For the philosophical minded huddlers

[TheGrunt]

Ah, you are on the right path, young padawan. I see I SHOULD have used the phrase "logically possible" as opposed to merely "possible" - since a square and a circle are by definition not the same thing, a square circle is not LOGICALLY possible. (One of my philosophy profs, Marshall Missner, described logically possible as "if they can do it in a Looney Tune, it's logically possible")

 

I wasn't saying the universe is infinite in regards to space or time - when I said "what amounts to" can be meant to read "as far as human conception goes", the universe is for all practical purposes infinite. Sure, scientists can put numbers to the age and size, but those numbers are on scales that are really pretty f'in massive.

 

Anyway, my fault for being less than clear.

Something like that phrase was brought up in my lecture class too, and it makes complete sense! Logically possible = conceivable. So if something is logically possible, then does it exist?

[Chavez]

Logically possible = conceivable. So if something is logically possible, then does it exist?

Not necessarily. But it COULD exist, whereas a logical impossibility like a square circle clearly could not.

[TheGrunt]

Wouldn't The Designer be a fairly complex construct as well?

An independent being is a being whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself. But given the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (the principle that there must be a reason or cause or explanation for everything that exists), it's existence must depend on something -- so it depends on itself: self-existence.

 

claim: If everything must have a cause or explanation for its existence, then there has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being.

(1) Either there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other independent being) or there is nothing but a series of dependent beings.

(2) There cannot be nothing but a series of dependent being.

---

So there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other dependent being).

[Chavez]

An independent being is a being whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself. But given the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (the principle that there must be a reason or cause or explanation for everything that exists), it's existence must depend on something -- so it depends on itself: self-existence.

...so of course, if I apply the principle of sufficient reasoning to the universe and eliminate the need for a designer by Occam's Razor...well, then we can just argue and argue and get nowhere.

[Ursa Majoris]

An independent being is a being whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself. But given the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (the principle that there must be a reason or cause or explanation for everything that exists), it's existence must depend on something -- so it depends on itself: self-existence.

 

claim: If everything must have a cause or explanation for its existence, then there has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being.

(1) Either there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other independent being) or there is nothing but a series of dependent beings.

(2) There cannot be nothing but a series of dependent being.

---

So there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other dependent being).

What if the universe IS the being?

 

:passesspliffbacktoChavez:

[Clubfoothead]

An independent being is a being whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself. But given the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (the principle that there must be a reason or cause or explanation for everything that exists), it's existence must depend on something -- so it depends on itself: self-existence.

 

claim: If everything must have a cause or explanation for its existence, then there has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being.

(1) Either there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other independent being) or there is nothing but a series of dependent beings.

(2) There cannot be nothing but a series of dependent being.

---

So there is one independent being (who is the cause of every other dependent being).

 

Why an independent all creator need anything to self-exist?

[TheGrunt]

...so of course, if I apply the principle of sufficient reasoning to the universe and eliminate the need for a designer by Occam's Razor...well, then we can just argue and argue and get nowhere.

I know!

 

That's what I find interesting, but frustrating about philosophy. We can literally prove each other wrong until we've exhausted all of our options.

 

However, I have to write this paper by Friday, so arguing about this is probably the best thing I can do for right now. At least until I figure out the necessary information required to write my paper. So... I'm assuming when you apply the PSR to the Universe you are basically asking this: why couldn't the material world be the independent thing?

EDIT: Added Ursa Majoris' quote

What if the universe IS the being?

 

:passesspliffbacktoChavez:

 

 

claim: The material world doesn't exist necessarily (especially according to logical reasoning)

(1) If we can conceive either that the material world did not exist at all or that it did not exist as it does, then it does not exist necessarily.

(2) We can conceive either that the material world did not exist at all or that it did not exist as it does.

---

So it does not exist necessarily

 

If the material world doesn't exist necessarily, then it cannot be the independent thing.

Edited October 18, 2007 by TheGrunt

[Chavez]

What if the universe IS the being?

 

:passesspliffbacktoChavez:

[Keanu]Whoa.[/Keanu]

[Clubfoothead]

[Keanu]Whoa.[/Keanu]

 

Point Break is totally underrated.

[Clubfoothead]

Good luck with the paper. The kitchen isn't going to clean itself...

[Chavez]

Point Break is totally underrated.

I'd actually have to say it isn't - I don't know of many who dislike Point Break as a better-than-most action film. I'd have to say it's "rated."

 

And if ya like Point Break, Clubby, you've gotta watch Hot Fuzz if you haven't seen it yet.

[Azazello1313]

Just a quick warning, I don't expect any sort of right answer here. And if you do choose to make an effort to help out, this may take some time. It's not an easy paper to write, at least not for a novice philosophical college student like myself. But for those philosophical minded Huddler's willing to stretch your mind a bit, my task is to prove that God exists using the Argument from Design. Also, when I say "God" I am not referring to the religious God that some people believe in, I am referring to a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, benevolent, and just, and more specifically, the creator of the Universe -- and anywhere in between (i.e. the "Designer" may be omniscient, but not perfectly good).

 

Another thing to remember is that this is an argumentation type of paper, so I'm using premises to argue for my claim, but also required to have the best objection I can think of to refute my main claim in the paper; and lastly, providing a response(s) to the objection. The problem, however, that I keep running into is that the best objection I could come up with I have been unable to respond to. So I keep proving that the Universe does not have a Designer, when I should be proving that the Universe does have a Designer (God exists).

 

Here's my outline so far:

 

The main claim of my paper is: The Universe has a Designer.

The premises I use to support the truth of my main claim are:

1. Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems

2. Either all order can be explained by appeal to something else or some orderly systems are intrinsic

3. Snowflakes are orderly, but intrinsic occurrences on Earth

4. So, some orderly systems are intrinsic

5. The Milky Way Galaxy is an orderly occurring thing in the Universe, just as a man-made house is an orderly occurring thing on Earth

6. Natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed

 

The premise that needs the most support: The Milky Way Galaxy is orderly

7. The objection to my argument is: The Milky Way Galaxy is an intrinsically occurring property in the Universe.

 

This objection is a reason to reject this part of my argument: Until shown otherwise, the most reasonable assumption is to think that all observed qualities of a thing are natural to it. Suppose that something’s properties need no explanation from the outside, unless some reason is offered otherwise. If the qualities of a thing are natural to it, then there is no need to appeal to a Designer to explain them. The order is intrinsic to the thing.

 

My response to that objection is: Snowflakes are ordered things that belong in the Universe—occurring on Earth—only during specific circumstances, due to the natural physical processes of Earth’s complex environment. So, there is reasonable cause for the existence of such non-random, orderly things as a snowflake. Snowflakes are not a random occurrence on Earth, and the reason for which they exist can be explained. Along these lines, and following the Principal of Sufficient Reason, snowflakes on Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy have similar traits; such that, there is a cause or reason for which they exist. They both have reason for their existence, and yet, both intrinsically belong to a much larger complex thing. The eye intrinsically belongs to the human, for example, as a relatively small and complex object. The Milky Way Galaxy also intrinsically belongs to the Universe. And just like that of the human eye, the Galaxy is a relatively small and complex thing that may naturally belong to the Universe, but is an orderly occurring system in the Universe -- that is to say, the creation of a Galaxy is not random. For if the Milky Way Galaxy is a natural orderly occurrence in the Universe, why can’t the order of the Universe be an intrinsic property to itself?

 

At this point I've decided that I need to do two different things: either prove that premise (1) is true, and that only intelligent design (an intelligent designer) can cause orderly systems; or, I can start fresh and begin by criticizing my main claim rather than agreeing with it.

 

If this is too much, that's definitely fine with me. I find this stuff really interesting, but a lot of work. And I still don't have a full understanding of how the philosophical mind works, at least not yet. This is a rough draft, so there's a few inconsistencies, but I think you'll get the point. Any thoughts?

 

so you're saying (or trying to get to the point where you're saying) that snowflakes prove the existence of an intelligent designer? what if someone could explain to you completely how snowflakes forming is inevitable based on the chemical properties of water?

[TheShiznit]

What if the universe IS the being?

 

:passesspliffbacktoChavez:

 

Back in college I wrote a philosophy paper that dealt with roughly the same issues. I approached it from the aspect that we are a thought...a dream if you will...in a mind that can entertain millions and millions of thoughts because it itself is a complex system. I used the complexities of the human mind and applied it to the principles of the universe....basically we think we know lots about each but are baffled everyday by each. From memory, I theorized that ince we are a thought in a complex system it would then only make sense that the reality of the dream would utilize or mirror the system of the mind were the thought is had. This was 18 years ago so you will have to forgive me....I invest money now so philosophy is the last thing I think about at night. I do remember I got an A on the paper....but I didn't believe a word I wrote....and that made it both fun and one the most challenging projects I have completed.

[TheGrunt]

I think that makes people a problem. Most are not planned/designed and are complex systems.

 

Design, the verb, is defined as "to create, execute or construct accodring to plan." A plan for the universe would certainly imply a designer more than complex/orderly systems. So what proves there's a plan? I don't know but that could be an approach to look at. The "fact" that the universe is expanding might imply a plan, why else would it be expanding?

I must have missed this post because you bring up a very valid point. But think of it this way, if the Designer is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and independent being, is it conceivable that the result of that Designer's well executed plan is an orderly system? Orderly is defined as "methodically; regularly; arranged or disposed in a neat, tidy manner or in a regular sequence; observant of or governed by system or method, as persons or the mind; observant of law, rule, or discipline"

 

How does this look? I've put the two premises that I'm still struggling with in bold.

(main claim: The Universe has a Designer)

 

(1) Orderly systems are complex

(2) Complexity implies a Designer

(3) The Universe is an orderly system

(4) Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems

---

So, the Universe has a Designer

[TheShiznit]

I must have missed this post because you bring up a very valid point. But think of it this way, if the Designer is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and independent being, is it conceivable that the result of that Designer's well executed plan is an orderly system? Orderly is defined as "methodically; regularly; arranged or disposed in a neat, tidy manner or in a regular sequence; observant of or governed by system or method, as persons or the mind; observant of law, rule, or discipline"

 

How does this look? I've put the two premises that I'm still struggling with in bold.

(main claim: The Universe has a Designer)

 

(1) Orderly systems are complex

(2) Complexity implies a Designer

(3) The Universe is an orderly system

(4) Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems

---

So, the Universe has a Designer

 

Or, the universe itself is the actual designer? That would make it very easy to explain how multiple complex systems can be operating simultaneously without intefering with one another? I dunno.

[TheGrunt]

Or, the universe itself is the actual designer? That would make it very easy to explain how multiple complex systems can be operating simultaneously without intefering with one another? I dunno.

(I just copied and pasted this from my post near the top of this page)

claim: The material world doesn't exist necessarily (especially according to logical reasoning)

(1) If we can conceive either that the material world did not exist at all or that it did not exist as it does, then it does not exist necessarily.

(2) We can conceive either that the material world did not exist at all or that it did not exist as it does.

---

So it does not exist necessarily

 

If the material world doesn't exist necessarily, then it cannot be the independent thing.

 

Either way, I'm trying to prove that the Universe has a Designer for my paper. But that is a good objection that I'll probably be adding to my paper, along with several others throughout this thread. You are ALL helping out a lot! This whole topic gets so in depth, but I gotta say thanks to everyone who is helping clear things up for me. This is all helping me write a better essay.

[Ursa Majoris]

Back in college I wrote a philosophy paper that dealt with roughly the same issues. I approached it from the aspect that we are a thought...a dream if you will...in a mind that can entertain millions and millions of thoughts because it itself is a complex system. I used the complexities of the human mind and applied it to the principles of the universe....basically we think we know lots about each but are baffled everyday by each. From memory, I theorized that ince we are a thought in a complex system it would then only make sense that the reality of the dream would utilize or mirror the system of the mind were the thought is had. This was 18 years ago so you will have to forgive me....I invest money now so philosophy is the last thing I think about at night. I do remember I got an A on the paper....but I didn't believe a word I wrote....and that made it both fun and one the most challenging projects I have completed.

Cool. Lebanese or Moroccan that night?

[evil_gop_liars]

God might be a complex designer but he sure is bad with his finances....

[TheGrunt]

Back in college I wrote a philosophy paper that dealt with roughly the same issues. I approached it from the aspect that we are a thought...a dream if you will...in a mind that can entertain millions and millions of thoughts because it itself is a complex system. I used the complexities of the human mind and applied it to the principles of the universe....basically we think we know lots about each but are baffled everyday by each. From memory, I theorized that ince we are a thought in a complex system it would then only make sense that the reality of the dream would utilize or mirror the system of the mind were the thought is had. This was 18 years ago so you will have to forgive me....I invest money now so philosophy is the last thing I think about at night. I do remember I got an A on the paper....but I didn't believe a word I wrote....and that made it both fun and one the most challenging projects I have completed.

That is awesome.

 

I wish I could read that paper!

[wiegie]

Excellent objection. But are all things possible? Can you imagine a square circle?

Yes, because a square and a circle are topologically equivalent.

 

I also don't buy your initial premise that "Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems".

[cre8tiff]

Yes, because a square and a circle are topologically equivalent.

 

I also don't buy your initial premise that "Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems".

 

I agree. You would have to spend a lot of time proving this keystone point. Without it, the premise cannot be proven.

[Kid Cid]

I think that the biggest stumbling block (and forgive me if I missed your proof of this) is that "complexity implies a designer". Complexity implies a highly structured set of rules for maintaining state, but ti does not in any way imply that there is a designer.

[TheGrunt]

Yes, because a square and a circle are topologically equivalent.

 

I also don't buy your initial premise that "Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems".

I think I finally got it!

 

There cannot be design without a designer; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated or the means accommodated to it.

 

We do not need to know how something is made in order to conclude that it was deliberately designed.

 

Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

[cre8tiff]

I think I finally got it!

 

There cannot be design without a designer; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated or the means accommodated to it.

 

We do not need to know how something is made in order to conclude that it was deliberately designed.

 

Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

 

Now you have shifted into faith and out of philosophy, thanks for visiting.

[TheGrunt]

Now you have shifted into faith and out of philosophy, thanks for visiting.

Please explain, how has what I just wrote a shift into faith and out of philosophy?