Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:40:04 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Netcom jimhumph" wrote: > > > I said roughly that the argument from > > design is a sinking ship, and asked a) are you on it? and b) do > > you have a lifeboat? > > > There are various arguments from design- not just one. > I consider that it is possible to construct such an argument > as inference to best explanation which is quite powerful. > Simply asserting that they are a "sinking ship" Of cousre, my assertion was not so simple. In my prior post I laid out a capsule history of the argument from design along with a summary of its current (much-diminished) scope. > is scarcely convincing. You mean as "convincing" as "simply asserting" that "it is possible to construct an argument"? :-) > > science does whittle away at the argument from design, > > > You are thinking- I imagine- of Paley's argument. I'm thinking that we are continuously finding less and less design in the world. (Note: physicists seem to have recently added to the 18-22 fundamental dimensionless constants 4 brand-new constants derived from a "Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix" that describes "neutrino oscillation"! However, the overall trend is clear.) > > Is there then no possible pattern of empiricial evidence that could > > dissuade you from theism? Is your theism empirically unfalsifiable? > > > Well let me ask you the question- how can one empirically test > theism ( or naturalism)? Naturalism could be empirically falsified by tomorrow morning if the gods would just get busy doing some of the things that human religions claim they used to do. (For example, we could discover new quasars that spell out "Jesus is Lord".) Naturalism is increasingly validated (though not strictly proven) by the continuing absence of miracles. Theism would be easy to verify if there were any good empirical evidence for it. Alas, it remains suspiciously unverified, and indeed suspiciously unfalsifiable. Parsimony thus requires that it provisionally be considered false. I answered your question. Would you do me the courtesy of answering mine? It was: If we thawed you out in the year 9000, and you found that science had explained all apparent design, and that theism was only a faint memory, and that even aliens contacted by radio were all atheists, would you still say we all just have our metaphysics wrong? > one can, I consider , show that necessarily > if God exists he exists necessarily. If this can be "shown", then why isn't the Ontological Argument universally accepted (and taught in kindergarten :-)? Where in the philosophical literature can I find a good version of this "showing"? > The atheist is compelled > to posit a contingent "brute fact" set of laws which "just are". Not necessarily; he could propose an explanation parallel to yours, as follows. If logical possibility exists, then this universe is necessarily logically possible and the "brute fact" of its apparent existence is replaced with the necessity that its existence would seem apparent to its (necessarily logically possible but perhaps non-existent) inhabitants. (I.e. the world might be just a logically possible dream for which no dreamer exists. For more details, go to groups.google.com and search for +holtz +"why anything exists" -- or go directly to http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bholtz+%2B%22why+anything+exists%22&hl=e n&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=3A5F7AF9.A306AAE%40eng.sun.com Either the God or Dream explanation might be true, but considering either to be true is unparsimonious. > This is to enter the realm of non-explanation. Who gives the guarantee that there must be a knowable answer to the question "why does anything exist?"? In his _Philosophical Investigations_, Nozick does a good job of critically examining the assumptions that tempt us in dealing with this question. > > This is not to say that materialist naturalism _can_ answer the Big > > Why (why does god/universe/anything exist?). However, that theism > > pretends to have the answer is a bug, not a feature. :-) > > > Thesim *can* provide an explanation however- it attributes > the laws to a Creator deity. What I meant by "bug" is that this purported explanation fails, shattered on the rocks of parsimony and/or the invalidity of the Ontological Argument. (I suppose you knew what I meant, and just wanted to re-assert your position. Well, so do I. :-) -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net