Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Krsqk]

I realize any analogy will be flawed, given the vast difference between human creation and the universe. This flaw is inherent to Hume's criticism as well, though. He argues that God and man must be similar since their results are similar (house~universe). The design argument (ok, at least my understanding of it) infers the infinity of God from the infinite magnitude of the difference.

[Fyron]

No, Hume does not argue that God and Man are similar. He said that the creations are entirely different, so you cannot assume anything about the creator of the universe based on the design argument, if there was one.

The "infiniteness" of God does not come from the design argument. That is taking the belief you already hold an using it as evidence to support itself. You cannot do that.

[jimbob]

Three items
1) how far can analogy go
2) how far can the 'design argument' go
3) one twinkie at a time

1) As to analogy, I *personally* see no reason why the universe cannot be compared to any other complex object, for example a car, a house, or even a twinkie for that matter. Depending on how you compare two objects (ie. the frame work of discussion) it could be invalid to compare the proverbial cat to the proverbial tree (they are both alive, they should both have hearts), or it could be valid to compare the cat to a tree (they are both alive, they must both have circulatory systems). Analogy is a sticky thing, but it is one of our most powerful tools of communication, so I'm not naturally inclined to discard it.

So my thought (apologies to Hume) is that the scale of relatednes in the case of universe vs. house is very distant, but what we demand of the objects in terms of similarity is only the characteristic of extreme complexity - not function. As such, I personally find the complexity issue to be compelling, requiring an "answer" of some sort.

2)
IF said:

At best, the design argument shows that there could be many gods, they/it are not necessarily perfect, they/it are not necessarily benevolent, and not necessarily infinite.

Personally, I agree here - that the design argument does not/should not speak to the identity of said 'designer' at all. It should be merely employed to suggest that the degree of complexity observed does not appear to be due to chance (probability). It could be a god as we think of a god, it could be aliens that have a degree of ability that we conceive as those associated with a god(s). It could be many uber-powerful entities, it could be one.

3) For the sake of keeping all the lines of discussion clear however, I think it may be useful to take on just one line of thought/thread at a time - lots of us think that the Christian God sucks eggs, but that's not a good argument for evolution! Lots of us think He's a hip dude, but that's not a good argument for design! Lots of us are agnostic (should that be capitalized?) but that's not a good argument for them both being true simultaneously!
And so I'd tend to think that the question of the robustness of evolutionary theory, the question of design and the question of the putative designers identity/characteristics are actually three separate questions, that should probably be discussed separately... more for clairity's sake than the entertainment value

night y'all, hope you take no offense, as none has been intended.

jimbob

[ December 14, 2002, 08:04: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Will]

Re: Occam's Razor

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it. Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.

On a side note, I had (and in fact, still have) a few days before I have to take finals... to pass the time, I picked up a few books that I've been meaning to read for a while.
The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul by Douglas Adams, has some nice commentary on gods
And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology". Pretty much, quit argueing so much about philosophy and just work, and you'll be happy. Sure, it's nice once in a while, but don't let it consume your life.
Good books

[Phoenix-D]

"So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid."

Therefore it's -more likely- to be invalid. Occam's Razor is useful, but it is not foolproof.

Phoenix-D

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Will:
Re: Occam's Razor

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it.

The principle as I understand it is to not introduce more complexity than is neccesary to explain a hypothesis. The difference is subtle, I will grant, but it is there. Although it's not the basis of my argument against it's use in this case.

Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way.

On this point the three of us are in total agreement. (You, me and Occam. )

It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.

Here's where I think your use of the principle fails. You have already stated you believe that the exsistnace of God to be unprovable, and by applying the razor you say the lack of proof means that God does not exsist. That seems to me to be very circular logic at best. And it also assumes that everything is "knowable" by us, an assumption which I do not accept, although I cannot refute, and which you cannot support. Only time will tell I suppose on that point.

And the issue of this thread has not been been whether or not God exsists, a point which we both agree cannot be proven or disproven here. It has been mainly "Do you really know what you think you know?". If some of the accepted assumptions that seem to support the origin of species by natural selection are incorrect it by no means proves the exsistance of a creator. But adhering to the belief in evolution regardless demonstrates the same level of faith ascribed to those that believe in the origin of species by act of creation.

Geoschmo

[ December 14, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[capnq]

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(Wish I knew who originally said that.)

Especially when you can't even get an agreement on what constitutes "evidence".