An argument for intelligent design that I've been contemplating for some time

1. all arguments are philosophical arguments at their core Teenaged.  

2. Well yes, Skepticism is self-refuting. There's nothing to stop us from concluding "There is no Knowledge" once we concede that "the burden of proof is always upon the cognitivist". This is because of the problem of criterion, and can only be solved by proposing that the burden of proof is on the skeptic.  

3. You have never shown why Particularism is wrong or problematic in the least.  

4. Right, its the fact that Particularism is the ONLY solution to the problem of criterion that is at all coherent. Do you have one? Then please, for the audience, present it! 

5. ...wut? I have no idea what you're saying here. danwallacefan

 1. Oh really. Then I suppose every refutation to your argument (counter arguments) are also philosophicalin their core arent they?
But the question is: do all philosophical arguments have the same credibility? or rather.... : Are all philosophical arguments merely philosophical?
Short answer: no.

2. Well then I assume one could claim that through your argumentation there is nothing stopping us from claiming absurd things, even more absurd of course that wishing to "prove" that there is a designer.
A point that has been made plenty of times in response to your threads. Therefore both your route and the skeptic's route has problems. And you havent proven how your route has less. ;)

3. As for that....

Particularism is contrasted with methodism, which answers the latter question before the former. Since the question "What do we know" implies that we know, particularism is considered fundamentally anti-skeptical, and was ridiculed by Kant in the Prolegomena.Wikipedia

Also you havent answered to me, how you justify bringing up the four causes of Aristotle, and specifically the formal cause (because the formal cause is the one that helps your argument), seeing how the formal cause is based on Plato's theory of the forms.

Do you think Plato's theory of the forms is a safe route to create arguments that actually try to prove something, instead of just entertain the mind?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

If biological systems are designed then whoever designed us is an idiot. Case in point: The eye. If you told someone to design an eye they would probably put the light sensing tissue on top of all of the rest of the tissue in the back of the eye and have the nerves innervating that light sensing tissue from the back since they also need to run their axons back to the brain to deliver the sensory information. Duh, simple, even a child would design it that way.

In reality, however, the eye is nothing like that. The light sensing tissue is actually buried underneath four other layers, meaning that light must pass through four layers of tissue before it can be transduced into a neural signal. As dumb as that is, the real design failure is that the neurons are all at the TOP of those tissue layers. The consequence of that is that all those neurons' axons have to create a hole in the eye so that they can get to the brain. Hence the reason you have a blindspot in your vision; you literally have a hole in your eye. A hole that doesn't even need to be there.

Another example that shows that your creator is an ignoramous are insect species that lack mouths. They're born, grow up, and as adults have a very short period of time during which they spend doing nothing but mating before they die from starvation. That makes sense if you accept evolution since you don't need a long life span, you just need to live long enough to pass on your genes. It doesn't make sense, however, if you assume that an intelligent being designed all life on Earth.

As a final example, I wish to use your own example about birds and wings. You say that "birds have wings so that they can fly". Why, then, do flightless birds exist? Ostriches, emus, and kiwis all have wings but none of them can fly. Not only is that a direct contradiction to your statement, but it's contridicts in more ways than one since if the teleological position really were correct then those flightless birds should at least have arms or some other useful appendage instead of two atrophied, useless wings.

danwallacefan

Simple. You assume that this creator is God right? I mean, let's face it, this creator has to be supernatural in origin (the "it could be aliens" excuse doesn't work since then you have to explain where the aliens came from), and I've yet to find a creationist who didn't truly believe that God was the creator anyway.

So, we all know that God is perfect. And thus anything that God does is perfect or else he would not be perfect (ie it is impossible for something perfect to do an imperfect thing, or else it would be imperfect if only because of that one imperfect action). Thus, anything God creates must be created perfectly. As I have shown, life is hardly a perfect creation. It is full of flaws. The "hole in the eye" problem isn't an issue because it isn't how we would create it, it's an issue because it introduces a handicap in that you literally cannot see what's in front of you if it happens to fall into a certain spot. While it may be difficult to define a perfect eye, I think we can at least agree that at minimum a perfect eye must allow the organism to view everything in the eye's visual field. Our eyes do not do this. By all accounts, we have broken eyes.

Thus, there are imperfections in life. Thus, life was not created by something perfect. Thus, God did not create life.

Now does this disprove teleology? No. We could assume that Christianity is false and that a religion that worships some sort of imperfect god is in fact the true religion and that that god was the one who created all life. We could assume that some sort of as-of-yet unknown god-like supernatural being created us.

But by the way, you didn't answer my question about flightless birds. Again, the teleogical position as applied to biology states that everything an organism has exists for a reason. Why then, do flightless birds have wings?

Gameguy, you have made a great many assumptions in your post which I will now take time to expose. 

First off, what definition of "perfect" are you using?

Second, why do perfections only cause perfections?

Third, why do take your purpose and assume that God had the same purpose for his creations? 

Gameguy, you have made a great many assumptions in your post which I will now take time to expose. 

First off, what definition of "perfect" are you using?

Second, why do perfections only cause perfections?

Third, why do take your purpose and assume that God had the same purpose for his creations? 

danwallacefan

Perfect as in "no flaws". Come on, if you know what teleology is then certainly you're familiar with the concept of perfection in philosophy and the inherent contradictions, so stop playing naive.

Why do perfections cause only perfections? Becuase to be perfect means that the subject in question can have no flaws. To create something imperfect would be a flaw.

We can stop right here actually. God has already created many imperfect things even by his own admission. In fact, all of his creations are imperfect and he claims them to be so by design. Now you may say that because God willed something to be imperfect that provides an exception to what I just said in the second paragraph, but in truth it doesn't. It shows that God is petty or at least takes some joy out of seeing other sapient beings suffer from imperfection (indeed, God himself admits this throughout the bible. Ex: Tower of Babel). Such attributes do not belong to a perfect being. Thus, God is not perfect (not that this is the only proof that God is imperfect. There are many, many instances in the Bible where God is shown to have weaknesses or flaws).

So contrary to what I said earlier, yes, Jehova could be the creator of life since he himself is imperfect. However, the main evidence to suggest that is the case is God's own word which isn't trustworthy since by consequence of being imperfect, and because God claims to be perfect despite reality, God is a liar. Of course, even liars sometimes tell the truth so this isn't necessarily a damning conclusion, although it does require that we have some other evidence to support concsious design of life.

Which leads us back to teleology and my point about flightless birds which you've avoided answering twice now.

Perfect as in "no flaws".gameguy6700

Alright. What is a "flaw" 

Come on, if you know what teleology is then certainly you're familiar with the concept of perfection in philosophy and the inherent contradictions, so stop playing naive.gameguy6700

I've come upon many different conceptions of "perfect" and "perfection" as I have read the philosophical literature.  

Why do perfections cause only perfections? Becuase to be perfect means that the subject in question can have no flaws. To create something imperfect would be a flaw.gameguy6700

Why? 

We can stop right here actually. God has already created many imperfect things even by his own admission. In fact, all of his creations are imperfect and he claims them to be so by design. Now you may say that because God willed something to be imperfect that provides an exception to what I just said in the second paragraph, but in truth it doesn't. It shows that God is petty or at least takes some joy out of seeing other sapient beings suffer from imperfection (indeed, God himself admits this throughout the bible. Ex: Tower of Babel). Such attributes do not belong to a perfect being. Thus, God is not perfect (not that this is the only proof that God is imperfect. There are many, many instances in the Bible where God is shown to have weaknesses or flaws).gameguy6700

The problem, if course, is that you haven't actually outlined the definition of "perfection" and its relation to teleology. For instance, I could say that God created our eyes so that we could see. But who's to say that our eyes have ONLY that purpose?

So contrary to what I said earlier, yes, Jehova could be the creator of life since he himself is imperfect. However, the main evidence to suggest that is the case is God's own word which isn't trustworthy since by consequence of being imperfect, and because God claims to be perfect despite reality, God is a liar. Of course, even liars sometimes tell the truth so this isn't necessarily a damning conclusion, although it does require that we have some other evidence to support concsious design of life.

Which leads us back to teleology and my point about flightless birds which you've avoided answering twice now.

gameguy6700

I've come upon many different conceptions of "perfect" and "perfection" as I have read the philosophical literature.  danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

I've come upon many different conceptions of "perfect" and "perfection" as I have read the philosophical literature.  foxhound_fox

I think I remember one of his definitions of a perfection as a simple positive quality that expresses whatever it expresses without limitation. That was in the context of an ontological argument however where he was trying to show that necessity was a perfection. He probably has other definitions that would relate to the teleological argument a bit better.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Perfect as in "no flaws".danwallacefan

Alright. What is a "flaw" 

Come on, if you know what teleology is then certainly you're familiar with the concept of perfection in philosophy and the inherent contradictions, so stop playing naive.gameguy6700

I've come upon many different conceptions of "perfect" and "perfection" as I have read the philosophical literature.  

Why do perfections cause only perfections? Becuase to be perfect means that the subject in question can have no flaws. To create something imperfect would be a flaw.gameguy6700

Why? 

We can stop right here actually. God has already created many imperfect things even by his own admission. In fact, all of his creations are imperfect and he claims them to be so by design. Now you may say that because God willed something to be imperfect that provides an exception to what I just said in the second paragraph, but in truth it doesn't. It shows that God is petty or at least takes some joy out of seeing other sapient beings suffer from imperfection (indeed, God himself admits this throughout the bible. Ex: Tower of Babel). Such attributes do not belong to a perfect being. Thus, God is not perfect (not that this is the only proof that God is imperfect. There are many, many instances in the Bible where God is shown to have weaknesses or flaws).gameguy6700

The problem, if course, is that you haven't actually outlined the definition of "perfection" and its relation to teleology. For instance, I could say that God created our eyes so that we could see. But who's to say that our eyes have ONLY that purpose?

So contrary to what I said earlier, yes, Jehova could be the creator of life since he himself is imperfect. However, the main evidence to suggest that is the case is God's own word which isn't trustworthy since by consequence of being imperfect, and because God claims to be perfect despite reality, God is a liar. Of course, even liars sometimes tell the truth so this isn't necessarily a damning conclusion, although it does require that we have some other evidence to support concsious design of life.

Which leads us back to teleology and my point about flightless birds which you've avoided answering twice now.

gameguy6700

Teleology, as you've presented it in this biological context, holds that everything an organism has exists for a specific goal and purpose. Hence why I've pointed out flightless birds; their wings are useless and serve no function which stands in direct contradiction to a teleogical viewpoint on biology. It's not just wings on flightless birds that pose this problem either, but all vestigial structures (the tail bones in a human being another example). Such issues are no problem for evolution because it it's a natural process and not goal oriented. It is a problem, however, when you wish to argue that everything in life was consciously created for a reason. 

As for all the talk about perfection, I'm not going to debate that anymore now that I see all you want to do is try to weasle out of having to actually come up with a rebuttal by moving the goalpost everytime I reply ("define X...now define Y...now define Z...now define..."). I'm not really in the mood for word games right now.

"the final cause of birds having wings is so they can fly."

I guess penguins, ostriches, emus, chickens, and all of the other flightless descendants of flying ancestors didn't get that memo.

"the final cause of birds having wings is so they can fly."

I guess penguins, ostriches, emus, chickens, and all of the other flightless descendants of flying ancestors didn't get that memo.

donalbane

You know, I hadn't thought of that, but that really does put a damper on dan's post. :lol:

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

"the final cause of birds having wings is so they can fly."

I guess penguins, ostriches, emus, chickens, and all of the other flightless descendants of flying ancestors didn't get that memo.

chessmaster1989

You know, I hadn't thought of that, but that really does put a damper on dan's post. :lol:

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="donalbane"]

"the final cause of birds having wings is so they can fly."

I guess penguins, ostriches, emus, chickens, and all of the other flightless descendants of flying ancestors didn't get that memo.

Gambler_3

You know, I hadn't thought of that, but that really does put a damper on dan's post. :lol: