Yes Redy, you’re absolutely right. We (the “believers”, for lack of a better word) pretty much reached that point a couple pages back. And we’ve also takent it a step farther to the point of concluding that nothing “in” the universe can be considered “evidence” of a designer. To do so would constitute a paradox, the short form of which is: proof of an unknown first-person perspective from a third-person perspective. So basically, the OP question asks for the resolution of a paradox. It can’t be done with logic because it is inherently illogical.

I agree, it's like talking to lifeless objects.

It seems silly for living sentient beings to be asking if there is any evidence for intelligent design.

When you stop and think about it, it truly is hilarious.

Exactly.

Geez, sometimes I wonder...



That was a false statement which I recanted. You should have read further in the thread, or been well-versed enough in standard logic to see that.



Wrong.



Is that not a wee bit presumptious of you? It quite simply was not a logically valid argument. One reason of many was because it equivocated between empirical knowledge and ontological assumption.



Even if it is proven that the universe is not happenstance, it does not necessarily follow that because of that, it must be design. That is full of fallacy as well. Non-sequitur, false dichotomy. The truth of design is not established by the falseness of happenstance.



All you've verified is that you do not know what you are talking about.



False. Please pay attention to this.

Because a designer cannot be shown, we must not assume it's existence, therefore the only other way to logically establish a designer's existence is to prove that the universe is a design.
We know what all designs include. If the universe includes all of those things, and if only design includes those things, then and only then can we logically conclude that the universe is a design.

That has not been shown to be the case.



Logic established the fact that we cannot know, so I have no idea what thought processes and cognitive associations you have depended on to draw this conclusion.



All that is being displayed here is how an insufficent understanding of logic fails to be able to assess it. Without factual/true premises there can be no factual/true conclusions regarding the topic. That does not mean that a valid argument cannot be given. It does mean that a sound argument cannot.



No it does not. The existence of a thing can be contemplated without presuming it's existence. If there are enough knowns to be able to provide a sound argument it can be proven.

See emergent properties.



If you presume that things are the same, then they will be treated as such, even if they are not. Anthropomorphism is the term which labels the idea of falsely applying human attributes to a non-human thing. Just because one cannot imagine a different way does not mean that a different way does not exist. That is a common mistake in thought which you have repeated throughout this thread.





Here you are once again attempting to bolster your argument by equivocating between different things. Mathematics is one kind of logic. I am talking about standard logic. There are several different kinds.

Again your partial evidence claim fails. To mention Godel in this way alludes to his Incompleteness Theorem. Why leave out his Completeness Theorem? Godel does not bolster your argument when one looks at the evidence with a little more scrutiny.



Your talking about mathematics. This thread and the logic involved is referring to language. Any example which you attempt to show regarding mathematics must be logically connected to language before I will even consider it. They are not the same thing.



It can. What does this this assertion of the obvious add to the discussion at hand?



If it were only that easy, huh? Not even close.

The properties of anthropomorphism? Exactly what are those? Some human characteristics are shared with some other animals. Show me how it is logical to conclude that all matter shares those human characteristics.



Your thoughts about my logic is based upon your assumptions, that much is clear. The premise is that we cannot draw a conclusion either way. That is a known conclusion based upon previous logical constructs. It now serves as a premise.



If you assume that you can *somehow* conclude about the very beginning of the universe logically using what is currently known about the observed properties of the universe, you will end up with something very similar to the big bang.

You think you're the only one doing it?



I not only have the right, I have ability to show why.



Show me how. Your unsupported opinion of my arguments means nothing to me. Back it up with something substantive.



You are not in a position to be pointing fingers here. I am getting a little tired of your personally directed remarks. Are you out of things to attempt to logically show? I am not here to piss you off, or hurt your feelings in any way. Change your tactics and you would gain a little more respect. I am not Jesus, and I do not play by those rules.



As if premises which are unprovable or untrue can somehow be of value? False premises cannot logically result in a true conclusion. You shouldn't use terms which you do not know the meaning of.



What reason do you have to believe that water has human characteristics? Your car? A tree? A blade of grass? A star? A quark?

Come on, really???

As if it is logical to presume not only a designer, but that that designer somehow has physiological elements as well? The designer is human-like?

Puh-leeeze!

Bee Oh Oh - Aitch Oh Oh

Damn after reviewing the last few posts of Sky and what Shoku wrote about the difference between science and philosophy I figured I had jsut been on the wrong page as I was taking a scientific approach and not a philisophical one.

So I spent all day thinking about this topic, and all this time figuring out how to write a clearly stated philisophical position in an attempt to conform and now I don't even get any criticism.


Boy, I should been studying the characteristics of muscle cells and the cells of the nervous system and the muscles in the head and thier incertion points and whether dorsi flex is in or out.

But Noooo I just wanted to play with my friends. I don't think I ever had an argument with anyone until I was in my forties and then I only argued if I was standing up for some injustice to another.

Only in the last ten years have I leaned that arguments don't have to end relationships and that it's ok to say I'm sorry when you were wrong, or to compromise when the differnce can't be totally resolved.

So let's compromise - Can someone at least criticise my philisophical approach????

g'night - I have a lot studying to catch up on - another time folks in another thread..

Ok, here’s the only thing I could find to criticize at all. (You’re just too damn good Redy! )

It mostly has to do with clarifying the “design specification”.

There’s some syntactical mixup there, so it may be that I’m not understanding the intended meaning. But I’ll go ahead anyway and you can disregard this if I misunderstood.

Regarding “the only possible outcome of what pre-existed it”

In the case of a designer, “what preexisted it” refers to the intent of the designer (i.e. the design).

In the case of no-designer, “what preexisted it” refers to just “unknown cause”.

So really, all that seems to come down to is “either their was as designer or the is no known cause”. Which is really just a restatement of the topic of the debate.

But in either case (designer or no designer) the natural processes are inherent in the makeup of the universe.

Which means that the universe cannot be a “product of” natural processes. (That would mean “the laws of the universe are a product of the laws of the universe.)

Well, technically that would be true.

However, it would be the same thing as saying that “lego blocks are the direct result of the lego block factory, therefore the legos themselves are not the design.”

But the legos actually were designed - in the sense that the factory was designed to produce legos with inherent properties that determine how they interact. Those inherent properties determine in what ways the can be “stuck together”.

I really don’t get this one. The position of “designer” includes the premise that the natural universal laws themselves (e.g. the pits and bumps on the legos and how the factory works) were part of the design.

So that just leads right back to square one.

Exactly.

And so I go back to the lego analogy. The design of the factory is such that it produces legos with the inherent properties that determine how they interact – i.e. they only “stick together” in certain ways.

in the manufacturing world, business finance eventually dictates that in order to get a particular product to market, let's say a new ford pinto, the designers and engineers must be stopped from screwing around with ideas and concepts and "freeze the design" so that tooling and such can begin and the contraptions can start down the assembly line and finally to the show room floors. so i guess we could draw a similarity that the universe and our world being at least if not more fvcked up than the pinto, we can blame this "happenstance" on freezing the design too early so as to reach for the almighty dollar at the expense of quality.

maybe, just maybe there is something to this designer notion i suppose. if so, the japanese must have their designers hard at it. afterall, they did look at the pinto, grinned at the potential dollar signs, or yen i suppose, dancing before their eyes, licked their chops and set off to hand the big three auto makers their assssses did they not? is a better universe next? will cheaper but better star stuff and space less warpped with made in japan labels begin showing up on walmart shelves soon? and lest we forget china? bangladesh? what's the world coming to? it must be a design. hey, bush did it. bush screwed everything up. dubya is the intelligent designer!!!

Come now, do you really think he understood that that phrase meant something other than "where quarks are"?

You know that's not what we're talking about. You've tried to define the designer out of intelligent design so that people can't continue to fight you. As that's the topic of this thread the only person who gets to determine what context intelligent design was said in would be creativesoul.

I'll make it simple with an example: Let's say I ask how many stars someone has seen. One person starts listing off celebrities but then someone else buts in with
"Star –noun
any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night."

He doesn't get to decide what I was talking about. Maybe that's it or maybe I meant celebrities. If I didn't indicate which one at the start then you have to ask me to find out.

Because you desperately need to do missionary work to convert people to your cause. Going out and preaching to people that don't like what you're saying feels rewarding to you and your ego wants you to look like you've taken on all challengers.

Oh, but I guess this has as little to do with what was said as that question you just asked.

You mean that thirty year old idea that we've already discounted because we know inflation cannot be the Higgs field as Guth thought?

And all this time you've been telling me science doesn't explain those things :roll:

The trick is really just detecting it if are making them. It's not like you go accelerating different particles or try different speeds- you just get the same particles going as fast as you possibly can and then hope your detectors got a good enough view of the fireworks.

As I've said I'm answering science with science. If someone would present some philosophy I'd go into philosophy.

I care about what's right and I've got the integrity to admit if I'm wrong. I'm a humanist so I care about what other people think for their sake, not my own.

If you'd like to not read any of what I've said then sure -_-;

Now you see, this is an actual example of an ad hominem.
"You're saying there's no designer but you're not people and we laugh at you."

That's got nothing to do with the subject (though I hope creative shrugs off petty insults as easily as I do.)

Well I'm too lazy to fight people I agree with today but as I've said they've got really weak philosophy so you probably shouldn't expect them to either.

Protip:I'm egging some people on so maybe they actually will.

That's not a good objection. Why can't there be other laws outside of the universe?

Actually I think that's a question of "why be so roundabout about it? Shouldn't the designer just create matter in a single step?"

This does at least throw out the option of the designer having taken any hand in assembling the legos. It would require that anything assembled from legos did so by, well, effectively shaking a box full of them. From the starting point in the oppositions statements we can thus throw out all arguments in the form of "tornado going through a junkyard" and such but yes, that leaves us at the start of the argument, aside from someone's inconsistencies.

I think you're expressing too many views at once there and it's a mess for it. Maybe consider narrowing your scope?

SHOKU,



Oh is that what you are doing? I hadn't realized that this thread invited only 'scientific' evidence. I guess Creative should have specified that in the beginning. I thought this was a science AND philosophy forum. Are you saying that you can't mix the two?

If that is the case then I suppose we philosophers shouldn't even talk to you scientific types at all..... EVER.

Here is a cut and paste from my naturalism thread. I now think I know what you guys mean by naturalism. It IS sort of your religion.


NATURALISM

Creative said:



REALLY?

I am waiting and holding my breath to hear your ideas or theories of another explanation. Got any?

And please don't say "Naturalism." That is just a belief, and a conclusion of "no designer, no intent etc." Therefore, it explains nothing.

And if you say you "don't know" or that you don't have any ideas, then I am going to be very disappointed.

I expect an answer.

In other words, “the laws inside the universe could be a product of the laws outside the universe”? Well sure, but that’s not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was the laws inside the universe.

Starting from outside the universe just adds another turtle and puts you right back at square one again.

Could be, but I don’t think that’s what it was. However, we’d have to get Redy to verify it either way.

But as to your question (and Redy’s, if that’s what it was), I don’t see any point in trying to address what the designer “should do”. The designer, like anyone else, “should do” whatever it’s own personal “sense of ought” (as Creative would put it) indicates.

One could consider the “game” analogy in the same light…

If you want to put the ball through the hoop, why bother dribbling it and leave yourself open to it being stolen? Why not just hold it tight and cover it like a football, walk down the court, climb a ldder, and push it through the hoop?

So really, addressing what someone “should do” is pretty fruitless unless you are in a position to understand all aspects of the question “why” from the perspective of whomever you think “should” do it.

In other words, you've just argued for the anthropomorphic view of a creator.

The logical truth was given. Proving happenstance false does not prove intelligent design to be true any more than proving one person did not commit the murder in question proves that another did, unless there are only two possible suspects. That is not the case with this topic. I understand that Abracadabra has been pursuing that in an attempt to prove his case, but it is an invalid form of argument.

This response really needs to be addressed from a view different directions, because it involves several different concepts. Because I am doing this for the purpose of fulfilling your expressed desire to read my opinion on the matter, I hope that you will be able to set aside any pre-existing contradictory beliefs that may arise upon examining my words long enough to truly contemplate what they mean and how they relate to each other and the topic at hand.



Regarding happenstance and another 'explanation'...

In order to develop my point that happenstance is not the only other possibility, I am more than willing to completely concede that it is nonsense. So the concept of happenstance, when concerning the beginning of the universe, is irrelevant in this response. Even though it has not, it is being treated as though it has been proven false. With that in mind...

Because of the fact that we are extremely limited in our knowledge of this universe, it is clear that we do not have all of the pieces of the puzzle. The question then becomes do we have enough pieces to conclude anything of that nature? We do not have enough to necessarily conclude that the universe is a design. Therefore, in order to not wrongfully close off our minds to the idea that there may be other explanations possibible, we also cannot necessarily conclude that intelligent design must be the only other option. In fact, for the very same reason that I can repeatedly drop five coins until they land in an orderly formation, thus looking to another who did not witness the event like it may be a design, a hypothetical entity could do very much the same thing with the basic ingredients of this universe, and in doing so naturally occurring events which are inherent in the individual elements themselves would cause things to happen in such a way that it looks like a design to us. So assuming the same premise as creationism and intelligent design(that there is an conscious entity or 'being' responsible) the universe could very much exist as it does without necessarily being a purposeful design with intent and reason.

The laws and rules which the universe seems to abide by and follow could very well be an unintentional consequence of an entity dropping five coins which that entity had no idea exactly how everything could or would end up.

That possibility is every bit as logical and valid as any of creationism and/or intelligent design. There is no information which would necessarily preclude that explanation from the premise that such an entity or being is responsible(without purpose reason and intent) for what we see. Therefore, using the same premise, there is no more logical reason to believe that the universe is a design or just a random chance 'throw of the coins' from such a responsible being.

Because of the fact that I can not only give an equally valid explanation like that, I can also give one which would necessarily establish the existence of a purely known fictitious responsible entity. It is not a sound thought process based upon what is known. That is why the argument does not go any further than 'could be'...

It could be anything one can imagine to which they can later apply the responsibility for what is known.


Regarding naturalism...

Given the above logical truthes, we can only use what is available to us in order to logically infer/deduct from what can be known. The laws/rules by which science and logic follow and abide by allow us to logically determine things based upon what can be repeatedly shown. Because of the fact that addressing teleological concepts necessarily entails applying rules to things beyond and outside this universe that have only been verified to apply inside this universe, the entire idea is dependant upon a huge assumption. That assumption is the very foundation of the idea. The idea assumes that the laws and rules which apply to the observed knowns also apply to that which goes unknown. More importantly, that which by it's very definition, must exist outside of those laws and rules.

As a result of this logical truth, naturalism does not attempt to make any conclusions like that. It attempts to explain things within the universe by the laws which apply within the universe. It just so happens that nearly every observation follows those rules in some way. The ones that don't, because of the above explanation, are left as being described with the label of unknown.

As far as I'm concerned, I would rather accept the logical conclusion that some things are unknown, rather than to build my world-view upon and around assumptions which have been shown to be either illogical or logically unsound.

That is my five coins worth.

Do you recognize and accept that you quoted only the first part of what was a two-part answer, and that by ignoring the second part you effectively ignored the difference as it was being shown? What is in your intended meaning is not addressing what my meaning is, but rather is addressing what you think it is? Those two statements are different in very important ways. In fact thay are so different, that believing that there is no difference has caused you to conclude something based upon meaning which does not apply.

You made a claim which constitutes a premise about logic which is false. Upon recognizing that, I was attempting to correct the misunderstanding in such a way to allow you to see that your premise was mistaken.



When discussing a first-person perspective, it necessarily includes that person's thoughts. That person's thoughts necessarily includes that person's perceptual faculty. If you would like to not include those things when discussing a first-person perspective by calling it a "static reference point", than your not talking about the perspective, your talking about the point of reference from which that perspective is being formed. That is called a frame of reference, and a frame of reference has no inherent absolute properties either. Witness Einstein's Special Relativity or GR.



Logic most certainly does not 'assign' value. It is a very useful tool by which an individual can do such a thing. Value is subjective to the person who is comparing observation to prior belief/knowledge. Logic does, however, facilitate the ability to construct a thought process in such a way that demonstrates the grounding of what is being claimed. With that, one can better assess the truth value of the claim, based upon it's necessary relation to fact. Opinion is much less important and relevant than exactly how that opinion has been formed and what it depends on for it's grounds. Logic shows that, and in doing so objectively allows the associative elements which help determine value, use, worth, and relevance to attain an observable state in which those things can be assessed.

If I understood your earlier claim that a first-person perspective did not include thought processes and was just a static reference point, then how would it be possible for a reference point to be able to assign anything?

So basically your answer is "I don't know."

(And, Yes, of course 'some things are unknown.')

We all accept that.




No we can't "conclude" anything for sure. But neither can we rule it out. I don't rule it out.

Regarding Naturalism: You said:




Naturalism then, does not explain how the universe came to be originally. (And yet this is the 'answer' I have been given.)

The only thing left to do then, is to imagine alternatives. What you are saying is that you would rather not even try to imagine anything.

Imagining or assuming 'intelligent design' until a better explanation comes along is not 'closing off possibilities.'

If it were, I would not be making these inquiries at all. I am looking for other possibilities, which for now, can only be in the form of opinions and ideas. Of which you seem to have none.

Understand?

Jb wrote:



What was the question, and when did I answer like that?



That is not the answer I gave.



Not exactly. Not even close, really.

I said, because of the logical reasons given which clearly establish that the argument of a designer has exactly the same validity and amount of truth value any imaginary creature does that I do not construct my belief system and/or world-view around such. I can imagine, and do, all sorts of things without allowing what exists in my ignorance to fuel my imagination and later conclude that I am logically justified in whatever it is that I can imageine.



I would agree, and did not make that claim. Assuming that there are only two possibilities does.



Not really, I gave another which was logically equivalent to design. Perhaps, your looking for another idea which not only is as logical, but adds some form of emotional value as well. I cannot say, but if you were looking for just another idea which is equally valid, it was given.

Imaginary creature? (I am not an imaginary creature, and I don't think you are either. I am not looking for an imaginary creature either. I am talking about the intelligence and the design that I see everyday in my personal reality, that is real to me. I cannot deny what I see.


Your "I don't know" was translated from the quote above it.

"As far as I'm concerned, I would rather accept the logical conclusion that some things are unknown, rather than to build my world-view upon and around assumptions which have been shown to be either illogical or logically unsound. "

That certainly translated as "I don't know" to me.

As far as "Naturalism" no, you did not give that answer. Billyclub and Shoku did though. "Naturalism" was their explanation of how the universe evolves or was created.




I would not be so afraid of "fueling your imagination" if I were you. You could use some imagination ... just my opinion.

((Imagination rules the world, and solves problems and generates ideas. These are the things that set us above machines.)) .. my opinion of course.

You said you gave another option but I failed to see it. Was it your reference to a a hypothetical entity dropping coins or "basic ingredients of this universe, and in doing so "naturally" occurring events ... etc... as below?




If so, then you have just combined two things that are NOT NEW.

1. a hypothetical entity (God?)
2. "Naturally occurring events.." (Naturalism)

That is not a different alternative. It is more of the same stuff, or just the two combined.

It is also using the explanation of "naturalism" which you claim you did not do.

I have yet to witness any idea which is 'new' regarding any topic. All imagination is either inferred from nature or previous thought. So if your looking for something which has no relation, is completely independant of all other ideas and/or observation of the universe as we know it, I wish you luck in finding such a thing.

If you do, please share it with others... namely me.

Anything off the top of your head which could enlighten me to the idea that it is possible?



Perhaps you meant something different than what I understood?

I am talking about something "new" (to this thread) besides the two ideas or choices of how universe came to be, by either one of two choices talked about by Abra.

1. Happenstance (accident)
2. Intelligent design (On purpose)

Why is that difficult to understand?

Your suggestion was there could be another alternative. I asked WHAT?

Your example seemed to be some hypothetical 'being' drops something "on accident," that contains what is necessary to result a "natural process" (naturalism) -- that results in our universe.

That is just these two choices combined into "God created the universe on accident by spilling or dropping something." (Or something on that order.)


If that is NOT what you were suggesting then what was?





If that is an example of an alternative, all you have done is take the two alternatives above and put them together.

Kinda...

The thing it shows is that the universe could have a responsible entity without intent purpose and reason. In other words, using the same presupposition that an entity is responsible can logically result in the conclusion that it could be accidental.



What it adds though is the explanation of naturalism to the events after the hypothetical 'coin toss'. So that respect, the secondary premise has some basis in current scientific method/fact. That is one-up on design!



The underlying point is this...

Why assume cause when we can observe the effects without? Especially when considering that any assumption of responsible entity could have as much truth value as a designer.

Even so, it does not explain how the "natural" processes of the "accident" causes by a clumsy entity resulted in a universe.




Why assume cause? Doesn't everything have cause? Anyway, we can still observe the effects-- with or without the assumption of cause.

Even if the universe was an accident caused by a clumsy entity spilling something, the next question would be... what did he spill and how did it create this universe?

Or will it ever happen again? and if not, then humanity is doomed.

But I do see your point, however, that alternative seems to be somewhat of a ridiculous example and can't really be taken seriously.