There's no law that forbids a pig sprouting wings and taking flight. — TheMadFool
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. — Sam26
(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). — Sam26
Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not.
I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. — Moliere
Circular.It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. — Sam26
I'm assuming based on your own explanation of why an intelligent designer is necessary for our (other intelligent designers) existence. What makes one intelligent designer different from others in that they aren't designed themselves? How do you know that human beings aren't one of those kinds of intelligent designers that don't need a designer?You're assuming that if we discover the designers, then they must have been designed, how does that follow? — Sam26
I don't know. That's why I'm asking you, the current know-it-all of intelligent designers. You need to define what it is that makes some intelligent designers different that they don't need to be designed too. If the universe and the human body are so complex and intricate that they were necessarily designed by an intelligence, then why doesn't the intricate complexity of the intelligent designer need an intelligent designer? Your own explanation shows that the intelligent designer requires its own designer. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why the intelligent designer doesn't require a designer.And why does it follow that because another group of designers was designed themselves, that this necessarily leads to an infinite regress of designers. There isn't any way to know that. We don't know enough about the designers. Maybe they've always existed, or some of them have always existed. — Sam26
Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-) — Sam26
Yes, but why would an organism sprout wings in the first place, pig or otherwise? How would they get from randomly produced stubs to fully functioning wings without the end goal in mind? Not to mention on an organism that wings will work on, with the wings suitably positioned for flight? (and remember, this all being done by quarks, atoms, molecules, that somehow know precisely how to do this) — CasKev
laws of nature — TheMadFool
certain ways just because. Panpsychism, as I understand it, says that everything has a mind of sorts. — CasKev
I tend to think that consciousness and self-awareness can only exist in our physical world when there is a brain to produce/hold it. — CasKev
I can't see how there could be consciousness or self-awareness at this level. ( — CasKev
but it's hard to imagine them feeling pain, or having awareness of existence. — CasKev
But getting back to the issue of intelligent design, how could atoms and molecules have such complex behavior patterns in the absence of any sort of underlying physical structure? — CasKev
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
Evolution is not random, it selects from favourable attributes and rejects those which are unfavourable. — Pseudonym
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 — Sam26
I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here. — Moliere
I'd set forth that what a designed entity does is fulfill some purpose that, in this case, an intelligent being wants to be fulfilled (hence why I'm bringing up desire before, but here I'm introducing purpose as well). — Moliere
It seems to me that we need some notion of, first, a being who wants, and second, a purpose which fulfills that want. — Moliere
The point is that when we look at human productions that exhibit the features named in premise one, they are the result of intelligent design. In fact, even if you had never seen a watch before (Paley's argument), and stumbled upon one, you surely wouldn't conclude it happened by chance. Why? Because we are very familiar with the evidence of intelligent design. — Sam26
(I'm always using too many comma's...) — Moliere
It actually is fairly amusing to see how so many
people argue against their very own existence, when all they actually
can really prove to themselves in all sincerity - is that existence. — Jonathan AB
If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why? — CasKev
I think creation began with consciousness and that consciousness is the state life aspires to. The reason for the awakening may be beyond our rational thought but might be as simple as "separating the grain from the chaff." All this a form of evolution.What is the nature of consciousness? — CasKev
At the risk of sounding like Rich ( ;) ), how could these 'laws of nature' simply arise? — CasKev
I think I was asking after evidence not to say you were committing a fallacy, but rather because I think the question of how we count examples is precisely why disagreement is often difficult to discuss. Once one counts living items of nature as designed then there really are an incredibly large number of examples that seems to confirm the inference. Likewise, once one counts living items of nature as not-designed, the products of physical forces and nothing more, there are an incredibly large number of examples that confirms the inference. So, in both camps, it's easy to look at the other camp as irrational or dogmatic or confused, or any many other possible psychological explanations which are far from flattering (and certainly miss the point anyways) — Moliere
I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. Or, really to put it better and keep our positions linguistically distinct, I think I'd add more to this definition of intelligent design than what you've laid out here. — Moliere
How is it that a cat doesn't have parts, e.g., legs, heart, lung, liver, etc. that work together to achieve higher order functions than any single part alone, and the same can be shown with the tree. — Sam26
There are no parts. It is one wholistic life form. — Rich
That's your argument, there are no parts? — Sam26
If one could show that the properties as enumerated in premise one are not the properties of intelligent design, then those who argue against the argument to intelligent design may have a point. However, the analogy is perfect. In fact it's hard to imagine a better analogy. — Sam26
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.