Ya baby, go for it. Look at these three cars. That Demon is freaking crazy.

The Epic Showdown Dodge Demon,The Viper, And The Ferrari

Most people don't lie, so is it reasonable to assume someone is lying? Maybe, if most of the people you've been in contact with are liars.

Well, as Banno suggested before, it mostly comes down to an attitude. Your attitude is either that of trust or doubt. I might not have any reasons to believe that someone is lying to me, but I still doubt that his words are evidence. And that's perfectly rational. — Michael

Most of what we believe comes through the testimony of others, are we to doubt most of it? I think not. It's not about attitude, otherwise any doubt would be reasonable depending on your attitude. That doesn't seem rational to me.

Using the above reasons, what evidence do I have that is score is 2,700? Am I to just assume that the source is accurate? Or am I free to doubt it until evidence that it's trustworthy is given to me? And then why should I believe that the evidence that it's trustworthy is itself trustworthy? — Michael

Yes, if I was reading an official print out of FIDE ratings, I would make an assumption that it's accurate. At some point doubting just comes to an end, that is, I decide that I have enough evidence to support the idea that the man is a chess expert.

You can always create a scenario where it might be reasonable to doubt something, there's no denying that, but at some point your doubting just doesn't make sense. Let's say I have an inductive argument that's only 80% probable, is it reasonable to doubt the conclusion? I would say no. Why? Because most of the evidence is in favor of the conclusion.

So how do we determine what is or isn't evidence? — Michael

Wow, that's going to take a while to answer. You tell me. :D

But him being an expert isn't the same as me having evidence that he's an expert. Any random person who talks to me in the street might be an expert. — Michael

Agreed.

Are you suggesting that in those occasions where, unknown to me, the person I'm talking to is an expert it would be unreasonable to doubt what he tells me? That doesn't strike me as right. — Michael

Of course not, and I've already addressed this, at least I thought I did.

I need reasons to believe that the person I'm talking to is an expert. So given suggested evidence X (say, him telling me that he's an expert), am I to just assume that X is evidence? Or am I free to doubt that it's evidence, despite not having any evidence that he's lying? — Michael

Someone simply telling you they're an expert isn't good evidence that they are, so no, that wouldn't be enough. Here's the evidence you have: You saw him play in tournaments, you've read his expertise in articles and books, you know his rating according to FIDE is 2700, he owns a chess club where he teaches chess, etc., etc. Is that enough?

My reply was short compared to your long post - sorry. I'm arguing in other threads, it's got me distracted.

As I've said, the given is that he's an expert, thus it follows that his knowledge is superior to yours. In such a situation it would be unreasonable to doubt his knowledge, at least generally. You want me to spell out the evidence, but it isn't required for the example to work.

Now are there good reasons to sometimes doubt the experts, of course.

If someone tells me that they're an expert, it can be reasonable to doubt him even if I don't have evidence that he's lying (or otherwise mistaken). — Michael

You've changed the example, of course if someone simply tells me that he's an expert, that in itself doesn't mean that he is. Especially since there are so few experts in a field, so that in itself my make you question the person.

So unless I have good reasons, I shouldn't doubt that you're an expert chess player, or that Banno is an expert tennis player? That doesn't seem right. Surely I need good reasons to believe that you are? — Michael

If I remember correctly, my example is that the teacher is an expert, and the information or evidence you have gives you reasons to believe he is an expert. So given such information, it would be unreasonable to doubt what he's telling you about the game of chess.

As I said in another post I have nothing against evolution, but even evolution speaks to intelligent design. You have not given good reasons why I should reject the argument as I presented it. You basically just say it's a bad explanation, but saying something is a bad explanation is not enough unless you say how or why it's a bad explanation. Besides it's an argument with premises and a conclusion, not just an explanation. Where does the argument go wrong. I've already explained that because something is poorly put together, that in itself doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed.

Whether it's unreasonable to doubt someone or something, depends on many factors given a particular context, but generally one needs to have good reasons to doubt. However, there can be causes for a doubt - for example, I may have poor eyesight.

Among the first implications of intelligent design is just how unintelligent any such designer would be. One of the first things you learn when you study evolutionary biology is just how slapdash and thrown together most biological systems are; the most obvious example being the eye, which, despite it being taken as an exemplar of design, is in fact a functionally poor peice of equipment. — StreetlightX

So let me see if I understand your argument against intelligent design. If something was put together shoddily, it means that it couldn't have been intelligently designed? We come across human artifacts all the time that were shoddily made, or of poor quality, do I then infer from that, that there was no designer? And does the thing designed have to be an exemplar of design in order for me to infer intelligent design? The answer is, no.

So, the order of the universe and our impressions that this order must have a source is an illusion so to speak. There is no order, hence no design and therfore no intelligent designer. — TheMadFool

Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-)

Let me see if I have this straight, I draw an analogy between human artifacts and artifacts in nature, and it's an illusion. The analogy is perfect, both exhibit the same evidence, so you would have to show that the analogy isn't a good one, not simply say that the evidence I see between human artifacts and artifacts of nature is an illusion. There is no order in, for example, the bacterial flagellum, which has a propeller, bushings, rotors, universal joint, etc. Now how can anyone look at this and not think that it is intelligently designed? This is exactly what we mean by intelligently designed. The only people that cannot see this are committed atheists, and maybe agnostics. Most people recognize these premises as true, which is probably why so many people believe in a designer/s.

What if he tells me that bishops move horizontally and vertically. Does it make sense to doubt him? — Michael

Actually no, if you believe he is an expert, and all the information you have about him points to him as an expert, you would still have no reason to doubt him. Especially if you know nothing about chess. Later as you learn more you might think it weird that a chess expert would have told you such a thing. Or later you may find out that he is a practical joker, then you may reason to doubt what he says.

Yes, he was a mechanic.

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.

To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design.

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not.

Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported. — Michael Ossipoff

This is more of a technical point, but I'm careful about using the term reincarnation, because of the religious baggage.

That said, there seems to be plenty of evidence in what NDErs are claiming that supports the idea that we choose, for example, to come here to have specific experiences. Or that we choose to come here, not only for the experiences of being human, and the limitations that brings, but for the experiences of others who also choose to come here. Moreover, I think this life is meant to be very difficult, it's not meant to be a good time, although we can experience good times. Most come here, it's my contention, to experience the struggle. You can compare it to someone who wants to scale a mountain, and the struggles that ensue, or an athlete who struggles to attain perfection. I think the struggle here generally makes our character stronger, but there are probably many other reasons too.

I'll wait to see what Sam26 says — Moliere

What am I supposed to respond to, can't see where someone challenged anything, or asked a question.

All you're doing is changing the scenario to where it makes sense to doubt. Let's say you know you're getting instruction from an expert chess player, that's a given. He then tells you that bishops move diagonally, you then tell him, you doubt that. If there are no reasons to doubt, it doesn't make sense.

Don't give me a reason to doubt, then say, look it makes sense to doubt. Of course it makes sense if you have a good reason, but that's not what you claimed. You claimed that we can doubt whenever we want. I'm saying no, doubt requires good reasons. If you don't know if the chess instructor really is an expert, then of course you can express a doubt, that's what having a good reason means.

I understand that. What I don't understand is this: why do you think that in the example that you gave it makes no sense to doubt? — Magnus Anderson

Well, if you're sitting with an expert chess player, and they're teaching you the game of chess, and you start doubting everything he's says, without good reason, what sense could we make of your doubts? It would seem that you don't have a good grasp on reality, or you just haven't learn to use the English words correctly, or you have a mental illness.

The point isn't that you can't doubt, the point is that in some instances, like the example I gave, it makes no sense to doubt. The doubt is senseless.

I have no idea what it would mean to exist outside of time either, that's my point.

It happens all the time. When one is asleep or unconscious there is no sense of duration (real time). Duration only exists in the awake state. — Rich

Having no sense of time, and existing outside of time are two different things. We often have no sense of time even when we are awake. Besides it's not as though your body is outside time when you're unconscious. In fact, if we were really outside of time when we were unconscious we wouldn't wake up. There would be no moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, which involves change or time.

I would ask, though, for believers in an intelligent designer: What does something which is not designed look like? — Moliere

I don't find that a difficult question. Look at the shape of the sand in the dessert caused by eddies, or the random placement of rocks on the ground. There are too many examples to list.

On the other hand, if those who don't believe in intelligent design aren't committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, answer the following: What would count as evidence of intelligent design? When we say that something is intelligently designed what does that mean other than, a structure having parts so arranged that the whole can accomplish or be used to accomplish activities of a higher order. Isn't this the hallmark of any intelligently designed object. Is there anything that you know of that has been intelligently designed that doesn't fit this description, assuming someone isn't aiming at randomness?

Good god, I just wanted to talk sports cars. If you want to talk ethics, start up a thread on the ethics of sports cars. I was using this thread to escape some of the philosophy for a minute.

But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)? — Michael Ossipoff

Why does there have to be alternative proposals? The argument simply states that there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Why do I have to say who the designers are? Some like to think it's there version of God, others contemplate other beings who have much more power and intelligence than we do. The argument, as far as I can tell, says nothing about it being a god or gods. If you're religious, then you'll probably believe it's the God you believe in, if not, you'll think it's something else.

If it's a nonphysical designer and creator, then how is that different from what many people mean by God? ...or by the gods? — Michael Ossipoff

Many of my metaphysical beliefs have come from the evidence of near death experiences, which I talk about in my thread (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1). Many people posit a God who is all-power, all-knowing, etc., but why does the being/s have to be like that. The designers could be much less powerful, be billions of them, and yet have an incorporeal existence, which many NDErs report. If this is the case, then there are no gods as we conceive of them (mainly thinking along the lines of the main religions).

As for myself, I say that the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic. Very few things can be said about Reality beyond what's describable and discussable--In fact, that's a truism. Metaphysics is the limit of what's describable and discussable. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree, I believe the notion of "creation" or intelligent design is anthropomorphic. I also agree with your last two statements.

It goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine the physical world, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here. — Michael Ossipoff

I think it shows more than that though. Of course it's going to be consistent with us being here, but it goes beyond that, it tells us something about intelligence beyond our own, not just because we are reading into what we see, but because of the facts themselves; and about what we know about things that are intelligently designed.

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design. — Michael Ossipoff

That's certainly a possibility, but if the evidence of NDEs are as strong as I think, then it's probably much different than just my existence fits within the realm of what's possible. Anything that exists fits within the logic of what's metaphysically possible, if it's true that all facts obtain, but I don't know that that is true. Everyday within a particular universe new facts obtain, it's not static. Although maybe one could argue that every possibility at some point will obtain, especially if you believe in multiple universes.

For me, consciousness lies at the bottom of everything (it's what unites everything), even this reality is a result of a mind or consciousness, and we are just a part of that, with our own individuality. Some might ask, well isn't that a god of sorts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I'm agnostic about that.

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what evidence there would be for your second paragraph, that is, "The sleep at the end of lives...," etc. I can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness, I'm not sure what that would mean. Unless you're talking about ceasing to exist, then of course there would be no experiences for you to have.

My take is based on what I've discovered after studying NDEs for over 12 years. The evidence suggests something quite different. I think we go on as temporal individuals, and that we experience many different lives in many different universes. This is more of an educated guess though, based on the studies.

Sure, but the reality of that would be meaningless to the person lacking the experience. What does sight mean to someone who has never seen in their life? Sure, they hear from this and that that there is this thing called sight - so what? It means nothing to them. — Agustino

So if I haven't had the experience of going to France, as say, you have, then the reality of your experience would be meaningless to me? That makes no sense to me. If that was the case, then why explain to people what it's like. Your friend explains their experience of going to France, but you say to him, it's meaningless to me, so don't bother. That seems a bit strange to me. Now some experiences are more difficult to explain than others, but I don't see how they're meaningless.

I read your NDEs thread. The issue with that argument is that it has little purchasing power with those who did not have such experiences. Literarily, we don't have the sensations those people had, the raw data, to be able to make those judgements. The NDEs show that this is a possibility, perhaps even a likely possibility, but it remains meaningless to us because we cannot begin to imagine it - we lack the necessary sense data.

So to say that consciousness is beyond what goes on in the brain, fine, I agree. But what does that mean, practically? Where was consciousness before birth? Where will it be after death? What is the relationship between consciousness and memory? Etc. We have an extremely blurry image. — Agustino

Do I need to have your experiences, of say, going to France in order for me to know that your experience is real? We can know that an experience is real if there is enough evidence to support it. I don't need to have the experience myself. If that was the case, we wouldn't know if many of the experiences that people had were real. Whether it has "purchasing power" for someone is dependent on a lot of factors, including psychological factors.

What does it mean? Well, for one thing I believe it answers some age old questions about consciousness, but one can draw many other conclusions, as I have based on the evidence. These are only the first steps in a long journey of understanding.

.

.

.

.

.

You said the following:

There is nothing that is immune to doubt. We can doubt anything we want. And when we don't, it's merely because we decided not to do so. — Magnus Anderson

Remember, you said we can doubt anything we want, so I gave you an example of someone teaching the rules of chess, and the person to whom they are teaching the game is doubting the rules, doubting everything the teacher says. Does it make sense to doubt in this situation? One doesn't doubt simply because one wants to doubt, one doubts because there are good reasons to doubt. Think about how the word doubt is taught, doubt arises in very specific ways, you're not taught to doubt everything, and you're not taught to doubt based on a whim. All words are taught in specific ways, that is, they are taught to be used in a specific kind of language-game. So there is a kind of logic of use when it comes to word usage, one doesn't simple apply one's own rules arbitrarily.

I don’t think that it’s necessary to invoke Intelligent Design (which amounts to Theism) at the metaphysical level, to explain how there could be a metaphysical world, including living beings like ourselves. It seems to me that the “existence” of the metaphysical world can be explained, within itself, without outside or higher invocation. — Michael Ossipoff

Michael, I don't see how intelligent design is Theistic ("or amounts to Theism"), even at the metaphysical level. I know that Theists use the argument to support their belief that the universe was created by God, but all the intelligent design argument concludes is that there was a designer or designers. The argument says nothing about the nature of the designer, or even the character of the designer.

My own view is that the universe does show evidence of design, so I do think it's a good argument in spite of it being used by Theists, and in spite of how much ridicule the argument invokes.

Just as an aside, I'm not religious, although I do think consciousness survives bodily existence.

What can I say, I just like sports cars, always have. Some people like large homes, I could care less about having a large home. By the way, my body is full of tattoos. I have one of Wittgenstein on my chest. :-}

I'm not into fancy clothes, not into having expensive watches, I just like sports cars. Can't I have one vice, please? I'm not rich, nor am I married, I just have a little extra money to spend. Why not have a little fun. Beside I'm 67, who knows how much time I have left.

I don't even drive that fast, at most I'll drive 150 in a 30 mph school zone, but that's it; and I do it on Sundays while texting.

Ya, if you've ever been in an accident that will cure you of sports cars. I've seen some bad accidents, but was never involved in one. My best friend, who loved sports cars, always said he would die before he was 21, but that if he died he wanted to die in his car. Well, he wasn't in it, but under it, it fell on him. He was 20 when he died. I was in Marines at the time, just left Vietnam, when I got the news. It's a crazy world, I go to Vietnam and survive, he dies under his car in his driveway.

The stated 0-60 times of the Mercedes AMG E63 S is 3.4 sec, the camaro zl1 is 3.5 sec. If you talking about the Camaro zl1 1le that's different, it's probably faster on the track, but it's not faster from 0-60. The Mercedes is just a much better car overall, but it costs about 30k more.

Ya, the Camaro convertible is a nice looking car. Another nice car is the Cadillac cts-v. I did have a 2014 BMW m5, and that was a nice car too.

If the universe has been around for over 14 billion years, why wouldn't it be more than likely that some civilization now has the ability to create realities for us to experience; and that we are also part of that creation process. Moreover, it may be that they even have the ability to move from universe to universe. We couldn't even conceive of how advanced such a civilization could be. To say that there is nothing beyond the physical is just too dogmatic for me. It's similar to religious belief.

For me, consciousness is much more than what goes on in the brain, which is what I attempted to explain in my thread on NDEs.

Your intuition that the universe show evidence of design, or at least seems to indicate design is correct. However, that doesn't mean that any particular religious world view is correct. All it means is that there is a designer or designers, probably the latter.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design in the universe. In fact, I would say it's overwhelming.