The first question one would put to any 'intelligent designer' is 'what the fuck is wrong with you?'. — StreetlightX
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
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
God would also fit the description of intelligent design. Thanks for showing everyone that God was intelligently designed by humans. The circle is complete.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. — Sam26
It's evolution that negates intelligent design, or at least life designed with a purpose other than experimentation.Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not. — Sam26
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.
I have some sympathy with the idea of eternal (meaning not perpetual, but atemporal) existence. But we cannot conceive how that would be
, so we cannot say "she neither knows, nor cares"
or "it's just sleep"
or that it's "our natural, normal and usual state of affairs". These kinds of statements simply make no sense in the context of eternity
; they are 'temporamorphic' projections.
Probably we cannot form any statements that do make sense in that context
..., other than apophatic ones.
(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. — Sam26
Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported.
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,
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.
First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form: — Sam26
By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone. — Sam26
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? — Sam26
You've then simply declared that the two subsets must share all properties - if one subset is designed then so must the other subset be, but you haven't provided any logic as to why that should be the case. — Pseudonym
All we know about these two subsets, is that they must share at least and only the one property that makes them both part of the same set i.e that 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. There's no reason, inductive or otherwise, to presume that they will share any other properties, such as being designed. — Pseudonym
. The property as put forth in premise one, is the evidence of intelligent design. Thus, if it is the evidence of intelligent design, then it follows with certainty, that is, with a high degree of probability that other artifacts exhibiting these same features are also intelligently designed. — Sam26
Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum.Now the argument is analogical, that is, we make an inference based on a likeness or analogy between objects or groups of objects to infer the existence of a further likeness. This kind of reasoning is done all the time in logic, so to say that there is no logic to the argument, is to not understand logic. — Sam26
Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum. — Harry Hindu
These are the kinds of arguments that show the inconsistencies of theists and why I propose that religion is a delusion.There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this universe, that answers the question about the creation of this universe. For example when we answer the question, who created this watch, do I then say you can't answer that question because we don't know who created you, of course not. — Sam26
You keep using human beings and the things they have designed as examples of intelligent designers who were also designed themselves by some other designer. If humans are intelligent designers AND were designed themselves, then why aren't all intelligent designers designed themselves? Saying that you don't have to apply the same reasoning just shows that you are being inconsistent. — Harry Hindu
Analogous arguments are not automatically valid, they are measured by the strength of their inference. as I outlined; — Pseudonym
1. The relevance of the similarity is weak because things which do not belong in set A can also be shown to have been designed (a person could by design place a pile of rocks specifically to look as if they had occurred naturally). the property 'having been designed' is not unique to set A objects, so its relevance is weak. — Pseudonym
2. The degree of similarity is weak. Human manufactured objects are similar to natural objects only in that they are made of parts that together perform a higher order function. They are dissimilar in many other important aspects.
Human manufactured objects have a clear history of manufacture and can all be traced back to a human to whom we can ask "did you design that?". It is from this data that we get our knowledge that all human-made object in set A are designed. Natural objects have no history of manufacture and cannot be traced back to a manufacturer whom we can question. — Pseudonym
Natural objects are all significantly more complex than human manufactured objects.
Natural objects (that perform higher order functions) can all replicate themselves in a process which causes random variation to the make up of the object and one in which objects whose parts do not perform a useful higher order function will cease to exist. A process which we can logically see could feasibly result in only those objects whose parts do combine to perform a higher order function existing at any one time. We can deduce pretty accurately from our knowledge of evolution that there must have existed billions of natural objects whose parts did not come together to perform a higher order function. — Pseudonym
3. The amount of instances that form the basis is extremely weak, so much so as to be completely damning to the analogy. Human artefacts represent a tiny proportion of all things in set A. There is an estimated 300 trillion tonnes of human artefacts in the world. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria. Even if we average human artefacts at just 1g, bacteria alone outnumber human artefacts by five trillion trillion times. All the failed organisms from the process of evolution outnumber human artefacts. by several trillion times more than this. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything about human artefacts tells us something about natural objects by strength of analogy. It would be like claiming you knew something with great certainty about all architecture because you studied one brick. — Pseudonym
How do random rocks show evidence of design, even if placed there by a person? — Sam26
I don't need to know the history of the manufacturing of watches to infer design, this is just silly. You mean if you traveled to another planet and found something that looked like a vehicle, having wheels, what appeared to be an engine, what appeared to be fuel, etc, that we couldn't conclude intelligent design because we know nothing about it's manufacturing history? — Sam26
All this shows is that a higher intelligence was involved in the design, — Sam26
As far as the last sentence in this paragraph is concerned, I don't see how this takes away from the argument either. So what if there are many artifacts that nature has discarded, especially since nature decides that the artifact doesn't work, or it has no use for it. The same things happen in design, we often do this when creating things. — Sam26
So because there are more artifacts in nature, as opposed to human artifacts, this demonstrates that there isn't a large enough sampling of human artifacts, — Sam26
Yes, that's exactly the point! Have you no idea how sampling works? — Pseudonym
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.