of it, hence science from a third person perspective. I think I have touched on this before. If we are starting with a first person perspective we are going to make assumptions which may very well limit our understanding. If science used solely first person perspective to analyze data, it would come to all sorts of invalid conclusions. Which this thread is full of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:06 PM
|
|
creative wrote: 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. Sky responded: 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. … Are you claiming that a consistent belief system is more workable than an accurate one,… So no, I wouldn’t say that I am claiming that a consistent belief system is more workable than an accurate one. I’d say that a workable belief system must be both accurate and consistent. …and that even if it is illogical, the workability factor is more important? Yes. If so, what exactly determines that Alignment with my own goals and purposes. That is what determines the workability. I am saying that in order to determine whether or not a belief system is consistent, one must assess the relationships between the different elements contained within it. I agree. Workability does not necessarily equate to logical consistency. I agree. I would much rather have a workable and logical belief system than just a workable one. Me too. But I would also rather have an illogical, but workable, system than a logical, but unworkable one. A logical one is by it's very nature consistent and as close to truth as one can possibly hope to be. If logic is what determines consistency, and truth is defined as “a logical conclusion”, then of course that would be true by definition. Personally though, I do not equate “logical conclusion” with “truth”. Not sure if that’s what you were implying or not, but I just thought I’d throw that out there. There can be many consistently illogical belief systems which may be deemed workable … despite the fact that they contradict logical knowns. I agree. … should an entire belief system revolve around the idea that we are spirit and spirit is somehow not dependant upon the body? I don’t know if it “should” or not. And I’m not even sure that it does, depending on what you mean by “revolve around”. Maybe I should say that I consider “spirit” to be axiomatic. So should an entire logical system revolve around its axioms? I would say that it should, by the very nature of what logic is. Wouldn't it be nice to able to know that that is or can be proven with some amount of certainty? It is nice to be able to know that.  It has been proven to me with a sufficient amount of certainty for my own needs. Where does the idea of spirit come from? My own personal idea of “spirit” comes from my own evaluation of first, second and third hand observation and experience. If it is a remnant of a previously held religious belief system, why is it all that is left? Although I have always believed in something I have called “spirit”, the concept I now have is not what it was when I was a child, or when I was a fundamentalist Christian, or when I was what I called a “spiritualist”. So I wouldn’t call it a “remnant” of any of those. The only thing I would call a “remnant” is the label itself – and only because it is the label that most closely matches (although not very closely really) my belief. If there was reason to dismiss the rest of that belief system, why are those same reasons not grounds for dismissing all of it? All of those other belief systems have been dismissed in their entirety. As I said, the only thing left are labels that have completely different meanings in my current belief system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because as soon as a designer is reached, our notion of logic stops. The designer would then have an "explanation" that goes beyond what we normally consider to be logical. Well shucks if we are going to throw logic out the window then no argument can be made that isnt valid. So universe creators are made by invisible pink pixi's BY DEFINITION, and also by defintion pink pixi's require no explanation. BAM< DEFEATED! Infinity +1 YO. But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. Sure but when you have a topic bigger then human perspective you must get past human perspective, into objective data, to be able to make sense of it, hence science from a third person perspective. I think I have touched on this before. If we are starting with a first person perspective we are going to make assumptions which may very well limit our understanding. If science used solely first person perspective to analyze data, it would come to all sorts of invalid conclusions. Which this thread is full of. Third person perspective is simply an "agreement." There is no "third" person. Third person is strictly a hypothetical point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:28 PM
|
|
No one has ever said that evidence which looks like it must be a design equates to a design. I feel the same way you do. Every argument for design does this Sky. The person observes things which s/he call a design, and conclude that because it is a design, there must be a designer. You still appear to be confusing deduction with induction. I am not saying that there must be a designer. I'm only saying that it seems reasonable to me to conclude (inductively) that there is a designer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because as soon as a designer is reached, our notion of logic stops. The designer would then have an "explanation" that goes beyond what we normally consider to be logical. Well shucks if we are going to throw logic out the window then no argument can be made that isnt valid. So universe creators are made by invisible pink pixi's BY DEFINITION, and also by defintion pink pixi's require no explanation. BAM< DEFEATED! Infinity +1 YO. Exactly. But that misses the entire point doesn't it? The point is that our sense of logic cannot be used to assess this question. So if you misunderstood that to mean that we should come to a particular "logical conclusion", well, then you've missed the point entirely. But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. Sure but when you have a topic bigger then human perspective you must get past human perspective, into objective data, to be able to make sense of it, hence science from a third person perspective. I think I have touched on this before. If we are starting with a first person perspective we are going to make assumptions which may very well limit our understanding. If science used solely first person perspective to analyze data, it would come to all sorts of invalid conclusions. Which this thread is full of. There can be no such thing as an 'objective' third-person view. Every view is necessarily subjective. The best you can hope for is agreement between subjective views. All of science is necessarily always from a 'first-person' perspective. That's all that exists. It's all we have to work with. What we call an 'objective' view, is really nothing more than 'subjective agreement' as Jeanniebean has tried to point out repeatedly, obviously to no avail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third person perspective is simply an "agreement." There is no "third" person. Third person is strictly a hypothetical point of view. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:21 PM
|
|
Wrong, data is objective and in itself requires no personal perspective. Facts are objective and require no personal perspective, empiricism is objective.
You sir are grasping at straws to support fantasy. There is no evidence that links universes to creators. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:28 PM
|
|
Because as soon as a designer is reached, our notion of logic stops. The designer would then have an "explanation" that goes beyond what we normally consider to be logical. Well shucks if we are going to throw logic out the window then no argument can be made that isnt valid. So universe creators are made by invisible pink pixi's BY DEFINITION, and also by defintion pink pixi's require no explanation. BAM< DEFEATED! Infinity +1 YO. Defeated? By what measure? Logic? That irony is just too beautiful.  But I completely disagree that our point of view is irrelevant for assesing that which lay beyond it. As I see it, our point of view is why we look for what lay beyond it. Sure but when you have a topic bigger then human perspective you must get past human perspective, into objective data, to be able to make sense of it, hence science from a third person perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:32 PM
|
|
The important thing to remember when contemplating objectivity is the removal of personal bias when reviewing the data. A non-biased source, like a man-less camera, does not have the inherent subjective nature that a human observation has, however, a human must assess it.
The less personal attachment one has to objective data and the inference thereof the better - in terms of potential unconscious bias of review. I do not think it is possible to remove all personal bias. Mathematics is close, but even it does not accurately represent actuality and has it's own limits. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky,
Jeremy's point was that if logic is thrown out, there are no invalid claims. All claims would have equal truth value. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative asked Sky: If there was reason to dismiss the rest of that belief system, why are those same reasons not grounds for dismissing all of it? There is probably truth to be found in every belief system. There is no reason to dismiss all aspects of it. (Christians often make the mistake of saying "The Bible is either all true or all false.") This is the "all or nothing" mind set. This is the "you are either with me or against me" mind set. This mind set often sets one thing against another thing and in doing so, things are dismissed and rejected that may be true. This is a sloppy way to find the truth of the matter. I think this is what some atheists do when asked to consider the possibility of an intelligent designer. They put up their defenses because this idea would be the weak link in the chain of being an atheist. The next step they may think, is that if they consider that, then they may as well consider there could be a "God" of some kind after all. So rather than have a weak link in their chain, they tend to resist all ideas that lean in that direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky, Jeremy's point was that if logic is thrown out, there are no invalid claims. All claims would have equal truth value. I am seriously thinking that perhaps I myself am crazy, after all one possible definition for crazy is doing something over and over again expecting a different result, I am starting to see a trend in trying to convey these basic principles of discussion, and argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong, data is objective and in itself requires no personal perspective. Facts are objective and require no personal perspective, empiricism is objective. Well I certainly can't agree with that. Empiricism is, by definition, based on observation and/or experience. I see no way of obtaining or determining anything emirically without a first person perspective involved. Someone had to observe or experience it. This is an often used argument - that "What is, is, regardless of what anyone observers or experiences". Well ok. But so what? Unless it is observed and/or experienced, it cannot have any relevance to anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sky, Exactly! So how could one "defeat" another if they both have equal truth value? Jeremy's point was that if logic is thrown out, there are no invalid claims. All claims would have equal truth value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/11/09 07:47 PM
|
|
Sky, Jeremy's point was that if logic is thrown out, there are no invalid claims. All claims would have equal truth value. I am seriously thinking that perhaps I myself am crazy, after all one possible definition for crazy is doing something over and over again expecting a different result, I am starting to see a trend in trying to convey these basic principles of discussion, and argument. I feel the same way. Yes, we are crazy. Wrong, data is objective and in itself requires no personal perspective. Facts are objective and require no personal perspective, empiricism is objective. You sir are grasping at straws to support fantasy. There is no evidence that links universes to creators. Data is "objective" because we (you and others) have decided it is. Every individual perspective is a personal perspective. Facts are facts because you (and others) have decided to take certain information and call it "fact." Yes, we all agree ... facts are facts.  (agreement) BUT think about it. Remove the observers and all facts and all information and all knowledge becomes meaningless.... non existent. This is what I mean when I say that everything is subjective. If there are no observers...no agreement... it is all meaningless. It is very simple. I know you want to think that all these "facts" will still exist after all observers, all life, all matter in the universe is gone... but it will not matter. These things are meaningless with no observers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy,
I try to keep in mind that the term logical is used wrongfully more often than not. Most people(not sure if Sky is included) have a very different opinion of what consitutes logic than those who study it through philosophy, science, debate, or any of the other formal kinds. We all view the world through our respective lenses, according to that which we have came to believe is true. The subjectivity inherent in our perceptual faculties is a formidable concept, although I do not take it to the extreme of claiming that perception is actuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wowzer, did I ever miss a lot. I have caught up on all the posts and to be honest I see little reason to continue beating a dead horse. At the same time I do have a couple questions directly related to these posts but they may, at least, progress the discussion.
So I’d like to set up a couple questions. First, those of us with a long history in these forums – back to justsayhi and beyond, used to argue a lot of the same points made in this thread, back in the religious forum. Points being – how can only the science which is most convenient be accepted, while the same science, which corrupts a religious views, is considered faulty? This was often the question in evolution discussions. But it holds true here as well—for example, accepting only science which has provided useful, and mostly tangible knowledge, while discrediting other science for ‘barking up the wrong tree’ is actually the same concept we all used to argue against religious fundamentalism. Yet in this thread I see several people making that claim which sounds just as fundamentally flawed as it did when used by others. So one of my questions, directed to all the individuals posting in this thread, is: How do you (personally) determine what scientific research is valid? In other words by what standards do you compare current scientific evaluations to? And secondly with regards to future scientific explorations: A couple pages back Shoku says: However, with these foggy probabilities who's to say that you can't get at least life from almost any combination of atoms if you give them a wide enough variety of situations to sit in? If the observable universe is any indication the rest of the universe just goes on infinitely so surely we'd have every possible circumstance happening somewhere at some time. This is a point I tried to make earlier, obviously if failed miserably. But the fact remains that just because we know how molecules formed within our own system does not mean they must always follow this exact same course. So rather than give up on finding other possibilities I think most us would agree that science is still the only way to proceed. So my question in that respect is: No matter what your personal beliefs are regarding mysticism,(supernatural or designers) should there be any reason to change how we go about the search for scientific knowledge? If you think so, then explain what you would change but when you do this be sure to give your methods which would yield tangible and repeatable results (positive or negative) that would allow the research to continue. --Please remember; many of you have argued that what is “outside the box” is not something we can know through the science that only sees inside the box. In other words – to search for what is outside the box would not be logical, by your own arguments. Review – the questions are: How can only the science which is most convenient be accepted, while the same science, which corrupts a personal belief, is considered faulty? How do you (personally) determine what scientific research is valid? In other words by what standards do you compare current scientific evaluations to? No matter what your personal beliefs are regarding mysticism,(supernatural or designers) should there be any reason to change how we go about the search for scientific knowledge? |
|
|
|
|
