Quote from killthesunshine:
It's not what you know it's what you can prove.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Actually, design is a less complicated and assumptive necessary for explanation than a convoluted guess than random ignorant chance is causal. Things looks designed, then they probably are designed is more likely than "Yes, I know things look designed, but they aren't, and I am going to provide a complicated assumptive theory that I can't establish because I can't predict what will happen in the future, nor can I isolate any cause."
There is no necessity actually to assume either design or non design for the model to work, because the causation underlying the process being either design or non design doesn't alter the equation.
It just alters belief in mindless evolution, or evolution by design.
If it is what you can prove, then prove random ignorant chance exists. You can't do that, and you know it...
So you don't know it, and you can't actually prove it....but you are a true believer in spite of the the fact that you can neither know or prove it.
There is no necessity actually to assume either design or non design for the model to work, because the causation underlying the process being either design or non design doesn't alter the equation.
It just alters belief in mindless evolution, or evolution by design.
If it is what you can prove, then prove random ignorant chance exists. You can't do that, and you know it...
So you don't know it, and you can't actually prove it....but you are a true believer in spite of the the fact that you can neither know or prove it.
Quote from killthesunshine:
never assume more than is necessary
- occum's razor (paraphrased)
Models (of reality) should not be allowed to multiply indiscriminately without real necessity or purpose.
It's not what you know it's what you can prove.
There is no necessity to take that extra step to "design". It's an extra layer a "line of code" that isn't needed for the program to work. Who or what put it there? And for what purpose?
See the stupid questions you start to ask yourself?
There's no evidence and the universe needs no stinkin design
Design is not an extra step. You only say that because you have made a first assumption of non design. For you it is an extra step, for the observer, when things appear designed, it takes an extra step to assume non design.
There is no evidence the universe is by design or non design, so it is illogical to choose either one actually, and the models are unaffected by a design or non design first assumption.
There is no extra code needed. A first assumption is that, just an assumption, then an argument or theory is generated.
Boil all the theories down to the first assumptions they are based on is what the rationalists do. The empiricists don't really like doing that, because the more you boil it down to the essentials, the more difficult it becomes to say you know...and the harder it is to remain strictly an empiricist.
Someone can say it doesn't matter if it was design or non design, which may be practically true, then if it doesn't matter, then just assume the more natural position of "It looks designed, so that's the first assumptive step from not knowing."
There is no evidence the universe is by design or non design, so it is illogical to choose either one actually, and the models are unaffected by a design or non design first assumption.
There is no extra code needed. A first assumption is that, just an assumption, then an argument or theory is generated.
Boil all the theories down to the first assumptions they are based on is what the rationalists do. The empiricists don't really like doing that, because the more you boil it down to the essentials, the more difficult it becomes to say you know...and the harder it is to remain strictly an empiricist.
Someone can say it doesn't matter if it was design or non design, which may be practically true, then if it doesn't matter, then just assume the more natural position of "It looks designed, so that's the first assumptive step from not knowing."
Quote from killthesunshine:
There is no necessity to take that extra step to "design". It's an extra layer a "line of code" that isn't needed for the program to work. Who or what put it there? And for what purpose?
See the stupid questions you start to ask yourself?
There's no evidence and the universe needs no stinkin design
Ignorant chance is an extra step as it is not necessary and actually explains nothing...but reveals the "steppers" bias toward non design. It supports a pre-existing theory of non design, that's all.
Actually, most rationalists promote a priori views.
Abundance of observable facts does not draw its own conclusion. Presumably we will discover more facts, but that doesn't mean the conclusion will stay the same or change. So number of facts alone is irrelevant.
Throw all the facts in a box, do they assemble themselves into a theory?
You continue to use the term creationist...where I am only speaking of design.
You must be assuming design means creationist, which it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Actually, most rationalists promote a priori views.
Abundance of observable facts does not draw its own conclusion. Presumably we will discover more facts, but that doesn't mean the conclusion will stay the same or change. So number of facts alone is irrelevant.
Throw all the facts in a box, do they assemble themselves into a theory?
You continue to use the term creationist...where I am only speaking of design.
You must be assuming design means creationist, which it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Actually, rationalists place the emphasis on observable facts.
But you must never let the facts get in the way of intelligent design.
Throwing some facts into your head and watching them assemble into conclusions will stop you getting yourself killed when crossing the street. Maybe you should be careful about forming conclusions from just one of your own bad metaphors.
I use the term creationist because your use of the word design leads straight to creationism, as you've given no good reason why it would do otherwise, but plenty why it does.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
"I use the term creationist because your use of the word design leads straight to creationism, as you've given no good reason why it would do otherwise, but plenty why it does."
The word design necessarily presupposes a designer?
A computer program, implementing AI, designs a new program.
You would call a computer a designer then? Something that is not sentient and is made up of nothing but inert materials, has no life, is a designer?
Funny...
You might as well suggest that if no men existed, mathematical laws and truths, theories, proofs would also not exist...as their design comes from men. That would be the position of an empiricist, but not a rationalist.
Again, it is funny watching some people be so terrified of certain words...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
"I use the term creationist because your use of the word design leads straight to creationism, as you've given no good reason why it would do otherwise, but plenty why it does."
The word design necessarily presupposes a designer?
A computer program, implementing AI, designs a new program.
You would call a computer a designer then? Something that is not sentient and is made up of nothing but inert materials, has no life, is a designer?
Funny...
You might as well suggest that if no men existed, mathematical laws and truths, theories, proofs would also not exist...as their design comes from men. That would be the position of an empiricist, but not a rationalist.
Again, it is funny watching some people be so terrified of certain words...
As the design you perceive and say cannot come about from anything other than an intelligent designer, that's creationism well enough.
The blind denial of all that has been constantly observed, proven and understood in the sciences to argue intelligent design instead, requires the mentality of a creationist.
Amusing watching you trying to avoid the word.
The blind denial of all that has been constantly observed, proven and understood in the sciences to argue intelligent design instead, requires the mentality of a creationist.
Amusing watching you trying to avoid the word.
What is it ID'ers have against inanimate organisms that reproduce, mutate and are subject to natural selection simply showing the results of all that in designs and as a matter of fact?
Why wouldn't that evolutionary process involve its own determination in outcome of shape pattern and design?
Why the desperate need for a superfluous imaginary giant mythical designer in the sky which would also need another superfluous designer entity, ad infinitum.
Would that there ever could be an intelligent designer, the next question must only beâ¦. whereâs the intelligent designer that designed it.?
I 'd say creationism first needs an intelligent argument before trying for any intelligent design.
Why wouldn't that evolutionary process involve its own determination in outcome of shape pattern and design?
Why the desperate need for a superfluous imaginary giant mythical designer in the sky which would also need another superfluous designer entity, ad infinitum.
Would that there ever could be an intelligent designer, the next question must only beâ¦. whereâs the intelligent designer that designed it.?
I 'd say creationism first needs an intelligent argument before trying for any intelligent design.