Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bugs · 12-05-2002, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
So, if I wanted to argue against your line of thinking, I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself, yet whatever came first must have been able to create itself. An omnipotent deity would fit the bill.

This is a case of <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html" target="_blank">Special Pleading:</a>

Quote:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

It is a logical fallacy, because you require certain rules to apply to a paramecium that you do not require your diety to adhere to. With that kind of logic you can prove anything.

It is also a case of <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html" target="_blank">Circular Reasoning</a>, because in your case to support the existance of a diety, you state "An omnipotent deity would fit the bill" in being able to create its self. Your premise (an omnipotent deity must have been able to create itself), assumes your conclusion (an omnipotent deity exists, and designed the paramecium).

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bugs ]

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 07:49 PM

Actually, I think that was a pretty poor attempt Bugs.

First, I have no deity. I merely stated an omnipotent deity would fit the bill. Key word being "would". It is not the only conceivable entity or process that would fit the bill.

Second, do you believe a paramecium can create itself from nothing? I do not.

Third, you are arguing that if a creation took place that it is possible for creation from nothing to occur without it possesing the ability to create itself.

I did not lock myself in to saying creation from nothing took place nor even that a creation took place. I did not submit that if a creation took place it could only be an omnipotent deity. I did however submit that if a creation took place whatever was first created had the ability to create itself.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Bugs · 12-05-2002, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Actually, I think that was a pretty poor attempt Bugs.

Insults don�t help your case, good arguments do. Let�s see how yours stack up (or don�t).

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 First, I have no deity. I merely stated an omnipotent deity would fit the bill. Key word being "would". It is not the only conceivable entity or process that would fit the bill.

You said a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself but a deity would fit the bill (ie could create its self). So your rules for a deity are different from those you assign to the paramecium. That�s special pleading whether there are other entitles that would �fit the bill� or not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 Second, do you believe a paramecium can create itself from nothing? I do not.

I don�t see why not. Why do you believe not?

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 Third, you are arguing that if a creation took place that it is possible for creation from nothing to occur without it possesing the ability to create itself.

No I�m not. I�m saying that if it is possible for a designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then so can a paramecium.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 I did not lock myself in to saying creation from nothing took place nor even that a creation took place. I did not submit that if a creation took place it could only be an omnipotent deity. I did however submit that if a creation took place whatever was first created had the ability to create itself.

But you did say that a paramecium cannot create its self, but something else could.

No matter how you weasel word it Liquidrage, you have used two logical fallacies � circular reasoning and special pleading. And there is no way out of this for you. The thread starter asked this question:

�If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium?�

I can still see no reason that doesn�t involve invoking logical fallacies as you have done.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bugs ]

Liquidrage · 12-06-2002, 04:27 AM

I didn't insult you. You attempt was pretty poor and still is.

I�m saying that if it is possible for a designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then so can a paramecium.

No, it's not. This is the equivilent of saying, "well, if your omnipotent deity can shoot lightning out his ass, so can my #1 lead pencil."

So your rules for a deity are different from those you assign to the paramecium. That�s special pleading whether there are other entitles that would �fit the bill� or not.

Well, gee, no shit huh? Of course they are different. If there was a first cause a logical fallacy did occur. An uncaused event. An omnipotenet deity fits the bill for this event because that is how it's defined. Don't say "ah ha, you're defining it..." yadda yadda yadda. I never said otherwise.

It seems you're seeing certain words and flags are going off forcing yourself to respond without much thought.

You still have in no way shown any logical problems with the basic arguement.

1. If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself.

Bugs · 12-06-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 I didn't insult you. You attempt was pretty poor and still is.

Mere words. Your arguments, however, don�t stand up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Bugs: I�m saying that if it is possible for a designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then so can a paramecium.

Liquidrage: No, it's not. This is the equivilent of saying, "well, if your omnipotent deity can shoot lightning out his ass, so can my #1 lead pencil."

If that was an argument to prove that �your omnipotent deity� can exist, then it is circular reasoning, for the reasons I have already explained.

You seem to be having trouble with comprehension, so I�ll try again. If you are trying to prove that a deity exists, you cannot start by assuming a deity exists. And this applies even if you weasel word it again to see �I didn�t say it had to be a deity�, because you are assigning properties to the deity (or what ever you choose to call it), that are different from those of the paramecium, AND THESE VERY PROPERTIES MEAN THE PARAMECIUM CAN�T EXIST WITHOUT A DESIGNER although your deity (or what ever you call it), can. It is still circular reasoning and special pleading no matter how you might try to confuse the issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Bugs: So your rules for a deity are different from those you assign to the paramecium. That�s special pleading whether there are other entitles that would �fit the bill� or not.

Liquidrage: Well, gee, no shit huh? Of course they are different. If there was a first cause a logical fallacy did occur. An uncaused event. An omnipotenet deity fits the bill for this event because that is how it's defined. Don't say "ah ha, you're defining it..." yadda yadda yadda. I never said otherwise.

See above.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
 It seems you're seeing certain words and flags are going off forcing yourself to respond without much thought.

You still have in no way shown any logical problems with the basic arguement.

If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself.

Technically, needed the ability to come into existence without a designer. And you have defined the paramecium as being unable to do that although you have shown no cause. You have defined the designer as being capable of coming into existence without a designer. Your definition of these two entities assume the conclusions you are trying to prove.

It is really quite simple. You need to stop and think this through. Your case is illogical.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bugs ]

pz · 12-06-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
I didn't insult you. You attempt was pretty poor and still is.

I�m saying that if it is possible for a designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then so can a paramecium.

No, it's not. This is the equivilent of saying, "well, if your omnipotent deity can shoot lightning out his ass, so can my #1 lead pencil."

I don't see that as a fair equivalence to the argument here. It's more like, "If a mere pencil can shoot lightning out of its ass, so should an omnipotent deity."

I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot here when you first said, "I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself". Paramecia are capable of creating paramecia.

Quote:

So your rules for a deity are different from those you assign to the paramecium. That�s special pleading whether there are other entitles that would �fit the bill� or not.

Well, gee, no shit huh? Of course they are different. If there was a first cause a logical fallacy did occur. An uncaused event. An omnipotenet deity fits the bill for this event because that is how it's defined. Don't say "ah ha, you're defining it..." yadda yadda yadda. I never said otherwise.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here, then. Are you trying to say that Intelligent Design is a logically consistent, reasonable theory because they've escaped the paradox Drake has proposed by simply defining the primordial creator as being omnipotent and uncaused? As has been pointed out to you, that is circular reasoning based on special pleading.

Liquidrage · 12-06-2002, 08:09 AM

You seem to be having trouble with comprehension, so I�ll try again. If you are trying to prove that a deity exists, you cannot start by assuming a deity exists. And this applies even if you weasel word it again to see �I didn�t say it had to be a deity�, because you are assigning properties to the deity (or what ever you choose to call it), that are different from those of the paramecium, AND THESE VERY PROPERTIES MEAN THE PARAMECIUM CAN�T EXIST WITHOUT A DESIGNER although your deity (or what ever you call it), can. It is still circular reasoning and special pleading no matter how you might try to confuse the issue.

I am not trying to prove that a deity exists.
Never did I state that. Nor did I state that a did did exist.

This is a case of where have not argued against what I said, but clearly argued against what you thought my reasons for arguing might be.

I'm an atheist and think ID is not science.

My reason for arguing was "devil's advocate". The original OP by victor was flawed in that it did not pur forth a good objection to ID.

I never said once that a paramecium cannot exist without a designer. I was stating that if a creation took place the cause of that creation was not a paramecium.

Technically, needed the ability to come into existence without a designer. And you have defined the paramecium as being unable to do that although you have shown no cause. You have defined the designer as being capable of coming into existence without a designer. Your definition of these two entities assume the conclusions you are trying to prove.
It is really quite simple. You need to stop and think this through. Your case is illogical.

No, what I put forth is very logical.

1. If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself.

You're creating strawmen to argue against. The only concept I put forth to argue against is the above.

Unless of course you'd like to also argue against the A or B. That there was a creation or there wasn't one.

It seems you're jumping to illogical conclusions. An omnipotent deity was never assumed to be existing. But by definition, one would fit the bill. Stop arguing as if I stated the evidence pointed to an omnipotent deity.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Liquidrage · 12-06-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:

I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot here when you first said, "I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself". Paramecia are capable of creating paramecia.

I was reffering to creation from nothing.

If a creation occured I would be rather surpised to find out that before stars or heavily elements had even formed that in the beginning was a paramecium.

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:

Are you trying to say that Intelligent Design is a logically consistent, reasonable theory because they've escaped the paradox Drake has proposed by simply defining the primordial creator as being omnipotent and uncaused? As has been pointed out to you, that is circular reasoning based on special pleading.

No, I was pointing out the problems with the original OP.
Like it or not, if there is no eternal universe then the infinite regressions must stop with a process that is able to create itself. An omnipotent deity would fit that bill. Does it mean that there is evidence for that deity? No. Does it mean that it's even likely? No.
But it does mean if I had a presupposition for ID the OP would not stand as a evidence against.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

Stephen T-B · 12-06-2002, 08:50 AM

I think a Devil's Advocate, in the absence of a Sincere Advocate, should be welcomed if only for the sake of argument.
(Samuel Johnson made a point of adopting the most unpopular and hardest-to-defend propositions because they presented him with an intellectual challenge. He would have had a lot of fun here.)
Liquidrage, is it not the case that your proposed creator must of necessity belong to a different order of existence from anything we experience in the physical universe?
If it were of the universe, it could not have existed before the universe. So we are talking of something of which we can have no understanding, since the parameters of our understanding fall within our experiences of a physical existence within a physical universe (We have no knowledge of any other: we may speculate as to the nature of a non-physical dimension - indeed, human cultures are crammed with such speculations - but their source is the human imagination which has limitations to do with what and where we are.)
If there is indeed a �creator� we cannot ever know anything about it; no more than a chicken can know about an inverse-adiabatic lapse rate.
And that being the case, all speculations are rendered fatuous, which is why the Holy Scriptures which enshrine so many of them are either incoherent or banal or both.

Bugs · 12-06-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
I never said once that a paramecium cannot exist without a designer. I was stating that if a creation took place the cause of that creation was not a paramecium.

Then you are arguing against a straw man, yourself. No one said that a paramecium caused creation. The thread starter said, and I quote:

�If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium?�

You cannot tell us why not without the two logical fallacies I have already explained you are using.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself.

No, the first item created was created without a designer. Once more, the question was:

�If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium?�

Well, why can�t it?

12-05-2002, 07:49 PM	#12
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Actually, I think that was a pretty poor attempt Bugs. First, I have no deity. I merely stated an omnipotent deity would fit the bill. Key word being "would". It is not the only conceivable entity or process that would fit the bill. Second, do you believe a paramecium can create itself from nothing? I do not. Third, you are arguing that if a creation took place that it is possible for creation from nothing to occur without it possesing the ability to create itself. I did not lock myself in to saying creation from nothing took place nor even that a creation took place. I did not submit that if a creation took place it could only be an omnipotent deity. I did however submit that if a creation took place whatever was first created had the ability to create itself. [ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

12-06-2002, 08:09 AM	#17
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	You seem to be having trouble with comprehension, so I�ll try again. If you are trying to prove that a deity exists, you cannot start by assuming a deity exists. And this applies even if you weasel word it again to see �I didn�t say it had to be a deity�, because you are assigning properties to the deity (or what ever you choose to call it), that are different from those of the paramecium, AND THESE VERY PROPERTIES MEAN THE PARAMECIUM CAN�T EXIST WITHOUT A DESIGNER although your deity (or what ever you call it), can. It is still circular reasoning and special pleading no matter how you might try to confuse the issue. I am not trying to prove that a deity exists. Never did I state that. Nor did I state that a did did exist. This is a case of where have not argued against what I said, but clearly argued against what you thought my reasons for arguing might be. I'm an atheist and think ID is not science. My reason for arguing was "devil's advocate". The original OP by victor was flawed in that it did not pur forth a good objection to ID. I never said once that a paramecium cannot exist without a designer. I was stating that if a creation took place the cause of that creation was not a paramecium. Technically, needed the ability to come into existence without a designer. And you have defined the paramecium as being unable to do that although you have shown no cause. You have defined the designer as being capable of coming into existence without a designer. Your definition of these two entities assume the conclusions you are trying to prove. It is really quite simple. You need to stop and think this through. Your case is illogical. No, what I put forth is very logical. 1. If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself. You're creating strawmen to argue against. The only concept I put forth to argue against is the above. Unless of course you'd like to also argue against the A or B. That there was a creation or there wasn't one. It seems you're jumping to illogical conclusions. An omnipotent deity was never assumed to be existing. But by definition, one would fit the bill. Stop arguing as if I stated the evidence pointed to an omnipotent deity. [ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2002, 04:27 AM	#14
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I didn't insult you. You attempt was pretty poor and still is. I�m saying that if it is possible for a designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then so can a paramecium. No, it's not. This is the equivilent of saying, "well, if your omnipotent deity can shoot lightning out his ass, so can my #1 lead pencil." So your rules for a deity are different from those you assign to the paramecium. That�s special pleading whether there are other entitles that would �fit the bill� or not. Well, gee, no shit huh? Of course they are different. If there was a first cause a logical fallacy did occur. An uncaused event. An omnipotenet deity fits the bill for this event because that is how it's defined. Don't say "ah ha, you're defining it..." yadda yadda yadda. I never said otherwise. It seems you're seeing certain words and flags are going off forcing yourself to respond without much thought. You still have in no way shown any logical problems with the basic arguement. 1. If there was a creation event, whatever was first created needed the ability to create itself.

12-06-2002, 08:50 AM	#19
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	I think a Devil's Advocate, in the absence of a Sincere Advocate, should be welcomed if only for the sake of argument. (Samuel Johnson made a point of adopting the most unpopular and hardest-to-defend propositions because they presented him with an intellectual challenge. He would have had a lot of fun here.) Liquidrage, is it not the case that your proposed creator must of necessity belong to a different order of existence from anything we experience in the physical universe? If it were of the universe, it could not have existed before the universe. So we are talking of something of which we can have no understanding, since the parameters of our understanding fall within our experiences of a physical existence within a physical universe (We have no knowledge of any other: we may speculate as to the nature of a non-physical dimension - indeed, human cultures are crammed with such speculations - but their source is the human imagination which has limitations to do with what and where we are.) If there is indeed a �creator� we cannot ever know anything about it; no more than a chicken can know about an inverse-adiabatic lapse rate. And that being the case, all speculations are rendered fatuous, which is why the Holy Scriptures which enshrine so many of them are either incoherent or banal or both.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.