I said it has to do with being consistent in thinking about and accepting claims that have the same amount of evidence — Harry Hindu
Because I'm not the one making the claim that some thing exists! If you are, then define that thing if you expect me to believe in it too. — Harry Hindu
There is no such thing as equivalence in English expressions. Each expression is unique. I don't see imaginary things, and that's why I don't see equivalence in English expressions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, there's not one universal defintion. That's why I said to use whatever common definition you prefer. My comments didn't hinge on a particular definition. It's just that I don't want to argue about definitions of personhood. — Terrapin Station
Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool
Show me evidence that god does not exist. It is the same amount that god exists -- zero. — god must be atheist
you have made absolutely no progress toward answering the question. The distinction between design and no design is made according to whether or not there was a "person" involved, but an individual is free to use whatever definition of "person" that one might dream up. How is that useful? — Metaphysician Undercover
You have to start with defining god so that I may show the incoherence of the concept.
Actually, that is how all "God Exists" thread should start - in defining the "god" they are talking about. There have been countless versions throughout human history. Which one are you talking about? — Harry Hindu
There are a number of classic and contemporary versions of the argument from design. This article will cover seven different ones. Among the classical versions are: (1) the "Fifth Way" of St. Thomas Aquinas; (2) the argument from simple analogy; (3) Paley's watchmaker argument; and (4) the argument from guided evolution. The more contemporary versions include: (5) the argument from irreducible biochemical complexity; (6) the argument from biological information; and (7) the fine-tuning argument. — Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
If this is correct, then design inferences simply cannot do the job they are asked to do in design arguments for God's existence. Insofar as they presuppose that we already know the right kind of intelligent being exists, they cannot stand alone as a justification for believing that God exists. It is the very existence of the right kind of intelligent being that is at issue in the dispute over whether God exists. While design inferences have a variety of scientifically legitimate uses, they cannot stand alone as arguments for God's existence. — IEP
Now you say that one is free to define "person" however one pleases — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do we have a word 'designed' as a categorising term to distinguish from other apparently ordered matter? — Isaac
It means put together with intent. But intent is a property of persons not objects. So we cannot see in an object the intent of the person. — Isaac
A sentence incidentally written by a random process iterated a million times is indistinguishable in every way from a sentence written that way with intent apart from by its history. Same for any object. It is only by its history which we can distinguish objects ordered by intent from objects ordered by chance. — Isaac
No. I specifically did not say that. I said that any of the common definitions of personhood would do. — Terrapin Station
As I've been trying to explain to you, beings other than persons create and do things with intent. So I find your assertions to be unacceptable. One does not have to be a person to create by design. — Metaphysician Undercover
it is contradictory to say that objects could be ordered by chance — Metaphysician Undercover
What I consider the most common, a person is an individual human being. — Metaphysician Undercover
How about Zeus?To me, any definition will do.
— god must be atheist
Then how could a human even come to have the concept of "god" in their head if there is no reason (evidence) for them to have it?Because we have no evidence of god, we have no evidence of god's alleged quality, quantity, capability, wishes, demands, if any and if they exist in the first place.
You ask me to define something that we have no reliable evidence of. "Define the thing that nobody has seen, heard, eaten, touched, was touched by, etc etc".
So... this is not a request I could fulfill, and I assert, that nobody else human can define god with any degree of certainty. — god must be atheist
Then how could a human even come to have the concept of "god" in their head if there is no reason (evidence) for them to have it? — Harry Hindu
Reasoning entails using reasons to support some claim. If there isn't a reason to claim something, why claim it? — Harry Hindu
Exactly. Now what does "fiction" mean?For the same reason or mental process which enables humans to create fiction. — god must be atheist
Exactly. Now what does "fiction" mean? — Harry Hindu
So the definition of god is "mass delusions propagated by the elites in culture"?1. To help you oppress a great number of people at once, without too much effort. 2. To help you make people behave in certain ways that you want them to. 3. To get their monies and to get them to serve you in other ways. 4. To help you explain unexplainable phenomena you encounter in your life (this is historical) 5. ETC. — god must be atheist
Is there a difference between Zeus being a god and being fiction, or not? If there is, how do you show it? — Harry Hindu
So the definition of god is "mass delusions propagated by the elites in culture"? — Harry Hindu
How. What law of physics/nature prevents things from appearing ordered by chance. By definition, a chance event can result in any consequence it is not artificially restricted to chaotic looking one's. A random throw of the dice, with no intent, can still land 1,2,3,4,5,6. — Isaac
The subject here is designed/not designed. In order for there to even be a category 'not designed' it has to be the case that some force can produce a state of affairs which are 'not designed'. Are you suggesting it is somehow impossible for this state of affairs to nonetheless appear to be designed by chance? — Isaac
That's not a common definition of "personhood."
That's why I said any definition is fine, but it has to be a common definition of personhood. — Terrapin Station
So the chance throwing of the die might produce 1,2,3,4,5,6, but it was not specified and therefore not ordered. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether or not one might say that a chance occurrence appeared to be ordered, or vise versa would depend on context, and what exactly would be meant by this. — Metaphysician Undercover
How could you say that the outcome of a design is not designed? Perhaps we could appeal to accidents or mistakes — Metaphysician Undercover
it is impossible by way of contradiction for a designed state to come by chance. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's like saying that a hectogon appears to be a circle. If you know it's a hectogon (designed state), and are calling it such, then you know it's not a circle (created by chance), so it doesn't make sense to say that it appears to be a circle (created by chance), when you know it's not. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not at all, I could previously specify that the 'order' I'm looking for is 1,2,3,4,5,6, then it is a 'specified sequence'. I then throw the die six times, it lands 1,2,3,4,5,6 exactly as I specified. It has not now become the case that the order arose by design, it arose by chance. — Isaac
Yes, but this is exactly the context here. The OP is about the argument from design. The fact that the universe 'appears' to be designed, ordered etc. So if you say, "everything that appears ordered/designed is ordered/designed by definition" then you've either just begged the question, or defined away the distinction the whole investigation was trying to examine. The question is a simple one - does something appearing to us to be ordered/designed mean that some intentional force must have ordered/designed it? It's about what we can inductively assume from the evidence of order. If you want to say that the term "order" automatically implies a designer simply by the use of the term, then (apart from completely disagreeing with you) we'll just need another word to describe things which look like things which are ordered but might not be. — Isaac
Yes - by appealing to accidents and mistakes. What's wrong with that? Are you going to define away 'accident' now? — Isaac
We're not talking about a designed state. We're talking about a state which 'appears' designed. One which has a type of order we recognise from other states we know to be designed. — Isaac
I'm saying that if we call a state 'designed' on the grounds that it was intentionally made that way, then it is reasonable to conclude that states which appear to be designed (ie ones which look superficially similar but whose history we do not know) may not actually be so, if we can point to states which look designed/ordered, but which we know to have happened by chance, or without intent. We have examples of such states. — Isaac
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.