Why not?

Why?

I disagree.

Would you make something from nothing and put it in the universe for no reason?

Then why would they exist?

Most of the time when I make anything, there's a by-product. I don't see why having other stuff as the result of making a specific something is such a problem.

I don't think there needs to be a "plan for" every speck in the universe. They exist because that's how it happened.

It's not a problem, for you. But for God, there's no need for a by-product. He would have had to specifically make the by-product. Why would he do this?

But God decided how it happened...

This type of argument is similar to "Why would God take billions of years to create humans?"

Edit: Or...
* Why do humans require sleep?
* Why do humans have two feet?
* Why does gravity exist?

We can speculate all sorts of reasons why, but there's no real way to sort out a meaningful answer. And the inability to do so isn't really a problem.

My intuition is that these questions are too dissimilar to the question of purpose (or "plan for"), but I'm having a hard time phrasing why, exactly. It may be entirely semantical, i.e. the difference between plan behind, and plan for. Or, it may be because I can envision scenarios where humans wouldn't require sleep, or wouldn't have two feet, or gravity wouldn't exist, but I can't really envision a scenario where God would create something for, basically, no reason.

Really? I think if someone wants to make a claim about something, then absolutely they have to understand the terms used. Otherwise it is wishy washy handwaving. I think your confusion here is that a word can be sufficiently well defined as to be meaningful in one context (like when comparing intelligence of a human to a rock) but might not be in some gray area (like AI). In that case, we can make claims in the domain where everything is well defined, and in the domain where it is not we ought not to.

In which case they have to tell me what this design means and why they think the universe demonstrates elements of it. If they can do that great. If, however, even distinguishing what things are or are not designed is very difficult, as you suggest, this is going to be difficult. And if they can't even define the word, then their claim is meaningless.

Pretty sure the beauty or majesty of nature is a common example of the alleged design. Of course there is a related but separate aesthetic argument for god, doesn't matter, both are pretty lolbad.


um it is explicitly a deductive argument, I don't see how you think it is a framework. Either it is a sound argument, in your eyes, or it isn't.

I wouldn't say God has a specific plan in mind for each specific speck of dust, that just sounds weird. However, I could probably be convinced out of this point of view. God's sovereignty and all that jazz...

Yeah I can pretty much just plus 1 this rather than writing my own post about it.

Tell that to the academic community. Being a mathematician, it's possible that you're simply blinded by the precision with which we work relative to the precision of almost every other field of study.

Of course God is man-made. Every thought exists as mental content in the human brain! That's the only possible thing that the phrase can mean!

Maybe making galaxies is fun.

How is the speck-of-dust argument in the context of creation different from the ebola-virus counter in the context of evolution (disregarding that ebola is somewhat nasty)? They're both results of a certain kind of causal chain.

To put this naively: If god wants us to be the result of a process of evolution, he'll have to make do with the fact that humans have the biggest dong of all primates. If he wants a 15+ bio year cosmos, he'll have to accept a dusty universe.

"The hairs on your head are numbered"

Isn't that the case in a designed universe?

Is... Is that a threat?

lol

heaven (and any observer, fro that matter) knows, mine are.

I should have read OP's original question but became interested in the later statements of design, intelligence, etc.. and of course the Ebola virus and the specks of dust.

The "speck of dust theory" in a designed universe can be answered but not necessarily taken to heart. Just looking at it from an earthly perspective we know, or at least glean from our inorganic knowledge that pockets of oil were at one time , in the ancient past, fallen forests or trees which have gone through an earthly decomposition and regeneration and thus we drive our cars.

Oil, like dead or decomposing trees , is inorganic( of course there are animal matters involved in the decomposition) but none the less through the chemicalizing earthly and heavenly forces the change comes about.

Likewise decomposed calcium deposits are pockets of animal matter (bones).

Therefore the "speck of dust theory" is compelling in the affirmative; of this there is no doubt. Nothing is lost but earthly matters are in a process of transformation, a little or a lot, but always or mostly in time.

There is of course transformation which is not time or space laden but one could see this in the area of "duration". I dunno whether this has legs but the closest I could come to an inner understanding of the "timeless and spaceless" realm is one's feelings of love, hate, anxiety,etc..all of Pandora's box. Likewise our thoughts and thinking are from the "timeless and spaceless" realm ratcheted often through language but none the less, not subject to time and space.

I think this is funny but i don't know why.

That's all well and good but I never posted anything about the speck of dust theory I was only asking about your quote about hair being numbered.

Design is the product of purpose and purpose is the product of intent, so design is the product of intention. The problem we run into is if we’re not privy to the element of intent, it makes it difficult to distinguish between ‘purpose’ and ‘function’. For example, the universe ‘functions’ to produce intelligent beings, just as a rock functions to keep a leaf from blowing away. But unless we know there is the intent to produce intelligent beings or to keep the leaf from blowing away, we can’t say that the universe or the rock is serving, or has, a purpose.

However, since theists don’t use arguments from natural theology as grounds for their belief, but employ them more in a supporting role, all that really matters to them is consistency with functionality to claim purpose and hence design. For example, that the universe functions to produce intelligent beings capable of knowing God, and since theists already believe in God, that suffices for them to ascribe purpose to the universe and claim it is designed. Additionally, they can argue that an all-good, all-loving God would of necessity create souls capable of sharing His nature, and it would be inconsistent with His nature not to. So the existence of a universe that functions to serve that end or purpose is consistent with God’s necessary intent.

Yes, designed. Luke, Chapter 12 Verse 7.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...ter=12&verse=7

Sorry, I do go off on tangents.

I suspect you are just defining one poorly defined concept in terms of some other poorly defined concept here. But nonetheless, if one needs to assume the conclusion (that god exists) prior to accepting a premise of an argument, the argument is vacuous.

I had no idea going in that you would be appealing to NOT needing to understand concepts before making claims about them. How odd. The less clear one is about the definitions going on, the less clear the claims being made are. It doesn't mean one can't say anything without perfectly clear definitions, but it means that where there are problems in the definitions, there can be problems in the conclusions. In our case, we have massive problems with the definitions yet asserting conclusions from them with certainty. The only academics that could support that are the few christian apologists who make it into philosophy departments

And can you PLEASE stop making the manmade quip. You have consistently misrepresented and misunderstood what was going on there and I have now, on several occasions, explained it to you. However, each time I did that you abandoned the thread right afterwards. So stop bringing it up over and over as if you are scoring points.

It's quite clear that you're not really tracking. I never claimed that you did not need to understand the concepts. I've claimed (consistently) that one does not need absolute definitions to have meaningful conversations and construct meaningful arguments.

I've used explicit examples from two different fields ("intelligence" from psychology and "knowledge" from philosophy) to point out that we can understand the conversation without having an absolute definition.

I brought it up as a point of high irony in your presentation. You have used language in such bizarre ways that your harping on the need to an ultimate definition is laughable.

And you're right that I *DID* misunderstand you. You made it quite explicit.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=164

I had thought you meant something different for most of that conversation. I was wrong.

What you cannot say is that I'm misrepresenting you. This is, in fact, what you said you meant.

I like your evolving qualifiers. I don't know what the difference between a definition and a "strict" definition or an "absolute" definition or an "ultimate" definition is. But I don't disagree with your point that one can still make meaningful claims with less strong definitions, in fact I explicitly said so in the part you didn't quote. I merely added that the worse the definitions are, so to does the strength of the claims, and problem areas in the definitions can, and often will, translate to being problem areas in the claims. But you are right, this does not mean nothing can be said without perfect definitions.

The point has been pretty simple. If the supporter of the teleological argument (which I oddly still can't get you claim as sound or not sound) wants to claim there is evident design in the universe, they have to tell me what design is and why the universe appears designed. Your disagreement here seems to raise the not disagreed on point that we might not be able to distinguish every single designed and nondesigned thing, but still can sufficiently agree that some things in the universe like watches and some as yet not given examples from the universe, even with a vague and imprecise colloquial definition of design. Maybe so. However, your observation that both defining design and figuring out what things are and are not designed can be difficult is very apt. For this is precisely the challenge the supporter of this argument has. And indeed, historically this HAS been a huge problem with supporters unable to give satisfactory definitions and satisfactory reasons why the universe demonstrates this obvious design. So whether you meant it in this context or not, I can only echo your observation.



As for manmade, as you say you misunderstood the issue (and made many, many misrepresentations as you talked about it). What you have quoted was far from all that was going in. But I don't care, this is a dead topic. It is amusing to remind me of your idiocy, I suppose, but I don't want to talk about it any more. So stop bringing it up. I will note the supreme irony of someone who finds the expression "man made god, not the other way around" challenging and in need of further qualifications then turning around and putting up a defense of accepting wishy washy definitions and no need for precise definitions.