News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Please Object to my Argument

Started by jsprouse, September 06, 2011, 08:29:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: jsprouse on September 07, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
I guess what I am trying to say, in very general terms, is that complex order seems to indicate intelligence.

Not necessarily. We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Asmodean

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 07:44:49 AM
We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
That proverbial box of gears has been shaken for quite enough time to fall into a clock, but all it often takes is one random act at the beginning of a process and then it just carries on on its ripple effect. Can think of it as a system of chain reactions.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Tank

Quote from: jsprouse on September 07, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
Quote from: Davin on September 06, 2011, 11:05:31 PM
The biggest problems I see witht he tornado argument:

Living things are not buildings.
Buildings do not reproduce.
Living things do not require tornados to reproduce.

I don't disagree with any of those statements :)

I guess what I am trying to say, in very general terms, is that complex order seems to indicate intelligence.

And there you have the problem 'seems to indicate'. It's the evolved propensity of humans to see patterns or objects where they really don't exist. For example:

The Medawar Lecture 2001 Knowledge for vision: vision for knowledge



There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.

Consider the question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well the falling tree does create pressure waves, but it's only a human ear/mind combination that hears a 'sound', as 'sound' is an abstract human concept. The same applies with, for example, the human eye. The eye has structure but it is human interpretation of that structure that implies design.

Can you provide a definition of design that does not require a designer? You have to be able to do this so that 'designed' can be differentiated from something 'non-designed'.

Does that help?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2011, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 07:44:49 AM
We could be the result or product of a random universe and never know it.
That proverbial box of gears has been shaken for quite enough time to fall into a clock, but all it often takes is one random act at the beginning of a process and then it just carries on on its ripple effect. Can think of it as a system of chain reactions.

I wouldn't use the clock analogy, since those are 'irreducibly complex' and have to have certain parts arranged in a certain order so that it could function as a clock. Rather, the universe self organises based on rules (which we don't know if were designed)  and that we and every other complex arrangement are the result of those simple rules interacting with eachother based on intrinsic physical properties.

Without being able to tell what a universe which isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Asmodean

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 05:04:24 PM
Without being able to tell what a universe which isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe. 
The third option would of course be that the universe designs itself.

The box of gears metaphor is a poor one, but my further explanation hints at this third possibility. Let us say a particle is created. The "first" particle. At the same instant, the rules governing this particle are created (in the sense that it behaves in a way we define as rules) The next particle is created and there is a relation between the two. A relation created together with the second particle

(This is just an illustrative example, meant to demonstrate that the rules which govern something do not necessarilly have to preceed or succeed that something, but can be a part of that something's makeup, thus allowing that something to arrange and define itself without a master-designer, yet in an ordered fashion)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

xSilverPhinx

#20
Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2011, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 07, 2011, 05:04:24 PM
Without being able to tell what a universe which isn't designed looks like, or finding a designers, there's really no way of knowing whether we're the product of a universe or the goal of a universe.  
The third option would of course be that the universe designs itself.

The box of gears metaphor is a poor one, but my further explanation hints at this third possibility. Let us say a particle is created. The "first" particle. At the same instant, the rules governing this particle are created (in the sense that it behaves in a way we define as rules) The next particle is created and there is a relation between the two. A relation created together with the second particle

(This is just an illustrative example, meant to demonstrate that the rules which govern something do not necessarilly have to preceed or succeed that something, but can be a part of that something's makeup, thus allowing that something to arrange and define itself without a master-designer, yet in an ordered fashion)

You have a point, and it's yet another 'intelligence' that would need to be differentiated from the theistic idea of creative intelligence.

Jsprouse, just the appearance of intelligent design doesn't mean that it is intelligently designed in the way that we, as intelligent beings, design things. I think one of the toughest problems you run into with this problem is that it isn't able to show that the theistic or deistic version is necessarily the correct one.

*Edited to correct typo.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


The Magic Pudding

#21
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM

There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.

No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.


Davin

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM

There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.

No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.


That's my face...  :'(
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: Davin on September 07, 2011, 06:24:49 PM
That's my face...  :'(
[/quote]

Ah you frown Davin but your face has been delivered to us from the ass of the non existent dalmatian.
Command as you will, but please note I have a weak choke response.

Will

I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

xSilverPhinx

I don't see a demon, I see Rorschach from the Watchmen movie...
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


DeterminedJuliet

"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Sweetdeath

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on September 07, 2011, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 07, 2011, 10:39:51 AM

There is no dog in that picture. Your mind has interpreted those blobs and 'found' a dog that does not exist.

No my mind has not, I see the Demon you refuse to acknowledge, repent while you still can.



Great, it's 3am, and that just freakin scared me! ;__; *huddles under covers*
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

Gawen

#28
Quote from: jsprouse

Premise 1: The complex order in the universe is either random or is designed for a purpose.
Cosmological Argument...also know as the First Cause Argument and goes something along the lines of:
Everything in nature has been created and nothing can create itself. Everything that exists around us has a cause. Nothing causes itself to come into existence. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes so the universe must have had a first cause, so there must be a creator.
Simply put, the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence.

If you follow the argument and one believes God exists, and that all things which exist were created, then God must have been created, right? Wrong, say the theist. God is exempt from being created because he always 'was'. Yet this falls into the dilemma of infinite regress (who created whatever created God, ad infinitum). Still, you will hear "God was not created, the bible tells us he is eternal", but the statement completely misses the point. If God was not created, then one can believe something can exist without having been created and that means the initial premise "everything that exists has been created" is not true and a contradiction.

So why is the Christian first cause exempt from needing a cause? Or in other words, why should the creator be exempt from needing a creator? Enter Thomas Aquinas and his Uncaused Cause Argument otherwise known as the argument from contingency:  A contingent being can either exist or not exist. You can be dead or alive and it will not significantly change the state of the universe. Contingent beings have a cause for their existence and that cause cannot be itself or other contingent beings. Basically, you did not cause yourself to exist. And this leads us back to the infinite regress dilemma...unless....there is a necessary, non-contingent being! This being is necessary because nothing would exist without it AND the being itself is uncaused because contingent beings cannot be their own cause.

The first problem with Aquinas' contingency argument is it is not self-evident or true that if most of the universe's inhabitants are contingent, the universe itself must be as well. This is known as the fallacy of composition: assuming that if the parts of something have a certain quality, the whole of it must have the same quality as well. Example: a stone house might be made up of large stones, but that does not mean the house itself is large. We do not know, in the traditional sense of the words if the universe had a beginning or will have an end.

The second problem follows the first: the law of conservation of mass states that "matter cannot be created or destroyed". If Aquinas' knew about that law, would he have still written the assertion that our universe is contingent?

The third problem follows the second. Is an uncaused cause only attributable to a god (Aquinas's god to be sure), or might there be other possibilities?

Aquinas' over imagination of this "ultimate" being is extremely questionable. He denies that there should be an infinite regress of contingent beings, yet he argues for an infinite god. He claims that contingent beings cannot be their own cause, but then states that God is his own cause and necessary. What makes him so sure that a god would be a necessary, uncaused cause?

This brings us to the "Why something exists rather than nothing" sub-argument, but by asserting God as an answer, it only begs the question of why there should be a god rather than nothing. What if it is just a brute, unthinking fact that the universe exists and no explanation is necessary? With so many alternative possibilities, the "The complex order in the universe is designed for a purpose" argument is no more persuasive than Pascal's Wager.

The next problem is 'time'. Because causality only makes sense in the context of time, it is fruitless to postulate a first cause that occurred before the creation or before the Big Bang, as it implies that the event took place outside of time. But what is even the basis for believing that everything (except God) has a cause? Research Quantum Mechanics.

Time Paradox
(Definitions simplified)
God is defined as The Conscious First Cause (per Acquinas)
The First Cause is That which caused Time.
Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
Time is the measure of change.

Premises:
Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:
Time is required for Change.
A Decision is a Change.
Decisions require Time.
Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
Consciousness requires Time.
God is Conscious.
God requires Time.
God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
God isn't the cause of Time.
God isn't The First Cause.
If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
God doesn't exist.


Enter Kalaam Cosmological Argument. This is basically the same as the original but specifically includes a second premise which denies the existence of an actual infinite. It fails just as well because the KCA proponents wish to eliminate the possible objections of an infinite universe or an infinite regress of causes and it is asserted that since we cannot fully conceive of infinity, there must not be such a thing.

The Cosmological Argument is another presuppositional argument. One must presuppose a god and that the universe is the work of that god. It also questions the possibility that the universe could be infinite and has no beginning (non-temporal), but if this is accepted then it questions the issue of a temporal beginning of the universe. However, some theists who accept a non-temporal theory still believe that the universe needs to be sustained by something and as far as they are concerned it is sustained by a/their God and would not be here if God did not exist. This point was argued by Aquinas' in his 'First Way'.

That brings us to what the role of God is after the world has been created. It can be argued that God could be the first cause either as creation out-of-nothing ('ex nihilo' = Genesis 1-2) or a form of theistic evolution (God as the cause of the Big Band and/or evolution). However, the 'law of conservation of energy' (the amount of energy in the universe must remain constant in order for there to be 'laws of nature') means that God could not be continually putting energy into the universe and THAT questions God's activity in the universe and THEN questions of the use of miracles within the laws of nature.

And the last problem I'll deal with (because I'm tired of typing) deals superficially with deism - God as the first cause may only be the first cause and is not the causing or causes. Basically, after setting the Universe (or first cause) in motion God withdraws and merely observes. But if this is so what reason is there for believing in God and practicing religion today?
Even if God is still around the CA has not solved the further issue of which God actually created the world. Of course, this latter point may only be solved on the basis of special woowoo revelation, which is outside the boundary of the Cosmological Argument.


*Edited twice...frackin typos*






The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

Sweetdeath

As per usual, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.