The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice

[heusdens]

The answer to the "Does God exist" question from Human Practice

A. The basic question of philosophy

Man's early investigation into the world of knowledge have shown a division of philosophic schools into two main camps. Both camps can be divided at the basis of the way in which they answer the basic question of philosophy, which is the question as what substance or entity forms the basic or primary ingredient of the world without which the world would not exist. Idealism has answered this with the primacy of consciousness. Materialism has answered this with the primacy of matter. Theism on this issue relates to Idealism in that it answers that that necessary being is God. Both materialist and idealist ideologies have since their appearence in Greek philosophy (Plato - Idealism, Herodites/Democritus - Materialism) been developed greatly in the course of history. Idealism had it's greatest succes with the appearence of Hegel's philosophy (Phenomenology of Mind, Science of Logic) which has left the world the method of dialectics. Materialism had it's succes with the appearence of dialectical- and historical materialism, developed by Marx, Engels and others.
In the critique of Marx on Hegel's dialectics, the following fragment shows the reason why the objective existence of God must be denied:

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

B. Answer from human practice

An answer to the question outside of a specific historic societal context makes the question into a meaningless theoretical issue which only could raise the interest of an alienated being that exist outside of any social context and any objective reality which - as we have seen in the conclusion of the previous part - does not denote any real and objective being. Man's answer to the basic question of philosophy should therefore have to be found within and at the basis of the reality of human society itself at this stage of development of mankind.

1. Man´s early history

The historic account of man´s early development, in which man himself was struggling with the forces of nature and the struggle for survival, has shown that man´s early history and alongside the use of primitive tools, various forms of nature religions were developed. Man, no longer ape and at the start of a long historic human development had questioned the origin of the forces that governed and determined his existence, and of which man was entirely dependend. Religion was an early form of expressing such basic questions about reality in which Spirit or God was the provisional anwer. Cultural and social develpment of mankind shaped these primitive nature religions into other forms, which gave rise to the foundation of modern religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and others.

2. Man´s development into a scientific world outlook

The formation of man´s intelligent reasoning power, based on man´s biological evolution, enabled man to ask questions, man could not yet answer. The technical and scientific qualities of mankind were at that point in history far too limited to answer the questions man could ask himself about the world of nature, life, and human society.
The provisional answer man came up in the form of God -Spirit - Creator was not an actual filling of the answer to those question, but only an emphasis of the big How and Why questions. The actual development of a scientific outlook on nature provided various ways to make use of the forces of nature to fulfill man's real needs, has lead to an actual restating and practical filling of the questions man asked himself based on practical needs leading to new questions and new scientific investigations.

3. Man´s actual practicing of knowledge in society

Based on the development man already has no endpoint of man´s development can be conceived of. The historic account of man´s development into the modern society that practices science and utilizes knowledge allows us to state that man and his society has shifted the role of religion to that of materialism and science which has become the essential and exceptionally fruitfull part of the development of society and mankind.
That is the way in which human history, society and practice itself has provided the answer to the questions (the Big Why and How's) man had asked himself in which the knowledge man has developed about the forces of nature has lead to the development of various practical applications to that knowledge to fulfill man's real needs.

 

[Netme]

Man kind will never be not objective. Basic understanding of our existential laws can prove that. For something to exist in our being it must be created by some other form of being. And since nothing can just appear think back to the first life forms ever created. Question such as who created it and why or what started the process cannot be denied. A higher form of being cannot be denied because of this. If we were non objective all these questions about our existence would already be known. I have nothing against Man's actual practicing of knowledge in society.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
Man kind will never be not objective. Basic understanding of our existential laws can prove that. For something to exist in our being it must be created by some other form of being. And since nothing can just appear think back to the first life forms ever created. Question such as who created it and why or what started the process cannot be denied. A higher form of being cannot be denied because of this. If we were non objective all these questions about our existence would already be known. I have nothing against Man's actual practicing of knowledge in society.

Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

The universe, life and consciousness do not come from nothing, but were transformation from previous material forms.

A higher being should be denied, given the fact that it can not have any objective existence (see argument A).

 

[Royce]

Marx was a paranoid schizophernic having a life long psychotic episode. Reminds me of the author of Revelations.

I agree that God is not an objective being. This is news?
God is a spiritual being that transcends objectiveity, created and creates the objective world and nature of himself, of his power. God is nature and nature is of God as is objectivity, just as we are of God and God of us.

God is the ultimate and true reality and his work, the material universe is the illusion. It is real and it exists; but, in respect to true reality it is an illusion. All who believe that only the material world exists and nothing else is real place their belief and existence in illusion and delusion. They then call theist deluded and believers in illusion.

If materialism is based on the works of Karl Marx, no wonder I have such a hard time with it. Talk about crackpots and not have any touch with reality. I find it incredable that anybody with any sense at all would give any credencs to Karl Marx in this day and age. Even Marvel Comics wouldn't touch him because he was too far out in left field thet he lost all touch with reality.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by heusdens
Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

You've got me confused. Why would we be getting more objective? Even the meaning of "objective" has been created by ourselves! Computers cannot be objective because we invented them...

We cannot find any objective laws of nature because we get the information through our senses... a being with different senses would probably get other information...

"Objective" is impossible.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
Marx was a paranoid schizophernic having a life long psychotic episode. Reminds me of the author of Revelations.

Do you really think so?

I agree that God is not an objective being. This is news?
God is a spiritual being that transcends objectiveity, created and creates the objective world and nature of himself, of his power. God is nature and nature is of God as is objectivity, just as we are of God and God of us.

God is the ultimate and true reality and his work, the material universe is the illusion. It is real and it exists; but, in respect to true reality it is an illusion. All who believe that only the material world exists and nothing else is real place their belief and existence in illusion and delusion. They then call theist deluded and believers in illusion.

It takes some alienated from of consciousness to say that an imagined being is the ultimate reality, and the material world is the illusion.

We live in a social reality. God is just a hypothetical being, without having objective existence. It is a projection of human consciousness on the material world itself.

If materialism is based on the works of Karl Marx, no wonder I have such a hard time with it. Talk about crackpots and not have any touch with reality. I find it incredable that anybody with any sense at all would give any credencs to Karl Marx in this day and age. Even Marvel Comics wouldn't touch him because he was too far out in left field thet he lost all touch with reality.

Materialism was alread a philosophical outlook that existed long before Marx. He only enriched it with historical materialism and (together with Friedrich Engels) dialectical-materialism.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tail
You've got me confused. Why would we be getting more objective? Even the meaning of "objective" has been created by ourselves! Computers cannot be objective because we invented them...

We cannot find any objective laws of nature because we get the information through our senses... a being with different senses would probably get other information...

"Objective" is impossible.

We are not limited by our own senses, since we can make every possible device for measuring things which we ourselves can not sense.

In that way I think your argument is senseless.

Devices are not subjective.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens
Mankind will indeed never arive at absolute objectivity or absolute knowledge. But we do progress in that way.

The universe, life and consciousness do not come from nothing, but were transformation from previous material forms.

A higher being should be denied, given the fact that it can not have any objective existence (see argument A).

You even say it yourself that mankind will never arive at absolute knowledge. Why do you think that is?

Even if we were transformations from a previous material form, what started the previous form? Once again your theory could only be explained by the forms just apppeared or just started from nothing.

This is why i believe a higher power is in existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
You even say it yourself that mankind will never arive at absolute knowledge. Why do you think that is?

That is because there is an infinite amount of things to know.
We can not predict with infinite precission the weather. Even when the weather process is a deterministic process in itself, we can not at any given moment know all the factors that are responsible for the weather phenomena. Etc.

Even if we were transformations from a previous material form, what started the previous form? Once again your theory could only be explained by the forms just apppeared or just started from nothing.

This is why i believe a higher power is in existence.

Wrong. A nothing is not a begin of anyting. There was always something instead of nothing. All of existence could not have started from nothing, which simply means that all of existence was already there, in some or other form.

Your escape into deities, is not and can not be an answer, since the same problem that is connected to the issue this deity needs to solve, is also connected to this deity itself: what started this deity? A higher deity? Etc.

All of existence already includes any existing deities that might exist. But how can a deity start all of existence if that a deity is already part of all of existence? Something can not start itself.

The only solution is therefore that all of existence has been there forever, in one form or another.

Since we only know about material existence, physical entities that exist, and it is acknowledged that matter/energy are conserved quantities, it follows that the physical universe has been there always in one or other form.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by heusdens
We are not limited by our own senses, since we can make every possible device for measuring things which we ourselves can not sense.

In that way I think your argument is senseless.

Devices are not subjective.

1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.

2. Reality might be an illusion you're having.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tail
Reality might be an illusion you're having.

Maybe for you, not for me.

 

[Lrdmora]

The box is human made not the existence.

Twenty years from now a manned spaceship lands on Mars, walking out of the spaceship they notice something in the distance. They go over and see what looks like a computer. It has a harddrive, ram, cables, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. They turn it on and it works, the operating system is a varient of Unix. They sit in stunned silence for a while and then one man turns to the other and says, "Wow, think of the thousands of years it took to evolve!" If you were in that situation would you think that someone was there before you and left the computer? Or would you think that it just evolved?

The point is this, human beings are incredibly more complex than computers, one look at DNA is enough to convince anyone of that, and our operating system is incredible with very few people statistically having errors. The computer has evolved but not by itself, we made the changes. As we learn more or find new technologies we incorporate them into the computer.

Now humans may have created Gods through history giving them human attributes and character flaws, but that does not rule out the existence of a higher power. I have a firm belief that we were designed. Believing this does not mean that I have to believe in heaven and hell, or Jesus, Mohhamad, Budda, reincarnation or anything else. As a matter of fact B. Franklin was a confirmed deist as many of Americas founding fathers, scientists, and philosophers were.

I look at the deep field pictures from hubble, and cannot believe that it is all here by chance.

It is true that we mould our environment to our senses but that does not mean that the universal laws are not true. I believe for the most part that common sense holds the key, if you go to Mars and there is a computer there, common sense says that someone somewhere put it there. The more complex a solution to a problem the more ways for it to go wrong.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by heusdens
Maybe for you, not for me.

Prove it?

You cannot. Nobody can. And you cannot know either... you can just believe the age-old "I think therefore I am"...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tail
Prove it?

You cannot. Nobody can. And you cannot know either... you can just believe the age-old "I think therefore I am"...

Has it ever occurred to you that you would need a proof?

I mean, what reason do you have for doubt?

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by Lrdmora
Twenty years from now a manned spaceship lands on Mars, walking out of the spaceship they notice something in the distance. They go over and see what looks like a computer. It has a harddrive, ram, cables, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. They turn it on and it works, the operating system is a varient of Unix. They sit in stunned silence for a while and then one man turns to the other and says, "Wow, think of the thousands of years it took to evolve!" If you were in that situation would you think that someone was there before you and left the computer? Or would you think that it just evolved?

The point is this, human beings are incredibly more complex than computers, one look at DNA is enough to convince anyone of that, and our operating system is incredible with very few people statistically having errors. The computer has evolved but not by itself, we made the changes. As we learn more or find new technologies we incorporate them into the computer.

Now humans may have created Gods through history giving them human attributes and character flaws, but that does not rule out the existence of a higher power. I have a firm belief that we were designed. Believing this does not mean that I have to believe in heaven and hell, or Jesus, Mohhamad, Budda, reincarnation or anything else. As a matter of fact B. Franklin was a confirmed deist as many of Americas founding fathers, scientists, and philosophers were.

I look at the deep field pictures from hubble, and cannot believe that it is all here by chance.

It is true that we mould our environment to our senses but that does not mean that the universal laws are not true. I believe for the most part that common sense holds the key, if you go to Mars and there is a computer there, common sense says that someone somewhere put it there. The more complex a solution to a problem the more ways for it to go wrong.

Basically a smarter version of what I've been trying to say.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by heusdens


That is because there is an infinite amount of things to know.
We can not predict with infinite precission the weather. Even when the weather process is a deterministic process in itself, we can not at any given moment know all the factors that are responsible for the weather phenomena. Etc.



Wrong. A nothing is not a begin of anyting. There was always something instead of nothing. All of existence could not have started from nothing, which simply means that all of existence was already there, in some or other form.

Your escape into deities, is not and can not be an answer, since the same problem that is connected to the issue this deity needs to solve, is also connected to this deity itself: what started this deity? A higher deity? Etc.

All of existence already includes any existing deities that might exist. But how can a deity start all of existence if that a deity is already part of all of existence? Something can not start itself.

The only solution is therefore that all of existence has been there forever, in one form or another.

Since we only know about material existence, physical entities that exist, and it is acknowledged that matter/energy are conserved quantities, it follows that the physical universe has been there always in one or other form. [/B]

Once again you cannot answer my question.. How can existence just already be there? The reason why you cannot answer this is because there are no answers. Its much like a trick question that you must answer correctly in order to prove your theory is true. The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by heusdens
Has it ever occurred to you that you would need a proof?

I mean, what reason do you have for doubt?

Doubting everything is why there are always great truths in science - and why they always are different from those before.

 

[FZ+]

The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?


Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Netme
The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by FZ+
And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?


Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator? If you were to create a computer you would have to design certain rules for how it would operate(exist) but you would not have to operate by those same rules yourself. But how you choose to make your computer operate must be able to function using the general rules of physics. So we are not at a dead end by theorizing a higher power. The more we know about our physics the more we will know how our creator functions.

 

[Lrdmora]

Originally posted by FZ+



Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence.

Does a computer know that it has a purpose? Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one. After all would you argue with me if I said that a star has a purpose? There are many things in science that we do not understand, but I have yet to her a scientist say that just because we don't understand it, it has no purpose. So I find your argument invalid, it would be more accurate to say that humans have not found their purpose.

Originally posted by FZ+

By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)

Originally posted by FZ+

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existence of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.

Originally posted by FZ+

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".

Remember that the more exotic the theory to explain something, the more areas there are for flaws. Common sense and simplicity are the cornerstones of good thinking.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?

How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable. That statement in it's self is absurd and self contradictory. If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable. Either way they no longe have any point to make in any discussion of theism vs objectivism.

 

[FZ+]

If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator?

What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

I am not saying that to say a god exists in "wrong", by this idea, but it is no proof. It is simply a transferral of the assumption that something can exist without or intuiative laws from one entity to another.

Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one.

That is precisely true, and that's why you are wrong in trying to use this as a reason for the belief in god. What you are attempting to say is that A is true because you don't know if A is true or false. This is of course an incorrect argument. What you have achieve is a production of possibility - a self-consistent argument indeed, but one without that crucial link to what we know. You see, I did not say humans do not have a purpose - I said that we cannot know it. And hence the design argument fails to get started.

You cannot begin an argument on the unknown, only recognise the indeterminacy. Do you see?

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.

But such a rocket scientist world be wrong. For the normal you speak of is not the same as perfection. If all the world's men were struck down with disease, then corpses would be the norm, but hardly perfection. If we keep a child in isolation all it's life, we would have one "pure" from influences, but also abnormal and imperfect. If we cast the range of our survey back fifty years, a hundred years, a millennia, we will not find a "norm" that people settle to, but a moving average that you can only find as you go along. Which is perfection?

Perfection is a judgement on values, on what the observer holds dear. His child may, for example, be "perfect". But it does not make sense to talk of universal perfection, of few errors, if you have not established that an universal, known purpose exists.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)

You miss the point. To say that a designer exists both presumes on the existence of God and implies the existence of God. What you said about the computer, and all, pivot precisely on this point. And I am saying that drawing anything from what is effective a circular argument is inconclusive. It is a consistent belief system, but only a belief system. (also, much proof does exist for the big bang, but thanks for the flattery.)

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existence of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.

... Fallen into my carefully rigged trap, I see.

What is intelligence? Can you prove that anyone other than yourself is intelligent? Can you prove to me that you are intelligent, and not an engine listing set statements? You cannot, except through the exhibition of communication. In reality, our sole concept of intelligence is that of a relative thing, of something behaving in a way that is similar to us. We do not consider the rest of animal kind intelligent because they don't look like us, and don't talk like us. This says nothing about that which is universally special, but of the egotistical element of the human brain, and the judgement of all others relative to itself.

And free will? What free will?
In each moment, you are constrained by both the hardware of your brain, and by the software of your memory only through which the past, and thus the present has meaning. Can you show any freedom in there, and make it truly different from say the freedom of an electron in it's charge cloud?

When was the last time I saw chance arguing for a higher power? Probably when I read your post.

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.

It isn't? *Flexes QM fingers*

The funny thing is, all of this, the storms, the snowflake, where does it come from? The Sun. More specifically, the fusion reactions inside it.

If we measure the sun, we find an interesting fact - the particles in the Sun do not have ENOUGH ENERGY to fuse. If we plot the known potential well for it, it seems the sun should be dark, and we should be dead. The gap is in the thing called quantum tunnelling. At certain times, the particles have a probability to borrow energy that let's them fuse, or do whatever. And this process is entirely random. Not just unpredictable, but utterly acausal and random (Royce, does that make hydrogen god? ) So we come to the conclusion that the driving force behind the entire universe is random action! And that includes the weather, stars, and petty things like brains.

But there's more. Do you know about chaos theory? Chaos theory says that the actual structure of the universe, though determinist, shows precisely the element of ordered randomness that we call chance. By chaotic rules, order is something that naturally comes out of chaos, and chaos is something that derives from order. And this takes me to the classic example, the electrical storm. Though the forces on the storm are, effectively random, and you can never predict for any length of time the behaviour of the storm, we notice that still it follows trends. This is because the chaos still follows laws, and the randomness still puts itself into the same quality of behaviour. Even though your inputs are almost completely random, you can tell what a lightning bolt would effectively be shaped like a lightning bolt.
What makes these electrical storms interesting is that they in fact form a close analogy of the flow of ions and currents in the human brain. Order from chaos.

That is the real way randomness acts in the real world - a combination of absolute randomness from Quantum Uncertainty, and the determinist chaos that creates.. well... everything.

If your perceive chance as something that only destroys, that cannot create new ordered system, then very little of such chance exists. You don't actually know what chance is.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".

Einstein's God was Spinoza's god. A god that is simply a manifestation of his belief in the inherent order and sensibleness of the universe. His real mistake was to believe that common sense and simplicity are good foundations for thinking, instead of realising that the only foundations are what we can see. He did not realize how the dice do exist, but are more beautiful than he imagined.


Never underestimate "chance".

Royce:

Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?

Yes, but that is not god.


EDIT: Wow... what a long post...

It is highly recommended NOT to quote it when replying.

 

[Lrdmora]

Good!

You've brought a smile to my face and made me crack up! (especialy that bit about common sense and simplicity) I am being serious not sarcastic! Give me a while and I will reply.



By the way don't mistake conjecture for proof! There was plenty of proof that the Earth was flat too!

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause?

Not the one I attended. It followed a lot of heavy drinking and pill swallowing.

If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?
How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.

It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.

I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?

… If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable...

I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by FZ+
What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

Everything in our universe follows exestential rule. Nothing can be formed without something to form it. Nothing can just appear or dissapear. What do you mean by why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself?
The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence . I am saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer. In this situation we would be the higher power and the computer our creation. Wouldnt you say that a computer has a kind of mind? Some might say but a computer does not have free will. what is free will?
Even today we have computer programs able to choose which operations would be most beneficial as to what the desired solution is. Again some may say that the computer is programed to act that way and cannot make decisions on its own. What if the computer were programed to randomly choose which operation it would take whether it be beneficial or not. Wouldnt that be free will? Our free will is nothing more than a choice of action from a list of possible actions.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

None of these things come about by chance. They come about via the principle laws of physics. And can only come about when certain "preconditions" are met. This, I would hardly call chance.

 

[FZ+]

Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!

Netme:

The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence .

I've tried, but I was never able to "delete" my monitor, or run it through a virus checker.
Observe here the severe difference between that which is the medium on which in information (objects) is written, and the information within.

Im saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer.

I am saying that unlike the software, the computer has a CPU, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a floppy drive... I am saying that by the same justification you used to give your God exemption from existential laws, I can give the fabric of the universe the same powers.

As for the free will thing, wasn't that exactly what I suggested to defeat the idea of the specialness of mankind?

 

[Lrdmora]

To FZ+

1. It is very possible that you have me on the QM because I do not know that much about Quantum Mechanics. (I will look into it a little closer thanks to you!) I do have one point here though, just because it is random, or chance for you my friend, doesn't mean it can't be designed. Dice are random and get more random with the amount of dice or sides, but I am pretty sure that they are designed and sold. Vegas would go out of business without them. I could be wrong but I think that you can engineer chance.

2. I never said that humans were perfect, what I said was there are very few operating system errors (statistically). Windows OS is not perfect yet I can still tell when it has the BSOD! (Bill Gates may fit the definition of a blind parent who thinks his creation is perfect, but he is the only one!) So if I can tell when my computer has errors I must be able to tell when it is operating nominally (Maybe that is a better word than norm).

3. I don't follow you completely on the purpose paragraph, but as far as I can tell just because you cannot tell you have purpose (indeterminacy) does not mean there is no design. A computer couldn't tell you its purpose, it is still designed. Besides all indeterminacy means is that it can go either way, sort of like schroders (I didn't spell that right did I?) cat, you will never know until you open the box, but opening the box destroys the experiment. I am more than willing to say that it could go either way, design or chance, but I believe in design. That is not to say if I found absolute proof either way that I would not change my mind. Besides believing in design is not the same as believing in "God".


4. Your statement on intelligence I will leave alone because it is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard. Mumbo Jumbo, Ivory tower intellecualism, and of course impossible to argue against because it actually means nothing. Prove that a bean isn't intelligent, wait! How can you know it isn't intelligent? You are using your subjective reality to classify it, maybe, in its own beany way it is as intelligent as you or I. I doubt I will be seeing beans flying to the moon anytime soon. But, that is your argument, such as it is.

5. The Big Bang. I happen to believe in the Big Bang but do not think that it has been proven yet. Red shift and background cosmic radiation are good starts and I think it has been argued effectivly but not neccessarily proven. Regardless of the media one way or the other. When I said that most people "Magically" believe in the Big
Bang just like most people "Magically" believe in God, this is true. If absolute proof was issued tomorrow that God does not exist and neither does the Big Bang, a majority of people on both sides would still believe.

6. Your bit about common sense and simplicity made me smile, I doubt many people would see it your way. But gave me a chuckle, after all we are all entitled to our opinions, at least in free countries.

I guess the conclusion is this, most people believe what they believe and they shape their world according to their beliefs. You believe everything is chance, and can find plenty of examples to champion that, I believe that there is a design and can find examples of it everywhere I look. It does not look like anyone can prove or disprove either theory with absolutness so the argument will continue. But that is life. Such as it is.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!

Bye bye the laws of physics too? ... Bye bye the PhysicsForums.Com? ... Bye bye FZ+? ... Bye Bye Iacchus32? ... Bye bye an "objective reality?" ... Bye bye the "materialist philosophy?" ... Bye bye the whole physical universe? ... Now let me know when to stop?

I think all this does is indicate that there is nothing but the design element involved. While you materialists keep saying you can't have a cause without an effect, so what's that got to do with chance? Are you now saying that you don't believe in predeterminism?

Or, is it entirely possible that free will and determinism are correlative? Meaning, you can't have freedom without the "potential" for slavery.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.

I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?

I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existence of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.

There is no misunderstanding on my part that I’m aware of. You provided your thinking clearly enough when you said;

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.

Perhaps you missed the reason for my original post, because there is a difference between pointing out to Netme that his/her thinking had a hole in it, and making a claim for the validity of some other assertion.

 

[Royce]

BH, I was replying to both your post and FZ+ post. You both seemed to be using the first cause or uncaused cause argument. This has been bouncing around in my head for some time. It is an invalid argument in my opinion despite the fact that it has been around for hundreds of years. I think it is piontless for either 'side' to bring up and you were right to call netme on it.
In light of BB models and QM it makes it even more pointless as both 'sides' can point to spontainious, random, uncaused events which prove nothing except that they do happen.

Zero, I was going to tell you to try to keep up but I see that that too would apply to me as well. now your saying that the universe doesn't exist either?

All I can say is ;"Nevermind" ala Rosanna Rosanna Danna.

 

[FZ+]

1. It is very possible that you have me on the QM because I do not know that much about Quantum Mechanics. (I will look into it a little closer thanks to you!) I do have one point here though, just because it is random, or chance for you my friend, doesn't mean it can't be designed. Dice are random and get more random with the amount of dice or sides, but I am pretty sure that they are designed and sold. Vegas would go out of business without them. I could be wrong but I think that you can engineer chance.

Good to infect another person with the craziness that is QM. Yes, it's true that randomness can be designed. Maybe, at least, though how is waaay outside my imagination. But just to point out that random processes can indeed generate apparent order, and dare I say it, beauty.

2. I never said that humans were perfect, what I said was there are very few operating system errors (statistically). Windows OS is not perfect yet I can still tell when it has the BSOD! (Bill Gates may fit the definition of a blind parent who thinks his creation is perfect, but he is the only one!) So if I can tell when my computer has errors I must be able to tell when it is operating nominally (Maybe that is a better word than norm).

I am saying it from the other way round. I am saying that it is impossible to make a statement on whether there are errors or not, until you have established a constant, absolute scale of normalcy. Ie. everything we do can be an error from perfection which we call madness. Ever heard of the idea of the "divine fool"? What I am advocating is that we are neither one or the other - we just are, and normal etc are subjective things we apply.

3. I don't follow you completely on the purpose paragraph, but as far as I can tell just because you cannot tell you have purpose (indeterminacy) does not mean there is no design.

Ok, let's curtail my linguistic brilliance. Sacre bleu!
What I mean is that we don't know.

I do waffle a bit, don't I?

4. Your statement on intelligence I will leave alone because it is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard. Mumbo Jumbo, Ivory tower intellecualism, and of course impossible to argue against because it actually means nothing. Prove that a bean isn't intelligent, wait! How can you know it isn't intelligent? You are using your subjective reality to classify it, maybe, in its own beany way it is as intelligent as you or I. I doubt I will be seeing beans flying to the moon anytime soon. But, that is your argument, such as it is.

Heh. Hey, I thought I was making an intellectualist statement on the state of the whole intelligence/free will debate! Honestly...

Brief summary: It is far from settled if intelligence exists objectively, or that free will even exists. In any case, I believe what I see points to the idea that life, intelligence et al are special to us, but not special to the universe, and that free will, if it exists, may simply be the same as a flood of unpredictability in the position and momentum of a single electron. We only find it special, because we are it.

5. The Big Bang. I happen to believe in the Big Bang but do not think that it has been proven yet. Red shift and background cosmic radiation are good starts and I think it has been argued effectivly but not neccessarily proven.

It all rests on what you mean by neccessarily proven, of course. By many definitions of such proven, such proof does not exist except in the case of tautologies. (Ie. if 1 +1 = 2, then 1 + 1 = 2)

If absolute proof was issued tomorrow that God does not exist and neither does the Big Bang, a majority of people on both sides would still believe.

My personal opinion is to run away from that shouting "absolute proof does not exist!" But you may be right.

6. Your bit about common sense and simplicity made me smile, I doubt many people would see it your way. But gave me a chuckle, after all we are all entitled to our opinions, at least in free countries.

Wait till you read on QM... hehehe...

I guess the conclusion is this, most people believe what they believe and they shape their world according to their beliefs.

Very true. In fact, I said that myself some long long time ago... (I'll fetch the copyright yet!)

Iachuss:

I think all this does is indicate that there is nothing but the design element involved.

Er no... What this means is that there is nothing but the determinism involved (except that is probably also a fat lie considering QM) Read my argument again for why you cannot straightforwardly convert determinism to design.

And my actual point is that you cheated by defining as non-chance everything that follows physical laws, thus simultaneous making you entire use of design, chance etc utterly meaningless. You can no longer use design to prove pre-determinism in that way because you have changed the idea of design.

Perhaps you might now return to the idea of chance as systems co-inciding on certain modes of behaviour without a specific intention to do so? Then actually what you said actually means something?

Let's go through this again. Determinism says that things follow by a string of causes and effect.

Design says things follow by a string of causes and effect with a PURPOSE.

Can you spot the difference between the two?

Or, is it entirely possible that free will and determinism are correlative?

You really haven't been reading my posts, have you?

Determinism says that free will is just slavery dressed up in a neat wrapper, clouded by chaotic unpredictability.

Pseudodeterminism says that rules exist which are not absolute, allowing free will and uncertainty to possibly slip in somewhere.

Non-determinism says that everything is due to the interaction of "free wills", and nothing is real, all is made by perception.

Royce:

I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

Ah I see. Yes, that's what I said as well - that the first cause is not an argument but a passing of responsibility. Sorry for misunderstanding.

In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

Though excuse my comment that a materialist first cause is easier to study, and if neccessary, disprove.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.

Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by heusdens

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tail
1. Devices are human-made. Anything made by humans is subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Appearently not, since they do not just exist in our imagination, but exist in real material forms.

You're missing the point. The proof is rather simple here. All knowledge we have about the world, we acquire through our senses. Sensual knowledge is subjective knowledge. Therefore, all of our knowledge is subjective. The fact that subjective knowledge across a wide range of people is consistent merely suggests an underlying, objective existence, but this objective world cannot be verified, for the same reasons that God cannot be verified. Logically, it is simply impossible to know for sure whether or not an objective world of the nature you describe exists or not.

The fact that we can build devices to detect information beyond our senses (infra red radiation for instance) does not bypass this argument. If you make infra red detecting goggles, the goggles detect information invisible to your senses, and then transform it into information your senses can detect. All knowledge necessarily must pass through the subjective filter of the perceiver; all knowledge is subjective.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existence of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?

LOl. Well if it were really here Zero, you would definitely miss it.

 

[Fliption]

As far as the first cause discussion goes, I find it all very silly. To make any conclusions either way on this line of discussion seems premature and a bit ridiculous. Cause and effect is dependent on the existence of time. Time. The thing that no one truly understands the exact nature of. A dimension that very well could be an illusion according to the cover story of Scientific American.

Debating on first cause just seems presumptious and like a waste of time to me.

FZ

As for the rest of the discussion I have a question for FZ. FZ, are you seriously saying that you can think of no object that, even though you did not know its purpose, you still would think that some being designed it? Forget the computer example. What if you were on Mars and saw another contraption? A contraption that looked like it was a compilation of parts, made of metal, enclosed in a smooth square case? You seriously would say that chance did this?

I would think the rational person's thought would go something like this:

1. I have no idea what this is. It's possible that these things just arranged themselves in this way by chance.

2. But this case is a perfect square made of metal. Because I have never seen nature actually do this, I know that the odds of this are rare.

3. I suspect someone built this for some reason

4. Now I just need to figure out why they built it. I wonder what it does?


I understand that odds don't prove anything. But I don't think they should be ignored either. I think in our mode of inquiry about nature, the odds just might tell us something. They just might influence the direction of our research.

I was under the impression that we do this in archeology and history for sure. I'm thinking there are "structures" that we claim were built by man even though we aren't sure why they were built or what they were used for. It seems part of the reason for this, is that we can tell when something looks "unnatural" or unlikely to have been done by chance.

I don't understand why this wouldn't apply in this case too. ?

 

[FZ+]

2. But this case is a perfect square made of metal. Because I have never seen nature actually do this, I know that the odds of this are rare.

But I don't think it is right.

A baby wakes up. He looks at a rock say, and he says I have never seen nature do this, so the odds are rare. And therefore concludes the rock was designed.

In effect, you are using limited knowledge to make a judgement on odds as something you consider objective.

But look at it this way, there is another conclusion that can be made from this.

This is a single case, and so it can just be an anomaly. A case of luck.

Or, if multiple cases are found, it can be concluded that:

See, the odds of it occurring by chance aren't that small after all, as the phenomenon has repeated naturally several time.

You see, the way we pick one of these is based on our subjective feelings. ie. it's a lot easier to talk about a piece of metal since it reflects our human society. Instead, if you find a piece of wood a queer shape, though it may be true that this shape is unlikely to be repeated, your mental connection of wood and nature disturbs this line of thought.

Our sense of the "unnatural" is in the material sense based on what we experienced, and so is not capable as a judge, especially when we claim a non-human designer. It is almost reliable in the case of structures (almost as cases such as finding faces in mountains, or things like Giants Causeway) because we understand the psychology of mankind, and assume that the designers are human and share our ways of action, and thought.

So all in all, I am saying it is impossible to make such objective judgements of design with our subjective perception.

Hence, back to the box. I seriously would say I don't know, and that chance may or may not have done this. It is up to other evidence, such as context etc to establish if such a designer exists, and hence if the object is designed or just a lucky fluke.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Netme
Once again you cannot answer my question.. How can existence just already be there? The reason why you cannot answer this is because there are no answers. Its much like a trick question that you must answer correctly in order to prove your theory is true. The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

Existence is there, cause if it wasn't there already, it would never come about, and it obviously has.

But please read this text of Hegel, it will probably explain some more on this:

"Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

§ 170

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

§ 171

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.[/color]

§ 172

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

§ 173

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

§ 174

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

§ 175

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth."[/color]

Hegel: Science of Logic

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You're missing the point. The proof is rather simple here. All knowledge we have about the world, we acquire through our senses. Sensual knowledge is subjective knowledge. Therefore, all of our knowledge is subjective. The fact that subjective knowledge across a wide range of people is consistent merely suggests an underlying, objective existence, but this objective world cannot be verified, for the same reasons that God cannot be verified. Logically, it is simply impossible to know for sure whether or not an objective world of the nature you describe exists or not.

The fact that we can build devices to detect information beyond our senses (infra red radiation for instance) does not bypass this argument. If you make infra red detecting goggles, the goggles detect information invisible to your senses, and then transform it into information your senses can detect. All knowledge necessarily must pass through the subjective filter of the perceiver; all knowledge is subjective.

Do you assume then in last instance that no objective world exists or has to exist?

Or in other words, are you arguing here for the position of Solipsism?

Want a rebutal of Solipsism?

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

Originally posted by megashawn
Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own?

No, I'm saying just the opposite! I'm saying that unless we can acknowledge things for ourselves, and "truly know," through the faculty of being conscious -- the very thing which "defines" existence itself -- and I don't mean science -- then that's all we would be capable of doing, repeating what someone else has told us. I would recommend reading Zero's thread for a little more clarity on this.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+

A baby wakes up. He looks at a rock say, and he says I have never seen nature do this, so the odds are rare. And therefore concludes the rock was designed.

This is like claiming that a properly done statistical study has no more credibility than another study with a sample of one. Or better yet, a sample of zero because a baby knows practically nothing. I do understand the point was to show that we have limited knowledge that may be comparable to an infant in the scheme of things. But if this is your argument then how do we "know" anything? All our knowledge comes from subjective experience. How many experiments does it take to make a theory credible? This is a bit of a stretch given the specific example that I proposed.

In effect, you are using limited knowledge to make a judgement on odds as something you consider objective.

I understand this. But you have 2 choices: 1) actually use your experience to leave open the possibility for research into many explanations or 2)ignore your experiences no matter how absurd it may appear to do so and just assume "chance did it" and move on to the next question.

I don't think anyone does number 2; especially not science. Number 2 only comes up when the "design" topic comes up.

But look at it this way, there is another conclusion that can be made from this.

Or, if multiple cases are found, it can be concluded that:

See, the odds of it occurring by chance aren't that small after all, as the phenomenon has repeated naturally several time.

In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there.

You see, the way we pick one of these is based on our subjective feelings. ie. it's a lot easier to talk about a piece of metal since it reflects our human society. Instead, if you find a piece of wood a queer shape, though it may be true that this shape is unlikely to be repeated, your mental connection of wood and nature disturbs this line of thought.

Well, I remember actually using wood in an example in another thread similar to this one. What if you were walking in the woods and saw little sticks of wood on the ground forming the shape of a perfect circle. You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks. (And I don't think anyone really believes that you would actually think that.)

So all in all, I am saying it is impossible to make such objective judgements of design with our subjective perception.

Just so you're clear, I agree with what you're saying. But if you read this quote above you'll see that your statement applies to everything. We can't arrive at objective judgements on anything no matter what we do. All information is subjective. Surely you won't deny that we use our experience from studies/experiments to gain an understanding of nature? Just as I asked above...How many experiments does it take for a theory to become credible? Likewise, how old does a human have to be to claim that a circle of sticks is not natural? or that a rock is not designed? It's a judgement call, but we do it all the time. We have to, because it is all we can do. But no one will put an infant in charge of the laboratory.

Hence, back to the box. I seriously would say I don't know, and that chance may or may not have done this. It is up to other evidence, such as context etc to establish if such a designer exists, and hence if the object is designed or just a lucky fluke.

I love the phrase "I don't know". And I agree with it's use in this case. Don't misunderstand me. I agree that odds cannot be used to conclude anything. My only point is that based on your experience, the odds of such an occurance ought to influence the options for investigation into the object.

 

[FZ+]

But if this is your argument then how do we "know" anything? All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.

True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way. I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.

Remember the quote? "When an eminent scientist says something is possible, he is usually correct. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."

In the case of the Mars object, this is more reasonable, this particular argument is more credible, as there is indeed a lot of Mars we don't know. The point is in effect you are making a judgement from lack of knowledge, which paradoxically requires that you already know how much of "everything" you know, which you can't. And deciding instead that this is just another "natural" thing you don't know is very constructive, and is in fact used in science.

In my example there wasn't multiple instances; there was only one. And yes it could be luck but that's the whole point. You have to weigh the odds of luck against the more likely scenario(in this case) that someone put it there

My point is that seen from a different direction, this is a no win situation. On one hand, we judge that this even is statistically insignificant, and so can be simply a fluke and on the other we consider it to be statistically significant, but then just representing a gap in knowledge.

Tackling this case, it is indeed inevitable that unlikely and new things do happen, as the category of things we consider low odds is very broad, and we don't have any specific thing we are looking for. We could make a judgement on odds if we had a set criteria that this matched, but in such cases we observe that there is an infinite number of things that have low but existent probability, and recognise that some of them, against all odds will happen. In effect, what I am saying is that if we look at this case in isolation, it is unusual. But if we consider this as one of a multitude of possibilities that we would have considered unusual if it occured, then the significant disappears.

The analogy is that of the dropped pen. The chance is near zero that a specific position results. But the probability is almost 1 when we consider all the possible positions with a probability of near zero.

You are saying that you would assume they fell out of the tree forming a perfect circle by chance simply because you don't know why someone would build a circle with sticks.

No. The trouble is not quite in the making, but in the observing. I am saying that you can almost guess reliably this case because you noticed it, and can assume that it was made by a human who notices it too. If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant. You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.

We can't arrive at objective judgements on anything no matter what we do.

True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approaches objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.
In effect, we are making a value judgement, and saying that this value judgement reflects an objective component of the universe. We need something to let us make this leap.

How many experiments does it take for a theory to become credible?

One difference is that science relies on alternatives, and so relative truth values. Another is the lack of objective ways of testing. Finally, unlike an experiment, the concept of universal design relies on verifying the existence of outside the standard, which is not possible until the standard can be truly quantified.

What it means is instead "how many experiments does it take for an event to become INcredible?" And that, depending on your initial stance to the question, is either 1, or infinite.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
True, but I am saying that in this case we are making a judgement as to something nature CAN'T do. To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature, and so we can make statistics that way.

Do you believe that I can levitate things? I would suspect you don't believe this at all. Why? Because you have never experienced anyone doing it? Now let me quote you your own words... "To do so, we need to make an assumption that we have experienced more or less all of nature..."

So according to this we can never claim anything is impossible. While this may be true theoretically, it doesn't stop you from believing that I am full of crap about my ability to levitate does it?

I agree with most everything you're saying but, regardless of the problems you point out, we do this type of reasoning anyway. In this thread, you're applying a very strict set of rules to a very complicated world. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise you end up with extreme positions like not questioning my ability to levitate. If judgement is not used in applying these rules then you're bound to miss some things. I'll give an example below.

I am saying that this is not very credible as an assumption, since obviously this metal object presents something new to us, and so instead of running with the assumption, we can alternatively consider it as disproving the assumption.

I'm not sure I like the way you've worded this. You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption and have limited their conclusions. In this case, let me tell you what I would do (and what I think you would probably do too). If I were on Mars and I saw this, I might find it interesting enough to stay on Mars a few extra days. In that time, because I suspect someone built this and placed it here, I might start looking in the area for more signs of things that don't appear to be random constructions. I may find a village 2 miles away full of life.

The other view has simply put the object in the spaceship and gone back to earth, hoping that studying this object will help explain how errosion on Mars creates perfectly square metal boxes. Any assumption has the potential to lead you astray from the correct conclusion.

Remember the quote? "When an eminent scientist says something is possible, he is usually correct. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."

Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?

And deciding instead that this is just another "natural" thing you don't know is very constructive, and is in fact used in science.

Lol, I hear you, but I still don't believe you'd do what you're saying in this case.

But if we consider this as one of a multitude of possibilities that we would have considered unusual if it occured, then the significant disappears.

The analogy is that of the dropped pen. The chance is near zero that a specific position results. But the probability is almost 1 when we consider all the possible positions with a probability of near zero.

The difference in my point is that I am not asking the question "what are the odds of this happening?". Because as you say the odds of anyone event will be very small considering all the other possibilities. The question I am asking is "what are the odds of a specific event compared to the odds of those other possibiltiies?" In your pen example, while the probability of any position is almost zero, that probability is not any lower than any other arrangement. An analogy I've used before is to imagine you have a crate full of automobile parts for one automobile. If you shake this crate up and dump it out, what are the odds that the parts will come out in any specific arrangement? Almost zero, as you said. But compare the odds of that with the odds of the parts coming our assembled in such a way that sticking a key in the ignition makes the engine crank? Impossible. I'm sure you can see the difference.

If you had never encountered a circle in your life, you would consider this (still unlikely thing) to be deeply insignificant.

This is an assumption and I disagree with it. This really goes back to my first question to you. Would you really think that an object was created by chance just because you didn't know what it was? I wouldn't, necessarily. And I personally don't believe you would either. If I saw a circle of sticks, I would be drawn to it, ESPECIALLY in the case where I had never seen a circle before! Because it would appear even more non-random in that case.

It appears you are thinking that I am claiming something is unnatural because it resembles something I "KNOW" to be unnatural. But that's not what I'm claiming. Thats the just the nature of the example that I'm using which are designed to use familiar objects to show the asurdiity of your position in the extremes. I am saying that a thing that I am completely unfamiliar with can stick out if it displays characteristics that appear symmetrical and non-random. Yes I know that humans create square metal boxes but that doesn't change the fact that the odds of nature creating a perfect metal square box randomly is almost impossible compared to it being some other non-symmetrical shape which is close to 100%.

You would never guess, for example, that a scar on a piece of wood was made by a wolf on purpose, unless you have a keen knowledge of the behaviour of wolves. In this case, you must be empathising with the creator to a way, and this relies on the assumption that you can. Which rapidly falls as we talk about non-human intelligences.

Correct, I would never guess that a scar is a designed thing because there is nothing statistically signficant about scars on wood. Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished. Which just gets back to my point about designed things being distinguished from naturally occurring things.

True! We can only say that our subjective knowledge approaches objective truth. But Design (in capitals), and some other ideas are inherently absolute concepts, where we presume them to be outside human experience. And as we cannot say whether purpose can be absolute, there is no way to test the subjective knowledge objectively to say that it approaches objective truth.
In effect, we are making a value judgement, and saying that this value judgement reflects an objective component of the universe. We need something to let us make this leap.

I have no problem with this. I just don't think that our inabiltiy to know something necessarily means it isn't true.

Also, I will point out that I have nothing to say about Design (with a capital D). That isn't a necessary theory in the example I proposed. The issue with Design ought to be as you descibed it in the quote above and should have nothing to do with ignoring odds. Because as you can see that position affects decisions in areas that CAN be tested.

What it means is instead "how many experiments does it take for an event to become INcredible?" And that, depending on your initial stance to the question, is either 1, or infinite.

I didn't understand the point of this piece.

 

[FZ+]

Because you have never experienced anyone doing it?

No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.

Meanwhile, if we discuss something like the universe, it is very clear that we don't know everything about it, and so can't make a judgement on particular odds.

You have made it look like someone who suspects that an object is designed is making an assumption while the person who assumes "chance did it" is not making any assumptions and is open to all explanations. I think both sides are making an assumption.

True. Sorry I made it appear the wrong way. But chance can be very interesting as well, as every scientist tells you. And you can't quite wander about outside the universe looking for a village. Context is the key here.

The other view has simply put the object in the spaceship and gone back to earth, hoping that studying this object will help explain how errosion on Mars creates perfectly square metal boxes.

Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.

Can I use this quote on Zero when he consistently says that Magic is non-existent?

Heh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.

The difference in my point is that I am not asking the question "what are the odds of this happening?". Because as you say the odds of anyone event will be very small considering all the other possibilities. The question I am asking is "what are the odds of a specific event compared to the odds of those other possibiltiies?" In your pen example, while the probability of any position is almost zero, that probability is not any lower than any other arrangement. An analogy I've used before is to imagine you have a crate full of automobile parts for one automobile. If you shake this crate up and dump it out, what are the odds that the parts will come out in any specific arrangement? Almost zero, as you said. But compare the odds of that with the odds of the parts coming our assembled in such a way that sticking a key in the ignition makes the engine crank? Impossible. I'm sure you can see the difference.

But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will achieve what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.
When looking at the metal object, saying "what are the probabilities of this particular shape occurring by chance " isn't really relevant, as it is not just this shape that will do it for you. What you instead examine is "what are the probability that at any position on Mars I have covered, at any time, there would be one object which I would find unusual." On such a set of criteria, including the probabilities are exceptionally higher.

To look at the pen, you may then proceed to look at the angle of the pen, and say hey! This angle precisely co-incides with the direction to the nearby supermarket. In a way, we are all such significance junkies.

If I saw a circle of sticks, I would be drawn to it, ESPECIALLY in the case where I had never seen a circle before!

I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness. There is a certain man in America who insists that words are written on the inside of stones, if only he could understand them.
The fact remains that each day you see things that you never see before, and you have no real way to call them random, or not. Nothing is ever the same (or sometimes it is, but only with very low probability). The only way you judge it is based on your context, and your experience - and to make such a judgement on something on a macro scale, you need to have an understanding of such criteria on the macro scale, or justify the assumption that what you find significant is in fact universally so.

But that's not what I'm claiming. I am saying that a thing that I am completely unfamiliar with can stick out if it displays characteristics that appear symmetrical and non-random.

Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales. The thing is all of this is deterministic chaos - the idea that what we perceive as order is often a natural product of chance. Indeed, the signs show that what we consider as order may be caused by the natural chance made things around us, so what we consider as unnatural is entirely arbitary. (I for one dispute that a distinct nature even exists.)
I know from experience that it is far hard to produce real randomness than create a "beautiful" pattern. We underestimate chance constantly.
(The alternative to that is this is all design of great complexity in motion. That is self-consistent, but I don't really see the evidence. It's no disproof but you expect with design a single trend which items tend towards as an equilibrium. You almost never see that.)

Wood has all kinds of incidental scars, which btw is a reason to suggest that a scar on a piece of wood would not be useful to a wolf anyway unless the designed scar could be distinguished.

And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.

Also, it's blisteringly hard to talk about statistical significance when we only have one universe to compare.

I have no problem with this. I just don't think that our inabiltiy to know something necessarily means it isn't true.

Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.

I didn't understand the point of this piece.

The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
No because you gave me some indications that you are more or less human, and I have some experience as to what humans do/are like. Of course, it is still possible that you can levitate things. But not, if you are human, very likely.

Meanwhile, if we discuss something like the universe, it is very clear that we don't know everything about it, and so can't make a judgement on particular odds.

It's odd that you make a distinction between humans and the universe. I don't see the distinction when it comes to disproving something about humans. If you do not know everything about the universe then how can you possibly make a statement of certainty about anything that evolves in it?

Or to look around the planet to find the natural source of it. Don't make it sound *that* boring.

LOL. Didn't mean to demean the view. I just picked an action that would demonstrate the wrong conclusion being made with the "chance" assumption.

Heh. Sure. Just note it doesn't quite mean everything is right though, just that we aren't completely, 100% sure.

Agreed

But you see the difference here is that you are looking for something specific. Only one configuration will achieve what you desire, as a case of subjective purpose. But in the case of looking for design, this isn't true.

If I found the automobile parts assembled in a way that would allow the engine to crank, that WOULD be an indication of design. There is no distinction in my view. Also, the engine cranking is not representative of a subjective purpose. It is a real physical property of that particular arrangement. Whether it has useful functions or has any known purpose is not necessary to accept the reality of the odds and investigate accordingly.

When looking at the metal object, saying "what are the probabilities of this particular shape occurring by chance " isn't really relevant, as it is not just this shape that will do it for you. What you instead examine is "what are the probability that at any position on Mars I have covered, at any time, there would be one object which I would find unusual." On such a set of criteria, including the probabilities are exceptionally higher.

To look at the pen, you may then proceed to look at the angle of the pen, and say hey! This angle precisely co-incides with the direction to the nearby supermarket. In a way, we are all such significance junkies.

You're saying that whether or not something is statistically significant depends on the question that is asked I believe. You're right. The first question you mentioned could not be answered. "What is the probability of X?" does not provide enough information to have an answer. You would need to do as you did and put some boundaries around the question. Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars. But this doesn't change the comparison of that probability to the probability of the other options using the same question. This is the method I am suggesting should be used. Regardless of the question, the comparison of the probability of the alternatives should show similar results.

I disagree wildly (yeah! wildly! *flails arms*) on this point, as you just don't have a measure of randomness.

Just so you're clear, I believe that I would notice the circle not ONLY because I have not seen a circle before. I agree I see new stuff all the time and don't think a thing of it. But I would notice the circle because it is a symmetric, unnatural shape based on my vast experience of walking into woods and seeing sticks on the ground. If I see trees growing in a straight line I conclude that someone planted them. I know you do this too. This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.

Now we go all the way back to the snowflakes. Do you agree that snowflakes are, as far as we know, the products of chance? The fact is that we know that symmetrical or whatever pattern do arise out of chance, with order from disorder. What are the chances of a spherical planet? 1. Cubular crystals do result from some atomic structures. Plant growth shows the fibonacci number. Population fluctuation shows self-similarity across scales.

I understand these things. But in these cases our experience would tell us that symmetry is random. As opposed to a square metal box with assembled, moving parts. That is why I said I would look for "symmetrical AND non-random". All of these examples of yours are the same as the pen example. Yes, snowflakes are symmetrical but a symmetrical snowflake is not statistically significant. The odds of a snowflake taking on one shape is no less than the odds of it taking any other.

But I know what you're saying. You're making an argument that symmetry happens by chance in some things so it would be hasty to conclude design in other lesser known things(like strange objects on Mars). I agree with you completely. I'm not suggesting that any assumption be made. I am suggesting exactly the opposite. Investigate all possibilities.

I know from experience that it is far hard to produce real randomness than create a "beautiful" pattern. We underestimate chance constantly.

(The alternative to that is this is all design of great complexity in motion. That is self-consistent, but I don't really see the evidence. It's no disproof but you expect with design a single trend which items tend towards as an equilibrium. You almost never see that.)

I appreciate these comments. They seem to be more intuitive and personal in nature. I would be interested in trying to understand your views on what you see as trends versus what you would expect to see. But this thread probably isn't the place for it. I'm not interested in debating that with you. I'm more interested in just learning about others perspectives.

And yet it can only be distinguished with the subjective knowledge of the wolf. Hence I think it suggests against an universal quality of design, but on which is subjective to each person.

If a single wolf with a single subjective perspective can distinguish it's designed scar from a non-designed scar than there must be an objective difference. The subjectivity lies in knowledge of purpose. Not the distinction itself, IMHO.

Also, it's blisteringly hard to talk about statistical significance when we only have one universe to compare.

LOL, True. But I don't distinguish the universe from the things in it. They are all part of the same thing. But it is a good point nonetheless.

Then I think you get my point already. the point is that the design argument isn't so much a proof than a statement as to what a believer believes. That is the fatal flaw in using it as an argument for the existence, or non-existence of God.

Yes, I get your point. But design (with a little d) may have nothing to do with a non-testable god.

The fact remains that each day you see things that you never see before, and you have no real way to call them random, or not. Nothing is ever the same (or sometimes it is, but only with very low probability). The only way you judge it is based on your context, and your experience - and to make such a judgement on something on a macro scale, you need to have an understanding of such criteria on the macro scale, or justify the assumption that what you find significant is in fact universally so.

I agree. I think context and experience is the only way this can be done. And these things have limits. But I'm not going to pretend that we don't already do this now. Only it appears they are selectively applied.

But I think you are I are not so far apart on this.

The point is that if you already have a second idea in which you believe in, then you can put this on as a reason for the switch. But if you have no reason for the second theory, you can only see it as a need to amend the first.

Uuuummmmm. ok.

 

[FZ+]

If you do not know everything about the universe then how can you possibly make a statement of certainty about anything that evolves in it?

Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things.

Note that I am not saying that there is anything universally special about humanity. With my cold, cruel world view, mankind represents a pattern of existence, significant only to ourselves via our system of definition. Ain't I nasty?

If I found the automobile parts assembled in a way that would allow the engine to crank, that WOULD be an indication of design.

But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design? Ie. we can raise the issue of design in the car because we have a purpose we considered. But if the purpose we wish of the engine was different eg. to fall down in a particularly ludicrous way (like the purposes of Skodas for example , then any number of configurations would be an indication of design.

Yes, the probability of finding this object on Mars would be higher then finding it on only a "section' of Mars.

But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant. There is no one uniform absolute scale on which we can consider such odds when recognising design - unless if by presuming absolute purpose we make such one exist. It's like an old puzzle - what is the length of a coastline. At first sight, it appears simple, but it appears that as you increase in accuracy, using smaller and smaller rulers, you don't settle down but arrive towards an infinite length.
The second part of the problem is again referring to the lack of specification of the question. When you are asking for design, you aren't looking for one object, but any object which appears to have a design. Would you then shrug when you walk past a triangular metal block? Or a circular one? Or etc etc... On this level, there is no non-arbitary way for you to define apparent design - except in terms of subjective feeling, instinct or experience.

This does not need to be based on knowing that people plant trees in straight lines. It can also be concluded solely because we've never seen trees grow in straight lines by themselves.

I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice.

I guess I am proposing a relativist concept of purpose. Ie. only relevant when we have a particular perspective.


I'd let to bump another idea, since we more or less know where we agree or disagree. (Or maybe you disagree with that?)
Attached to this is the concept of makership... Ie. how do you distinguish X as man made, or chance made? How far does the influence lead?

For example, it can be possible to say that almost everything is manmade, for from each of our actions we create a tide of influence, affecting one thing, which affects another etc, which brings the whole Earth into the position it is. (presuming some sort of determinance, of course) How do you draw the line?

I tend towards the answer that than man is a manifestation of chance, and so things that are man made or things that are chance made, only by a different branch of chance. Sort of. What do you think?

<Insert flames here>

 

[heusdens]

All our knowledge comes from subjective experience.

Untrue. Our knowledge comes from objective experience, from our relation with objective reality.

Our minds know nothing by themselves.