Re: Doubt 101: The Teleological Argument (Design & Fine-Tuning)

response to nykytyne2

Category:

Education

Tags:

• god
• exist
• intelligent
• design
• evolution
• geology
• philosophy
• science

[AutodidacticPhd]

I'm sorry, but conflating the metaphoric uses of the word "design" by naturalists, and the literal use of the word design by creationists is just silly.

The naturalist resorts to design as a metaphor for the way certain structures that perform a definite function purely out of a lack of lexical alternatives... when a creationist uses the word however, they mean exactly what the word literally means. This is a semantic distinction between the two positions, not a point of similarity.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Structures that perform functions are teleological, literally. There is no way around that. If Darwin's theory is only meant to be taken metaphorically, then it hardly counts as scientific. I think it is meant to be taken literally, which is why I don't deny that natural selection operates in the biosphere. I just deny that such a theory of speciation adequately accounts for the origin or ontology of life. Darwin and W. Paley conceived of life from the same mechanistic perspective.

[AutodidacticPhd]

"Structures that perform functions are teleological, literally."

A barrier of tangled driftwood along a beach has a structure, and that structure effectively functions as a wall... Who designed that structure? Organized its building?

No, it is still NOT teleological. Once again you are trying to impose literalism on comparative language. Neither did I imply that Darwin's theory a metaphor.

It seems you are being obtuse on purpose, or you have a very naive understanding of language use.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I was referring to the functionality of the structures of living beings, not driftwood.

[alovelytime]

you know what i love about you Matt?

your sincereity, your love for the subject matter, the awe that comes through in your manner, the simple kind humility and courtesy that you exude.

i hope you always keep those things.

let others act a clown to draw attention to the subject matter while actually drawing attention to their own egoic arrogance.

[ozweblogs]

All humans are trying to do is to make sense of the world around us. Myths are one way of trying to make sens of our world but the scientific method has succeeded in making a lot of sense, and a way of utilizing our knowledge to make our lives better.

Religion failed to achieve a better quality of life.

[tireiron]

Truth is not subjective, it's objective and sensory data does not compromise the external world.

The video you replied to explained causation to the extent that your anti-realist observations are unnecessary.

Read Hume's example of the "properties of fire." I'd also suggest a little boning up on Kripke and Wittgenstein to help with your unclear language.

[prodprod]

It's very important when addressing issues like this not to conflate meanings. Obviously, all things exist in the specific *sense* that they exist and are an aspect of the universe in that particular sense.

So, yes, love and purpose, and happiness and consciousness and all of that, by virtue of being aspects of our minds, which are aspects of our brains which are thus all likewise aspects of the universe.

But that doesn't mean that those things are more generally afloat in the universe.

[f1ghtclub2k3]

cannot be explained via reflective conciousness etc b/c we already place valuation in our language.nature is exploitation, power, life is exploitation power.there is a constant that can be asserted in nature and that is change devolving evolving really depends upon the factors that make up struggle pain death suffering threatening conditions to the organism...there is no end just change as for the human species well we have subjected ourselves to cultural decadent valuations for breeding...what?

[f1ghtclub2k3]

the reason why it seems telelogical in creative and destructive procceses in nature is b/c there is a certain stagnation that is employed in self preservation when struggle and threatening conditions are at a minimum...it looks as though there was a beginning and we are working towards an end or a state...this is non sense...to put human valuations on nature already does it to much justice as a "mechanism" concious unconcious, deterministic all are human concepts of a mysterious process which

[AutodidacticPhd]

And I was referring to the fact that a "structure" with a "function" need not be planned with intent and purpose. Natural processes are sufficient explanation for patterns that are self sustaining or useful to patterns that are.

There is no difference between the amount of intent or purpose behind a driftwood wall verses a protein... the only differences are scale and complexity. So if you insist that "structures that perform functions" are proof of design, you are including driftwood walls.

[AutodidacticPhd]

Thanks, I try.

[Gyrcion]

I watched this entire rebuttal and fail to see how it even holds a candle to the refutation by nykytine (sp).

His arguments are either semantic or excuses about why god is undetectable.

Correct me if i'm wrong but isnt using faith to defend against the rebuttal to the teleological argument a little pointless?