Looking back, I think there's a spot where I skipped a step.

The problem we encounter immediately though is that concepts are comparative by nature. Even though it is conceivable that, having acquired, say, the concept [red], you could tell something is red without comparing it to anything not red, you could not possibly acquire such a concept in the first place. — Srap Tasmaner

This is unclear.

A concept more or less neatly divides the universe into things that fall under it and things that don't. That matches up just as neatly with how we acquire concepts: here's something that's red and here's something that isn't. (Allow me a bit of simplification here.)

I'm also allowing the possibility that you could apply a concept you have, even if you don't have to hand something that falls under it and something that doesn't.

I also argue that the concept of designedness you need cannot be acquired in the usual comparative way, so if we have such a concept it must be innate. The concept itself is also somewhat odd in that is true of the universe as a whole and everything in it, but I am not relying on that, as I have explicitly allowed that you might still be able to apply the concept if you have it.

The question that's left is whether we do possess such a concept and possess it innately.

Maybe it's built out of some simpler concepts. Or a collection of them: Order vs chaos. Volition vs nature. etc.

You wouldn't have to have thesis and antithesis at hand, but you'd have to know about the opposition. Any property possessed by the whole universe and everything in it would be unknowable for lack of the ability to know about an associated opposition. For instance, if everything in the universe was green, there could be no concept of green. Right?

I'm just allowing, for the sake of argument, that the concept could be innate and usable. (Someone might have cleverly bestowed this concept upon us, after all.)

I'm not seeing how composition helps. There would still have to be a concept that you can just know applies to the universe without comparing the universe to anything else. There may be concepts you can manage because you get to compare the universe to parts of itself, but in the case of designedness, all the parts fall under the concept too.

EDIT: fixed an autocorrection.

No property possessed by the whole universe can be knowable. Agree?

No property possessed by the whole universe can be knowable. Agree? — Mongrel

Those who accept the argument from design not only disagree, but think their view is obviously correct.

I tried maybe four or five variations on this theme and got nowhere. We're trying something else now.

There's a neighboring idea, roughly that as you widen the extension you decrease the content. If your predicate applies to the entire domain of discourse, you're no longer saying anything. Not only has that been an ineffective argument, there's something about it I feel a little skittish of.

If you want a more direct answer than this you've got to define "luck". — VagabondSpectre

I define "lucky" as fortunate, fortuitous, favourable, auspicious, advantageous, propitious, opportune.

My point, overall, is that we are inordinately lucky. I think any honest person – atheist or theist – has to admit our circumstance is fortunate – overwhelmingly so. I also think most atheists resist any sense of gratitude or thankfulness because they fear any servile-ness or obligation. I think atheists should thank the universe for doing a good job – even by accident. This is a weakness in atheist thinking. If you deny gratefulness, you limit your compassion and empathy. Being ungrateful restricts your appreciation for everything. Most Buddhist atheists do not have this problem. Most non-spiritual atheists do suffer from this dilemma. However, I think it is fixable, and one can still be atheist and not Buddhist.

"Luck" really only make sense if you are talking about causality, in the significance of how someone exists in one position rather than another, by circumstance and themselves, such they one way rather than another (e.g. a rich person is who "lucky" to be born into wealth, person belonging to a plentiful environment, etc.). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Be careful not to restrict your gratitude - it will not hurt you. Rather, the more you have, the better off you are. I would call lack of gratitude the atheists neurosis.

Do you feel a servile obligation towards the socks on your feet?

Is remarking that life is good not enough?

What's the purpose behind making a gesture of gratitude toward a thing which cannot perceive it?

It seems nonsensical...


EDIT: If you refuse to kiss the blarney stone then you're limiting your own belief in the future???

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What? — Thinker

Lucky/thankful not really. Glad/satisfied, yes.

Do you feel a servile obligation towards the socks on your feet?

Is remarking that life is good not enough?

What's the purpose behind making a gesture of gratitude toward a thing which cannot perceive it?

It seems nonsensical... — VagabondSpectre

I would say you miss the point. I don't think about my socks or the sun and moon very much. Being grateful of your consciousness and love in your life is beneficial in itself. The more gratefulness you can generate in all dimensions improves the quality of your life – and the world. Want to be more happy – be more grateful – simple as that.

I personally define luck when opportunity meets preparation. I must also say as a theist – I hate most organized religion. I think it is the scourge of mankind – particularly – Islam. Any kind of servile obligation is stupid. I think we should have more atheists because they think for themselves. Just be grateful – make things better for us all.

Lucky/thankful not really. Glad/satisfied, yes. — Terrapin Station

Glad - satisfied sounds mild - you should be ecstatic - the benefits would be more. You should be screaming from the rooftop - I am lucky. We would all laugh at you - but - you would be happier.

It's for that very reason I say you use of "luck" is meaningless. The ones to have gratitude towards are others whom act to provide for one's own circumstances: other people, the environment, social institutions, etc., without which one's life and the world would be a worse place.

Gratitude outside causality, that is gratitude to no-one, is meaningless. It just the nihilistic neurosis-- that world and ourselves are meaningless in themselves, such that we would have to thank nothing for allowing us to exist.

I don't believe in luck though.

I don't believe in luck though. — Terrapin Station

I personally define luck when opportunity meets preparation.

Luck is the residue of design. — Branch Rickey

On topic too.

Gratitude outside causality, that is gratitude to no-one, is meaningless. It just the nihilistic neurosis-- that world and ourselves are meaningless in themselves, such that we would have to think nothing for allowing us to exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You really miss the point - it is gratitude to everything - you - choose to be grateful for. You don't need a cause to be grateful. Be grateful there is no cause.

On topic too. — Srap Tasmaner

That's the way I look at it.

That's the neurosis though, for if a case is not a stake, neither is my being. The possibility I "might not be" isn't present. In nothing, I have no cause or danger to fear, no possible absence for which to thank another for saving me from.

Rather than "grateful," I should just be "joyful."

Rather than "grateful," I should just be "joyful." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am suspicious of you TheWillowOfDarkness - your name says a lot. Stay away from nothingness thoughts. Yes, be joyful and then after you reach joyfulness - be grateful.

You religious folks always give me a cult vibe.

You religious folks always give me a cult vibe. — Terrapin Station

I am a cult of one. I think of myself as spiritual and anti-religion.

They don't amount to what you'd need to make your argument work — Sapientia

What standards of evidence will convince you?

The question that's left is whether we do possess such a concept and possess it innately — Srap Tasmaner

I don't understand how the nature of the concept of order, as to its being innate or acquired, bears on my argument. Anyway I read up a bit and here's what I think you want to say...

First, given that the concept of order is acquired, we'd actually need to have observed some universes created by a Gods to generate the causal inference order-->God. Lacking this kind of observation we aren't justified to make this inference.

My answer: We're a part of this universe and this relationship, as far as I know, is not voidable. We can't just come out of this universe and observe other universes (if they exist) and look for the presence or absence of a creator.

So, this objection, good as it may seem, is, for all practical purposes, a dead end. It appears to make sense but is a pointless objection. When paleantologists and archeologists make inferences from fossils and ruins we don't object. We don't say that since they weren't there during the time of the dinosaurs or ancient mesopotamia their inferences are completely invalid. I agree some gaps will be filled by the imagination but that's how the game must be played. We don't have a choice. This objection to the design argument is like denying the Big Bang Theory because nobody saw it. There are reasonable recommendations/objections/proposals bit asking for the impossible is not one of them.

Second, given the universe is ordered, we lack a comparison (chaos?) to make sense of what we mean by order.

I think this is your main point. To that my simple reply is imagination. We are endowed with this powerful thinking tool that can contemplate almost anything, chaos being one of them. So, the issue of whether the concept of order is innate or acquired is moot because we can imagine the antithesis of order.

The PSR makes 2 claims

1. Every event has a cause
2. Every proposition has a reason

Surely 1 is in the realm of science

From what I read on anti-realism (not much sorry) it's got to do with the unobservable aspects of science. However there are plenty of mathematical laws that describe observable phenomena e.g. the flight of a rocket, the flow of water through a pipe, machines, etc.

Glad - satisfied sounds mild - you should be ecstatic - the benefits would be more. You should be screaming from the rooftop - I am lucky. We would all laugh at you - but - you would be happier. — Thinker

I find that naive for a few reasons. There isn't an on-and-off switch, and there are other important things besides happiness. I'd rather be a little less happy than be a gullible, crazy fool that's the butt of everyone's jokes.

What standards of evidence will convince you? — TheMadFool

For starters, my standard disqualifies logical fallacies, and your argument commits multiple fallacies. I've already told you what would be required, so if you don't already know, then must not have been paying enough attention. And if you don't pay attention to what I say, then why should I continue? What have I said about the universe? What have I said about the PSR? What have I said about what is arguably order? What have I said about the laws of nature? What have I said about the differences in your analogy? What have I said about science, and what it does and does not do? What have I said about what we know and do not know? The answers are there to be found.

I told you, I'm not just going to humour you. I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to demonstrate to me that you've been listening and that it's quid pro quo. Or I might just give up on you like others have.

Ok. Are you an atheist, theist or agnostic?

As I said in an earlier post, someone could say that the principle is actually this:

"the Reason Exception Principle--REP: For every billion facts in the universe, fifteen have no reason for occurring, although the acausality of those fifteen things necessarily remains empirically unknown to us." That's incompatible with the PSR. And listing 50 billion reasons for different things is just as much support of the REP as it is support of the PSR, because the REP claims that the vast majority of things have a reason, and doesn't claim that we do not empirically know those reasons. — Terrapin Station

How would we support one principle rather than the other?

Ok. Are you an atheist, theist or agnostic? — TheMadFool

Atheist and agnostic, by some definitions. I mainly self-identify as the former.