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.

What makes you think I haven't done things like this already. Besides who are you to give advice to me, especially since you don't know me. It's also probably likely that my system of ethics is much more advanced than yours, so I have a good idea about right and wrong actions. I might not always make the best choice based on those ethics, but I know something about right and wrong. Sometimes I make poor choices, as do we all, but more often than not, I make the right choice.

Except I'm not religious at all.

Do you not see the title to this section, it's the lounge.

A belief is about something: "I believe that..." What follows the ellipsis can only be a linguistic statement. Unless by "private" you mean something like "unformulated", where the person is unaware that they hold a particular belief. If that's the case, then I don't think they should be called "private", given the Wittgensteinian connotations (i.e. that they are unable to be made public). — Luke

A belief is about something, true, but it doesn't necessarily have to take the form "I believe that..." one's actions can express one's beliefs. And yes the belief is unformulated in terms of language, but as I pointed out in earlier posts which people seem to skip over, is the fact that we know that people who have had no language think in terms of beliefs. People who have been deaf and blind can have quite a sophisticated belief system, quite apart from language.

It's not meant to absolve me of anything. I'm just responding to your asinine comment in a thread about sports cars. This isn't a thread about the ethics of owning cars, or cars that you deem bad for the environment.

But of course there's still room in there for mystical Oneness underlying everything, although that's not my cup of tea. — mcdoodle

Come on Mcdoodle, let's have that cup of tea. :D

True, very true. X-)

Ahhh, am I messing up the planet for you. Poor baby.

Whether there are things that are more fun than cars is very subjective, but I agree, I would much rather be with friends than have a sports car. However, I can have both, and I can afford it, so why not? There are always things more important than having fun, or enjoying a car.

There's not much that's better in terms of bang for the buck.

Ya, Bentley's are great cars, but not my taste. It's a hobby, albeit an expensive one.

Then let's use a different example. I've never met Trump; only ever seen him on TV and in photos. I've learned to use the term "Donald Trump" by associating it with certain digital images. But do those digital images have anything to do with the meaning of "Donald Trump". Of course not. The name refers to the man himself. — Michael

Are you saying that we learn meaning only by understanding that there is "the real Donald Trump?" (as opposed to the digital image) - or that there is some referent X that is required? It would seem that we can not only use the word correctly by referring to his image, but that we understand the meaning by using the word to refer to the image. What more do we need? What more would we understand if we saw the real referent as opposed to the image of the referent? We understand that it's not the real thing when looking at the image, but how does that take away from the meaning of the word? The important thing is that we use the word correctly, and in doing so we show that we understand what the word means.

Yes, the name does refer to the man himself, but can we derive correct usage, and as such, meaning, by only referring to the digital image? Yes. The "middle-man" works just as well for the term Donald Trump. The digital images themselves, or the text on a page, are not what gives meaning to the word, but how we use the word in reference to those images, or for that matter how we use the word to refer to the actual person. The object conveys no meaning in itself. It's only as we use concepts within a language that meaning is conferred. If the object conveyed the meaning, then how is it that we understand the meaning of Aristotle? The referent is gone, it no longer exists, so how is it that we understand what the word means?

I don't see why this is any different in the case of "pain". The public expression is just a middle-man; a "hook" with which I can connect the word and the sensation.

When I talk of others being in pain, I'm not talking about them behaving as I do when I have that sensation; I'm talking about them feeling as I do when I have that sensation. The behaviour may be an inevitable consequence, but that's it. — Michael

Yes, again I agree, that in the case of the concept pain, it is just a middle-man, the "hook" as you put it, but it is very important in this case, more so than in the other example. More so because of the beetle-in-the box example, that is, without the pain behavior we wouldn't know if we were referring to the same sensation (the same referent). The pain behavior is essential to understanding correct usage and meaning. My private experience, although important, is not what gives meaning to the words we use, that is, meaning happens as we use words in a rule governed activity (language).

There is another aspect to this that's important, and I think it goes along with what your saying, if I understand you correctly. Without the existence of the pain (the private sensation) there would be no pain behavior, and thus no meaning to convey. This is true, but the existence of the private sensation although necessary for pain behavior, is not necessary for the correct use (meaning) of the word in a language setting. It is a kind of backdrop, a necessary backdrop, as in the case of my prelinguistic beliefs, to the development of language.

It is true that when we talk about the pain of others, we are talking about how they feel. However, how is it that we learn how someone feels? How is it that we learn how to associate the word pain with that feeling? Is it not by observing pain behavior? If there were no pain behavior what feeling would we be referring to (again the beetle-in-the-box)? What would it mean to say that I am in pain without pain behavior in a linguistic context? The pain behavior, although an outgrowth of our private sensations, is a necessary outgrowth in terms of our understanding of the concept. In some cases the middle-man is necessary for meaning and understanding to take place (within language). It is not necessary for my private understanding, but it is necessary for a public understanding.