Logically consistent theories of ID exist. (page 5)

Kudra

Only slightly off-topic but uh, I just want to say that the title of this topic gives me a good laugh every time I read it.

:)

Hooberus, do you understand the difference between reliability and validity? I can made reliable (logically consistent) statements ad infinitum -- "Christmas gifts require a giver. Therefore, Santa Claus is the giver of Christmas gifts." These sentences are internally logical and consistent (reliable). But they are not valid (truthful). They cannot be verified and must therefore be suspect.

Your first statement must be demonstrated to be valid as well as reliable before any worthwhile discussion can take place.

moshe

Yawn- zzz

funkyderek

Abaddon:

One can come up with a logically consistent theory why Gimli and Legolas did or didn't make the beast with two backs.

Ewww! There's an image I didn't need.

This argument only works if you can show that the designer is not a complex machine of "interworking component parts".

Strictly speaking, it works if you can show that the designer doesn't have to be "a complex machine of 'interworking component parts'". Everything we know of that is capable of being a designer is such a complex machine and has an origin [and has come to be creative enough to design something only after a long process of evolution - but that's an argument for later]. So there is a huge burden of proof on the person claiming that a designer can exist who doesn't have any of the properties shared by all known designers. Hopefully, hooberus will begin presenting his proof soon. I think, at the moment, he's just having fun with his new discovery - logic.

hooberus

Regarding the first statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." funkyderek said:

It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, . . .

I agree that statements require more than being merely not inconsistent (and/or not requiring a logical inconsistency), in order to be considered scientific. This is why for example ReMine in his book later goes on to explain how the statement is both testable, and supported by scientific evidence.

However, this thread was not intended by myself to be an attempt to scientifically support the statements claim of the necessity of a disgner for life from non-life (scientific resources for that claim are available)- but instead to demonstrate that properly written ID statements exist which do not necessarily lead to either an infinite regression of designers, or logical self-refutations.

. . . and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin.

As far as proving evidence that: "an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin", I would say that 1.) there is nothing necessarily illogical about such a scenario; and 2.) that statements such as: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." do not also necessarily require (in order to be valid) additional evidence for other things- such as how "an intelligent designer can exist without an origin". For example lets say that a group of SETI scientists received a radio signal and then (after analysis) stated that: "An intelligent sender is necessary for the origin of this mathematically coded signal." There would be no requirement that in order for their statement to be valid that they must also provide evidence for other things- such as how the signal sender could have came about from non-life, or how they may have always existed, etc. They simply need to show that their statement is testable, not necessarily illogical, and supported by data. (In fact if their data demonstrates their statements claim of the necessity of an intelligent sender, then this would then be evidence that an intelligent sender does in fact necessarily exist).

Abaddon

hooberus

Ignore me all you like, you also ignore the fact ReMine has been shown to have made major errors in his book, yet, you still quote from him, just like you still quote from other sites that have been shown to be in error or have a poor standard of science.

You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, or have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously or to always have been there.

But carry on ignoring me, it's funny. Last person who did that was seven years old.

hooberus

You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, or have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously or to always have been there.

I'll try to provide a brief response to the above provided I'm allowed to break it down issue by issue to the following two separate arguments:

"You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, . . . one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously. . . ."

"You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers . . . have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity. . . to always have been there."

Pole

Doctor Angelicus's back again?
I thought this sort of "logical" metaphysics was forsaken long time ago by Kant on the grounds of having nothing to do with pure_TM science.
Surprise, surprise he was right in predicting no progress in metaphysics and lots of progress in science. Scientifically we are in the 21st century. Metaphysically, some of us are back in the 1200s when Thomas Aquinas proposed his five ways by which God's existence can be demonstrated 'logically'.
We've seen it all been before, folks. Metaphysics sucks big time ;-).
Pole

parakeet

Pole: "Scientifically we are in the 21st century. Metaphysically, some of us are back in the 1200s when Thomas Aquinas proposed his five ways by which God's existence can be demonstrated 'logically'."

I agree, Pole. Hooberus is doing his best to get us to accept his original premise, even if it's just a provisional acceptance. Failing that, he's asking us to "play pretend" that it's true so he can set up the rest of his "logically consistent" arguments -- all derived from a book he failed to get us to read. You gotta give him points for persistence, though. He's plowing ahead like an elephant through the forest. Logic, reason, and proof haven't been able to stop him yet.

Abaddon

hooberus

Okay, I've corrected my sloppy grammar and choice of words of yesterday, provide response to the following;

"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept that complexity or the environment for complexity can arise naturalistically."
"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designer has always been there, one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there."

n.b.

As the paradigms used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise or can always have been there is different to those used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there, the statements are non-reversible.

As the evidential materialist paradigm hasn't even any indication of the existence of an intelligent designer, it goes against the paradigm to hypothesise one exists as there are adequate hypotheses of lesser complexity explaining complexity and/or the environment where complexity could arise.

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this