Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Dionysian · 12-09-2002, 05:08 PM

<a href="http://www.deism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=443" target="_blank">http://www.deism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=443</a>

I'm Freethinker, I think I'm doing an okay job.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 12-09-2002, 05:38 PM

You need a better response to their watchmaker stuff. Try this:

tell them the watch is a flawed analogy because one can compare the watch to an ordinary, rock and see that it is intricately designed. A man can not look at an ordinary, undesigned universe. There is only the one universe, so there is nothing to compare it to. With nothing to compare it to, we have no way of saying it shows more signs of design than ___. Well, hopefully you get my drift and can word it better.

-B

The Dionysian · 12-09-2002, 05:40 PM

Yeah I get it.

B. H. Manners · 12-09-2002, 07:57 PM

Not too shabby Bumble Bee Tuna.

12-10-2002, 10:31 AM

Materialist theories of origin correspond more closely to the structure of the world than any analogy to intelligent design.

Intelligent design presupposes an enormous amount of complexity, while materialism assumes the absolute minimum.

Thus, in accuracy of analogy and theoretical parsimony, atheism is still the best option. *smug grin*

flatland · 12-10-2002, 10:49 AM

Does anybody know what that Participatory Anthropic Principle is? Because I think the normal Anthropic Principle answer design theory fairly well. If I remember correctly, it states that the world is suited to us because we evolved in it; were it different, life would be different and we would then marvel at how well suited that universe is for life. Basically, we're suited to our universe, not the reverse.

Reading that over, does anybody have a better statement of it? I'm not satisfied with that one.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-10-2002, 10:58 AM

Though a bit off topic, I must admit that I've never fully understood the 'logic' of Deism.

Deists seem to assert: "God did it, and then decided to leave well enough alone". But, how do they know? It seems to me that once you posit a supernatural intervention, you've literally let the Genie out of the bottle with no way of proscribing its activity.

faustuz · 12-10-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flatland:
<strong>Does anybody know what that Participatory Anthropic Principle is?</strong>

Well, of course I do! I know everything!

<a href="http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html" target="_blank">http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html</a>

<a href="http://sparc.airtime.co.uk/users/station/anthrop.htm" target="_blank">http://sparc.airtime.co.uk/users/station/anthrop.htm</a>

<a href="http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm" target="_blank">http://home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm</a>

Isn't Google grand?

Edited because I keep finding better ones.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: faustuz ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf · 12-10-2002, 10:25 PM

I don't think an appeal to any sort of anthropic principle is useful as a response to the argument from improbability.

The best response is that it's simply an instance of the Lottery Fallacy. Mere improbability is never evidence that something didn't happen by chance. If it were, then there would be investigations whenever someone won the lottery.

What we need is (1) improbability and (2) evidence that someone was tampering behind the scenes, or was in a position to tamper. If we could satisfy (2), we wouldn't need the argument in the first place.

Tercel · 12-13-2002, 12:10 AM

I'm not sure I understand how deism is possible. If I understand anything about space-time relativity correctly, it seems to imply that space and time are bound together and hence that the creation of the universe would necessarily have consisted of the creation of the entire space-time of this universe in one event. The deist idea that a deity might just set up the laws of the universe and leave it like a clock to tick away by itself doesn't seem to make any sense under this view. -If the entirity of space-time is being created at once by the deity, it cannot be left to "its own devices" since the deity has equal control over every bit of time as it does the beginning. Unless of course, the deity is subject to time in the same way the universe is - which doesn't resolve the problem since we still have to separate space-time and say that the deity created space when it created the universe but not time and that time was something separate...

12-09-2002, 05:08 PM	#1
The Dionysian Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: who knows Posts: 154	Debating Deists <a href="http://www.deism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=443" target="_blank">http://www.deism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=443</a> I'm Freethinker, I think I'm doing an okay job.

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

12-09-2002, 05:38 PM	#2
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	You need a better response to their watchmaker stuff. Try this: tell them the watch is a flawed analogy because one can compare the watch to an ordinary, rock and see that it is intricately designed. A man can not look at an ordinary, undesigned universe. There is only the one universe, so there is nothing to compare it to. With nothing to compare it to, we have no way of saying it shows more signs of design than ___. Well, hopefully you get my drift and can word it better. -B

12-09-2002, 05:40 PM	#3
The Dionysian Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: who knows Posts: 154	Yeah I get it.

12-09-2002, 07:57 PM	#4
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Not too shabby Bumble Bee Tuna.

12-10-2002, 10:31 AM	#5
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Materialist theories of origin correspond more closely to the structure of the world than any analogy to intelligent design. Intelligent design presupposes an enormous amount of complexity, while materialism assumes the absolute minimum. Thus, in accuracy of analogy and theoretical parsimony, atheism is still the best option. smug grin

12-10-2002, 10:49 AM	#6
flatland Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The belly of the Beast - Houston Posts: 378	Does anybody know what that Participatory Anthropic Principle is? Because I think the normal Anthropic Principle answer design theory fairly well. If I remember correctly, it states that the world is suited to us because we evolved in it; were it different, life would be different and we would then marvel at how well suited that universe is for life. Basically, we're suited to our universe, not the reverse. Reading that over, does anybody have a better statement of it? I'm not satisfied with that one.

12-10-2002, 10:58 AM	#7
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Though a bit off topic, I must admit that I've never fully understood the 'logic' of Deism. Deists seem to assert: "God did it, and then decided to leave well enough alone". But, how do they know? It seems to me that once you posit a supernatural intervention, you've literally let the Genie out of the bottle with no way of proscribing its activity.

12-10-2002, 10:25 PM	#9
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	I don't think an appeal to any sort of anthropic principle is useful as a response to the argument from improbability. The best response is that it's simply an instance of the Lottery Fallacy. Mere improbability is never evidence that something didn't happen by chance. If it were, then there would be investigations whenever someone won the lottery. What we need is (1) improbability and (2) evidence that someone was tampering behind the scenes, or was in a position to tamper. If we could satisfy (2), we wouldn't need the argument in the first place.

12-13-2002, 12:10 AM	#10
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	I'm not sure I understand how deism is possible. If I understand anything about space-time relativity correctly, it seems to imply that space and time are bound together and hence that the creation of the universe would necessarily have consisted of the creation of the entire space-time of this universe in one event. The deist idea that a deity might just set up the laws of the universe and leave it like a clock to tick away by itself doesn't seem to make any sense under this view. -If the entirity of space-time is being created at once by the deity, it cannot be left to "its own devices" since the deity has equal control over every bit of time as it does the beginning. Unless of course, the deity is subject to time in the same way the universe is - which doesn't resolve the problem since we still have to separate space-time and say that the deity created space when it created the universe but not time and that time was something separate...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.