Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I've seen this argument advanced before by some people (including one of our local parish priests), but I think it's nonsense for exactly the reasons Stranger LA gives. The fact that logic can be applied to the universe is evidence of order, certainly, but the presence of order is not necessarily evidence of design. By claiming design you are imputing intent, purpose or will, solely on the grounds that there is order in the world.
The question Sarkus and I have challenged you with remains to be addressed: how is this a testable hypothesis for design? What test can you propose, from the above, that would discriminate between the presence or absence of design in nature?
To be taken seriously, you must address this directly now, with no further diversion or evasions.
"but the presence of order is not necessarily evidence of design"
Seriously!!? Do you not see that now, your statement fails the Logical Law of non-contradiction? Why don't just admit "Check-mate? Your scientific research, the tests you have been applying, the knowledge you have accumulated in Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geography, all that=evidence!!
To be a intelligent designed Universe does not necessarily lead to absolute order
Life has its limitations on where it can and can not take hold
And where life can take holds no guarantees that it will survive
Intelligent design is thoughtful but in the end , doesn't really matter
If we are in gods mind , then it is trying to understand its self , because in the end there is no rhyme or reason to what this god is doing
Of course, one of the factors that I.D proponents face is that of "suffering" and the fragility of life. I believe this throws us towards the direction of considering the issue of "good and evil" When we acknowledge the presence of these two opposing forces, it leads us to the Absolutes, the Absolute good, and the Absolute evil. Which tends to bring in the probability of existence of a deity who may have these absolutes. I.e, just as each one of us can exhibit these attributes, it can also been that this deity is capable of both. Why, its the only logical conclusion to draw, because its logic. A logically reasoning creature should be a position to recognize that evil goes to evil and good goes to good.As in lie “chicken coming home to roost” “What goes round, comes round” “the Truth will out” or “Reaping what you sow” “Having ones just deserts” “having ones Comeuppance” “, getting Chastisement” “getting ones dues” or “, just-desserts” “ getting ones rewards”, “ having retribution”, “getting a recompense”,
I do not see how you can put two apparently contradictory opinions together. As it " thoughtful but in the end , doesn't really matter" If its thoughtful it should matter. I believe it matters what this God may be doing. That is the rhyme and reason for life.
OK, now at last we are at getting at least to a position, on your part, that is understandable.
Evidently you think my statement, to the effect that design is not automatically implied by the presence of order, is logically false. Why? What is your argument? You can assert that order can only exist if there is design, but I say to you that is just a matter of subjective opinion on your part, not objective logic.
And have you a reference you can give me to this "Logical Law of non-contradiction"?
“It’s the Law of Logic” Not “Logical Law” Sorry. It’s the law of non-contradiction which states that something cannot be both true and not true. So, when you state that “presence of order is not necessarily evidence of design” you are imputing that there could be order where there is chaos. Order results from intent for order. Chaos is just random movement which is disorganized. But when you find order, there must have been an originator of this order-meaning some one interfered with disorder, and arranged an order. A deliberate, intent which was purposeful driving order into chaos, manifesting by through design.
When you agree that since logic can be applied to the universe, this is s evidence of order, then you go ahead to deny intent, and purpose(design) you have thrown away logic. And this not a subjective opinion, it’s the law of logic.
Sounds like an unwarranted assumption to me.
If the universe sprang from nothing, why could the order necessary to maintain that existence not also spring from nothing? If the order was not there in the same instant, the universe would not continue to exist, so it's very existence dictates that there must be, at that same moment, the means to maintain that existence. Thus there is no issue with such order being inherent in any universe that springs from nothing and maintains its existence.
So no, your assumption is unwarranted.
In layman's terms, perhaps. In physics it is the sensitivity of a system to initial conditions, and as such an ordered system can exhibit chaos.
As Edward Lorenz put it: "Chaos: when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."
As pointed out, I see this as an unwarranted assumption on your part.
The conclusion of any logic, no matter how valid, is only as sound as the truth of the premises.
Since one of your premises seems to be unwarranted, and certainly not demonstrably true, the conclusion you reach is unsound.
Boy. oh boy!! you and your “unwarranted assumptions! Guess this is your knee-jerk reaction to a statement that might be true, but threatens your current position. We cannot avoid making assumptions. And I do not see how the assumption “presence of order is evidence of design” is unwarranted. Logic dictates that since we are familiar with both order and disorder, and we have always seen that whenever we want order we apply design, how then can you say that the assumption of design in order is unwarranted unless you do not want to use logic?
The idea that the Universe sprang from nothing depends on whether it really “sprang” The Universe may have always existed.
There is a logic in every scientific body of knowledge we have developed about reality. Therefore most likely the reality has been manifested through scientific logic.
Premises (2) Since we develop designs and algorithms in our models of reality, the reality has been designed with algorithm.
Since we develop these designs and algorithms by will, purpose and intent, the reality has been design by will, purpose and intent.
Given that we are the originators of these models and algorithms, the reality has an origin with design, will and purpose.
Don't be silly. The statement, "The presence of order is not necessarily evidence of design" says nothing whatever about chaos.
You, I see, make the assertion that "Order results from intent for order." Says who? On what basis? What rule of logic is broken, if order simply exists in its own right?
Many people, including on some days myself, tend to think the wonderful order we observe in the physical world suggests - to us, as individuals - a creator, but this is a subjective feeling we have, no more than that.
You are on a hiding to nothing trying to make a logical "proof" that order must imply intent for order.
And, I have to reiterate once more that science deliberately refrains from speculating about such teleology, because it is untestable.
)I write slowly this reply here begins relevant to the thread above the thread above this one:
I like how this thread begins with the reader standardly perceiving of the word consciousness being relative to only human simplicity (as I do think consciousness is kinda really a definitive word of a persons "single.. privacy as a physical being. and then here above the thread changes to interest of the causmic beginnings of the beauty and realisim of the cosmic (universe).
variably words are created: since one of my harmless playful hobbies, as hobbies should be harmless includes language etymology and invention my handle on words and language is different than standard. i am bilingual in german as well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! by the way I mostly only have ardor for The Original Star Trek since childhood, such doesn't go away ..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"'cosmic consciousness as far as I'm concerned is only relevant to the cosmos which the good planet earth here is partial of,, of course bias being nonexistent in it's power ; cosmiconciousness is often referred to as a relative synonym to the word naturalaw.
to reply to the literal thread above me: in my view the word chaos is only relevant to human created consideration and problematic therefore useless to ascribe to.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As explained, if you want the conclusion to be sound, the premises need to be true, and merely assuming the truth won't cut it. This is what you are doing. Your assumptions are unwarranted in so far as we search for whatever truth is out there. You make assumptions that restrict options when no restriction need be applied. Hence it is unwarranted.
I'm not sure I can make it any clearer for you.
Logic dictates whatever it does based on the assumptions used, and the conclusion is only as truthful as the veracity of those assumptions.
While human experience is that we create order out of chaos through design, we can only ever have experience of our own place within this closed universe, and as such we can not infer the same for the creation of our universe itself. It can at best be an assumption that is simply unwarranted.
The idea exists irrespective of whether the universe really did spring from nothing or not, so there is no dependency.
But indeed, if the universe always existed, there would be no creator, no designer, so such an assumption (also unwarranted, I might add) defeats the need for a designer outright.
??? Reality has been manifested through scientific logic???
Please to clarify what you mean here.
I would say that there is a logic inherent to our experience of the universe, but without understanding what you have written I can say no more without assuming too much.
Is this intended to be a single premise? If so, why are you assuming design within the premise?
If you intend this as a premise followed by a conclusion, the conclusion is fallacious as it simply assumes that reality can not arise and exhibit naturally that which we need to design in order to model.
Same fallacy as above.
Again, assuming you are not merely presuming the conclusion, and that this is a premise followed by your conclusion, it is likewise fallacious.
I find it a peculiar case of cognitive dissonance for somebody who embraces a methodology that deconstructs reality with logic, not to impute logic as the design which has been use in the construction of reality. Order results from intent of order. Says who? Says Science!!
??? Reality has been manifested through scientific logic???
Please to clarify what you mean here.I would say that there is a logic inherent to our experience of the universe, but without understanding what you have written I can say no more without assuming too much
I mean, that scientists did not create science. It existed to be discovered, not created. Science is a feedback methodology, of understanding a system already in existence. “Science” does not create scientific laws, formula, algorithms, etc. Rather, it discovers them. They existed before discovery. So, to me, science confirms design, and therefore its in itself evidence of design.
So for millions of years there was evidence of no design.
Look at the way rivers flow and look at their tributaries. They all have a similar look. You could call this "order". There was no design other than that implied by following the laws of physics (laws of nature).
Design is not implied by anything in nature. It's mainly just implied by man made objects. Man needs algorithms when trying to approximate nature. Nature is not a computer. The closest nature comes to being a computer is through the very natural process of DNA.
I fully agree that science discovers things, but the laws, formula, algorithms are our attempt at modelling what is discovered, some of which is indeed surprisingly accurate.
But with regard the natural world, at no point does, or can, science state where or how those laws originated, other than to say "the universe appears to follow these laws" etc.
Which is why, when you claim that science confirms design, you have already assumed that laws, algorithms etc can not arise without design or without intent.
And guess what... I consider that assumption to be unwarranted.
Eh? Now you seem to be confusing the models of science, which are man-made (by applying logic to observation), with reality itself.
Perhaps it is the literary term "deconstruct" that is fooling you. This literary terminology is used by people who strike the pose of denying the existence of objective meaning in literature. Applied (inappropriately) to science, it would imply there is no objective reality to be discovered. This is a particularly silly pose for a scientist to strike, since it would render the whole enterprise subjective and thus a mere matter of opinion. (This is obviously rubbish. If the laws of mechanics were mere opinion, planes would not reliably fly. As Dawkins once said, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite.")
And even sillier for a religious believer to take such a position, I should have thought. "What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
Science does not create (or "construct") reality and no sensible scientist claims it does. (If it did, then that really would make a Creator superfluous!) Science does not create (or "construct") the observed order, it, well, observes it. Obviously.
Separate names with a comma.