User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 53

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Ygolo, would you mind expanding on that? I don't entirely follow.
    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    google evolutionary scaffolding
    Although, scaffolding and loss of scaffolding have been used as a response to the ridiculous notion of irreducible complexity (show me one real example of irreducible complexity), that is not what I was getting at.

    Human design is an iterative process. It borrows ideas from other existing designs and combines them in to a new one. The ones that work survive and get reused in further designs. If you think about it, human made designs themselves come about through a process of variation and selection (just like biological evolution).

    You can read more about this in Henry Petroski's books like:
    The Evolution of Useful Things: http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-..._bxgy_b_text_b
    and
    Small Things Considered:http://www.amazon.com/Small-Things-C.../dp/1400032938

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #12
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I am not in a position to care enough to see how scaffolding and what you describe are different. Oh well.


    Actually, i see what you mean, but like i said in another thread: either you wanna know or you dont. Studying scaffolding is important to know how 'design' comes about... I guess i just wanted to teach.

  3. #13
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Ygolo, thank you for the clarification, I think I see your point now. Would it be correct to say you believe that design is a process and in this case human beings are the agents?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #14
    Member Ojian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    73

    Default

    No, it doesnt work like that. No honest Christians I know state their case this way, and I doubt the actual citations you claim state it as was presented. These 'Fallacies' are at best strawmen arguments

    Fallacy one is presented as pretty much a statement begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    There is, no doubt, a fancy-sounding Latin term for this particular fallacy, but in common parlance it's what's known as "jumping to conclusions". It's true that many things we encounter which appear to have been designed were, in fact, designed. However, to jump to the conclusion that all things which appear to have been designed must have been designed is the same as saying: all swans I've encountered have been white. Therefore, all swans are white.
    If in one's experience most, if not all things that appear designed are in fact designed by an intelligent agent, then it is not "jumping to conclusions" to infer that something else that appears designed is in fact designed by an intelligent agen, even if you dont have the detailed knowledge of how it was designed. It goes along with normal, everyday experience. According to the example (though its a badly formed statement), it would be more like: "All swans I've encountered have been birds. Therefore, all swans are birds."

    Fallacy number two:

    "DNA / cells (Jehovah's Witnesses love this one) / the earth and its environment / the cosmos / etc. are so complex! Look at how complex they are: [various data about DNA / cells / the earth and its environment / etc.] I can't believe something so complex could have simply arisen. Therefore, they must have been created by God."
    'Complexity' is part of the argument they make, but hardly all of it. Complexity combined with function or specificity is more accurate. Again, it comes down to everyday experience that a person has that leads to an inference that such items (ex: DNA) show a designing intelligence behind them. It's not an Argument from Incredulity, but its an Argument to the inference of the best explanation, which would be that an intelligence is behind it.

    Now of course any statistical or science data cannot help identify who "God" is, but neither do most Christians claim that it does. God's identity/manifestation is outside science's inquiry and requires a theological approach.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,680

    Default

    The prime mover or unmoved mover is one which I've not considered much but which appears sounder and less of a fallacy to be honest.

    The whole design idea is something I've never needed as a proof of God, I think its a bad hangover from creationism which itself is a consequence of biblical literalism and solo scripture both of which I consider terrible things begun in error and just heaped upon ever since.

    As the "two main" proofs, well, they arent my two main proofs. As to proofs per se, they come and go, some people have a strong need for them, others have a strong need to deprive others of supporting proof, they should look to why they experience either of those compelling motivations.

  6. #16
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ojian View Post
    If in one's experience most, if not all things that appear designed are in fact designed by an intelligent agent, then it is not "jumping to conclusions" to infer that something else that appears designed is in fact designed by an intelligent agen, even if you dont have the detailed knowledge of how it was designed. It goes along with normal, everyday experience. According to the example (though its a badly formed statement), it would be more like: "All swans I've encountered have been birds. Therefore, all swans are birds."
    It seems like the swan analogy above only holds if one has never encountered something that looked designed but in fact was not. But now that I think about it more, it may be the case that those that use the design argument use the term design more generously...

    'Complexity' is part of the argument they make, but hardly all of it. Complexity combined with function or specificity is more accurate. Again, it comes down to everyday experience that a person has that leads to an inference that such items (ex: DNA) show a designing intelligence behind them. It's not an Argument from Incredulity, but its an Argument to the inference of the best explanation, which would be that an intelligence is behind it.
    What's interesting is how people define the best explanation.

    Before any evidence is presented, there are infinite theories about how things work that have yet to be contradicted. All evidence can do is chop sections out of that theory-space -- you're always left with a still infinite set of explanations for how things work consistent with the evidence. This is where people generally lean on occam's razor, but what does "the most simple theory" mean? Simplicity is narrative-dependent. So what is it that makes so many people agree on so few theories? I find it kinda fascinating how small a set of worldviews actually exist in the mainstream.

    On the other hand, it completely baffles me that people believe in God. Oh well... can't escape my own subjectivity.

  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I agree with the OP. items 1 & 2 are specious arguments as presented. However, according to the Christian faith God's gift is free will. Thus to the rational individual no proof can exist for God since that proof would compel acceptance. The basis for faith is subjective belief that is not objective truth. However, the rational mind may be predisposed towards belief in God since this mind insists on order the logical extension of which is a unified theory. With increased sophistication using inductive reasoning this will become increasingly obvious, as patterns are detected in apparently independent observations. Why else would an otherwise rational thinker like Jung declare publically I know that God exists and fail to present proofs.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,680

    Default

    And yet no matter how much mankind rationalises about this or that proof or disproof of God's existence God remains. God is.

    And God is Good.

  9. #19
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    And yet no matter how much mankind rationalises about this or that proof or disproof of God's existence God remains. God is.

    And God is Good.
    But how can you just claim to know this? Why do you require no further proof or explanation?

    If I told you I had an invisible, microscopic dragon living in my house, would you believe me if I had nothing other than my word to back me up? You shouldn't. So why should I believe you when you say God exists?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    But how can you just claim to know this? Why do you require no further proof or explanation?

    If I told you I had an invisible, microscopic dragon living in my house, would you believe me if I had nothing other than my word to back me up? You shouldn't. So why should I believe you when you say God exists?
    Ha!

    The invisible microscopic dragon has not been something which has been discussed and debated and driven thinkers from the very beginning of oral tradition and later written records.

    I'm actually claiming nothing, it is a fact, God is, even in the act of attempting to deny, deride or disprove God, God is. If God were not there would be no discussion. Do you understand? This is not unproblematic an understanding to convey and I would suspect that you would have to have read the sources I have, considered the things I have to reach the same conclusions I have.

    Which would include masses of Jung, many of his primary sources too.

    So far as the requisite further proof or explanation, I'm not sure I do, I mean maybe, sometimes, I do think that way but it is a little like a lot of open ended questions in relationships, how can one person be certain when another says to them they love them for instance? It is a case that for some there never will be sufficient evidence, while for others they do not need any to begin with. That's a basic question of belief, you do or you dont, you either can or you cant, you will struggle with that or you wont.

    A lot of the doubts, which are articulated frequently with haughty arrogance or even cruel malice rather than simple certainty, are a form of confirmation bias and category error, there is a hope and a wish which is easily confirmed and that experience it is hoped can be transmitted as quickly and widely as any countervailing opinion or belief.

Similar Threads

  1. There are two types of people in the world...
    By Legion in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 05:13 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 04:30 AM
  3. Which is more useful in the real world?
    By yenom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 08:43 AM
  5. The two tragedies in life...
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO