| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2008 11:21:08 AM · #501 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
1) Why would you choose the third explanation over the other two? Is there any evidence to suggest that it is more likely?
|
There is no more or less evidence for ANY of the three postulates. At this point, as far as evidence goes (scientific or otherwise), none have ANY evidence to support them.
Originally posted by Sam94720:
A rational person studies the evidence, forms a theory and then checks that theory against all available evidence. If there are contradictions, the theory needs to be revised. And we start over. Believers, however, acquire a theory from someone else and refuse to ever change it, independent of the evidence. You start with a belief and then start looking for matching rational explanations, not the other way around. |
You do not need to teach me the scientific method. I'm quite sure I have far more experience with it than you do.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 11:23:10. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:27:05 AM · #502 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree that there is no requirement to correlate the complicated objects with intelligence, but there is a possibility. It's an argument from experience. We see such a correlate all the time. I'm not here to PROVE God exists, I'm only here to prove a rational argument postulating God exists. |
And I'm here to point out that your logic is flawed by way of an argument from false cause. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:34:55 AM · #503 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree that there is no requirement to correlate the complicated objects with intelligence, but there is a possibility. It's an argument from experience. We see such a correlate all the time. I'm not here to PROVE God exists, I'm only here to prove a rational argument postulating God exists. |
And I'm here to point out that your logic is flawed by way of an argument from false cause. ;-) |
I don't think you are succeeding. You cannot rule out such an argument because it is possibly wrong. Would you rule out argument #1 and #2 because they are also possibly false? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:38:43 AM · #504 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon is trying to show the argument is not rational by adding on extra qualities to God that seem ridiculous. I am not giving God qualities, only postulating that he exists. |
My demonstration: "If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought, it would NOT be logical to infer the ticket was poofed into existence by a Leprechaun."
There are no extra qualities in that sentence beyond your own proposal, which makes unfounded assumptions that intelligent direction comes from a Leprechaun/God AND that it's possible to will/poof things into existence. Your logical argument offers no support for either conclusion. A watchmaker is more complicated than a watch, so if your argument is that complex things must be purposefully created, than the creator must also have a creator, and that creator must have a creator, etc., which simply avoids the question. The observation that a watch (as the common example) is created does NOT mean all complex things must be created. It's a false argument. A snowflake forms complex patterns under a natural, physical process that can be explained with an understanding of the molecular properties and environmental conditions. The near infinite possibilities of atomic spins and other conditions might mean we can never reproduce a specific snowflake with technology, but a logical explanation does not need an invisible snow maker to handcraft each flake. Furthermore, the humans-make-things model (our only example) still requires existing raw materials and physics. A watch magically made to appear from nothing would violate the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and any argument that the mass/energy has always existed in some form eliminates the need for supernatural assumptions in the first place.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 12:01:54. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:45:04 AM · #505 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This is an argument from a false cause: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. There is no requirement for us to correlate the cause for the appearance of complicated objects such as watches with the cause for the appearance of a complicated universe. It is, in effect, a logical fallacy. |
This "fallacy" (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) only exists inasmuch as the argument is offered as a proof. Doc's not offering a proof of anything; he's just describing a rational line of thinking that would admit the possibility of a Creator. If your definition of "rational" = "provable", you've got more immediate problems than whether or not God exists.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:49:45 AM · #506 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll try to address the three repliers to my post on a rational supposition for God:
Sam - Sam appears to agree it is rational, but thinks the others are more likely in his opinion. That's fine. I was just showing it could be a rational postulate.
Shannon - Shannon is trying to show the argument is not rational by adding on extra qualities to God that seem ridiculous. Spurious (there's that word coming up again). I am not giving God qualities, only postulating that he exists.
Louis - umm, I don't know Latin. I agree that there is no requirement to correlate the complicated objects with intelligence, but there is a possibility. It's an argument from experience. We see such a correlate all the time. I'm not here to PROVE God exists, I'm only here to prove a rational argument postulating God exists.
Yanko - read the posts from yesterday. All three of the above and, I believe, Dahkota, pretty well posted that belief in God is irrational. |
I didn't post that belief in God is irrational. I posted that believing God exists because the Bible says so is irrational.
Additionally, in your reply to Shannon, you posit that you only states God exists. However, your argument (from earlier using the Fine Tuning Argument) shows only that, at one time, an intelligence(s) existed. There is nothing in your argument that requires or proves its continued existence. You will need an additional argument for that. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:52:19 AM · #507 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll try to address the three repliers to my post on a rational supposition for God: |
Doc, regarding the "fine-tuned universe" argument...to paraphrase Douglas Adams, is it rational for the puddle to believe the pothole was designed especially for him? Sorry for the hit-and-run, but I always find it curious that this idea even makes it in to these debates. Occam's Razor would conclude that we are the result of the cosmic "conditions" that have been (mis?)-labelled as "fine tuned". Why take the extra step? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 11:53:05 AM · #508 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis - umm, I don't know Latin. |
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc = "with this, therefore because of this".
An example of the fallacy would be: "It has been shown that children with larger shoe sizes have neater handwriting; therefore having big feet makes it easier to write neatly."
In case you (or anyone else) care :-)
R. (who studied too much Latin for too many years)
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 11:54:38.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:02:57 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In case you (or anyone else) care :-) |
I do! I have been brushing up on fallacies here cuz this place is can be tough! :-) |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:07:21 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon is trying to show the argument is not rational by adding on extra qualities to God that seem ridiculous. I am not giving God qualities, only postulating that he exists. |
My demonstration: "If the powerball lottery were won in a week when only a single ticket was bought, it would NOT be logical to infer the ticket was poofed into existence by a Leprechaun."
There are no extra qualities in that sentence beyond your own proposal, which makes unfounded assumptions that intelligent direction comes from a Leprechaun/God AND that it's possible to will/poof things into existence. Your logical argument offers no support for either conclusion. A watchmaker is more complicated than a watch, so if your argument is that complex things must be purposefully created, than the creator must also have a creator, and that creator must have a creator, etc., which simply avoids the question. The observation that a watch (as the common example) is created does NOT mean all complex things must be created. It's a false argument. A snowflake forms complex patterns under a natural, physical process that can be explained with an understanding of the molecular properties and environmental conditions. The near infinite possibilities of atomic spins and other conditions might mean we can never reproduce a specific snowflake with technology, but a logical explanation does not need an invisible snow maker to handcraft each flake. Furthermore, the humans-make-things model (our only example) still requires existing raw materials and physics. A watch magically made to appear from nothing would violate the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, and any argument that the mass/energy has always existed in some form eliminates the need for supernatural assumptions in the first place. |
Analogies are meant to show concepts. They do not have a 1:1 correspondence with the topic at hand. The concept is that if a very rare event occurs we are not unreasonable to look for it to have been caused by an intelligence which could bring it about. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:24:34 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think you are succeeding. You cannot rule out such an argument because it is possibly wrong. Would you rule out argument #1 and #2 because they are also possibly false? |
Certainly. And of course you can rule out an argument because it's possibly wrong, especially if you can show a fallacy. If your argument is fallacious, there's no need to consider it any longer.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This "fallacy" (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) only exists inasmuch as the argument is offered as a proof. Doc's not offering a proof of anything; he's just describing a rational line of thinking that would admit the possibility of a Creator. If your definition of "rational" = "provable", you've got more immediate problems than whether or not God exists. |
The only criteria I used was that of the logical argument, which DrAchoo was very careful to select for himself in the original post. If he is presenting an intelligent designer of the universe as a logical argument that follows from "complicated objects have designers" -- and he is, when one of his criteria for this conclusion is that it's "logical" -- then he has quite clearly failed with an obvious cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 12:24:42. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:29:39 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The concept is that if a very rare event occurs we are not unreasonable to look for it to have been caused by an intelligence which could bring it about. |
I'm not sure you can go about it in the way you have been, but suppose you can, and you have, as you have described it, a supposition without evidence. What's the next step? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:43:03 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The concept is that if a very rare event occurs we are not unreasonable to look for it to have been caused by an intelligence which could bring it about. |
It's not a valid analogy in this case unless you include as a given that it's possible to create matter from willpower AND allow exceptions for both "before anything existed" and "complex things must be created." What you're saying is that complex things are often manufactured, therefore it's possible for someone to make a universe. How is that rational?
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 12:50:22. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:45:59 PM · #514 |
| The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:49:59 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll try to address the three repliers to my post on a rational supposition for God: |
Doc, regarding the "fine-tuned universe" argument...to paraphrase Douglas Adams, is it rational for the puddle to believe the pothole was designed especially for him? Sorry for the hit-and-run, but I always find it curious that this idea even makes it in to these debates. Occam's Razor would conclude that we are the result of the cosmic "conditions" that have been (mis?)-labelled as "fine tuned". Why take the extra step? |
Just as an aside, Occam's Razor is far too often misused. It is often misquoted as "the simplest answer tends to be right" (forgetting "all other things being equal"). His true postulate was "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Anyway, it's a bit of a peeve of mine. If the simplest answer is right then certainly quantum physics these days has no shot at being correct.
Anyway, it sounds like you support proposition #2 which is just fine. I think it's rational to believe such a thing.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 12:54:15 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The concept is that if a very rare event occurs we are not unreasonable to look for it to have been caused by an intelligence which could bring it about. |
I'm not sure you can go about it in the way you have been, but suppose you can, and you have, as you have described it, a supposition without evidence. What's the next step? |
Good question. One point is that the fine-tuned universe has no current suppositions WITH evidence. We (meaning humanity not just us) are basically at step 1 and are fielding possibilities to explore. It's a frustrating position to be in for the materialist or the strong atheist because they often feel everything is quite explainable if the damn theists would just listen to reason. I just like to point out that we're all in the same boat after all. Nobody has the answer and nobody even has any evidence to support their position to this very vexing question.
If you are digging in the sand and you uncover a rocky structure that looks like a nose, it's possible (though not necessary) that it's attached to a hidden face.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 12:56:41. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:02:16 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think you are succeeding. You cannot rule out such an argument because it is possibly wrong. Would you rule out argument #1 and #2 because they are also possibly false? |
Certainly. And of course you can rule out an argument because it's possibly wrong, especially if you can show a fallacy. If your argument is fallacious, there's no need to consider it any longer.
|
I'd agree with that, but I don't think my argument is fallacious. Let me boil it down to simple logic.
Very rare event X occurs (let's place the odds at 1 in a trillion).
To argue by example we have experience for the genre of cause for such events:
1) Chance. If you have a trillion attempts at coming up with event X, simple statistics will show it is likely to happen at least once.
2) Design. Intelligence can manipulate conditions to force unlikely events to occur.
Logically both are rational explanations. Some rare events are caused by chance. Other rare events are caused by design. To return to the problem at hand, there is currently no evidence supporting either chance or design for the problem of the fine-tuned universe. Therefore, as it stands, both are rational explanations and neither has an advantage without adding other assumptions.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 13:03:05. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:24:23 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Therefore, as it stands, both are rational explanations and neither has an advantage without adding other assumptions. |
Not true. We have lots of evidence for chance, but we have zero evidence that it's possible to design a universe. Without that additional assumption, the advantage goes to chance.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:33:38 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Therefore, as it stands, both are rational explanations and neither has an advantage without adding other assumptions. |
Not true. We have lots of evidence for chance, but we have zero evidence that it's possible to design a universe. Without that additional assumption, the advantage goes to chance. |
Wrong. We have no evidence for chance for the universe to be as it is. To have chance you need more than one try and we have no evidence that other universes exist or that ours has been attempted more than once. If you declare "we have lots of evidence for chance" (meaning we have lots of examples of things happening by chance) then we have the same for design.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 13:34:11. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:41:12 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you declare "we have lots of evidence for chance" then we have the same for design. |
We can calculate, model and observe the origin and development of snowflakes, canyons, stars, and galaxies- structures that appear complex, but merely develop from simpler forms by very natural means. We have NO models or observations of forming such structures by willpower. You're just declaring that it's possible. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:45:25 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I didn't post that belief in God is irrational. I posted that believing God exists because the Bible says so is irrational. |
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 01:49:54 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you declare "we have lots of evidence for chance" then we have the same for design. |
We can calculate, model and observe the origin and development of snowflakes, canyons, stars, and galaxies- structures that appear complex, but merely develop from simpler forms by very natural means. We have NO models or observations of forming such structures by willpower. You're just declaring that it's possible. |
We have supercomputers, massive bridges, social networks, and skyscrapers that are very complex that have come about because of the WILL of man. Of course you are likely trying to require a materialistic explanation for a dualistic proposition and that, of course, won't happen. Luckily I am not limiting myself to materialist explanations.
How do we even know God just thought things into existence. Maybe there was actual physical work involved. Who knows? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:08:35 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have supercomputers, massive bridges, social networks, and skyscrapers that are very complex that have come about because of the WILL of man. |
None of those are creating mass-energy from nothing. So either this is something unprecedented and your analogy is invalid or mass-energy already existed and there's no need for supernatural explanation. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:17:38 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you declare "we have lots of evidence for chance" then we have the same for design. |
We can calculate, model and observe the origin and development of snowflakes, canyons, stars, and galaxies- structures that appear complex, but merely develop from simpler forms by very natural means. We have NO models or observations of forming such structures by willpower. You're just declaring that it's possible. |
We have supercomputers, massive bridges, social networks, and skyscrapers that are very complex that have come about because of the WILL of man. Of course you are likely trying to require a materialistic explanation for a dualistic proposition and that, of course, won't happen. Luckily I am not limiting myself to materialist explanations.
How do we even know God just thought things into existence. Maybe there was actual physical work involved. Who knows? |
The Fine Tuning Argument is essentially the Intelligent Design Argument (but used to get around the sticky evolution problem).
The WILL of man has created things. But not life. One could say that an intelligent designer is required to create things such as bridges and computers but they are not the same as life itself, nor are they in anyway similar. For me at least, saying that man makes complex things shows that something else made life doesn't work.
Additionally, we run into the regression of the creator. i.e. - who created the creator that created the things? If complexity requires a creator/designer, then isn't what created the complexities complex enough to require a creator?
Assuming that your argument stands as an abductive argument, this still doesn't prove the continued existence of the designer nor does it prove the existence of God as perceived by most religions (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, etc.). As I said before, you will need further arguments beyond the fine tuning argument to prove God exists. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:24:45 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have supercomputers, massive bridges, social networks, and skyscrapers that are very complex that have come about because of the WILL of man. |
None of those are creating mass-energy from nothing. So either this is something unprecedented and your analogy is invalid or mass-energy already existed and there's no need for supernatural explanation. |
One way or the other the universe did appear from nothing so there is precedent, wouldn't you say? But you are entirely missing my point. Postulating an intelligence is rational. I know quite well you disagree that it's the correct choice. You don't need to show me that.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 14:25:47. |
|
