Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

Hmm.  Okay, I see that it is a logical fallacy to go straight from point A to point B there.

[Glowcat]

So what happens when you see an arrangement that is incredibly unlikely that non-conscious forces would produce, but you don't know of any conscious actor who could do it?  Say, finding a giant stone obelisk on the moon.

When I said humans I was simplifying from any conscious tool-using entity. If I didn't know any natural process that could create the obelisk then the more likely answer would be an unknown tool-user similar to humans.

As CrownOfFire is saying, there are many non-artificial objects of great complexity all round us, and yet we don't confuse between the non-artificial and the artificial based upon that complexity. That we could even have an argument about design requires a distinction between the artificial and natural: a distinction which would become nonsense if this entire universe was designed.

[Urist is dead tome]

This thread has become a lot more philosophical since Shrugging Khan left.

[ECrownofFire]

Hmm.  Okay, I see that it is a logical fallacy to go straight from point A to point B there.

Yeah, the argument is oddly worded, because it assumes that the argument is true. It says "A is complex because it is designed", but when you're attempting to prove it, you have to reverse it into "A is designed because it is complex". In other words, you have to prove that something complex must be designed before you say that X is designed because it is complex.

It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these

[Sowelu]

This thread has become a lot more philosophical since Shrugging Khan left.

I know, isn't it nice?

And I think I have a full understanding of that counter-argument, now.  I will fully cede the Watchmaker argument.

I wanted very much to say that the Mandelbrot set *can* be argued to be designed, not on the basis of complexity, but instead on the basis of beauty.  But I think the correct response is that its beauty was only created in the eyes of its observers; there wasn't anything special about it until we put it up into a picture, rasterized it.  So I kinda scored an 'own goal', there...

It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these

I think I missed where you stated your beliefs; could you summarize or link?  I'm curious.

[Urist is dead tome]

And I just really can't get over how nice this thread has become!

But anyway. I really like the watch maker argument. What do ya know. I learned something.

[Leafsnail]

I wanted very much to say that the Mandelbrot set *can* be argued to be designed, not on the basis of complexity, but instead on the basis of beauty.  But I think the correct response is that its beauty was only created in the eyes of its observers; there wasn't anything special about it until we put it up into a picture, rasterized it.  So I kinda scored an 'own goal', there...

Well, yeah, and we're gonna find the things in our environment "beautiful" or we wouldn't even have the concept in the first place.

And the total non sequitur (my maths teacher would call it "Assuming what you're trying to prove") stands, whatever quality or objects you're using.

[ECrownofFire]

It's really fun being in a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design, because of arguments like these

I think I missed where you stated your beliefs; could you summarize or link?  I'm curious.

I don't think I have stated my beliefs before, so what kind of beliefs would you like to know? In general though, I prefer to keep most of my beliefs to myself (as religion should be), but I'm fine with sharing several things, depending on what they are.

[Sowelu]

Well, you said a theistic position that doesn't use intelligent design.  Does that mean your belief system uses a god or gods that exist, but which did not create the universe, or are perhaps themselves part of a natural creation?  What's their role, are they in any way connected to human existence?

[Il Palazzo]

I think he means Spinoza's god:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F

[Glowcat]

I think he means Spinoza's god:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F

Or maybe Einstein's Naturalistic Pantheism.

[Il Palazzo]

Which is the same:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

[Glowcat]

Which is the same:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

I seem to recall another quote from Einstein wherein which he clarified that what he believed in was not quite the same as Spinoza, although it was very similar. I pulled the following from Wikiquote:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. - From a letter to Murray W. Gross, 26 April 1947

[Il Palazzo]

My hat's off to you.

[Leafsnail]

That seems to be getting onto "A being that explains nothing except its own existence", though.