Synaesthesia

If there is a specific point at which the universe began, it is impossible for it to have had a cause. (At least in the sense that human beings understand.)

Albert Cipriani

Dear Ipetrich,
You opine:


If by design you mean rational, then yes, I take the Argument from Design seriously. The argument could be stated thusly,
1) We infer from what we know that which we cannot know.
2) We know that the universe functions rationally (i.e. carries the fingerprint of Design).
3) Ergo, we infer that the universe came into being rationally.

The alternative to the Argument from Design is the Argument from Chaos. Either the universe was created as the result of rational processes or it was created as the result of irrational processes, that is, as a result of chaos. Since nothing is chaotic within this universe, it is illogical to infer that something chaotic could have created it. Ergo, the Argument from Design stands. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Datheron

John Paul,

Did this thread suddenly become a "refute the easy theist argument" thread?

The problem here is that the actual creation of the Universe is not a part of the Universe itself, and hence requires no cause. We can show this simply: if the creation of the Universe is a part of the Universe itself (so that you can tack causality onto it), then you have successfully described a cause that is its own effect, which is invalid under the laws of logic which the Universe operates under. Hence, we conclude that the Universe cannot be its own cause, there needs not be a cause for the creation of the Universe event itself, and therefore God is not necessary.

Synaesthesia

Datheron,
A cause that is it’s own effect violates what we think about causality, not the laws of logic. The laws of logic are constraints defined by human logicians, they are not all powerful metaphysical principles.

Synaesthesia

Albert wrote:
Your inference is logically invalid.(The universe carries the “fingerprint” of design. thereofore the universe was designed.)

1)The universe carries the fingerprint functions through blind processes producing orderly systems. (Which it most certainly does!)
2)Ergo, the universe came into being without any intentionality.

This is clearly an invalid argument. I would say, however, that the existence of blind processes producing organized complexity removes the reason to postulate a highly complex intentional system.

That is a false dichotomy. Observe:

1)Either the universe is Chaotic (Either pink is black...) or it is intentionally designed. (...or I am the President of the united states.)
2)It is not Chaotic.(Pink is not black.)
ergo
3)Therefore it is intentionally designed. (You can call me Mr. President from now on.)

The problem is that you have excluded the possibility of order without intentional design. Since we know of many systems that produce order, regularity and even functionality without intelligent intervention, this is clearly a mistake. Your argument for design operates by merely ignoring every other hypothesis but a patently incorrect one. If you acknowledged the existence of naturalism as a hypothesis, your argument would be invalid.

As an aside, what exactly do you mean when you say that nothing in the universe is chaotic? What do you mean by Chaotic?

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Albert Cipriani

Dear President Synaesthesia,
As Commander and Chief I respect your authority to draw a line in the sand and press your case against false dichotomies. But surely even you are not above the Law of Contradiction. How dare you reach beyond your grasp to strike down that veritable foundation to all thought?!

My formulation abides by the Law of Contradiction (Something cannot both be and not be at the same time or in the same manner.), not the renege spirit of False Dichotomy you accuse it of. Allow me to quote myself:



That you can misconstrue that statement as a false dichotomy leads me to construe as a lie your statement about not inhaling.

Chaos, like zero, denotes a concept that I reject as a metaphysical impossibility. These concepts are useful (hell, I'd give my eyeteeth for a few extra zeros after my bank account balance) in the pragmatic realm but meaningless in the philosophical realm.

There can be no such thing as nothing (zero) or chaos. Chaos is just a word used to describe the arbitrary point at which our ability to know is overwhelmed by the amount of information needed to know. Nothing in a rational universe can be chaotic. Everything is predictable given enough information.

Ergo, to an omniscient God, everything is inevitable and Chaos is merely another false god we have set up before Him. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Datheron

Synaesthesia,

Right; my mistake for slamming the two together, since they are so commonly used in conjunction that the former might as well be a subset of the latter.

But about the metaphysical principles; why wouldn't they be all-powerful? They are defined thus because the laws are self-sufficient and establish a valid basis, axiomically, from which all other discussion and debate is derived from. It is understood that logic operates as the ultimate standard for any argument, even those that logically argue to not use logic.

Synaesthesia

Albert,

You are most certainly correct that the alternatives “Designed or not designed” are exhaustive. To argue from that premise would not constitute the fallacy of bifurcation. However, if that is the case, your argument is patently unsound. Look at these two premises:

1)Either the universe is designed or it is not designed. (A or ~A) where ~A includes C, D, E, F, G....
2)The universe is not Chaotic. (C)

3)Anything but C is true.

Nothing interesting can be inferred from them premises since non-design includes not only chaos but every single other theory possible.

Your argument makes some sense, however, we take into account that you have explicitly stated:

This is indeed a false dichotomy. You have presupposed that order cannot be the result of unintelligent processes; an assumption that is not only contradicted by observed facts but one that begs the very question at hand.

The root of your false dichotomy, I suspect, are two unstated premise that go something like this:

0)Order of any sort except for that specified by 0_ requires an intelligent designer.
0_)Order in the form of an omnipotent deity does not require any explanation.

Only with these additional (and question begging) premises does your argument make sense. Given them we can say:

0)Order of any sort except for that specified by 0_ requires an intelligent designer. (Order --> God)
0_)Order in the form of an omnipotent deity does not require any explanation.
1)Either the universe is designed or it is not designed.
2)The universe is not Chaotic, it has order.
Therefore:
3)The universe is designed.

There! Without bifurcation, we have formulated a proof that God exists.


Datheron,
I agree that the universe is fundamentally logical. In what sense it is logical though isn’t clear. When I say logical in this context, I mean it in a pre-theoretical sense. Many people take the notion that the universe is logical much too far. It isn’t governed by prepositional calculus, Zeno’s paradox should stand as a warning to us.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Synethesia,
It's hard enough to dialogue mano e mano. Why make it any harder by making it a trilogue between the two of us? Please, argue against my argument, not your presumptions about my argument.

You have the temerity to say:

My argument never once referenced intelligence. This injected concept is your red herring whereby you make minced meat out of a straw man argument. (How's that for a mixed metaphor!?)

The guts of your red herring flow as follows:

All theories of the formation of this universe can be categorized as rational or non-rational. I care not one twit how many theories you wish to postulate, only that you categorize them as rational or non-rational. Why is that so hard to do? Why must you interject that a rationally functioning universe created by a rational process requires an "intelligent designer?" That's not my argument.

Since the universe functions rationally, it's illogical to give the nod to any theory of its formation that is not rational. THAT is my argument. THAT is not a false dichotomy. Deal with it.

If you can bring yourself to accept my argument for the common sense thing that it is, (Rationality Rules!) and you want to draw inferences, the inference to be drawn is not that an intelligent designer designed in rationality, but that rationality is a metaphysical property of existence, not a tool.

The inference is that to be is to be rational, that to be less than rational is to be less real and to really have less existence. The inference is a moral one that relates us to Divine Reason. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Datheron

Synaesthesia,

I'm not really getting what you are trying to get across here - perhaps a new thread is in order? I'm under the impression that Zeno's paradox is resolved by the converge of infinite series; more discussion can be found <a href="http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.