Topic: ID Theory Refutes Notion That Christian God Designed Life (Read 23046 times)

TheDoctor · « **Reply #20 on:** May 23, 2006, 05:25:01 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: TheDoctor
Based on your definitions and premises, God exists outside the universe, correct?.

No. My definitions and premises say nothing about the possible existence of a god or of an intelligent extraterrestrial much less the location of either's existence.

Sure they did. p3 stated "Every thing in the universe was designed by God." If God did not exist, He couldn't design anything.

Cogito · « **Reply #21 on:** May 23, 2006, 05:51:26 PM »

Quote from: TheDoctor

Sure they did. p3 stated "Every thing in the universe was designed by God." If God did not exist, He couldn't design anything.

Your point has merit although you've misquoted my premise 3. Actually it says, "According to Christian theology, all things in the universe were designed by God; thus, no particular thing in the universe was NOT designed by God."

This doesn't mean that God exists. It means only that according to Christian theology God exists. Christian theology may be mistaken. Personally, I think it is mistaken.

However, I've since decided to change the wording of my argument to a version that actually helps your case (I think).

Here's the latest version:

Quote

p1: ID theory says that life appears to be designed.

p2: No particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by a designer unless some particular thing in the universe appears not to be designed by that designer.

p3: If God designed all things in the universe, then no particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by God.

conclusion: The design that ID theory believes that it has found in life is not and cannot be the slightest evidence for the proposition that God designed life but instead can be evidence only for the proposition that life was designed by a designer which did not design everything else in the universe as well as life.

I'll also edit the opening post to reflect this change.

Cogito · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2006, 05:57:10 PM »

Thanks, guys. With your help the argument seems to be getting tighter and more difficult to refute as we go along here.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:12:18 PM »

"Your point has merit although you've misquoted my premise 3. Actually it says, "According to Christian theology, all things in the universe were designed by God; thus, no particular thing in the universe was NOT designed by God."

Uh... I know that was directed at Doc, but I know if it was me that would infuriate me. He didn't misquote you. You hadn't informed him that you were changing the premise.

His point had merit... which is to say that it was flawed in its previous form.

It looks like you've changed it again since I chimed in on 'According to Christians...' I do hope you won't accuse me of misquoting you!

"It means only that according to Christian theology God exists. Christian theology may be mistaken. Personally, I think it is mistaken."

My point has yet to be addressed that you should be using the definitions that the Christians are putting forward in order for the argument to have force.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:25:48 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: TheDoctor
Sure they did. p3 stated "Every thing in the universe was designed by God." If God did not exist, He couldn't design anything.

Your point has merit although you've misquoted my premise 3. Actually it says, "According to Christian theology, all things in the universe were designed by God; thus, no particular thing in the universe was NOT designed by God."

Cog, you've actually made me quite angry. What I quoted was a direct cut and paste of your ORIGINAL premise 3. How DARE you try to make me look like an idiot when you're the one that's changing the very structure of your argument in the MIDDLE of a debate! I'm very, VERY tempted to remove the ability to edit posts because of you, by the way.

Copernicus · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:39:58 PM »

I agree with the general point that it is a bad idea to edit posts that have already been commented on. I don't think that Cogito was trying to make anyone look foolish, but post-editing of that sort can make people really angry. It's best to leave earlier errors in place and simply reformulate a copy of the OP in mid-thread.

That said, I think that Cogito's very honest attempt to rethink and clarify his argument should be given some points for intellectual honesty. He's only refining the argument, not changing its substance.

TheDoctor · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2006, 07:16:09 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus

I agree with the general point that it is a bad idea to edit posts that have already been commented on. I don't think that Cogito was trying to make anyone look foolish, but post-editing of that sort can make people really angry. It's best to leave earlier errors in place and simply reformulate a copy of the OP in mid-thread.

That said, I think that Cogito's very honest attempt to rethink and clarify his argument should be given some points for intellectual honesty. He's only refining the argument, not changing its substance.

Wrong, cop. He's changed the substance quite a bit. This is hardly intellectual honesty on Cogito's part. I've been around the debate block once or twice before so I can recognize the commonly-deployed tricks fairly readily.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:38:56 PM »

Quote from: TheDoctor

Wrong, cop. He's changed the substance quite a bit. This is hardly intellectual honesty on Cogito's part. I've been around the debate block once or twice before so I can recognize the commonly-deployed tricks fairly readily.

Well, I can't speak for Cog as to whether or not her was trying to make you look stupid (if he wasn't, I hope he'll be a man and apologize; it was very clumsy of him, at best). But the argument itself remains the same at heart. I think its current wording is much better than the original: at any rate, it no longer looks like a parody. I quite like it.

Cogito, in regards to my earlier question:

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Deep Thought
That said, the thread title does seem to have something else in mind. Care to clarify, Cog?

The question is, if all "things" in the universe (and by this I mean "whatever exists" -- does that answer your question, Doc?) were designed by God, then what possible analysis might lead us to conclude that some particular thing was designed by God? What would we be looking for that would identify a thing as being designed by God? What could we discover that would mark a thing as being designed by God?

In the case of human design, we know what we are looking for. In other words, we can distinguish "that which is designed by humans" from "that which is not designed by humans." But how do we do the same in the case of Godly design?

We not only do not know how to distinguish that which was designed by God from that which was not, but we cannot know this. This is because all things were designed by God. There are no "distinguishing" traits that mark a thing as being designed by God because everything was designed by God. No particular thing can be distinguished from any other particular thing in this regard because all things have identical traits that mark them as being designed by God.

What this means is that no things can "appear" to be designed by God because we do not know what traits might possibly make them "appear" to be so. There are no "traits of Godly design" that can possibly distinguish any particular thing from any other thing because if God designed all things then all things have those same traits of Godly design.

Since no things can have distinguishing traits that might mark them as being designed by God, it's meaningless to say that "If a thing 'appears' to be designed by God. . . " because nothing can 'appear' to us to be designed by God.

If ID theory is true, that is, if there are discoverable traits in life that suggest design, then those traits cannot be traits associated with Godly design. Therefore, if ID theory is true, then it means that life was not designed by some entity or being that designed everything else, as well; i.e., not by God.

I get what you were saying--however, mayhap a better thread title would be "The Notion that the Christian God designed life refutes ID theory," or something like that. I don't think it can accurately be worded that ID theory "refutes" the Christian God, so much as the Christian God refutes the ID notion that life, the universe, and everything appear designed.

All of that said, this is something I've held in my mind for quite a while, so it's nothing new to me. I just never thought any of it worth saying 'til you started this thread.

Cogito · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:43:37 PM »

Quote

Cog, you've actually made me quite angry. What I quoted was a direct cut and paste of your ORIGINAL premise 3. How DARE you try to make me look like an idiot when you're the one that's changing the very structure of your argument in the MIDDLE of a debate! I'm very, VERY tempted to remove the ability to edit posts because of you, by the way.

You do what you want but don't try to pretend that it has anything to do with MY intellectual integrity. I CLEARLY pointed out that I was changing the wording of the original argument. This has not affected the conclusion of it one whit.

Have I tried in any way to deny that your quotes of the argument as it was originally worded were incorrect? No.

Did I make any attempt to deny that I had changed the wording, although not the intent, of my premises? Of course not. And why should I? You haven't made the slightest dent in the argument as it stood previously or as it stands now.

How has the argument "substantially" changed? What point were you attempting to make? Lay out your rebuttal, if you've got one, and we'll let the readers of this thread judge its merit.

If you cannot refute the argument and feel the need to change the subject with this crap, have at it.

Cogito · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:49:01 PM »

Thanks, DT. Your comments are pretty much on the mark including the suggested change for the title of the thread. But since I'm not partial to being called dishonest, I think I'll leave the title as it stands. Hope you understand.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #30 on:** May 23, 2006, 08:58:32 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

You do what you want but don't try to pretend that it has anything to do with MY intellectual integrity. I CLEARLY pointed out that I was changing the wording of the original argument. This has not affected the conclusion of it one whit.

Have I tried in any way to deny that your quotes of the argument as it was originally worded were incorrect? No.

Did I make any attempt to deny that I had changed the wording, although not the intent, of my premises? Of course not. And why should I? You haven't made the slightest dent in the argument as it stood previously or as it stands now.

How has the argument "substantially" changed? What point were you attempting to make? Lay out your rebuttal, if you've got one, and we'll let the readers of this thread judge its merit.

If you cannot refute the argument and feel the need to change the subject with this crap, have at it.

Thought Police, to the rescue!

(Now if only I had administrative powers to back that up...

)

Can the two of you, Doc and Cog, just drop the issue of the misquote, shake hands, come to a truce before this becomes a fully-fledged argument, and continue with the main point in question (the argument, not the wording of it)? It seems clear to me that there's been a two-way misunderstanding here--Cog's failure to initially clarify the nature of Doc's misquote mixed with Doc's failure to notice that Cog had specifically said he was changing the argument to match the one he'd just posted five minutes before Doc posted his quoting of the original... two slips that just don't go well together, from the result of it. But there seems to be no single person on whom the blame can be placed: both of you were in error (whether by accident or by sheer momentary clumsiness it doesn't really matter), so I suggest you let bygones be bygones and get on with the debate. Life's too short to waste on petty squabbles like this one--it's better spent on the more meaty squabbles, like the compatibility of ID with Christianity.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #31 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Thanks, DT. Your comments are pretty much on the mark including the suggested change for the title of the thread. But since I'm not partial to being called dishonest, I think I'll leave the title as it stands. Hope you understand.

Well, I never called you dishonest, and even since that post I've seen a slightly more illuminating angle of this little debate, as I've already posted. (Before your most recent post it did appear to me that you had at least slipped in your wording, hence I said you were clumsy, but now that I've glimpsed the mindset behind it, I think Doc did something wrong, too. But that I've already posted.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #32 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:16:13 PM »

There won't be any restricting of editting.

Cogito is clearly in the wrong. He should not have accused Doc of 'misquoting' him. That the edit had taken place 5 minutes before Doc posted in no way puts Doc as culpable. The post where Cogito 'informed' us of the change was directed to JustLiz, and its very easy to skim or even pay little mind to posts explicitly directed towards other people.

Given the fact that Cog well knew he had just editted the comment only moments earlier, he should have had the good sense not to accuse anyone of 'misquoting.'

Doc might be overstepping in thinking that this was deliberate, but his 'mistake' is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when you go about editting posts, and Cog should have simply pointed out to Doc, without insinuations, that he had revised the premise.

If we look at the statement again:

"Your point has merit although you've misquoted my premise 3. Actually it says, "According to Christian theology, all things in the universe were designed by God; thus, no particular thing in the universe was NOT designed by God."

There is not a hint of fairness respecting the revision. "You've misquoted..." "Actually it says..." clearly portrays Doc in a certain light. He was right to be angry.

If Cogito can't see his way to apologize, I wouldn't blame Doc for continuing to be angry.

Not that this matters for the integrity of the argument... not the argument, at least...

Deep Thought · « **Reply #33 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:25:35 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

There won't be any restricting of editting.

Cogito is clearly in the wrong. He should not have accused Doc of 'misquoting' him. That the edit had taken place 5 minutes before Doc posted in no way puts Doc as culpable. The post where Cogito 'informed' us of the change was directed to JustLiz, and its very easy to skim or even pay little mind to posts explicitly directed towards other people.

Given the fact that Cog well knew he had just editted the comment only moments earlier, he should have had the good sense not to accuse anyone of 'misquoting.'

Doc might be overstepping in thinking that this was deliberate, but his 'mistake' is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when you go about editting posts, and Cog should have simply pointed out to Doc, without insinuations, that he had revised the premise.

If we look at the statement again:

"Your point has merit although you've misquoted my premise 3. Actually it says, "According to Christian theology, all things in the universe were designed by God; thus, no particular thing in the universe was NOT designed by God."

There is not a hint of fairness respecting the revision. "You've misquoted..." "Actually it says..." clearly portrays Doc in a certain light. He was right to be angry.

If Cogito can't see his way to apologize, I wouldn't blame Doc for continuing to be angry.

Not that this matters for the integrity of the argument... not the argument, at least...

Yes, yes, I've acknowledged that Cog still did something wrong (I will for the moment continue giving the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to clumsiness, though, as I said in my original comment on the matter, clumsiness still merits apology), and have also acknowledged that Doc's slip was both accidental (I did not specifically attribute that to Doc, but it was aimed at him) and five minutes after the edit (which I DID specify to Doc's slip).

Whether all of this is an intentional attempt to discredit Doc and his retaliation or not, I still want to ask the two of them to put it aside. At best it'll result in some lasting ill-will between Doc and Cog; at worst it could get Cog in trouble with Doc and perhaps others of the forum administration. Neither is a very promising scenario, methinks, so to avoid further unpleasantness--to at least do that, if absolutely nothing else!--I ask both Cog and Doc to put this aside.

It would definitely help things along if Cog would apologize for his poor word choice/whatever it was, though, I definitely give you that.

I stand by what I said: life's too short for petty squabbles. Let's get back to the meaty ones.

Cogito · « **Reply #34 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:31:02 PM »

OK, I see now that TheDoctor in his reply quoted the original version of the argument and not its first revision. This means that he didn't misquote the original argument as it was worded. For that, I apologize.

This however changes nothing of substance in the argument and I do not see how it affects any point that TheDoctor was attempting to make.

If you have a point, TheDoctor, please make it.

Deep Thought, Copernicus, others: I've slightly revised the argument again (see below). Any further suggestions as to how to make it stronger?

p1: ID theory argues that because it has discovered elements of design in life, it is probable that life was designed by some designer.

p2: No particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by some designer unless some particular thing in the universe appears not to be designed by that designer.

p3: If God designed all things in the universe, then no particular thing in the universe can 'appear' to be designed by God.

conclusion: The elements of design that ID theory believes that it has discovered in life are not and cannot be the slightest evidence for the proposition that God designed life but instead can be evidence only for the proposition that life was designed by a designer who did not design everything else in the universe as well as life.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #35 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:48:56 PM »

What about your defining the words in your philosophical naturalistic manner instead of how Christians would define them?

Cogito · « **Reply #36 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:21:53 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion, blue eyes, but after careful consideration I've decided to give it a pass.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #37 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:52:00 PM »

Quote

conclusion: The elements of design that ID theory believes that it has discovered in life are not and cannot be the slightest evidence for the proposition that God designed life but instead can be evidence only for the proposition that life was designed by a designer who did not design everything else in the universe as well as life.

Would be better put:

"The elements of design that ID theorists believe to have discovered in life cannot be the slightest evidence for the proposition that life was designed by a designer, or God, who also designed everything else; it can only be evidence for the proposition that life was designed by a designer who did not also design everything else in the universe."

It might also be a good idea to officially detach (that is, to verbally declare the detachment rather than just quietly neglect to include) the word "Christian" from God for the sake of this argument, and instead use all of the versions of God that are said to have designed everything in the universe--which includes, but is not limited to, the Christian God. This would require broad definitions, but would also remove the problem of your definitions being different than Christians' definitions.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #38 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:53:04 PM »

I don't understand.

You have defined 'universe' in such a way as to preclude the possibility of there being a God in the first place. You said 'universe=all that is real' which excludes the possibility of God being real, and so obviously is no definition a Christian could accept. Certainly, no theist could accept it.

Thus, no Christian would make your argument, and it can only ever be, at best, a strawman.

Cogito · « **Reply #39 on:** May 24, 2006, 01:21:40 AM »

DT: Suggestion noted and agreed to. Yours is now the conclusion to my argument.

Author Topic: ID Theory Refutes Notion That Christian God Designed Life (Read 23046 times)