I don't really understand your criticism. I pointed out that the argument NotReady was using is only successful if the claim that ordered and structured objects are only produced by intelligence is true. In order for that premise to be false, it is only necessary to show a single counterexample. I showed a single counterexample. Thus, it is false, and the argument as a whole fails. But again, just because an argument fails doesn't mean the conclusion is false. So your comment that "it doesn't say that whatever system or mechanism is behind random mutation is not from an intelligence," while true, is irrelevant.

Where in this did I assume my conclusion? Do you mean that I didn't start with the assumption that (1)* is true? You're right, I didn't. I also didn't assume it was false. Rather, I looked at the empirical evidence, which shows that it is false.

What I'm really trying to do is provoke a argument for (1)*. Since that is the controversial premise, what are the reasons to believe it is true? I've stated why I think it is false--why do you believe it is true?

This is the part I don't get and really the only part of formal logic that you've talked about that I've contested. I thought (and when I have the energy to break out my Copi I will check) that the concept of validity only applied to deductive arguments and since analogical arguments are not deductive the concept doesn't apply. You end up saying an argument can be good but invalid. Maybe that's the case but it's news to me.

I very strongly disagree with this. It's hugely question begging. Again, from my car analogy, just because the car works fine doesn't mean the engineer isn't relevant. Just because a process can be described by natural law doesn't mean it isn't designed.

Where?

OK, I see what you mean. Yes, the argument could use a lot of work and it's very simplified. As to why I think order and structure requires intelligence, to that I refer to the argument from design, or more commonly known as the teleological argument for those that are unaware. But note that I don't think NR's first premise is true, because of the qualifier "only."

You can't have design without order and structure. You can have order and structure by sheer random chance (roll the dice long enough...), but does that mean by extension then that you can have design by random chance? Obviously, no. That leaves us with two possibilities regarding objects that are structured and ordered. Either they're the result of design or random chance. Clearly, they can't be both.

I wasn't trying to make a full-blown teleological argument, just throwing up something for the discussion of how logic applies. A full argument would entail much more, for instance in the past I've used Dawkins' definition of appearance of design, and we could include the ID concepts of "specified complexity" and "information". Paley himself spent quite a lot of ink on the topic.

I like your last 2 sentences as I've often pointed out the the whole thing boils down to chance or design - in terms of plausibility, design seems to have the upper hand.

Let's look at this a little closer. You acknowledge that we can describe the production of a complex object (the eye) through natural laws (and I'll assume that you mean non-intelligent actor natural laws). However, you think that because these natural laws are themselves designed by God, anything produced by natural laws is ultimately designed by God as well.

You support this claim by talking about cars and engineers. This is not really helpful as cars don't produce complex objects and so don't have the relevant feature. So let's say a fully automated factory instead as it would be designed by an engineer and produces complex objects. Essentially, what you are doing in this claim is saying, well, some complex objects appear to be produced through non-intellectual natural causes, but that is an illusion since God created the universe and everything in it and so ultimately is responsible for creating everything.

The natural response is to say, well, how do we know God created the universe? After all, in order for God to create the universe she must exist, and that is what we are trying to prove. Here are two ways you might respond.

1. You might say that we know because of some other independent reason, x. Of course, this is no good for the design argument. It then becomes apparent that you are assuming the conclusion you mean to prove, and so we should drop this discussion and just focus on x.

2. You might say, well we know because the set of natural laws is itself an ordered and complex object and so must have been produced by intelligence (by (1)*). Now, my response was meant to show that (1)* was false. Merely repeating that in fact (1)* is true is not adequate unless you have some other good reason to think it true. So far, you have not provided one. The actual design argument is meant to do so--through an analogy between human artifacts and natural objects, or through the improbability of naturally occurring order, or whatever.

I think this second response gets to the crux of the issue. It seems you have a basic intuition that (1)* is true. Any attempt to flesh this out as an argument (whether as an analogical or inductive generalization) doesn't capture the real reason you accept this claim. This is also why you are so casual about argument form here.

Now, I'm not going to argue that (1)* is false just because it is based on an intuition. However, unless this intuition is generally held, I don't think it has much evidentiary value. And this intuition is not generally held. Furthermore, even if it were generally held, I think there are good reasons to think this intuition is a poor one.

I'll also note that this means that the design argument fails to provide a reason to believe there is a God and so fails as an argument. If the design argument is based on a premise with little evidence behind it, it does not establish its conclusion.

You earlier said that you thought the force of the teleological argument was that it showed it is "not unreasonable" to infer a designer from the appearance of design. This makes sense if you are saying that you are just making following your basic intuitions--and everyone has an epistemic right to believe their own intuitions. Your belief in a designer God would be rational then as it is an implications of these intuitions. However, for those without your intuitions, it would be rational to not believe in a designer God. And so your curious locution.

Anyway, that seems to me what is going on.

My discussion (brief!) of the human eye.

Then the argument fails. It is presented as a deductive argument. For deductive arguments to succeed, all premises must be true.

Not sure what the point is here. I don't think the universe was "designed" (at least by some definitions). I also think that in order for your point to be interesting you have to be more specific about what "design" means.

I appreciate the bolded part. That's really what I'm getting at and I think it's the first time a non-theist has said this since I've been here.

One can try to show that there is appearance of design and that would be part of an apologetic effort. But if someone denies that appearance, with or without evidence and arguments, then the teleological argument has no force. Similarly with the cosmo argument. Craig often says that the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is only truly accepted through intuition. You can give illustrations and make arguments about it, but if you simply don't accept the premise then the cosmo says nothing to you.

What happens when you reject one of the premises is that you must accept another proposition which usually appears less plausible that the one that is rejected. For instance, if you say you don't perceive an appearance of design you are really going against what most people think is obvious. I could cite many non-theists who agree. Crick said that biologists must always keep in mind that there is no teleology in nature. Why would he say that unless he thought nature LOOKS designed. Dawkins agrees in The Blind Watchmaker and says he wrote the book in order to explain this appearance. So the teleological argument forces you to accept a proposition that most people think is implausible. In the cosmo, you have to reject premise 1 by accepting the idea that something can begin to exist without a cause, or in 2 by believing the universe didn't begin. I'm not saying any of this is 100% mathematical certainty. It's a question of plausibility. As I said, the meat is in the premises.

Perhaps because it is usually claimed without the fine print?

That's not usually how we use the term, "well, it's a rational belief". Or, so is believing my grandmother should be ground into dog food if my first premise is she is a day old porkchop. There is some implication that the premise has some respectability to it.

Should I appreciate, as you do, that my pleased puppy one is accepted as a rational belief?

People get out of murder charges because they used this type of rationality to believe they were doing the right thing. It's not a triumph for a claim.

Similar to luckyme I don't think there is anyone who would argue that intuitively the appearence of design could rationally imply design to many people. The issue is is that reason enough to have confidence in that hypothesis? The answer is no. That is what Dawkins is getting at.

also, all of math.

religious stupidity cant be explained by evolution

While I'm glad you appreciate the comment, I'm afraid you misinterpreted it. I was attempting to present your own views in that paragraph, not stating my own. If it is any consolation, I think some people have a rational belief in God, although many do so for irrational reasons.

Throughout this discussion I have not had a strong sense that you are attempting to understand my position. So, once again, I do not reject the claim that the world exhibits what you call "appearance of design." That is not "part of the apologetic effort." Rather, I reject the inference from that appearance to a designer. Since you rely on intuition for that inference, I think you should stop calling it the design argument, and start calling it the design intuition.

Nope. I can just hold the negation of your premise. Actually, I don't even need to do that--I can just say that the truth value of one of your premises is uncertain.

I think our intuitions are probably not very helpful in figuring out how the universe came to be, but that is a separate question. Anyway, if you are just saying that most people around here believe in God, then sure, you're right. Not sure why it is relevant.

I have to admit I may need some reading lessons if that's the case.

No, I think intuition is a PART of the perception of the appearance. The inference is not an intuition but a rational step.

Of course you can just say I don't know. What I meant is it's logical to say that if you don't agree there is appearance of design then there is no appearance of design. Your position seems to be "I don't know if there is appearance of design". That's fine - that works just as well in the implausible category.

I seriously doubt there would be much progress of any kind in any worthwhile endeavor without a great deal of intuition - that isn't the only method of course, but most likely is the lion's share even of significant scientific advance.

Even if all you had was an intuition of design that would be enough to make the inference reasonable. Of course, that isn't all there is if you pursue the matter further - design screams out from everywhere, from the incredible precision of the initial conditions and other aspects of fine tuning for life to the amazing complexity contained in every cell of every living organism. We are surrounded by order, purpose, structure and intricate complexity beyond our ability to even fathom - it was that way for the ancients and it increases for us with almost every passing day as more and more is learned about the nature of the universe - the more we learn the more we know how little we know and how fantastically complex reality truly is.

But for the majority of mankind this kind of knowledge is unavailable - the simple perception of those without education is sufficient to reasonably believe that this is no accident.

Its not necessarily that Jib doesn't like it but its that God means creator. Biblically the word in hebrew that is translated God in english is the word elohim. Elohim means creator. And elohim as defined from the word is the one who brings something into existance from nothing.

The word of God also states that God has no beginning and no ending. So the question of where did God come from to a Christian is stupid.

Its a question asked amiss. Its a question that originates in error. It cannot be answered other than that God has no beginning or ending. Its really that simple.

That's the cold-reading technique. People forget the misses.

What that means is that even granting a useful role for intuition ( and rather ignoring the 10,000 hour prep time or edisons "99% perspiration, 1% inspiration assessment) it still doesn't translate backwards. "Hey, I have an intuition, therefore it means there's something to this" is not sound reasoning at all.

Odds are ( this is for bunny ) when you have an intuition it is wrong. You can test this on your friends on a topic you know a lot on. People often carry analogies too far. Analogical thinking is a common feeding ground for intuition.

My actual, stated, position:
NotReady
See, I think you believe this about yourself, but your argumentation doesn't support it. You tend to focus on supporting the premise that the world exhibits an appearance of design (or what I prefer to call ordered complexity). Why? No one has disagreed with this premise. However, the only argument you presented in support of the actually controversial premise (that an appearance of design can only be explained by a designer), I've shown to be circular--that is, you assume your conclusion to be true (by intuition was my guess). Since, as you say, the meat is in the premises, and you assume the controversial premise is true, I think it is accurate to say that you rely on intuition to reach your conclusion.

are we ever going to get an example from NR on what a universe would look like that if is wasn't designed?

EDIT: if i've missed it can anyone link or summarize?

I'm glad you brought up design, because that's probably one of the least talked about points here. What is design? It's purpose. One could say that the universe was designed by an intelligence so that carbon-based amino acid life can evolve and develop.

That's the question, albeit not for NR, but for anybody that wants to look at a universe whose initial conditions cannot permit life the way we understand it.

I think this is what we've been discussing for the last 170 posts.

I meant the forum. Sorry for the confusion.

ID comes up all the time in this forum...not sure what you're talking about...

You define "design" as purpose. This is a bit terse, so I'll state what I think your view is first. You are saying that an object is designed if it has a telos, or end or goal--what used to be called a "final cause." For instance, cars are designed for the purpose of human transportation. We know this because we evaluate how good a car is by how well it achieves this purpose. You then go on to suggest that the purpose of the universe is to provide an environment for animals like us to develop.

Now, I'm not really comfortable with teleological science, but I'm not going to argue with your framework for discussion here. Instead, I want to focus on your phrase, "One could say." This is an odd way of presenting your views, really very non-committal. And there is good reason for that. Teleological science doesn't provide us with a very good methodology for discovering the purpose of objects. So you say that the purpose of the universe is the development of carbon-based life. But I look around at the scale and majesty of the heavens, and it impresses on me the insignificance of human life. It seems the height of hubris to suggest that all this was created so it would be possible for me to exist. It would be as if I thought that cars were created just so we could eventually develop car fresheners.

Been busy this week, starting at the top: The original Cosmological Argument is very easy to defeat. The more common one, known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is what you guys have been describing), is a bit more difficult, but only because the argument itself is fairly confusing, particularly when the theist starts invoking the problem of the existence of 'actual infinites' (one of the major problems being the assumption that actual infinites are non existent, which is not demonstrable).

I agree. The only argument I can think of which does not contain at least one logical fallacy and rest upon unfounded assumptions is that from personal experience. Keep in mind that logically fallacious arguments are not only contingent upon the structure of the argument itself, but on the reliability of the premises as well. Of course, one can object to arguments from personal experience for a variety of reasons, such as 'how do you know it was god?' However, this is all somewhat irrelevant, as we are discussing reasons for other people to believe in god, and I think we can all agree that your personal experience is not reason for anybody else to believe.

As far as the 'least bad' list goes, I suppose I would put Kalam and CAM's TAG at the top, but in all honesty, this is probably because their refutations are fairly complicated due to the arguments being complicated themselves.