The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Misty wrote:You rule in that it is OK to suggest possibilities EXCEPT a higher consciousness/power/intelligence because it is based on superstition? I base my possibility of God on the reality of my awesome environment/universe and the intricacies of how life exists regardless if mankind understands it. Where others see the mundane I see the miracle.
Yes, and this possibility has been raised and argued on this forum far more than any other. However, it's not a hypothesis because there is no way to scientifically investigate the claim. At least with the multiverse there are possible ways forward in testing, eg. the so-far failed attempts to observe evidence of supersymmetry in the LHC.
Many secular people also see miracles in the mundane. I surely do. Every morning one of the first things I do when I step outside is look at the sky and try to get a sense of this huge orb is gently moving through space (at its scale - at our scale it's hurtling). When I look at plants I try to get a sense of the kind of root system it would have, it's connection with the Earth.
I'm a pretty spacey gal, but I cannot prioritise ancient writings over current research.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
I believe the Design Argument is best stated by the English clergyman, William Paley. He basically said that, upon finding, oh, say a pocket watch just lying around, we'd never suppose it had always lain there. Because of it's obvious contrivance, we'd, instead infer a watch-maker. Paley claims that the "contrivance" of the universe is at least as obvious. So, therefore, according to him, we're justified in positing a universe-maker. This, right here, is the logic to beat, if you want to discredit the "Design Argument".
Upon finding the pocket watch, it's "contrivance" is indeed obvious. Upon "finding" the universe, though, can we truly say the same thing? Well yes, actually; we can. At least, on it's "face", the universe does seem "contrived", certainly for the possibility of life. For a long time, we presumed our solar system is pretty typical. But, that no longer seems to be the case. We know, now that the planet Jupiter should be a lot closer to the sun. But, we likely wouldn't "be here", if Jupiter wasn't where it actually is. Also, early on, in our solar system's history, the fortuitous collision, between the nascent earth, and a rogue "Mars-sized" planet, made our moon possible. So..., "contrivances"?
Interestingly, Earth's moon is by far the largest satellite, in proportion to it's planet, which we know of. Consider also just how crucial it's been, not just for "terran" life-as-such, but for humanity's social, and intellectual development, as well. But, is all this (and more, besides) really contrived; or, is it possible to mimic contrivance, at least on a cosmic scale? If we define the universe as the set-of-all-sets (a la' Bertrand Russell), then our intuition isn't so a reliable guide. We're no longer talking about "artifacts", like watches, we're talking about something unique. How, then can we ever know about the universe's true nature, when there's no "genera", to which the universe belongs? Contrast, and evaluation, of such is impossible.
Technically, the universe doesn't even exist. (That's because, being the "set-of-all-sets", there's nothing left to contrast it with). So, I'm not very sanguine about what we could infer, regarding the universe's purpose, or design. Basically, I'm incredulous as to how "nothingness" could be "designed". (Note: I'm denying that the universe exists, and not it's various "contents", which paradoxically, are real, enough). Therefore, taking those "various contents", and extrapolating to the "whole", doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the whole. Because of this, I don't believe the Design Argument is a meaningful dialogue.
Spiral Out wrote:I believe our world has been designed by the trial and error process of the success of random mutations.
Who/what designed the process of random mutations?
Instead of asking who (or what) designed the process of random mutations, I would ask, instead where did the rule that some random mutations are superior to others come from? I believe that order can spontaneously appear. Now, this clearly violates the venerable Rule of Sufficient Reason, which holds that everything has a reason for why it is.
Even if someone clings to the notion of a creator, the order (or rationality) of the world would be an errant thought in the mind of such a creator. It seems to me that we must loosen the Rule of Sufficient Reason in order to reasonably explain how the world got started. Yes, this is a paradox. But, paradoxes are an inextricable part of the order which explains the world.
Not only that, but your argument is assuming her life would be better if she lived. What if the two year old had something terrible (will not mention what) if she had lived beyond two years old. What if God is sparing her by his mercy? I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that you do not know otherwise.
Platos stepchild wrote: ↑February 16th, 2015, 4:50 pm
I believe the Design Argument is best stated by the English clergyman, William Paley. He basically said that, upon finding, oh, say a pocket watch just lying around, we'd never suppose it had always lain there. Because of it's obvious contrivance, we'd, instead infer a watch-maker. Paley claims that the "contrivance" of the universe is at least as obvious. So, therefore, according to him, we're justified in positing a universe-maker. This, right here, is the logic to beat, if you want to discredit the "Design Argument".
Upon finding the pocket watch, it's "contrivance" is indeed obvious. Upon "finding" the universe, though, can we truly say the same thing? Well yes, actually; we can. At least, on it's "face", the universe does seem "contrived", certainly for the possibility of life. For a long time, we presumed our solar system is pretty typical. But, that no longer seems to be the case. We know, now that the planet Jupiter should be a lot closer to the sun. But, we likely wouldn't "be here", if Jupiter wasn't where it actually is. Also, early on, in our solar system's history, the fortuitous collision, between the nascent earth, and a rogue "Mars-sized" planet, made our moon possible. So..., "contrivances"?
Interestingly, Earth's moon is by far the largest satellite, in proportion to it's planet, which we know of. Consider also just how crucial it's been, not just for "terran" life-as-such, but for humanity's social, and intellectual development, as well. But, is all this (and more, besides) really contrived; or, is it possible to mimic contrivance, at least on a cosmic scale? If we define the universe as the set-of-all-sets (a la' Bertrand Russell), then our intuition isn't so a reliable guide. We're no longer talking about "artifacts", like watches, we're talking about something unique. How, then can we ever know about the universe's true nature, when there's no "genera", to which the universe belongs? Contrast, and evaluation, of such is impossible.
Technically, the universe doesn't even exist. (That's because, being the "set-of-all-sets", there's nothing left to contrast it with). So, I'm not very sanguine about what we could infer, regarding the universe's purpose, or design. Basically, I'm incredulous as to how "nothingness" could be "designed". (Note: I'm denying that the universe exists, and not it's various "contents", which paradoxically, are real, enough). Therefore, taking those "various contents", and extrapolating to the "whole", doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the whole. Because of this, I don't believe the Design Argument is a meaningful dialogue.
The watchmaker "proof" of the Design Argument, proves essentially nothing since there is no commonality between a pocket-watch and the universe. More importantly there is no commonality between human watchmakers and gods. In other words we are the deity of watches (since we are watchmakers) but since we are not universe-makers we are not in a position to decide if the universe is a "contrivance" for the purposes of the supposed analogy. A snail cannot distinguish between a smooth stone (natural) and a pocket-watch (contrivance), just as humans cannot categorize the universe with certainty.