Evidence against Design?

[inocente]

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?”

He made the same personal attack on me to avoid answering the same point. He has demonstrated his lack of integrity and reliance on ad hominem time and time again across many threads - when pushed to substantiate his wild claims, he instead throws feces at his opponent in the hope it sticks.

On many other forums he would have been thrown out long ago for lowering standards and bringing the forum into disrepute. Perhaps CAF moderators will consider implementing a similar rule at some point.

Incidentally by his own admission “metascientific” isn’t even a real word, the only match he could find for his made up word was the name of a magazine.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Mitigating circumstances imply that individual responsibility is the norm.

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 insurmountable problem is for those who claim that one particular type of physical entity is different from all others in its power of self-control and ability to direct physical causes.

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.

Our present behaviour or physical make-up are not the sole criteria of our personal identity. We are responsible for what we have done ever since we reached the age of reason. How do you explain that if we are not the same persons? Try denying in a court of law that you are not the same person and therefore not guilty…

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?

God is both a simple and an economical explanation. To explain a person’s activity in terms of physical causes is neither simple nor economical nor adequate nor enlightening.
BTW To refer to “your god” is as inappropriate and discourteous as referring to “your particles”. A philosophical discussion should be objective - without needless personal remarks intended to be scornful.

Economy is also false economy if it involves great complexity yet claims simplicity as a characteristic…

Your criteria of complexity are physical and therefore invalid when applied to persons who are indivisible entities - as you would discover in any court of law.

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.

If the evidence cannot be produced your base (in both senses of the term) assumption is unjustified. It also precludes any investigation into the power of the mind because it is needlessly and dogmatically restricted to physical causes, thereby arbitrarily circumscribing reality within a closed system with artificial horizons. It is certainly arrogant to think that there is no higher level of being than members of the human race… and equally arrogant to think one has privileged insight into the nature of reality as consisting solely of transformed particles…

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.

Persons are not things. See above point about revising your arbitrarily impoverished concept of reality which renders it irrational and deprives it of all value, purpose and meaning.

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…)

Correlation does not imply dependence.

Brain activity, according to all accessible sources of evidence, manifests as what we consider to be the mind - the two are not separable.

According to the prime source of evidence - which consists of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions - our sole certainty is the power of our mind which is independent of material objects. Nothing can chain our mind except the decision to reduce it to “a little agitation of the brain”. We get what we deserve… GIGO

Shut down the brain and you destroy the mind.

Shut down the mind and you have no concept of anything, let alone the brain.

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…

A false deduction based on the arbitrary restriction of rational beings not only to this planet but to this universe. “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

A closed mind is not the most rewarding attitude to life…

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…

There is nothing more simplistic than deriving everything whatsoever from particles.

… but the result of thought and consideration.

On the part of a fallible individual who has a vested interest in rejecting Design and reducing persons to (play)things.

What is required for entertaining the concept of cosmic design is not intelligence, but faith.

What is required for entertaining the highly entertaining notion of an accidental universe is not intelligence but blind faith in the immense power of purposeless particles to produce… blind faith in the immense power of purposeless particles!

All aboard the materialist’s merry-go-round!:hey_bud:

 

[tonyrey]

He made the same personal attack on me to avoid answering the same point. He has demonstrated his lack of integrity and reliance on ad hominem time and time again across many threads - when pushed to substantiate his wild claims, he instead throws feces at his opponent in the hope it sticks.

On many other forums he would have been thrown out long ago for lowering standards and bringing the forum into disrepute. Perhaps CAF moderators will consider implementing a similar rule at some point.

Incidentally by his own admission “metascientific” isn’t even a real word, the only match he could find for his made up word was the name of a magazine.

False assertions that have been reported to the moderators.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the issue(s), NOT each other.

 

[tonyrey]

Incidentally by his own admission “metascientific” isn’t even a real word, the only match he could find for his made up word was the name of a magazine.

Metascience is a review journal which publishes high quality, comprehensive reviews of books in the fields of history and philosophy of science, and science and technology studies.

Metascience specializes in innovative approaches including - beyond standard reviews - essay reviews, non-anglophone reviews, discipline survey reviews and ‘round-tables’ in which up to four reviewers provide independent essay reviews of one book. The coverage includes short descriptive notices of books which are not reviewed at length.
The reviews published in Metascience are accessible to a wide cross-section of the science studies community.

                            **Related subjects »**                                               [Epistemology & Philosophy of Science](http://www.springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science?SGWID=0-40399-0-0-0)

springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science/journal/11016

A History of Psychology in Metascientific Perspective

books.google.co.uk/books/about

 

[tonyrey]

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.

I have presented two examples:

Scientific evidence is based on metascientific principles, e.g.** the validity of reason **and the intelligibility of the universe.

1. Are these principles based on fact?
2. Are these principles scientific?
3. If they are scientific what is their scientific basis?
4. Which scientific discipline is concerned with ** the validity of reason?
5. **Which scientific discipline is concerned with the intelligibility of the universe?

6.Which scientific discipline is concerned with the nature of science?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The central question which will be discussed in my work is: What kinds of criticism can we find in **metascientific **and in metapolitical theories and what are the connections between these kinds of criticism? I deal mainly with twentieth century theories which try to evaluate the influence of criticism on scientific and political practice. Metascientific and metapolitical theories are theories about science and about politics. They may stem from different perspectives, such as the philosophy of science, the philosophy of politics (or the so-called “political philosophy”), sociology and psychology of science, the political sciences, the history of science, the critical theories of society and politics, and so on.

Chapter 1 begins by introducing Popper’s theory about the influence of criticism on the natural sciences the social sciences and on politics. Popperian metascience’s main concern is not the logical analysis of scientific statements and theories, but the logical analysis of the practice of conjectures and refutations…
My whole thesis can be seen as a critical discussion of Popper’s kinds of criticism. Thus, I continue chapter 2 by examining Kuhn’s criticism of Popper’s** metascience**, Lakatos’s and Agassi’s improvements of it, and Feyerabend’s improvements to Kuhn’s criticism, including their extension to metapolitics.

www.tau.ac.il/humanities/philos/…/abstract%20thesis%20asher.doc

Continental Schools of Metascience. By Gerard Radnitzky. Akademiförlaget: Göteborg, Sweden, 1968. Pp. xi, 199. $4.00.

Alex C. Michalos

University of Guelph

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7194780

Metascientific queries
Mario Augusto Bunge
C. C. Thomas, 1959 - Philosophy - 313 pa

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Metascientific_queries.html?id=5LtgAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

 

[da_nolo]

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.

I know that, sometimes my head gets mixed up - but that doesn’t mean I’m incompetent! NOT TO SUGGEST YOU REFER TO ME AS SUCH.
if you look at what was said, there is a contradiction. I explain what you very well said, but the beginning portion does not apply to the rest of the paragraph. sometimes when I type, I change what I say very often. when I get too excited I miss some deletions in retyping and put two and two together. I just need to pace myself and express patience.

It often takes hours to type because I am constantly rearranging and changing things

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.

1. appeal to authority is not tolerated. I do not need a degree or some one’s approval to be educated or know enough about a certain subject. I admit I am a forgetful person, but this does not undermine my ability to reason or discuss.
2. I am not “mentoring”. did I ever instruct anyone? no
3. My comment was about what I wrote. certain people misunderstand what is meant at times, so in case you have misread I would have been willing to correct your concept on context.

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!).

cha·os/ˈkāäs/
Noun:

Complete **disorder** and confusion.

Instead of continuing use of ‘disorder’ I just used another definition of the term “chaos”. its a little quicker to type.

“Disorder” may be viewed w/in universe, as is Chaos (Theory) under the condition of ‘behavior’. The concept of disorder I refer to is the instability of substance or of some thing (in nature your suggestions of earthquake may follow as example)

nothing stated was ever my opinion except when trying to demonstrate or suggest the possibility of “design”. perhaps not in respect to “design” referring to creationism, but simlpy that everything around us was created or ‘designed’ to work in the manner it does. that the universe is a clock, that which God made. if you make something, you design it.

That appears to be the majority of confusion.

Back to instability (disorder/chaos) , I state that in order to have one you must have another. to have disorder, we must have and know of order. it is expressed as such in nature and else where.

case in point, titanic plates. in it - disorder=earthquakes. in it - order=materials/resources, landscape, etc.

it is a sort of ***balance ***to nature and the universe.

again, if you are confuse about something, you may ask.

 

[Sair]

BTW To refer to “your god” is as inappropriate and discourteous as referring to “your particles”. A philosophical discussion should be objective - without needless personal remarks intended to be scornful.

Why? The God of Christian Theism is your god, and the god of all those who invest belief in him. It’s a statement of fact, however you choose to interpret it. I don’t claim to belong to the Catholic faith, because I don’t have beliefs compatible with it - despite the fact that I was born into a Catholic family and baptised as such, and therefore am still, officially, a Catholic. I am not going to claim as mine a god in which I don’t believe.

If the evidence cannot be produced your base (in both senses of the term) assumption is unjustified. It also precludes any investigation into the power of the mind because it is needlessly and dogmatically restricted to physical causes, thereby arbitrarily circumscribing reality within a closed system with artificial horizons. It is certainly arrogant to think that there is no higher level of being than members of the human race… and equally arrogant to think one has privileged insight into the nature of reality as consisting solely of transformed particles…

In the interests of brevity and precision, I’m zeroing in on this paragraph, since I feel it represents a fundamental disconnect between the respective positions we hold on this matter.

Inferring that the mind is produced by the interaction of physical entities and forces does not preclude investigation into the power of the mind! How could it? The only thing that would preclude such investigation is the assumption that the mind cannot be physical in any respect, since we - as physically constrained beings, at least - have no means to investigate nonphysical phenomena. If we do, I’d love to know what they are.

I don’t think I believe there is no “higher” being than a human - but I’m also not sure what “higher” might mean in a nonspiritual context. It’s quite true that humans have, as a species, a combination of abilities not seen in other earthly species - but we can hardly claim any credit for these abilities if they have come about by natural evolution. Nor can we claim this particular combination as any standard for excellence, if human history is anything to go by. We appear to be good at survival and propagation, at least - but most species of bacteria and insects leave us in the dust in this regard.

Furthermore, the supposition that all reality is physical does not circumscribe reality - it merely acknowledges that our understanding is very much incomplete. Minds are not created by “transformed” particles, but according to all available evidence, arise from the complex interaction of perfectly ordinary particles. As I’ve pointed out on many an occasion on this very forum, we don’t know the limits of physical reality. If we did, it might then be necessary to define a separate category of reality in order to explain the fullness of our experience. Until such time, the assumption of physicality provides us with an immensely practical (not to mention wondrous and astonishing) platform from which to explore.

 

[levinas12]

Minds … according to all available evidence, arise from the complex interaction of perfectly ordinary particles.

Awareness of things as they are in themselves or, simply, disclosure, may require a complex interaction of perfectly ordinary particles but this is not the whole story.

There’s something transcendental here. In some sense, we are both in the world and outside the world.

Again, this realization goes beyond simply taking the clock apart and exploring its springs and gears.

Cognitive science can show us the circuitry - but the dimension of “truth” itself is a mystery that we may never explain to our satisfaction.

Maybe physical reality at some point in the past “broke” into the realm of “truth”. But this “event” introduced radical novelty - nature could no longer be the same after that.

 

[inocente]

It often takes hours to type because I am constantly rearranging and changing things

Yikes, that sounds like very hard work!

*1. appeal to authority is not tolerated. I do not need a degree or some one’s approval to be educated or know enough about a certain subject. I admit I am a forgetful person, but this does not undermine my ability to reason or discuss.

1. I am not “mentoring”. did I ever instruct anyone? no*

I was not making an appeal to authority, just saying that a teacher needs to know his subject before trying to teach it, otherwise it’s the blind leading the blind.

3. My comment was about what I wrote. certain people misunderstand what is meant at times, so in case you have misread I would have been willing to correct your concept on context.

OK, fine, that explains it.

*nothing stated was ever my opinion except when trying to demonstrate or suggest the possibility of “design”. perhaps not in respect to “design” referring to creationism, but simlpy that everything around us was created or ‘designed’ to work in the manner it does. that the universe is a clock, that which God made. if you make something, you design it.

That appears to be the majority of confusion.

Back to instability (disorder/chaos) , I state that in order to have one you must have another. to have disorder, we must have and know of order. it is expressed as such in nature and else where.

case in point, titanic plates. in it - disorder=earthquakes. in it - order=materials/resources, landscape, etc.

it is a sort of ***balance ****to nature and the universe.

I’m not following you: there’s no logical requirement that order must be designed. The words create and design have different meanings, God is the creator, the Bible doesn’t call Him the designer, are you saying the Bible got it wrong?

Apart from that, disorder basically means “lack of order”, so yes by definition one is the opposite of the other, but if the world was disorderly we wouldn’t even be able to exist. Things which look disordered to us never involve a suspension of the laws of nature, the underlying natural phenomena are still exactly the same, it just looks disordered to us.

 

[levinas12]

Why do I say “radical novelty”?

Because most of the interactions of particles do not seem to involve intentionality, consciousness, “truth”.

Mutatis mutandis, particle interaction is on par with the collision of billiard balls. The billiard balls (and the particles) are blissfully unaware of each other.

The “usual” type of “relation” between material bodies seems very different from the “relation” of “disclosure”.

Again, I’m not saying that “disclosure” is separate from interactions of particles. It’s just that “disclosure” is something radically new in nature. How it happened, or where it comes from, remains something to ponder.

 

[inocente]

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…

springer.com/philosophy

books.google.co.uk/books/about

We already agreed that Metascience is the title of a journal which reviews books. If you look at the other link, you’ll see that rather than assuming we know what is meant by metascience, the blurb defines it explicitly.

www.tau.ac.il/humanities/philos/…/abstract%20thesis%20asher.doc

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7194780

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Metascientific_queries.html?id=5LtgAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

The first link came up as not found so I can’t tell if the author you quoted defined what he meant by metascience, and the other two links are just book titles again. If you scroll down the page on the last link you’ll see that book’s subject is given as metaphysics.

Neither the Microsoft nor CAF spellcheckers know the word “metascience” and I found no articles about it in Encyclopedia Britannica or in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the Metascience journal comes up, but no articles).

It’s possible to preface lots of words with meta-, and from normal usage we could assume that meta-science means the science of science, but your actual claim is that there is such a thing as metascientific evidence. I’m happy to concede that I don’t know what this might mean so please provide a link which defines or discusses, in any context you like, metascientific evidence.

 

[Sair]

Why do I say “radical novelty”?

Because most of the interactions of particles do not seem to involve intentionality, consciousness, “truth”.

Mutatis mutandis, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. are on par with the collision of billiard balls. This type of “relation” between material bodies seems very different from the “relation” of “disclosure” (even if that latter relation takes place between two material bodies).

There is a necessity associated with the laws of physics. But that type of necessity seems very different from the “cogency” we experience when we understand, e.g., the Pythagorean theorem.

I think I understand where you’re coming from, but if so, I disagree. To take up your analogy, billiard balls only affect each other in terms of motion and velocity; physcial particles, such as atoms, actually interact and produce new phenomena - as, for example, the combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms produces water, a substance with characteristics quite different from those of hydrogen or oxygen by themselves; or different arrangements of carbon atoms producing substances with properties as distinct as those of graphite and diamond.

These are, perhaps, relatively simple examples of particle interaction - but how much more complex might we expect the interaction of organic molecules to be? And that is only beginning to touch upon physical interaction at a micro level. That was largely my point - that we just don’t know all the many-faceted ways in which physical entities manifest particular qualities. Hence my belief that it is premature to say, “Physcial particles/entities cannot produce such effects as we observe.”

I think the “radical novelty” to which you refer merely seems so to us, being that we necessarily perceive it from a subjective viewpoint. We consider that our perceptions of external realities must conform to certain objective standards; yet when we apply these objective standards to phenomena that are unique to our internal experience, there is a certain amount of disconnection, since we cannot effectively look at our own selves from an outsider’s perspective. I’m sure there’s much more to be said about this, but I’ll save it for future posts, as it’s rather late in my part of the world, relative to when I woke up this morning!

 

[tonyrey]

We already agreed that Metascience is the title of a journal which reviews books. If you look at the other link, you’ll see that rather than assuming we know what is meant by metascience, the blurb defines it explicitly.

The first link came up as not found so I can’t tell if the author you quoted defined what he meant by metascience, and the other two links are just book titles again. If you scroll down the page on the last link you’ll see that book’s subject is given as metaphysics.

Neither the Microsoft nor CAF spellcheckers know the word “metascience” and I found no articles about it in Encyclopedia Britannica or in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the Metascience journal comes up, but no articles).

It’s possible to preface lots of words with meta-, and from normal usage we could assume that meta-science means the science of science, but your actual claim is that there is such a thing as metascientific evidence. I’m happy to concede that I don’t know what this might mean so please provide a link which defines or discusses, in any context you like, metascientific evidence.

If you are not prepared to accept the fact that philosophers have written books about metascience proves that it is a valid, recognised branch of the philosophy of science there is no point in attempting to reason with you any further.

 

[tonyrey]

It is certainly arrogant to think that there is no higher level of being than members of the human race… and equally arrogant to think one has privileged insight into the nature of reality as consisting solely of transformed particles…

The assumption that we have no means of investigating nonphysical phenomena is falsified by the reality of personal development, truth, freedom, justice, purpose and love, none of which can be reduced to physical events. If thoughts and decisions were merely electrical impulses they would be as valueless, purposeless and insignificant as electrical impulses.

I don’t think I believe there is no “higher” being than a human - but I’m also not sure what “higher” might mean in a nonspiritual context. It’s quite true that humans have, as a species, a combination of abilities not seen in other earthly species - but we can hardly claim any credit for these abilities if they have come about by natural evolution. Nor can we claim this particular combination as any standard for excellence, if human history is anything to go by. We appear to be good at survival and propagation, at least - but most species of bacteria and insects leave us in the dust in this regard.

If everything has come about naturally all activity is restricted to natural laws which are blind and purposeless. To derive thought from that which is thoughtless is the supreme absurdity.

Furthermore, the supposition that all reality is physical does not circumscribe reality - it merely acknowledges that our understanding is very much incomplete. Minds are not created by “transformed” particles, but according to all available evidence, arise from the complex interaction of perfectly ordinary particles.

No one has ever explained the mechanism by which this supposed miracle has occurred.

As I’ve pointed out on many an occasion on this very forum, we don’t know the limits of physical reality. If we did, it might then be necessary to define a separate category of reality in order to explain the fullness of our experience. Until such time, the assumption of physicality provides us with an immensely practical (not to mention wondrous and astonishing) platform from which to explore.

Ignorance of the limits of physical reality is the fundamental flaw of physicalism which is based on the unsubstantiated and self-refuting assumption that the whole of reality consists of thoughtless, purposeless units which exist for no reason whatsoever.

The following points have not been refuted:

1. Mitigating circumstances imply that individual responsibility is the norm.
2. The insurmountable problem is for those who claim that one particular type of physical entity is different from all others in its power of self-control and ability to direct physical causes.
3. Our present behaviour or physical make-up is not the sole criterion of our personal identity. We are responsible for what we have done ever since we reached the age of reason.
4. God is both a simple and an economical explanation. To explain a person’s activity in terms of physical events is neither simple nor economical nor adequate nor enlightening.
5. The physical criterion of complexity does not apply to persons and is therefore invalid when applied to persons who are indivisible entities according to the law throughout the world.
6. If no evidence can be produced the assumption that the mind is nothing but brain activity is unjustified. It also precludes any investigation into the power of the mind because it is needlessly and dogmatically restricted to physical causes, thereby arbitrarily circumscribing reality **within a closed system **with artificial horizons. It is certainly arrogant to think that there is no higher level of being than members of the human race… and equally arrogant to think one has privileged insight into the nature of reality as consisting solely of transformed particles…
7. Persons are not things and are not considered as things by any civilised person.
8. Correlation of particular events in the mind and brain does not imply dependence.
9. Our prime source of evidence consists of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions and our sole certainty is the power of our mind which is independent of material objects. Nothing can chain our mind except the decision to reduce it to “a little agitation of the brain”. We get what we deserve… GIGO
10. Without the mind no one has any abstract concepts.
11. The right to life is based on the existence of a person, not a brain.
12. There is no reason why persons should exist only on this planet.
13. A closed mind is not the most rewarding attitude to life…
14. There is nothing more simplistic than deriving everything from particles.
15. Belief in an accidental universe is based on blind faith in the immense power of purposeless particles to produce (hilariously!) … blind faith in the immense power of purposeless particles!

 

[inocente]

If you are not prepared to accept the fact that philosophers have written books about metascience proves that it is a valid, recognised branch of the philosophy of science there is no point in attempting to reason with you any further.

Could we please do as the moderator asked and stick to the subject rather than discussing each other.

If it’s a recognized branch of philosophy, why are there no articles about it in Encyclopedia Britannica or in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

If it’s a recognized branch of philosophy, it should be dead easy for you to do as I asked and provide a link which defines or discusses metascientific evidence.

You can continue implying I’m
Then we’ve all have the benefit of learning

 

[inocente]

If you are not prepared to accept the fact that philosophers have written books about metascience proves that it is a valid, recognised branch of the philosophy of science there is no point in attempting to reason with you any further.

I didn’t ask about branches of philosophy.

Allow me to repeat my request, verbatum: “your actual claim is that there is such a thing as metascientific evidence. I’m happy to concede that I don’t know what this might mean so please provide a link which defines or discusses, in any context you like, metascientific evidence”.

I’d imagine others also don’t know what constitutes metascientific evidence, so please help us out and provide a link which defines or discusses metascientific evidence.

Again, I asking for a link to more information about metascientific evidence.

Please stop saying I’m unreasonable, I’m not attacking you and it’s only a short while since the moderator warned “Discuss the issue(s), NOT each other.”

 

[inocente]

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

Leaving aside the first part of that sentence, there’s a point here which is important to Christians.

By placing Design and Providence together like that you imply they have the same status, yet while there is a section in the CCC about Divine Providence, I can find no section in the CCC about Design (with or without your capital D). Similarly, while Google finds a number of references to divine providence on vatican.va, it found only one use of the word design, no capital D (referring to Gods’ saving design for our salvation).

The Catholic Encyclopedia here on CAF also draws a blank (obviously it discusses the teleological argument, sometimes called the design argument, but not Design).

While some may interpret isolated sentences in the Bible as implying a designer as well as creator, others don’t, and I don’t recall any book, chapter or passage in the Bible explicitly about Design, certainly it’s not a theme in the OT or NT. Salvation yes, Creator yes, but not Designer.

I seem to remember a previous thread where you confirmed there is no Church doctrine or theology of Design. Is my recollection correct? If not please link a selection of official Church documents about Design.

Otherwise, in the absence of those forms of evidence, I think we must conclude that no Christian need hold any given belief about design or a designer, since it is irrelevant to understanding the teaching of Jesus, faith in Christ crucified and to salvation. Do you agree? If not then please say how you think belief in Design is relevant to any of these.

PS: For future reference, any theology such as divine providence which post-dates the Bible isn’t something that any sola scriptura Christian necessarily accepts.

 

[inocente]

The fact that the position and shape of all the trillions of stars is the product of blind forces is not evidence that all events are the product of blind forces.

You may have twigged that in the absence of a definition of Design (with its capital D) in the context of this thread, I’m trying to arrive at it by discovering what does and doesn’t apply step by step.

You agree that Design doesn’t apply to the position and shape of stars, which thus seems to rule out most of the universe. I’m quite happy to continue ruling things in or out one at a time but it would be much quicker if you’d say what you think Design applies to (in nature or otherwise).

The fact that what is seen or sensed is not the sole form of evidence proves that science is not the sole form of evidence. There is also metascientific, epistemological, historical, moral, social, religious, aesthetic, psychological and personal evidence for Design.

In post #105 I commented on never before having seen this classification of types of evidence, and not even knowing what some of them might mean, and asked you for an example of each of them. It turned out that you were already selecting a list of examples for someone else as per your post #100.

Could you give an estimate of when you expect to post your list? (Sorry if you already posted it and I didn’t spot it, just give me the post number).

Obviously, given the OP and thread title, both this and the definition of Design are central to everyone’s ability to debate this subject rationally.