Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[prodigalson2011]

That depends on the context of the argument, which clearly fail to grasp.

Well, then, perhaps you would like to enlighten me on how the context of your argument differs so much.

 

[prodigalson2011]

1. We are not talking about physics we talking about metaphysic.

Irrelevant. Besides that, the two are so inextricably intertwined, any conversation about them beyond simple mechanical observation is bound to involve both of them. Don’t try to evade the argument.

1. Nothing in objective reality has the intrinsic nature of hammer. If i used your head for a hammer, the last thing you are going to say is that you now have the intrinsic objective nature of hammer. However I did use you as a hammer none the less. The object changed, but the idea is still the same (* i need an object that can bang in nails, lets call it a hammer.)*. That you can use a natural object to service you imagination, doesn’t really tell us much about its final cause.

Actually, every hammer in the world has the intrinsic nature of a hammer. Otherwise, we wouldn’t call it a hammer. Words have meanings. In this particular meaning of the word, a hammer is “a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle.” My head does not meet this definition, ergo, it does not have the intrinsic nature of a hammer. You would not use my head as a hammer, you would use it IN LIEU of a hammer. There is no rule of logic that states that two distinct things cannot achieve the same end (though I strongly doubt my head would even achieve the end of driving a nail. Much more likely–nay, certainly,–the nail would drive THROUGH my head.) Further, a hammer is not simply a natural object. Hammers don’t just occur in nature. They are created items created towards an objective end. Hence, they serve an objective purpose.

 

[ReapReason]

Irrelevant. Besides that, the two are so inextricably intertwined, any conversation about them beyond simple mechanical observation is bound to involve both of them. Don’t try to evade the argument.

Its clear from this statement that you don’t really understand how metaphysics operates.

 

[buffalo]

New paper: Viruses are devolving…

Giant viruses coexisted with the cellular ancestors and represent a distinct supergroup along with superkingdoms Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya

…Trees of domains indicate they have evolved via massive and primordial reductive evolutionary processes

 

[JDaniel]

I have a hammer. According to you I also have a ‘nature of hammer’. I remove a single material atom from my hammer. Does the remainder of the hammer, the bulk of it, still have ‘nature of hammer’? I will assume the answer is yes. A polished hammer loses a few atoms in the polishing but is still a hammer.

If ‘nature of hammer’ is in the larger part, and not in the removed atom, then we can be sure that the individual atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’. Replace the first atom and remove a second atom. That second atom also does not contain ‘nature of hammer’, which remains in the larger part. Repeat the remove/replace with every single atom in the hammer. We can show that each atom individually does not contain ‘nature of hammer’.

Now remove each atom in turn, but do not replace them. We have already shown that each atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’, so when each atom is removed the ‘nature of hammer’ must stay behind in the rest of the hammer. Continue removing atoms one by one until all the atoms have been removed. Since we have only removed single atoms, then we know that we have not removed ‘nature of hammer’ because we have already shown that a single atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’. Whatever is left after all the atoms have been removed one by one must be ‘nature of hammer’ because we have shown that we have not at any time removed ‘nature of hammer’. If it was not removed, then if must be whatever is left behind.

Show me this ‘nature of hammer’ that remains after all the atoms of the hammer have been removed.

That is why I do not accept the reified ‘nature of …’ or ‘essence of …’. When you look closely, they cannot be found. They are mental constructs which we find useful in manipulating the world around us, but they are not in themselves the actual world around us. They are part of our internal model of the world. They are not part of the actual world – reification can be seen as the error of mistaking our internal model for external reality.

rossum

Rossum:

I have a great idea! Let’s place your hand on a table top, with your fingers spread. Then, give me a hammer. Now, try really, really hard not to think of the hammer as a “hammer.”

You might not believe what I will tell you, but, I happen to agree with you, but for perhaps slightly different reasons, I think.

God bless,
jd

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have a hammer. According to you I also have a ‘nature of hammer’. I remove a single material atom from my hammer. Does the remainder of the hammer, the bulk of it, still have ‘nature of hammer’? I will assume the answer is yes. A polished hammer loses a few atoms in the polishing but is still a hammer.

Yes, because that small change does not alter the overall composition of the hammer in any significant way. It is, at best, a less perfect hammer. Just the same as a human being losing a hand doesn’t cause them to cease being a human being.

Now, if you melted it or broke it into pieces, it would no longer be a hammer, having lost the fundamental form that constitutes the definition “hammer.” A thing can have an intrinsic nature so long as its constituent matter adheres to the form of that nature.

If ‘nature of hammer’ is in the larger part, and not in the removed atom, then we can be sure that the individual atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’. Replace the first atom and remove a second atom. That second atom also does not contain ‘nature of hammer’, which remains in the larger part. Repeat the remove/replace with every single atom in the hammer. We can show that each atom individually does not contain ‘nature of hammer’.

Correct, because we do not define things by their individual parts. Again, this is what is known as the “modo hoc” fallacy. The arrangement of matter is as objective a reality as the matter itself.

Now remove each atom in turn, but do not replace them. We have already shown that each atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’, so when each atom is removed the ‘nature of hammer’ must stay behind in the rest of the hammer. Continue removing atoms one by one until all the atoms have been removed. Since we have only removed single atoms, then we know that we have not removed ‘nature of hammer’ because we have already shown that a single atom does not contain ‘nature of hammer’. Whatever is left after all the atoms have been removed one by one must be ‘nature of hammer’ because we have shown that we have not at any time removed ‘nature of hammer’. If it was not removed, then if must be whatever is left behind.

Natures are universals and are defined by both matter and form. Once the hammer ceases to meet the objective qualifications of “being a hammer”, the arrangement no longer possesses that nature.

Show me this ‘nature of hammer’ that remains after all the atoms of the hammer have been removed.

The nature is dependent on the overall arrangement of the atoms. The reality of that arrangement is an objective fact.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Its clear from this statement that you don’t really understand how metaphysics operates.

Ad hominem. If I’m wrong, don’t insult me; correct me.

 

[prodigalson2011]

1. We know atoms exist because we have measured the activity intrinsic to their nature and being. We have then labelled that particular kind of activity with the word atoms.

But wait! Those atoms are made up of smaller parts! Just because those parts happen to be arranged in such a way as to make up what we have labelled an “atom” doesn’t mean that they have the objective nature of atoms!

Do you see how far into unintelligibility this line of thinking can extend? Talk about an infinite regress…

 

[ReapReason]

In this particular meaning of the word, a hammer is “a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle.” .

So there are different species of hammer?

Theses are the materials and shapes we use for the idea of a hammer because we find them most efficient; but it is clearly not the final cause of these materials to drive in nails. That’s just an end for which we find these particular materials useful. This in itself and by itself does not constitute the idea that there truly is an essence that is intrinsically a hammer. Objects that can function as a hammer exist, but that is not the same as saying that there is an essence that is objectively and intrinsically a hammer regardless of whether people know it or not. There is a difference.

Lets try a different concept. Are you saying that if I wear a sock as a glove that therefore I am mistaken about the intrinsic final cause of that object?

That may seem so if you are brainwash by convention.
The reality is, the subjective value I place on it as being a sock, is the reason I put it on my foot. That I value it for foot warmth does not mean that its intrinsic objective nature is the warming of feet. If I choose to put it on my hand, it is because it serves my value of warming my hand.

It neither has the objective nature of a glove or a sock; it is purely subjective.

Simply asserting otherwise is not going to change that fact.

 

[ReapReason]

But wait! Those atoms are made up of smaller parts! Just because those parts happen to be arranged in such a way as to make up what we have labelled an “atom” doesn’t mean that they have the objective nature of atoms!

I don’t understand. So what if smaller parts with particular essences constitutes a larger essence. The larger essences is serving a greater teleological purpose than the sum of its parts.

this is not the case with hammers. A Hammer is an idea for which we have physical representative symbols.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So there are different species of hammer?

I think we all know that the word hammer has several different meanings. For instance, the “hammer” used in a hammer throw is a metal ball attached to a steel wire.

Theses are the materials and shapes we use for the idea of a hammer because we find them most efficient; but it is clearly not the final cause of these materials to drive in nails. That’s just an end for which we find these particular materials useful. This in itself and by itself does not constitute the idea that there truly is an essence that is intrinsically a hammer. Objects that can function as a hammer exist, but that is not the same as saying that there is an essence that is objectively and intrinsically a hammer regardless of whether people know it or not. There is a difference.

You continually reduce objects to their components. I don’t know how many times I must point out that that’s a logical fallacy. A hammer is more than the material that makes it up, it is also the objective form into which that material is arranged. The essence of a hammer consists of certain materials being arranged into a form which we all recognize as being a hammer.

Lets try a different concept. Are you saying that if wear a sock as a glove that therefore i am mistaken about the intrinsic final cause of that object?

Yes. For starters, feet and hands are shaped differently and a sock is obviously designed to fit a foot. A glove is obviously shaped to fit a hand.

The reality is, the subjective value I place on it as being a sock, is the reason I put it on my foot.

The value you you place on it as being a sock is that it is a sock. It was intently DESIGNED to be put on your foot. That it was designed to be put on a foot is not a subjective interpretation, it is an objective fact.

That I value it for foot warmth does not mean that its intrinsic objective nature is the warming of feet. I choose to put it on my hand, then it serves the value of warming my hand.

These are extrinsic values. They are assigned after the fact of the existence of the sock. If it were not for the idea of clothing the foot, the sock would not exist. This purpose is intrinsic to the sock; preceding and forming it. The uses you find otherwise are secondary and extrinsic.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I don’t understand. So what if smaller parts with particular essences constitutes a larger essence.

That’s exactly my point, and exactly what you’ve been arguing against the entire time. I think you’ve essentially just conceded the debate.

 

[ReapReason]

You continually reduce objects to their components.

You continually keep making straw-men of my argument.

 

[ReapReason]

That’s exactly my point, and exactly what you’ve been arguing against the entire time. I think you’ve essentially just conceded the debate.

No I have not been arguing against this fact. I have been arguing against your belief that hammers are objective essences.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You continually keep making straw-men of my argument.

Am I making straw men, or is your house just built of straw?

No I have not been arguing against this fact. I have been arguing against your belief that hammers are objective essences.

And your argument against it has been that hammers are composed of smaller things that do not possess that essence. The same can be said of atoms, if we argue from your (original) perspective. They are composed of smaller things that do not possess, in and of themselves, the essence of an atom. Yet, you concede that when they are arranged in such a way and ordered towards a particular outcome they possess a new real essence.

In the same way, when certain atoms are arranged in particular ways, they assume a form that does contain the objective essence of a hammer. Now a thing’s final cause is what it is ordered towards by its nature. A hammer, by its very form, is ordered towards delivering a concentrated impact.

 

[rossum]

A thing can have an intrinsic nature so long as its constituent matter adheres to the form of that nature.

Then you have an arbitrary boundary between ‘hammer’ and ‘not hammer’. Is 100 atoms sufficient, while 99 atoms are not? What if it is a jeweller’s hammer, would 50 atoms suffice? A sledgehammer would require a lot more atoms. Does every type of hammer have its own nature? Does every individual hammer have its own nature? They are all different in small details after all.

The designation “hammer” is something applied by our brains to an external object. That designation is in our brain – it is part of our internal model of the external world. You are reifying – confusing your internal model with the external world.

Correct, because we do not define things by their individual parts. Again, this is what is known as the “modo hoc” fallacy. The arrangement of matter is as objective a reality as the matter itself.

I could melt a hammerhead into a roughly spherical lump of metal and still use it to hammer in nails, I would just have to be more careful not to hit my fingers of the hand holding the lump. I could even use a piece of rounded stone from the bed of a stream to hit the nail. Does every large pebble have ‘nature of hammer’?

Natures are universals and are defined by both matter and form.

Which is where we differ. In Buddhism there are no universals, there is only the world as it is. There is no separate world of universals sitting behind the world we see. That is an error of us projecting our internal models onto the external world. We are externalising our internal model. That is an error because the model is not external, but internal.

The nature is dependent on the overall arrangement of the atoms. The reality of that arrangement is an objective fact.

The matter and its arrangement is fact. The universal nature behind it is not an external fact, but is an artefact of our common misuse of our internal model.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

No, it’s not. We believe we were made in the image of God and share in his creative power. How, then, is it a heresy?

Also: "A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature."

So we see that the very idea of teleology stems from our understanding of the human will. Why, therefore, would our creations not share in the finality of purpose of the actions and wills that created them? It is deliberate creation that gives things teleological meaning.

“Have I not told you, ‘you are gods?’” - God

Either purposeful activity is a fundamental element of reality or a product of purposeless events. There is no other alternative.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then you have an arbitrary boundary between ‘hammer’ and ‘not hammer’. Is 100 atoms sufficient, while 99 atoms are not? What if it is a jeweller’s hammer, would 50 atoms suffice? A sledgehammer would require a lot more atoms. Does every type of hammer have its own nature? Does every individual hammer have its own nature? They are all different in small details after all.

The arguments that are being used to counter the intrinsic purpose concept are classic logical fallacies. Yours is a fallacy known as the “thin edge of a wedge” fallacy, meaning that we cannot have distinct entities if there is a series of small steps that distinguish them. Since there is no exact point to establish the difference does not entail there is no difference. (Slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge or camel’s nose fallacy)

T
The designation “hammer” is something applied by our brains to an external object. That designation is in our brain – it is part of our internal model of the external world. You are reifying – confusing your internal model with the external world.

You are, in principle, denying that your internal world corresponds in any way with the external one. We have no reason to deny any of the reality of the external world just because we have an internal concept of it. Our concept may in fact correspond quite nicely with the external reality. You haven’t shown that it necessarily doesn’t, except as an assumption.

T
I could melt a hammerhead into a roughly spherical lump of metal and still use it to hammer in nails, I would just have to be more careful not to hit my fingers of the hand holding the lump. I could even use a piece of rounded stone from the bed of a stream to hit the nail. Does every large pebble have ‘nature of hammer’?

This together with your first quote, are nonsense, they are like claiming that in order for a concept of a hammer to be meaningful, each hammer must be made up of millions of little hammers or the concept hammer has no meaning. This is an example of the composition fallacy.

T
Which is where we differ. In Buddhism there are no universals, there is only the world as it is. There is no separate world of universals sitting behind the world we see. That is an error of us projecting our internal models onto the external world. We are externalising our internal model. That is an error because the model is not external, but internal.

The matter and its arrangement is fact. The universal nature behind it is not an external fact, but is an artefact of our common misuse of our internal model.
rossum

Your assumption is that our internal world can have no correspondence with the external world and that any concept we have cannot correspond with the external reality of what is. That is just a flat out assumption. You have no way of knowing the external world is not comprised of universals. Our projecting concepts onto the world may in fact be correct because there may be universal concepts there to derive our internal concepts from. The premise for your world view is your preference but not one that needs to be accepted for any compelling reason.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course I don’t cease to be the same person, in the sense that I am centred upon roughly the same configuration of matter and energy, occupying about the same amount of space (though less space than I occupied 18 months ago, I’m pleased to say!) - but neither I nor any learned philosopher has ever claimed that humans are ‘immutable’.

The reduction of a person to an object “centred upon roughly the same configuration of matter and energy” is a physicalist assumption which leads to an arbitrary and unverifiable notion of immutability.

I might be the same person, the same proximal identity that I was when I was born, but I have some fairly apparent differences.

“might be” and “proximal” are nebulous.

The claim of immutability, when applied to an eternal, spiritual being, one that is unimpeded by time, space or indeed any dimensional limitation, implies that there is no change, none whatsoever.

The issue is not “an” eternal being but the Supreme Reality:

“In Him we live, move and have our being.”

The change from not conceiving of a plan for creation, to conceiving of a plan for creation, to actually executing that plan for creation (however that might be accomplished by a nonphysical entity) - if such is what your God is claimed to have done - demonstrates a change from one state to another.

“your God” is a sarcastic phrase which stands out like a sore thumb in what should be an objective discussion.

The literal interpretation of divine activity in terms of human activity is clearly unwarranted. God is not a created individual but the Creator of all things visible and invisible. “conceiving of a plan” and “executing that plan” presuppose temporal states which are inapplicable to the Eternal Being.

The phrase “however that might be accomplished by a nonphysical entity” reveals a physicalist mentality which fails to acknowledge the irreducibility of mental events to physical events. How do neural impulses conceive and execute plans?

I will add, just because it seems to have been largely bypassed by this thread, that Intelligent Design is, demonstrably, a complete failure as science - that is, as a serious attempt to explain the world as we experience it. All it can do is insinuate itself into the ever-decreasing gaps in scientific knowledge.

Physicalism is demonstrably, a complete failure as science - that is, as a serious attempt to explain the world as we experience it. All it can do is insinuate itself into the gaps in scientific knowledge and reveal the desperate lengths to which its adherents will resort to evade the rational, purposeful nature of reality.

Even Young-Earth Creationism at least makes fact claims, however wrong they have been shown to be. The design hypothesis offers no predictions, no fact claims, even, that could ever be verified.

False! Design predicts that the universe will continue to be orderly, intelligible and predictable, that the principle of induction will continue to be reliable and that persons will continue to make their decisions on the assumption that life is purposeful - and not a freak occurrence caused by fortuitous combinations of molecules.

All it can do, and ever has done, is assert, prematurely and without support, that some things are inaccessible to science, and therefore must fall under the auspices of supernatural design. Until unequivocal evidence of the identity and direct action of the designer in question is presented, Intelligent Design, as a theory of reality, has nothing going for it.

All materialism can do, and ever has done, is assert, prematurely and without support, that everything is in principle accessible to science, and therefore must fall under the auspices of inscrutable matter. Until unequivocal evidence of the identity and **direct action **of this purposeless force is presented, Unintelligent Design, as a theory of reality, has nothing going for it - unless one is prepared to declare that everything is fundamentally absurd, thereby destroying the validity of one’s conclusion…

 

[tonyrey]

1. The belief that nothing is intrinsically purposeful is based on materialism - which maintains that everything is composed of purposeless elements.
2. Yet life is intrinsically purposeful.
3. The urge to survive entails goal-directed activity.
4. Persons are intrinsically purposeful beings whose activity is goal-directed in three respects.
5. Their goals are determined genetically and culturally.
6. They establish and implement goals for themselves.
7. They establish and implement goals for other persons, animals and things.
8. Reasoning is essentially goal-directed.
9. Inanimate objects are goal-directed when they form the basis of life.
10. Inanimate objects do not produce goal-directed activity.
11. Goal-directed activity is not explicable by physical causes.
12. Therefore there is overwhelming evidence for Design.