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

Krsqk · #1 December 15th, 2002, 01:48 AM

Fyron: I think some of the miscommunication comes from what I read of Hume's arguments. Of course, I just picked the first link I found.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I accept that any analogy is an imperfect representation; but since there is no perfect analogy, we have to use what there is. Otherwise, we have to throw out any philosophy built on analogy. I also agree that the design argument doesn't prove the identity, number, or purpose of the designer.

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.

Further arguments about evil in the world do not contradict the design argument. They fit into the "Since there's design, who designed it?" debates.

I'm sure I had more to say, but I can't remember without checking the thread again.

Krsqk · #2 December 15th, 2002, 01:53 AM

Quote:

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".

Oh, yeah. Voltaire should have spent a little less of his life philosophizing, then.

"Now that I've said all I'd like to say, then I have just one Last thing to say before you answer me: Let's all just go home and catch some ZZZs, and get a real job in the morning."

[ December 14, 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Suicide Junkie · #3 December 15th, 2002, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.

The precise definition of "naturally" needs to be nailed down, I think.

I read "naturally" to be "without outside help".

Krsqk · #4 December 15th, 2002, 01:58 AM

I think it comes down to whether scientific laws are evidence of design or evidence that of an ordered world. Obviously both sides can be argued, since those laws by definition mean we have an ordered world; the question is, do they point to anything more.

That's my interpretation of "natural order."

Fyron · #5 December 15th, 2002, 03:34 AM

No, they do not. Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

Suicide Junkie · #6 December 15th, 2002, 03:36 AM

The quote wasn't "natural order", but "naturally produces order"...

Which to me says "life does quite a bit of work on its own towards creating an ordered world"

Quote:

(the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

As far as we know, of course. Which is still pretty darn far: on the order of 10 billion years.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Krsqk · #7 December 15th, 2002, 05:54 AM

"Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect."

Which, again, is based on your pre-determined worldview. A creationist would say that those forces were created along with everything else. My point was that the "order in nature without outside intervention" argument fits both sides equally well.