Evidence against Design?

[tonyrey]

Incidentally, I can’t find the word metascience in any dictionary. I guess you mean metaphysics but confused it thinking about science. If you meant something else, could you link a definition.

Scientific evidence just means empirical evidence, and empirical evidence just means a reason for believing something is or isn’t true based on what is actually observed rather than on theory. It’s that simple, it doesn’t rely on any highfalutin metaphysics or anything else, which is why it makes great evidence.

**

Metascience: An International Review Journal for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, New Series, vol. 1, edited by Michael Shortland. Sydney: Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, 1991. Pp. viii + 169.

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2942492**

There’s no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects metaphysics and doesn’t even know what metascience is…

 

[tonyrey]

And as I have to keep repeating, Jesus doesn’t say anything about Design, so Design can have nothing at all to do with Christ.

I never said anything about God, I said try telling someone starving to death about Providence, another concoction not found in scripture.

He says that in a different chapter, yes, but what’s it got to do with the thread?

Hallelujah we got there in the end.

OK, let’s continue on our systematic way. Having agreed that 99.999999% of the universe is the product of blind forces we can move on to the remaining 0.000001%, Earth. To begin, do you claim that any geography, geology or meteorology is not the product of blind forces?

More usual groupings might be such as testimonial, documentary/demonstrative and anecdotal evidence but what the hay. I’m not sure how there can be historical, moral, social, psychological or personal evidence for Design, or even what some of them might mean, could you give an example of each?

Metascience/metaphysics is worthless here, since those guys never agree on anything, they can’t even decide its name . Aesthetics is very weak – “I think it looks prettier in pink” isn’t much of a case. Religion is surely out of court, since there’s nothing in scripture or any creed about Design. God creates Creation, hence the name, He doesn’t design Designion. Creation and design are very different.

There’s no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects Design and Providence:

The Christian use of the term Providence, besides being profoundly influenced by Greek and Roman thought, is based on the Old Testament story of the patriarch Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac, which is found in the book of Genesis. Abraham tells Isaac, “God will provide himself with a young beast for a sacrifice, my son.” The Hebrew language lacks a proper word to express the notion of Providence, but the concept is well known in the Old Testament. (See Christianity.) In the New Testament the word pronoia and related words are used rarely, but in no case are they used in the later Christian sense of Providence. This is of interest because the idea of Providence as such is far from foreign to the religious thinking of the New Testament. In the Gospel According to Matthew, for example, Jesus says: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. But even the hairs of your head are numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Providence as used in Christianity is thus a dogmatic term rather than a biblical term; it indicates that God not only created the world but also governs it and cares for its welfare. A well-known German reference work, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (“Religion in History and the Present”), gives a more elaborate and more theological definition of Providence: God keeps the world in existence by his care, he rules and leads the world and mankind deliberately according to his purpose, and he does this in his omnipotence as God the Creator, in his goodness and love as revealed by his son Jesus Christ, and to further the salvation of mankind through the Holy Spirit.

www-bcf.usc.edu/~sbriggs/Britannica/providence.htm

 

[tonyrey]

That’s not an example, it’s just a statement! Do you not understand what an example is?

Your reference to “everyone” makes it clear that you are showboating again. Nevertheless, I don’t refute the statement. But remember I asked for examples not assertions; when you provide some of the former I might have comment.

I state again that I may well not dispute them, but I just cannot think of any. Your aggression and condescension is unnecessary.

I’ve never claimed that it is. I just claim that I know of no other reliable form. Again, you try to poison the well, why do you never just answer the question? Why do you make so many statements that you can’t, or won’t, substantiate? Presumably you do realise that the argument from tedious repetition doesn’t equate to truth?

I’ll ignore the snarky faux-philosophical rhetoric and wait for your examples. It would have been a lot simpler if you’d just provided them when I asked for them back in post#72!

(although, if you can find a single statement of mine where I’ve made a truth claim without substanting it, I’ll gladly oblige now or retract the statement.)

It’s not worth attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who constantly resorts to invective and rejects true metaphysical propositions as examples of metaphysical evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

Your reasoning is not scientific but metascientific! Science is restricted to what can be observed by the senses. You are also presupposing the validity of reason in every statement you make.

Astrology and alchemy are examples of pseudoscience not metaphysics. They are not concerned with the validity of reason or the intelligibility of the universe.

 

[da_nolo]

Saying “what already had been designed” is your opinion. There’s no evidence that any phenomena were designed (whatever that might mean), and as time started at the big bang there was no time beforehand in which they could have been designed anyway!

I said that they already existed. then man observed them and saw repetition - deciding it must pertain to ‘law’.

A constant that does not pertain to or is not influence by human thought and language.

As for time, it is a human concept to depict a moving forward, a passing of sorts. it is as unique w/ every thing w/in the universe. perhaps it is finite. however, for all things that are, were before humans. that which exist after ‘big bang’ is influenced by exact things to which affect all that which existed before ‘big bang’.

that is what I spoke of before. ‘law’. a constant that is infinite. logic in mathematics, chaos, etc.

If you are confused, just ask.

If you look up “law of nature” you’ll find definitions such as “a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present”. They are descriptions of phenomena, not the phenomena themselves.

You might have a point if there were no such things as earthquakes, hurricanes and suffering, but as it stands the presence of disorder in the world indicates either that it wasn’t designed or that the design was incompetent, take your pick.

chaos is not incompetent, and takes order for it to exist. otherwise there would never had been a big bang or what ever occurred. that which you list are neutral. what cause suffering is loss, a byproduct. what is loss, however? materials are replaced over time and lives may be rejoiced even during sadness.

if it were not for the tectonic plates, moving. we’d most likely be all in one land. though of great distance, plague would still spread through out the world causing even more harm. There are also some doubts towards what resources may have been gathered from the earth as the movements shift levels underground, often creating ores.

embrace the pain, and we may learn in it, adapt.

 

[tonyrey]

Though the term Providence is applied to God only three times in Scripture (Ecclesiastes 5:5; Wisdom 14:3; Judith 9:5), and once to Wisdom (Wisdom 6:17),** the general doctrine** of Providence is consistently taught throughout both the Old and New Testaments. God not only implants in the nature of things the potentiality of future development (Genesis 1:7, 12, 22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 12:2; 15:5), but** in this development, as in all the operations of nature, He co-operates****…

Even for an act of sin**, Divine concurrence is necessary. Hence in Scripture the expressions “God hardened Pharao’s heart” (Exodus 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8)…

His providence extends to all nations (Deuteronomy 2:19; Wisdom 6:8; Isaiah 66:18)…

For God rewards men according to their works (Lamentations 3:64; Job 34:10-7; Psalm 17:27; Sirach 16:12, 13; 11:28; 1 Samuel 26:23), their thoughts, and their devices (Jeremiah 17:10; 32:19; Psalm 7:10)…

**Evil He converts into good **(Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:10-2; Wisdom 12:1, 2); so that in very truth the world fighteth for the just (Wisdom 16:17)…

The teaching of the Old Testament on Providence is assumed by Our Lord, who draws therefrom practical lessons both in regard to confidence in God (Matthew 6:25-33; 7:7-11; 10:28-31; Mark 11:22-4; Luke 11:9-13; John 16:26, 27) and in regard to the forgiveness of our enemies (Matthew 5:39-45; Luke 6:27-38); while in St. Paul it becomes the basis of a definite and systematic theology…

• He has directed the growth of nations and their distribution (verse 26)…

In the Epistle to the Romans the supernatural character of Divine Providence is further evolved, and the doctrine of Providence becomes identical with that of grace. Nature manifests so clearly the power and the divinity of God that failure to recognize it is inexcusable (Romans 1:20-2).

Yet we must also suffer with Him (verse 17) and be patient (verse 25), knowing that** all things work together for good to them that love** God; for God in His Providence has regarded us with love from all eternity, has predestined us to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn of many brethren, has called us (2 Thessalonians 2:13), has justified us (Romans 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:11), and even now has begun to accomplish within us the work of glorification (Romans 8:29, 30; cf. Ephesians 1:3 sq., 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). This,** the beneficent purpose of an all-seeing Providence**, is wholly gratuitous, entirely unmerited (Romans 3:24; 9:11-2). It extends to all men (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4), even to the reprobate Jews (Romans 11:26 sq.); and by it all** God’s** dealings with man are regulated (Ephesians 1:11).

newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

 

[inocente]

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2942492

There’s no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects metaphysics and doesn’t even know what metascience is…

So Metascience is just “a review journal which publishes high quality, comprehensive reviews of books”. Metascience isn’t a field of knowledge, it’s just the title of a publication. Yet you said Sair’s reasoning “is not scientific but metascientific” (post #103) and that this magazine title somehow has “metascientific principles” (#91). Let’s face it tony, you got the word wrong and it might have been a lot easier to own up rather than try to brazen it out.

But thanks for making me laugh.

There’s no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects Design and Providence:

What? You’re actually trying to put your hypothesis of Design-with-a-capital-D on the same footing as the age-old doctrine of Divine Providence? Really? Then where is Design-with-a-capital-D in scripture, in Christian dogma, in Catholic doctrine, in vatican.va, in the RCIA? NOWHERE.

I’m not at all surprised you’re unable to counter rational arguments but it’s disappointing that yet again you’ve resorted to argumentum ad hominem. There would have been no harm in admitting you have no answers and moving on, humility is a better master than ego.

Imho this thread has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there’s no evidence for Design with a capital D; that it has nothing to do with Christ, with Catholicism or with salvation; and that it would never bring one soul into your church but may well turn many away through its mindbogglingly confused irrational irrelevance.

 

[inocente]

I said that they already existed. then man observed them and saw repetition - deciding it must pertain to ‘law’.

A constant that does not pertain to or is not influence by human thought and language.

As for time, it is a human concept to depict a moving forward, a passing of sorts. it is as unique w/ every thing w/in the universe. perhaps it is finite. however, for all things that are, were before humans. that which exist after ‘big bang’ is influenced by exact things to which affect all that which existed before ‘big bang’.

that is what I spoke of before. ‘law’. a constant that is infinite. logic in mathematics, chaos, etc.

Well yes, obviously the behavior of physical phenomena isn’t influenced by us, but the physical law is our description of our current understanding of the phenomena, it isn’t the phenomena themselves.

Time isn’t just a human concept, it’s a real dimension in the physical universe. You might like to refer to relativity and entropy, and to look up the difference between clock time and perceptual/psychological time.

If you are confused, just ask.

Forgive, but you’ve not given me the impression that you’re educated to degree level or above in physics, in which case you might like to think twice before offering to mentor others. Try www.physicsforums.com for getting sound answers to questions.

chaos is not incompetent, and takes order for it to exist. otherwise there would never had been a big bang or what ever occurred. that which you list are neutral. what cause suffering is loss, a byproduct. what is loss, however? materials are replaced over time and lives may be rejoiced even during sadness.

I’m sorry, I’ve no idea what you’re saying. Chaos is a behavior shown by some nonlinear systems, see chaos theory, perhaps you’re thinking of disorder. Other than that, you might be confusing personal opinions with objective facts (and you’d certainly not be alone in that on this thread!).

 

[tonyrey]

Sair;9619431:

It is absurd to demand the existence of simpler entities than one Supreme Mind because we know from direct experience that a person is an indivisible entity - as you would discover if you appeared in court and pleaded not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity!

Sure, right now I’m a complex entity - but I didn’t start out that way. No-one would have accused me of being “fully” a person, in the sense of being completely in control and aware of the consequences of my actions, when I was freshly out of the womb…and probably not until I had attained the age of legal majority, if you’re talking court appearances. Why do you think there are separate courts, separate laws and separate penalties for underage offenders?
Different stages of development are irrelevant to the fact that every person is an indivisible entity and not composed of parts like a physical object. Children who have not fully developed are persons who have the same right to life as adults. The fact remains that you would not plead not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity.

Belief in the development from countless numbers of atomic particles is not only a blatant rejection of the principle of parsimony but also an escape clause for the incurious who are afraid of delving into the deepest mysteries of the mind - in addition to being a self-destructive and self-refuting reduction of reason to irrational events which have no insight whatsoever into what they are doing.

But that’s the whole point of parsimony - the explanatory power of simpler mechanisms when we try to understand more complex ones.Mechanistic explanation is a distortion of reality which deprives it of value, meaning and purpose. Modern medicine doesn’t treat a person as a machine but as an indivisible entity whose mind is the dominant factor which can be the sole cause of disease.

You are positing an immensely complex entity as a brute fact, which is as far from parsimony as you can get.

You are positing physical economy as the model for personal existence which is as far from reality as you can get. Hume’s “bundle of perceptions” led him to abandon his attempts to understand reality and resort to backgammon! If thought is no more than “a little agitation of the brain” it is not surprising he took refuge in scepticism: materialism also falls by the wayside. Moreover a “bundle of perceptions” is less parsimonious than an indivisible mind.

Why do you have such a problem with the possibility that reasoning ability is comprised of simpler processes interacting in a beautifully intricate neurochemical ballet?

A “beautifully intricate neurochemical ballet” lacks insight and understanding.

To interpret the mind in quantitative terms reveals an incoherent, atomistic mentality that fails to grasp its fundamental unity. Does your mind have parts? If so what are they? Can the mind be assembled from a set of atomic particles? If so how? And what is the power that assembles them? Another set of atomic particles?

Different parts of my mind certainly do entertain different thoughts and awarenesses. Simultaneously? Cases of split personalities are not the norm.

Neurological investigations even bear out the fact that different areas of the brain perform different functions.

The brain is not the mind.

If we had such fundamental unity of mind as you posit, where would be the fuel for countless human dramas played out in history and literature? Haven’t you ever experienced conflicting desires?

There would be no drama at all if there were no resolution of the conflict between physical desires and moral ideals. Sexual attraction, for example, only becomes fascinating when it is counterpoised by the demands of true love and sacrifice - which is where the fundamental unity and fulfilment of a person are to be found.

And why should not atomic, electrical and other chemical interactions result in the mental fluctuations we all experience on a daily basis? The very fact that particular parts of our neurological control systems and mental states are affected by the ingestion or absorption of particular chemicals - like ethanol, caffeine or nicotine, to name only the most common examples - should point to the fact that minds are composed of complex physical interactions.

The influence of drugs on the brain affects a person’s ability to function in a physical environment but it doesn’t follow that the mind is composed solely of physical interactions. The mind doesn’t cease to exist when some one is in a coma. The person simply ceases to be aware of the surroundings and becomes unable to communicate but no civilised individual believes a comatose person loses the right to life or be treated with respect.

If the minds are much sharper than yours you are not in a position to judge whether their arguments are valid… Your statement is also a fallacious appeal to authority.

If I were merely appealing to authority, I would simply have cited the works of some of these superior minds, rather than explaining my own understanding of the argument in my own words…I don’t think a superior mind is needed to understand a series of causes.

 

[Sair]

Sair;9619431:

Different stages of development are irrelevant to the fact that every person is an indivisible entity and not composed of parts like a physical object. Children who have not fully developed are persons who have the same right to life as adults. The fact remains that you would not plead not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity.

I’ve never denied that children have the same right to life as adults. All sentient beings have the right to live free of molestation and unnecessary suffering. But the fact remains that there are certain essential parts of human bodies which, if they fail to function, bring down the whole edifice of the person…

Mechanistic explanation is a distortion of reality which deprives it of value, meaning and purpose.

How, exactly?

Modern medicine doesn’t treat a person as a machine but as an indivisible entity whose mind is the dominant factor which can be the sole cause of disease.

A diseased mind can lead to a diseased body, to be sure, and vice versa - but that doesn’t mean the mind is the dominant factor. Bodily factors can likewise influence the workings of the mind. Why do you suppose physical activity is so effective in combatting depression? An entity that is indivisible - that is, not comprised of simpler entities - would show no signs of change when one aspect is tweaked, yet we see this in human patients all the time.

You are positing physical economy as the model for personal existence which is as far from reality as you can get. Hume’s “bundle of perceptions” led him to abandon his attempts to understand reality and resort to backgammon! If thought is no more than “a little agitation of the brain” it is not surprising he took refuge in scepticism: materialism also falls by the wayside. Moreover a “bundle of perceptions” is less parsimonious than an indivisible mind.

A simple and parsimonious entity is just that - simple, and a means of explaining more complex phenomena. Minds are not simple, and I don’t think even you would claim they are.

A “beautifully intricate neurochemical ballet” lacks insight and understanding.

Says…who, actually? You?

Simultaneously? Cases of split personalities are not the norm.

You don’t need a split personality to experience conflicting desires or thoughts.

The brain is not the mind.

Says…who, actually? You?

There would be no drama at all if there were no resolution of the conflict between physical desires and moral ideals. Sexual attraction, for example, only becomes fascinating when it is counterpoised by the demands of true love and sacrifice - which is where the fundamental unity and fulfilment of a person are to be found.

Says…who, actually? You?

The influence of drugs on the brain affects a person’s ability to function in a physical environment but it doesn’t follow that the mind is composed solely of physical interactions.

In other words, the fact that the mind is influenced by physical factors, and the fact that no-one, ever, has posited any demonstrable means by which non-physical and physical factors can interact, does not demonstrate that minds are physically manifested? Have I got this right, from your perspective?

The mind doesn’t cease to exist when some one is in a coma. The person simply ceases to be aware of the surroundings and becomes unable to communicate but no civilised individual believes a comatose person loses the right to life or be treated with respect.

But they might consider that the quality of such a person’s life is greatly diminished, and act accordingly. In any case, if the individual in question is still alive, there is no reason to suppose that all the physical conditions of the brain have actually ceased to function. Where there is life, there is hope, as the saying goes.

I don’t think a superior mind is needed to understand a series of causes.

Who ever said it was? If it were, then the design hypothesis would certainly gain some ground…

 

[wanstronian]

It’s not worth attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who constantly resorts to invective and rejects true metaphysical propositions as examples of metaphysical evidence.

Similary it’s not really worth attempting a rational discussion with someone whose entire approach is to make assertions which he cannot substantiate. It is the frustration of dealing with such a person that leads to the “invective.” I’m trying to be more patient.

So does this mean you’ve changed your mind about providing examples of the types of evidence you listed?

 

[oval]

My opinion out of some non-formal spare-time hobbys is the designer needs to be brought forward to the table either in a conscious participation with solid proof in interference, in the collection of 2+2=4 in creation…or in direct cause of the infinite 2+2=4 in origin(gravity)which comprise’s the universe. The marvel of 2+2=4 needs to be reduced from a whole basket of 2+2=4 where it may be proposed that something unknown apart from law, is specifically moving individual mass. If there is no product out of the exploration other then a Maker without a role exactly defined , then without the Maker brought there is no finding but marvel.

 

[epan]

Logic alone cannot prove anything whatsoever except what is deduced from our premises…

Doesn’t that make the discussion of trying to prove the existence of a designer futile then?

 

[tonyrey]

Logic alone cannot prove anything whatsoever except what is deduced from our premises…

We cannot even prove that we or the universe exist but there is such overwhelming evidence we are fully justified in our beliefs. As Bishop Butler remarked, probability is the very guide of life. There is also overwhelming evidence of Design as opposed to purposelessness.

 

[wanstronian]

Quote:
tonyrey;9622110:

It’s not worth attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who constantly resorts to invective and rejects true metaphysical propositions as examples of metaphysical evidence.

Similary it’s not really worth attempting a rational discussion with someone whose entire approach is to make assertions which he cannot substantiate. It is the frustration of dealing with such a person that leads to the “invective.” I’m trying to be more patient.

So does this mean you’ve changed your mind about providing examples of the types of evidence you listed?

You’ve had well over 36 hours (you promised at 10.32am on Wednesday) to cobble together some simple examples of these nine types of evidence. That seems plenty of time, if these types of “evidence” are real. For example, I could knock up an example of empirical evidence in about three minutes. What’s so tough about your categories?

Given the elapsed time since your committment to provide, and your subsequent non-response to my post above, shall I assume you’ve pulled your usual stunt and won’t be substantiating your assertions?

 

[tonyrey]

Different stages of development are irrelevant to the fact that every person is an indivisible entity and not composed of parts like a physical object. Children who have not fully developed are persons who have the same right to life as adults. The fact remains that you would not plead not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity.

Persons are not bodies. The fact remains that you would not plead not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity.

Mechanistic explanation is a distortion of reality which deprives it of value, meaning and purpose.

How, exactly?

There is not one jot of evidence that undesigned machines are valuable, meaningful and purposeful.

Modern medicine doesn’t treat a person as a machine but as an indivisible entity whose mind is the dominant factor which can be the sole cause of disease.

A diseased mind can lead to a diseased body, to be sure, and vice versa - but that doesn’t mean the mind is the dominant factor. Bodily factors can likewise influence the workings of the mind. Why do you suppose physical activity is so effective in combatting depression?

Dominance does not exclude interaction.

An entity that is indivisible - that is, not comprised of simpler entities - would show no signs of change when one aspect is tweaked, yet we see this in human patients all the time.

The person always has the same identity.

You are positing physical economy as the model for personal existence which is as far from reality as you can get. Hume’s “bundle of perceptions” led him to abandon his attempts to understand reality and resort to backgammon! If thought is no more than “a little agitation of the brain” it is not surprising he took refuge in scepticism: materialism also falls by the wayside. Moreover a “bundle of perceptions” is less parsimonious than an indivisible mind.

A simple and parsimonious entity is just that - simple, and a means of explaining more complex phenomena. Minds are not simple, and I don’t think even you would claim they are.

Economy is not the same as simplicity. False economy leads to incoherence.

A “beautifully intricate neurochemical ballet” lacks insight and understanding.

Says…who, actually? You?

There is not one jot of evidence that neurochemical structures have insight and understanding.

Simultaneously? Cases of split personalities are not the norm.

You don’t need a split personality to experience conflicting desires or thoughts.

Simultaneously?

The brain is not the mind.

Says…who, actually? You?

The mind has always been distinguished from the brain because there is not one jot of evidence that the brain has insight and understanding.

There would be no drama at all if there were no resolution of the conflict between physical desires and moral ideals. Sexual attraction, for example, only becomes fascinating when it is counterpoised by the demands of true love and sacrifice - which is where the fundamental unity and fulfilment of a person are to be found.

Says…who, actually? You?

Persons have always been distinguished from things because there is not one jot of evidence that things have insight and understanding.

The influence of drugs on the brain affects a person’s ability to function in a physical environment but it doesn’t follow that the mind is composed solely of physical interactions.

In other words, the fact that the mind is influenced by physical factors, and the fact that no-one, ever, has posited any demonstrable means by which non-physical and physical factors can interact, does not demonstrate that minds are physically manifested? Have I got this right, from your perspective?

There is no demonstrable means by which brains have insight and understanding.

The mind doesn’t cease to exist when some one is in a coma. The person simply ceases to be aware of the surroundings and becomes unable to communicate but no civilised individual believes a comatose person loses the right to life or be treated with respect.

But they might consider that the quality of such a person’s life is greatly diminished, and act accordingly. In any case, if the individual in question is still alive, there is no reason to suppose that all the physical conditions of the brain have actually ceased to function. Where there is life, there is hope, as the saying goes.

The right to life is based on the existence of a person, not a brain.

I don’t think a superior mind is needed to understand a series of causes

.
Who ever said it was? If it were, then the design hypothesis would certainly gain some ground…

It was implied in the statement about sharper minds - which is otherwise pointless.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve had well over 36 hours (you promised at 10.32am on Wednesday) to cobble together some simple examples of these nine types of evidence.

It’s not worth attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects two true metaphysical propositions as examples of metaphysical evidence **without giving any reason for doing so **- and would reject **on principle **any forms of evidence which are not “empirical”…

 

[ApologiaSophia]

1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.
2. The most significant negative aspect of reality is evil.
3. Physical evil is negative because it harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
4. Physical evil has physical causes which are essential for life.
5. Physical evil is inevitable in a physical universe.
6. Moral evil is negative because it interferes with personal development and fulfilment.
7. Moral evil also harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
8. Moral evil presupposes free will. (Kant: “Ought implies can”.)
9. Free will presupposes the power of reason.
10. Free will also presupposes the power to be unreasonable.

Your premises dont seem to follow. Also, why do negative aspects of reality refute design? What if the designer designed those negative aspects? Like DrinkingGasoline said, this is not a valid argument against design. At best it is a valid argument against a omnibenevolent designer. What this actually is is the Problem of Evil present in a rather peculiar way. Which then begs the question, if evil is a problem for a omnibenevolent designer, what makes it a problem to begin with? Why is evil even evil at all except it be deemed that way in the character or mind of the designer. The real problem of evil is for those who do not believe in a designer. Evil can only truly and objectively exist if there is truly and objectively a Designer who is benevolent enough to deem evil for what it is.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s not worth attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who rejects two true metaphysical propositions as examples of metaphysical evidence **without giving any reason for doing so **- and would reject **on principle **any forms of evidence which are not “empirical”…

I have stated in two different posts that I might well concur, but couldn’t think of any examples myself. So your objection is groundless, and an ad hominem to boot.

However, it seems clear that you’re going to renege on your promise to provide examples; not only that, but also try to somehow make it me that is being the irrational one! I expected nothing less of you - you have never once substantiated a single assertion that I have called you on, in all our dozens of exchanges. And also in every case, you have tried to make it seem as if I’m the dishonest one! At least you’re consistent, I suppose.

Can anybody else step up on Tony’s behalf, and offer examples of metascientific, moral, aesthetic, religious, non-empirical historical “evidence?”

 

[Sair]

Persons are not bodies. The fact remains that you would not plead not guilty on the ground that you are a complex entity.

You might like to examine some legal evidence of people pleading multiple causes for their behaviour and being found less culpable, because “they” were not the “sole” cause, but merely a participant in a collection of circumstances.

Dominance does not exclude interaction.

Actually, dominance implies interaction - you can’t dominate something if you can’t affect it - which is a problem for those who claim that the mind is a nonphysical entity that somehow controls or influences the body…

The person always has the same identity.

The same name and the same bodily location - but neither you nor I are the same person we were 10 or 20 years ago, either in terms of behaviour or actual physical make-up.

Economy is not the same as simplicity. False economy leads to incoherence.

Which do you claim your god is - an economical explanation or a simple one? Economy is also false economy if it involves great complexity yet claims simplicity as a characteristic…

There is not one jot of evidence that undesigned machines are valuable, meaningful and purposeful.

There is not one jot of evidence that neurochemical structures have insight and understanding.

The mind has always been distinguished from the brain because there is not one jot of evidence that the brain has insight and understanding.

There has never been any attempt to re-think the way that machines, neurochemical structures or brains operate, in the sense that humans have (arrogantly) assumed that only a “higher” level of being can exercise forethought and planning and abstract thought. It is therefore invalid for you to claim that there is “not a jot of evidence” for such abilities manifesting in physical entities - your base assumption precludes any evidence of the kind, and thus forestalls any relevant investigation.

Persons have always been distinguished from things because there is not one jot of evidence that things have insight and understanding.

Persons are just a specific category of things. See above point about rethinking our conceptions of our place in the world.

There is no demonstrable means by which brains have insight and understanding.

There is likewise no demonstrable means by which nonphysical things can even exist, let alone influence physical things (and there’s a whole new thread’s worth of discussion to be found, by the way, in the fact that you’re willing to accept anecdotal and impressionistic evidence for the existence of “spiritual” entities, yet refuse to accept more solid correlative evidence for a causal connection between physical entities and mental states…) Brain activity, according to all accessible sources of evidence, manifests as what we consider to be the mind - the two are not separable. Shut down the brain and you destroy the mind.

The right to life is based on the existence of a person, not a brain.

The implication is that membership of the human species is all that is required for a being to qualify as a person. That actually means your god isn’t a person…

It was implied in the statement about sharper minds - which is otherwise pointless.

By “sharper minds”, my intention was to point out that my approach is not that of a simplistic understanding, but the result of thought and consideration. What is required for entertaining the concept of cosmic design is not intelligence, but faith.