My original God Argument: From Natural Law
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."[2]
The only rationale upon which the argument turns is the mystery concerning how laws work. That is a god of the gaps argument by definition, textbook. My argument begins by stating a rationale that, while it may be hard to prove, it is at least not a gap in knowledge, at least not only a gap. The problem with gaps is that they close up. Yet if we can demonstrate that mind is a more solid basis for the seeming law-like regularity of the universe that night make for a better explanation.[3]
The argument:
(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability.
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as an ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
Notice I said nothing about law implying a law giver. The rationale for mind is not based upon analogies to law. This does raise the one real sticking point, premises 1-2. Can we prove that mind is the best explanation for law-like regularity? I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that the (P3) universe displays like-like efficiency. Also I don't think it will be such a struggle to prove 4-5 linking a mind that orders the universe with God. Therefore I wont bother to argue those here. Thus I will concern myself primarily with P's 1-2.
Certain schools of philosophy hold that an inference to the best explanation is a valid argument. That is if one amid a variety of explanations has a more significant likelihood of coming true, and is more in line with prevailing theory and serves to explain more of the data then that hypothesis can be warranted as "the best explanation,"[4] Ratzsch goes on to quote Peter Lipton: "According to Inference to the Best Explanation … [g]iven our data and our background beliefs, we infer what would if true, provide the best of the competing explanations we can generate of those data (so long as the best is good enough for us to make any inference at all)."[5]
That complexity and efficacy are indicative of mind as an organizing principle might be hard or impossible to pull off but it makes sense on one level. Through complexity and fitedness one might deduce purpose or telos, and mind might be indicted in that sense. All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."
...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]
Now the secularist skeptic might argue evolution demonstrates an organizing principle producing great complexity and in mindless fashion, While that might be the case the problem is evolution is surely the product of the law-like regularity and not it's cause. Presumably then we need laws to make evolutionary processes work and so we have not explained anything. Even so the skeptic can always fall back on the fact that we don't have a world that we know is or is not designed by a mind to which we compare our own world. Even though P1 might make sense there is no way to prove it. Not having an undesigned universe to compare may mean that we can't prove the existence of God by the argument here advanced, It does not necessarily mean the argument is not a good one. If we forget about proof and talk about warrant: it may not be proof but it is probably the best explanation and that may warrant belief.
In arguments of this type, superior explanatory virtues of a theory are taken as constituting decisive epistemic support for theory acceptability, warranted belief of the theory, and likely truth of the theory. There are, of course, multitudes of purported explanatory, epistemic virtues, including the incomplete list a couple paragraphs back (and lists of such have evolved over time). Assessing hypotheses in terms of such virtues is frequently contentious, depending, as it does, on perceptions of ill-defined characteristics, differences in background conceptual stances, and the like. Still, in general we frequently manage rough and ready resolutions...[7]
The argument does turn on the premise of a design argument but it could be considered more than that. Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."
Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Grand Design. in which he argued that gravity accounts for the existence of everything else:
If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative….Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can….Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[8]
Edger Anders discusses the problem with this approach: So gravity is God. Unfortunately the authors have no time to tell us who created gravity (earlier they rule out God because no one could explain who created him). Nor can they tell us why matter and gravity should pop out of nothing, except to argue that ‘nothing’ undergoes quantum fluctuations. However, this requires that (like gravity) the laws of quantum mechanics pre-existed the universe and that ‘nothing’ possesses the properties of normal space, which is part of the created order and cannot be its antecedent.[9]
Were I involved in a debate with a seasoned great thinker or some professional philosopher this is not the argument I would use. I think it is a valid warrant for belief, the best explanation for law-like regularity.
Main supporting evidence: Laws of Physics, beyond descriptive ./ prescriptive dichotomy.
this is a chapter for a book I'm working on. It;s in three parts but supports thsi argument real well,
Support Material
Laws of physics: beyond prescriptive/descriptive Dichotomy
Sources
[1] Bradly Bowen, Adamson's Cru [de] Arguments for God part 1, Secular Outpost, (April 25, 2016) blog URL:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/04/25/adamsons-crude-arguments-for-god-part-1/ accessed April 28, 2016
[2] Marlyn Adamson, "Is There a God," Every Student, Published by Campus Crusade for Christ On line resource, URL: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html She sites fn 11:Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter
[3] I recently posted on criteria by which to judge the best explanation.
[4] Ratzsch, Del and Koperski, Jeffrey, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
[5] Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation. 1st Edition. London: Routledge (1991, 58): quoted in Ratzsch, Ibid.
[6] ."Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
[7] Ratzsch, Ibid.
[8] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, New York: Bantum Books, 2010. 180
[9] Edgar Andres, “Review: the Grand Design,” Challies'.com, Tim Challies, on line reouce, URL: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design acessed 10/4/15 Andres is Emeritus professor University of London. Physicist and an expert on large molecules. Born 1932.
The only rationale upon which the argument turns is the mystery concerning how laws work. That is a god of the gaps argument by definition, textbook. My argument begins by stating a rationale that, while it may be hard to prove, it is at least not a gap in knowledge, at least not only a gap. The problem with gaps is that they close up. Yet if we can demonstrate that mind is a more solid basis for the seeming law-like regularity of the universe that night make for a better explanation.[3]
The argument:
(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability.
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as an ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
Notice I said nothing about law implying a law giver. The rationale for mind is not based upon analogies to law. This does raise the one real sticking point, premises 1-2. Can we prove that mind is the best explanation for law-like regularity? I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that the (P3) universe displays like-like efficiency. Also I don't think it will be such a struggle to prove 4-5 linking a mind that orders the universe with God. Therefore I wont bother to argue those here. Thus I will concern myself primarily with P's 1-2.
Certain schools of philosophy hold that an inference to the best explanation is a valid argument. That is if one amid a variety of explanations has a more significant likelihood of coming true, and is more in line with prevailing theory and serves to explain more of the data then that hypothesis can be warranted as "the best explanation,"[4] Ratzsch goes on to quote Peter Lipton: "According to Inference to the Best Explanation … [g]iven our data and our background beliefs, we infer what would if true, provide the best of the competing explanations we can generate of those data (so long as the best is good enough for us to make any inference at all)."[5]
That complexity and efficacy are indicative of mind as an organizing principle might be hard or impossible to pull off but it makes sense on one level. Through complexity and fitedness one might deduce purpose or telos, and mind might be indicted in that sense. All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."
...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]
Now the secularist skeptic might argue evolution demonstrates an organizing principle producing great complexity and in mindless fashion, While that might be the case the problem is evolution is surely the product of the law-like regularity and not it's cause. Presumably then we need laws to make evolutionary processes work and so we have not explained anything. Even so the skeptic can always fall back on the fact that we don't have a world that we know is or is not designed by a mind to which we compare our own world. Even though P1 might make sense there is no way to prove it. Not having an undesigned universe to compare may mean that we can't prove the existence of God by the argument here advanced, It does not necessarily mean the argument is not a good one. If we forget about proof and talk about warrant: it may not be proof but it is probably the best explanation and that may warrant belief.
In arguments of this type, superior explanatory virtues of a theory are taken as constituting decisive epistemic support for theory acceptability, warranted belief of the theory, and likely truth of the theory. There are, of course, multitudes of purported explanatory, epistemic virtues, including the incomplete list a couple paragraphs back (and lists of such have evolved over time). Assessing hypotheses in terms of such virtues is frequently contentious, depending, as it does, on perceptions of ill-defined characteristics, differences in background conceptual stances, and the like. Still, in general we frequently manage rough and ready resolutions...[7]
The argument does turn on the premise of a design argument but it could be considered more than that. Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."
Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Grand Design. in which he argued that gravity accounts for the existence of everything else:
If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative….Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can….Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[8]
Edger Anders discusses the problem with this approach: So gravity is God. Unfortunately the authors have no time to tell us who created gravity (earlier they rule out God because no one could explain who created him). Nor can they tell us why matter and gravity should pop out of nothing, except to argue that ‘nothing’ undergoes quantum fluctuations. However, this requires that (like gravity) the laws of quantum mechanics pre-existed the universe and that ‘nothing’ possesses the properties of normal space, which is part of the created order and cannot be its antecedent.[9]
Were I involved in a debate with a seasoned great thinker or some professional philosopher this is not the argument I would use. I think it is a valid warrant for belief, the best explanation for law-like regularity.
Main supporting evidence: Laws of Physics, beyond descriptive ./ prescriptive dichotomy.
this is a chapter for a book I'm working on. It;s in three parts but supports thsi argument real well,
Support Material
Laws of physics: beyond prescriptive/descriptive Dichotomy
Sources
[1] Bradly Bowen, Adamson's Cru [de] Arguments for God part 1, Secular Outpost, (April 25, 2016) blog URL:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/04/25/adamsons-crude-arguments-for-god-part-1/ accessed April 28, 2016
[2] Marlyn Adamson, "Is There a God," Every Student, Published by Campus Crusade for Christ On line resource, URL: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html She sites fn 11:Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter
[3] I recently posted on criteria by which to judge the best explanation.
[4] Ratzsch, Del and Koperski, Jeffrey, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
[5] Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation. 1st Edition. London: Routledge (1991, 58): quoted in Ratzsch, Ibid.
[6] ."Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
[7] Ratzsch, Ibid.
[8] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, New York: Bantum Books, 2010. 180
[9] Edgar Andres, “Review: the Grand Design,” Challies'.com, Tim Challies, on line reouce, URL: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design acessed 10/4/15 Andres is Emeritus professor University of London. Physicist and an expert on large molecules. Born 1932.
Comments
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
How do you measure the efficiency of ordering? If you cannot say, then how can you possibly which source is the most efficient?
Same for dependability.
On the face of it this sounds reasonable, but scratch beneath the surface, and all we find is vagueness hiding a flawed argument.
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
Boil 100 ml of water, and add 40 g of salt. The salt will all dissolve to give a saturated solution. Allow to cool. The solubility at room temperature is less, and around 5 g of salt will slowly crystallise out.
Each crystal is a three dimensional lattice is which sodium and chloride ions are perfectly ordered in an alternating pattern.
Please provide an example of ordering by a mind that is more efficient and more dependable than that.
Joe: (2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability.
What is "Random ordering"? Either a sequence is ordered OR it is random. Again, vagueness.
Joe: (3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
Absolutely! The crystallisation of salt is just one example.
Joe: (4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as an ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
Are you suggesting God consciously arranges each ion of sodium and chloride when the crystals form to ensure they are in the right order? If he wanted to, he could line up all the sodium ions is one place, and all the chloride ions in another.
I think it more likely this is due to electromagnetic effects, resulting from the sodium ions having a positive charge and the chloride ions a negative charge.
Joe: Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."
Like Christians make no attempt to explain where God comes from. All you are doing is pushing back the mystery one step.
Pix
The problem with your argument is that it depends on vagueness.
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
How do you measure the efficiency of ordering? If you cannot say, then how can you possibly which source is the most efficient?
We can measure it by what works. the difference between an automobile factory and a junk yard.
Same for dependability.
a subset of the same issue.
On the face of it this sounds reasonable, but scratch beneath the surface, and all we find is vagueness hiding a flawed argument.
You have not demonstrated that so far, not unless you think junk yards are more efficient at producing auto mobiles that work than are factories,
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
Boil 100 ml of water, and add 40 g of salt. The salt will all dissolve to give a saturated solution. Allow to cool. The solubility at room temperature is less, and around 5 g of salt will slowly crystallise out.
Each crystal is a three dimensional lattice is which sodium and chloride ions are perfectly ordered in an alternating pattern.
Please provide an example of ordering by a mind that is more efficient and more dependable than that.
That's fine if all you want is crystal. If you want machines to do work it's more complex random ordering wont cut it. We can include a foot note specifying this point is more accurate with greater complexity.
Joe: (2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability.
What is "Random ordering"? Either a sequence is ordered OR it is random. Again, vagueness.
I think it's pretty clear given what's been said so far,
Joe: (3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
Absolutely! The crystallisation of salt is just one example.
Joe: (4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as an ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
Are you suggesting God consciously arranges each ion of sodium and chloride when the crystals form to ensure they are in the right order? If he wanted to, he could line up all the sodium ions is one place, and all the chloride ions in another.
God does not have to mess with individual ions but can make the system that distributes them accurately. In fact he introduces mind as part of the evolutionary process. Then that mind or minds begin ordering bits of the
universe.
I think it more likely this is due to electromagnetic effects, resulting from the sodium ions having a positive charge and the chloride ions a negative charge.
But that is also part of the reliability of the system
Joe: Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity. He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."
Like Christians make no attempt to explain where God comes from. All you are doing is pushing back the mystery one step.
God doesn't come since He's always been. So that is not needed with God. What Tillich says about being itself demonstrates the logic of God as unlimited and eternal. Wherever being is God is, God is being itself.
See, there is that vagueness again. How efficient is an automobile factory at ordering? How about a junk yard? Just saying two example, without giving a figure is no help.
Joe: a subset of the same issue.
Of course. The issue is that your ideas are all so vague. A subset of that is your measure of efficiency. Another is your measure of dependability.
But noting that does not help resolve the issue, does it?
Joe: You have not demonstrated that so far, not unless you think junk yards are more efficient at producing auto mobiles that work than are factories,
Are you saying that number of cars produced per day is how you measure efficiency? That would seem a very narrow definition. Of course, you do not really mean that, but if you were to clarify you loose that one vital ingredient your arguments so desperately needs - vagueness.
Joe: That's fine if all you want is crystal. If you want machines to do work it's more complex random ordering wont cut it. We can include a foot note specifying this point is more accurate with greater complexity.
You automobile factory is fine if all you want is cars. If you want crystals it is a different story.
How do you measure complexity? A crystal of salt has perhaps 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ions that have been placed in a precise 3 dimensional position. How many components does your automobile factory combine to make a car? A couple of thousand?
Does not really cut it, does it?
Joe: I think it's pretty clear given what's been said so far,
Do you honestly believe that? Your argument depends on exactly what "efficiency" and "dependability" mean. Now you have added "coplexity" too. Where do you define your terms, Joe? Or is that not required in apologetics?
Joe: God does not have to mess with individual ions but can make the system that distributes them accurately.
So the more efficient ordering we see in crystal formation does not use a mind. Your claim (1) is refuted.
Joe: But that is also part of the reliability of the system
What do you mean by "that" in the above?
Joe: God doesn't come since He's always been. So that is not needed with God. What Tillich says about being itself demonstrates the logic of God as unlimited and eternal. Wherever being is God is, God is being itself.
It is interesting how Christians try to define the debate. They do not have to find a reason behind their first cause, they can just say: "God doesn't come since He's always been". That is there pet theory, so of course it gets a free pass! After all, we know God exists, right?
If anyone else claims they have their own theory about a first cause, however, the Christian is quick to object! Your first cause is not God, therefore it must be wrong!
Pix
Joe: We can measure it by what works. the difference between an automobile factory and a junk yard.
PX:See, there is that vagueness again. How efficient is an automobile factory at ordering? How about a junk yard? Just saying two example, without giving a figure is no help.
I thin you are being purposely obtuse, It's pretty clear what I am saying. The comparison was for building a working car not merely ordering parts
Joe: a subset of the same issue.
PX:Of course. The issue is that your ideas are all so vague. A subset of that is your measure of efficiency. Another is your measure of dependability.
what is vague about that? I'm making an analogy why is it vague? You don't want to get it? Hey BK or anyone reading this let me know if it's vague.
PX:But noting that does not help resolve the issue, does it?
I can explain what my analogies mean but you don't really want to know do you?
Joe: You have not demonstrated that so far, not unless you think junk yards are more efficient at producing auto mobiles that work than are factories,
PX:Are you saying that number of cars produced per day is how you measure efficiency? That would seem a very narrow definition.
why? The argument is about the origin of the universe so analogy should be about origins and manufacturing and evolving not just junk
PX:Of course, you do not really mean that, but if you were to clarify you loose that one vital ingredient your arguments so desperately needs - vagueness.
explain! you are doing your own vagueness thing here
Joe: That's fine if all you want is crystal. If you want machines to do work it's more complex random ordering wont cut it. We can include a foot note specifying this point is more accurate with greater complexity.
PX: You automobile factory is fine if all you want is cars. If you want crystals it is a different story.
we are taking about how the universe comes to be. you are trying to hide form the argument and pretend that we are just talking about nothing. so a lot junk laying around is just fine
PX:How do you measure complexity? A crystal of salt has perhaps 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ions that have been placed in a precise 3 dimensional position. How many components does your automobile factory combine to make a car? A couple of thousand?
Being a big number doesn't make it complex. IM dealing with the universe complexity is obvious its all around us and how does it come to be that there is a reliable set of law that allows the development of worlds that bear complex life?
Do you honestly believe that? Your argument depends on exactly what "efficiency" and "dependability" mean. Now you have added "complexity" too. Where do you define your terms, Joe? Or is that not required in apologetics?
I have not added complexity, Complexity is there to explain the parameters in which "efficiency" and "dependability" are meaningful. You brought it up Had you not made your junior muddlefication the subject would not be mentioned.
Joe: God does not have to mess with individual ions but can make the system that distributes them accurately.
PX: So the more efficient ordering we see in crystal formation does not use a mind. Your claim (1) is refuted.
Nit n terms of the argument, Obviously God's mind was engaged in all levels of creation
Joe: But that is also part of the reliability of the system
What do you mean by "that" in the above?
physical law
Joe: God doesn't come since He's always been. So that is not needed with God. What Tillich says about being itself demonstrates the logic of God as unlimited and eternal. Wherever being is God is, God is being itself.
BTW that confusion does not negate my God argument. Finding confusing things about God does not disprove my argument,
PX:It is interesting how Christians try to define the debate.
You have no answer to my argument so you have to repair to the fortress of We can't understand God so there must not be one? that's a doge.
They do not have to find a reason behind their first cause, they can just say: "God doesn't come since He's always been". That is there pet theory, so of course it gets a free pass! After all, we know God exists, right?
why do you need a cause for something uncaused? Since God is at the top of the metaphysical hierarchy you can't go any higher so it's foolish to seek a higher cause its equally foolish to assume can't be a top.
If anyone else claims they have their own theory about a first cause, however, the Christian is quick to object! Your first cause is not God, therefore it must be wrong!
you propose one we will see--
Of course I was being obtuse. I was highlighting how vague your description is for how to measure efficiency of ordering.
Joe: The comparison was for building a working car not merely ordering parts
Okay, so your measurement of efficiency of ordering is how many working cars something can produce per unit time, right?
Of course not. The truth is that you have no way to measure of efficiency of ordering, and you hide that simple fact behind vagueness and obfuscation.
Joe: what is vague about that? I'm making an analogy why is it vague? You don't want to get it? Hey BK or anyone reading this let me know if it's vague.
So use what you have already said is your measurement of efficiency of ordering to determine the efficiency of ordering for a salt crystal. You SAY you have not been vague here, so you should have no problem.
If you right, you will give me an answer. If I am right, you will fail.
Pix
I am trying to understand your claim "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". You can only support that if you have a way to measure that efficient ordering. Merely saying a car factory is better at it that a junk yard is just a dodge - hiding behind vagueness.
Why should I not think a salt crystal is better than a car factory? You assert not, but you obviously WANT that to be the case to support your argument. Why should I believe it?
Unless you can provide a way to measure that efficient ordering.
Joe: Being a big number doesn't make it complex.
What does? Until you offer a definition, it is just whatever is convenient to your argument.
Joe: IM dealing with the universe complexity is obvious its all around us and how does it come to be that there is a reliable set of law that allows the development of worlds that bear complex life?
Still no definition of complexity, or way to measure efficient ordering. As usual, these are vague terms that you use to mean whatever is convenient at the moment.
Joe: I have not added complexity, Complexity is there to explain the parameters in which "efficiency" and "dependability" are meaningful. You brought it up Had you not made your junior muddlefication the subject would not be mentioned.
Fact remains you cannot define complexity. You use it to mean whatever you want whenever you want. Hence, the vagueness.
Pix
Joe: I thin you are being purposely obtuse, It's pretty clear what I am saying.
Of course I was being obtuse. I was highlighting how vague your description is for how to measure efficiency of ordering.
You being vague does not prove that I'm vague
Joe: The comparison was for building a working car not merely ordering parts
PX: Okay, so your measurement of efficiency of ordering is how many working cars something can produce per unit time, right?
wrong. More simple. stacking parts or mixing them randomly will never produce working car.it requires planning, that means mind,.
PX:Of course not. The truth is that you have no way to measure of efficiency of ordering, and you hide that simple fact behind vagueness and obfuscation.
I don't need that. It would hurt if I was trying to make a business plan, I'm not, I aim only at warranting belief in God, for that i do not need to produce accrete charts or sales figures.
Joe: what is vague about that? I'm making an analogy why is it vague? You don't want to get it? Hey BK or anyone reading this let me know if it's vague.
PX:So use what you have already said is your measurement of efficiency of ordering to determine the efficiency of ordering for a salt crystal. You SAY you have not been vague here, so you should have no problem.
No I did not say quite the opposite, you are muddling the issue, It's obvious parts by themselves don't make a car, it takes a mind to plan it, I said it has nothing to do with ordering parts.
PX: If you right, you will give me an answer. If I am right, you will fail.
You've already lost the point by refusing to understand it,
Joe: we are talking about how the universe comes to be. you are trying to hide form the argument and pretend that we are just talking about nothing. so a lot junk laying around is just fine
PX: I am trying to understand your claim "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know".
No you are not, It's a classic point; it's certainly not original I'm hardly the first to make it. You are not trying.
PX: You can only support that if you have a way to measure that efficient ordering. Merely saying a car factory is better at it that a junk yard is just a dodge - hiding behind vagueness.
that is as screwed as it can be, its a very simple point you are trying to distract the reader's attention so they don't grasp it.
PX:Why should I not think a salt crystal is better than a car factory? You assert not, but you obviously WANT that to be the case to support your argument. Why should I believe it?
Better only comes into it in terms of purpose and that is related to the point of the argument. We are not talking about abolishing slat crystals. We are talking about the role of mind in ordering complexity for propose. The very idea of introducing purpose requires mind.
PX: Unless you can provide a way to measure that efficient ordering.
You have not denied the facts. You have to introduce mind to make your point about salt crystals.,
Joe: Being a big number doesn't make it complex.
PX:What does?
Until you offer a definition, it is just whatever is convenient to your argument.
"Complexity, a scientific theory which asserts that some systems display behavioral phenomena that are completely inexplicable by any conventional analysis of the systems' constituent parts." again: "Three types of complexity could be considered when analyzing algorithm performance. These are worst-case complexity, best-case complexity, and average-case complexity. Only worst-case complexity has found to be useful."https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep521/97au/notes/lect1-scribe/node4.html
Joe: IM dealing with the universe complexity is obvious its all around us and how does it come to be that there is a reliable set of law that allows the development of worlds that bear complex life?
PX: Still no definition of complexity, or way to measure efficient ordering. As usual, these are vague terms that you use to mean whatever is convenient at the moment.
I just did, As for the math on that page,Im lost. I don't think thin that is needed for the argument.
Joe: I have not added complexity, Complexity is there to explain the parameters in which "efficiency" and "dependability" are meaningful. You brought it up Had you not made your junior muddlefication the subject would not be mentioned.
Fact remains you cannot define complexity. You use it to mean whatever you want whenever you want. Hence, the vagueness.
I just did define it. It was defined operationally before. It was about explaining purpose and physical law.
The whole argument can be summed up in two points:
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as an ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
Where do you get that from?
I was being obtuse to show you are vague. Your statement of how efficiency of ordering can be measured is readily understood to mean that you are using number of working cars produced per unit time as your measure. The fact that that is clearly nonsense highlights the inadequacy of your response.
Joe: wrong. More simple. stacking parts or mixing them randomly will never produce working car.it requires planning, that means mind,.
So again you imply that number of working cars produced per unit time is your measure of efficiency of ordering. How many working cars do you make every year? None. So your efficiency of ordering must be zero, right?
Just to be clear, I am again being obtuse to highlight the problem with your stated measurement of efficiency of ordering. Measuring it by number of working cars produced per unit time is clearly nonsense, and yet you seem determined to stick with it! Why? Because if you every admit to a real measure efficiency of ordering your argument will be exposed as BS.
Joe: I don't need that. It would hurt if I was trying to make a business plan, I'm not, I aim only at warranting belief in God, for that i do not need to produce accrete charts or sales figures.
You argument is predicated on that first premise: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". You can only claim that mind is really the most efficient if you have a way to measure that efficiency. So far, all you can offer is measuring it by number of working cars produced per unit time.
The simple truth is that you have no way to measure. You blindly assert that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know", but it is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You want it to be true, because that helps your argument, so you assume it is true.
Pix: So use what you have already said is your measurement of efficiency of ordering to determine the efficiency of ordering for a salt crystal. You SAY you have not been vague here, so you should have no problem.
Joe: No I did not say quite the opposite, you are muddling the issue, It's obvious parts by themselves don't make a car, it takes a mind to plan it, I said it has nothing to do with ordering parts.
I asked you to use your measurement of efficiency to do something. How is that muddying the issue? In what way did you say the opposite of me askingf you to do something?
The simple fact is that you have been caught and you know it. This is just your way to save face, rather than admit you have no way to calculate efficiency of ordering.
Pix: If you right, you will give me an answer. If I am right, you will fail.
Joe: You've already lost the point by refusing to understand it,
I do not understand it because you refuse to clarify.
And presumably that is the strategy. Make your argument vague and confusing, and when people inevitably fail to get you can say "You've already lost the point by refusing to understand it".
You could try to clarify how you know that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". That is your first premise; your whole argument rests on it. But you choose not to.
You could do as I ask and show how you determine efficiency of ordering for a crystal. That would help me understand a lot. But you choose not. The last thing you want is for people to understand. You know this is BS. It is not supposed to make sense, it is only supposed to give the illusion of making sense.
Pix
So cite an authority.
Repeating someone else's BS does not magically make it true. Either this is well established, or it is merely opinion.
The fact that you have no clue about how this supposed efficiency of ordering is measured tells me you really do not know what it even means.
Joe: Better only comes into it in terms of purpose and that is related to the point of the argument. We are not talking about abolishing slat crystals. We are talking about the role of mind in ordering complexity for propose. The very idea of introducing purpose requires mind.
Here is your first premise: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". It now seems that that efficiency of ordering is limited to purposeful ordering. So in fact your premise is that the mind is the most efficient source of orderings that has a purposeful mind behind it. Then it is at least tautologically true.
But so what?
Joe: You have not denied the facts. You have to introduce mind to make your point about salt crystals.,
I have shown your first premise is nonsense. It is either tautologically true or just the product of wishful thinking.
Joe: "Complexity, a scientific theory which asserts that some systems display behavioral phenomena that are completely inexplicable by any conventional analysis of the systems' constituent parts." again: "Three types of complexity could be considered when analyzing algorithm performance. These are worst-case complexity, best-case complexity, and average-case complexity. Only worst-case complexity has found to be useful."https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep521/97au/notes/lect1-scribe/node4.html
This proves that you are capable of citing and quoting a source - when it suits you. Why could you not do that for efficiency of ordering if it truly is a classic point? Because the truth is that it is just opinion.
So great. Now you have the definition, tell me what the complexity is of a salt crystal, and that of a car.
I think you will struggle, because the definition you found is for analyzing sorting algorithm performance, and the complexity is a measure of how mixed up the elements are before sorting. All it really says is that we can better gauge the performance of a sort by using input like DCEBA (high complexity) than ABDCE (low compexity), because in real life situations the data is more often going to resemble the former than the latter.
Ions of sodium and chloride in solution are far more chaotic than the parts of a car before assembly; the latter will all be in very specific places. Thus the salt crystal situation is more complex, using the definition in the paper you present.
Joe: The whole argument can be summed up in two points:
Your first point has been completely trashed, so now you want to drop it. But (4) explicitly draws on that first, thoroughly refuted point!
Pix
Joe: You being vague does not prove that I'm vague
PX: Where do you get that from?
You said it
I was being obtuse to show you are vague. Your statement of how efficiency of ordering can be measured is readily understood to mean that you are using number of working cars produced per unit time as your measure. The fact that that is clearly nonsense highlights the inadequacy of your response.
I've told you several times now it's not about the rate of production or the number produced but the order of complexity in relation to purpose.
Joe: wrong. More simple. stacking parts or mixing them randomly will never produce working car.it requires planning, that means mind,.
PX: So again you imply that number of working cars produced per unit time is your measure of efficiency of ordering.
How do you get number? I said nothing about number, It's clearly about function not number.
PX: How many working cars do you make every year? None. So your efficiency of ordering must be zero, right?
I really don't see why you can't get this, you can't ride down the road in a salt crustal /salt crystals just lay there but cars drive around, That's the standard not how many times. Function not production,
PX: Just to be clear, I am again being obtuse to highlight the problem with your stated measurement of efficiency of ordering.
what do you mean by effency in ordering?
PX: Measuring it by number of working cars produced per unit time is clearly nonsense,
Of coarse it is that's why I never said it.
and yet you seem determined to stick with it! Why? Because if you every admit to a real measure efficiency of ordering your argument will be exposed as BS.
Is this some kind of game you invented? Just insist I said things you wish I had said?
Joe: I don't need that. It would hurt if I was trying to make a business plan, I'm not, I aim only at warranting belief in God, for that i do not need to produce accrete charts or sales figures.
PX: You argument is predicated on that first premise: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". You can only claim that mind is really the most efficient if you have a way to measure that efficiency. So far, all you can offer is measuring it by number of working cars produced per unit time.
again I've said it every time. Function not number. Get it through your head I'VE DENIED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAID IT THAT ANT IT
PX: The simple truth is that you have no way to measure. You blindly assert that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know", but it is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. You want it to be true, because that helps your argument, so you assume it is true.
We don't need to make the kind of measurement you are talking about because you based it upon something I never said.
Joe: No you are not, It's a classic point; it's certainly not original I'm hardly the first to make it. You are not trying.
So cite an authority.
from the original post: "..The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]"Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
PX: Repeating someone else's BS does not magically make it true. Either this is well established, or it is merely opinion.
calling evidence BS doesn't magically make it go away. There are rules for documentation you violate them all, you have none, I quite authorities. as i just did
Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16X: The fact that you have no clue about how this supposed efficiency of ordering is measured tells me you really do not know what it even means.
You haven't told us either. I've quoted three measures used. look for it
Joe: Better only comes into it in terms of purpose and that is related to the point of the argument. We are not talking about abolishing slat crystals. We are talking about the role of mind in ordering complexity for propose. The very idea of introducing purpose requires mind.
PX: Here is your first premise: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". It now seems that that efficiency of ordering is limited to purposeful ordering.
As I have been telling you all the way through this tread!
PX:So in fact your premise is that the mind is the most efficient source of orderings that has a purposeful mind behind it. Then it is at least tautologically true.
You are purposely screwing my ideas because you can't answer it.p3 from the argument: " The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations." You disagree? Tell me what's wrong with it? You can't disprove the premises.
Px
Joe: You have not denied the facts. You have to introduce mind to make your point about salt crystals.,
PX: I have shown your first premise is nonsense. It is either tautologically true or just the product of wishful thinking. [1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,]
You had to twist the words to make it conflict with itself, you can't even tell me what's wrong with it without lying about what it means.
Joe: "Complexity, a scientific theory which asserts that some systems display behavioral phenomena that are completely inexplicable by any conventional analysis of the systems' constituent parts." again: "Three types of complexity could be considered when analyzing algorithm performance. These are worst-case complexity, best-case complexity, and average-case complexity. Only worst-case complexity has found to be useful."https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep521/97au/notes/lect1-scribe/node4.html
Px:This proves that you are capable of citing and quoting a source - when it suits you. Why could you not do that for efficiency of ordering if it truly is a classic point? Because the truth is that it is just opinion.
you never read the ordinal post did you? you are just like Skepie, how about that? the op had 9 sources quoted and foot noted.
show me a salt crystal you can drive to work. Think about all these plainest in the universe falling through space but gravity is such that they just don't fall into their suns, they all should really why don't they? it's for the 'whole damn shoot'n match this worls.The Universe is balanced on a knife blade.
I think you will struggle, because the definition you found is for analyzing sorting algorithm performance, and the complexity is a measure of how mixed up the elements are before sorting. All it really says is that we can better gauge the performance of a sort by using input like DCEBA (high complexity) than ABDCE (low compexity), because in real life situations the data is more often going to resemble the former than the latter.
Yes there are scientifically minded people who know much better than I you are clearly one of them, who could put into better terms I still think I'm right. The more complex and efficient a structure the more it mind.
PX: Ions of sodium and chloride in solution are far more chaotic than the parts of a car before assembly; the latter will all be in very specific places. Thus the salt crystal situation is more complex, using the definition in the paper you present.
You have contrived a special set of circumstances in which you can lend that definition where it really doesn't belong. "the latter will all be in very specific places." The entire universe as a whole does not operate by those same rules. You still cant drive it, You seem to be asserting that greater chaos = greater complexity I dont know that is relevant,
You ssrtchoiaoitc = complex.
Joe: The whole argument can be summed up in two points:
Your first point has been completely trashed, so now you want to drop it.
after you redefined it to say something I never said.
But (4) explicitly draws on that first, thoroughly refuted point!
you think salt is more complex than a car.
Right. So you ordering efficiency necessarily requires purpose, which necessarily requires a mind.
Your first premise, then, is that of all the ordering systems that have purposeful minds behind them, the most efficient will have a mind behind it.
But so what?
Surely what you are trying to do is compare two hypothetical systems, one purposeful with a mind, the other not. But you methodology can only be applied to the former! You elininate the latter not because of any reason intrinsic to it, but because you have chosen a methodology that excludes it.
Joe: How do you get number? I said nothing about number, It's clearly about function not number.
Oh, you have done all you can to avoid numbers. But how can you say what is more efficient without them? If I say my fridge is more efficient than yours, how do we decide? We measure the efficiency - or look them up - and compare the numbers.
Of course what you want to do is contrive a methodology that precludes my fridge. You define efficiency as how well the fridge works in your kitchen. Thus you can convince yourself that your 40-year old model is the better one. Not because it actually is, but because you have contrived your definition.
Joe: I really don't see why you can't get this, you can't ride down the road in a salt crustal /salt crystals just lay there but cars drive around, That's the standard not how many times. Function not production,
How many cars does God make every day? I ask because I want to know how efficient he is.
Joe: what do you mean by effency in ordering?
Really Joe? Remember this: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know".
YOU are claiming mind has the highest efficiency in ordering. Does that ring any bells? What do you think we have been discussing exactly?
Joe: Is this some kind of game you invented? Just insist I said things you wish I had said?
Any one can do a search for "factory" and find a whole bunch of times you stated you measure efficiency of ordering by how many cars a factory can churn out. And a whole bunch of times I pointed out that that is stupid.
Joe: again I've said it every time. Function not number. Get it through your head I'VE DENIED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAID IT THAT ANT IT
That is just a straight out lie. A search of this discussion and your original post reveals you have not used the word "function" before this comment.
I get that you have lost this debate badly, but make stuff up like this that can be so easily checked just makes you look worse.
Pix
Joe (previously): No you are not, It's a classic point; it's certainly not original I'm hardly the first to make it. You are not trying.
Pix (previously): So cite an authority.
Joe: from the original post: "..The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]"Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
Your citation has nothing about efficiency of ordering or dependability of ordering. In what sense does it support your premise?
Joe: calling evidence BS doesn't magically make it go away. There are rules for documentation you violate them all, you have none, I quite authorities. as i just did
The rules say the documentation has to be relevant. You do not get to quote some random text and pretend it supports your position.
Joe: You haven't told us either. I've quoted three measures used. look for it
Sure, count the number of working cars made per day.
Joe: You are purposely screwing my ideas because you can't answer it.p3 from the argument: " The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations." You disagree? Tell me what's wrong with it? You can't disprove the premises.
I do not have to. If the first premise is wrong, the whole argument collapses.
Do you really not understand logic? If one link in the chain fails, it all fails. You do not get to say, well sure that premise is wrong, but this one is right, so the conclusion must be right.
I am sure you know that. As usual, this is just trying to give the illusion of reason - because that is all apologetics is.
Joe: You had to twist the words to make it conflict with itself, you can't even tell me what's wrong with it without lying about what it means.
What lie? Out with it. If I lied you will be able to show: (1) what I said; (2) the truth; and (3) how they are different. I see no attempt to do that, just baseless accusations.
Let me show you how it is done:
(1) You said "again I've said it every time. Function not number. Get it through your head I'VE DENIED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAID IT THAT ANT IT"
(2) The truth is you had not used the word "function" until you made that comment, as can be confirmed by a search of this web page.
(3) The truth that you have not used the word is not compatible with you claim that you have told me every time. Thus you are caught in a lie.
Now go see if you can substantiate your accusation.
Pix
Joe (previously): No you are not, It's a classic point; it's certainly not original I'm hardly the first to make it. You are not trying.
Pix (previously): So cite an authority.
Joe: from the original post: "..The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]"Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16
PX: Your citation has nothing about efficiency of ordering or dependability of ordering. In what sense does it support your premise?
That's like asking for one that says, "Joe is right and pixie is wrong." It's obvious from what he does say that he thinks the universe appears designed.
Joe: calling evidence BS doesn't magically make it go away. There are rules for documentation you violate them all, you have none, I quite authorities. as i just did
PX: The rules say the documentation has to be relevant. You do not get to quote some random text and pretend it supports your position.
How is a quote about the universe looking designed not relevant? so relevant I put it in the first page of the argument,
Joe: You haven't told us either. I've quoted three measures used. look for it
PS: Sure, count the number of working cars made per day.
you will knock off right now! If you can't win an argument by logic give it up! I will not allow this bull shit
Joe: You are purposely screwing my ideas because you can't answer it.p3 from the argument: " The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations." You disagree? Tell me what's wrong with it? You can't disprove the premises.
I do not have to. If the first premise is wrong, the whole argument collapses.
You had to distort the first premise until it wasn't even about the argument any more,
that's your code for lying? or for muddling the issues?
If one link in the chain fails, it all fails. You do not get to say, well sure that premise is wrong, but this one is right, so the conclusion must be right.
Sometimes you can, you know shit about logic. Besides You have not beaten any premise, you created a straw man and you are still pretending it/s my real argument,
PX: I am sure you know that. As usual, this is just trying to give the illusion of reason - because that is all apologetics is.
that is how you rationalize your refusal to read the posts, lying,distoirting creating straw man, because hey no God any way so I don't have to read or think about anything. Remember to tell God that on Judgment day, I'm sure he will be impressed.
Joe: You had to twist the words to make it conflict with itself, you can't even tell me what's wrong with it without lying about what it means.
What lie? Out with it. If I lied you will be able to show: (1) what I said; (2) the truth; and (3) how they are different. I see no attempt to do that, just baseless accusations.
Let me show you how it is done:
(1) You said "again I've said it every time. Function not number. Get it through your head I'VE DENIED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAID IT THAT ANT IT"
(2) The truth is you had not used the word "function" until you made that comment, as can be confirmed by a search of this web page.
It wasn't necessary to use that word until you began distorting the menaning
(3) The truth that you have not used the word is not compatible with you claim that you have told me every time. Thus you are caught in a lie.
You must have been off distorting arguments when they passed out the info that there is more than one way to say tings,
ankn wi rad ghe posgs knowsI havesaidit ever time, I hae dneeiedeerytime itisnotabout produicing cars, not aboutnubers,
Now go see if you can substantiate your accusation.
why don't you try to make a real argument, instead of using cheap highschool debate tactic.you are what we would have called a greasy debater
But you were asked to support your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know" is a "classic point". It is clear from your comment you know that that is not the case, and that instead you chose to address a completely different issue.
Presumably because you know you cannot support your original claim.
Joe: How is a quote about the universe looking designed not relevant? so relevant I put it in the first page of the argument,
Because I asked to support your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know" is a "classic point". It is not rocket science Joe. If you make a claim, and I ask you to support it, I will reject anything you offer that fails to support it. You made a claim, and when challenged you chose to cite some guy saying something that is not related to that claim.
Hence, not relevant.
Joe: you will knock off right now! If you can't win an argument by logic give it up! I will not allow this bull shit
I will stop with the number-of-working-cars-made-per-day thing when you give an alternative measure of efficiency of ordering.
We both know it is nonsense, but so far that is the best you have to offer. And this is fundamental to your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". How can we determine the most efficient source without a way to measure it?
Joe: You had to distort the first premise until it wasn't even about the argument any more,
I can only go on what you say. You said "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". I understand that to mean that you are comparing different sources of orderings, and more specifically their dependability and their efficiency, and when you do that, mind comes out on top.
Nothing you have said in this discussion has led me to think I am wrong about that.
So the question remains, how do you measure the efficiency and dependability of ordering?
Clearly you have no clue. So how can you decide which source is best? Wishful thinking.
Pix
Really? You REALLY think that if a premise is shown to be wrong, the argument can still be valid? I appreciate the conclusion might happen to be true anyway, or I guess you might set up the argument so either A or B, then... but that is not the case here. Your argument is founded on premise (1), and if that is wrong, your argument fails.
Joe: Besides You have not beaten any premise, you created a straw man and you are still pretending it/s my real argument,
And yet I see no attempt to correct my understanding.
If this really was a straw man you would be able to state: (1) what I am pretending you mean; (2) what you really means; and (3) what the difference is between them. The plain truth is that you shriek "straw man" whenever you are losing, but consistently fail to support the accusation, because you know as well as I do that it is not true.
Joe: that is how you rationalize your refusal to read the posts, lying,distoirting creating straw man, because hey no God any way so I don't have to read or think about anything. Remember to tell God that on Judgment day, I'm sure he will be impressed.
The usual Christian fall-back when all else fails. So sad.
Joe: It wasn't necessary to use that word until you began distorting the menaning
And that is fine... Except that you then pretended you had been using it previous. Remember this: "again I've said it every time. Function not number. Get it through your head I'VE DENIED THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU SAID IT THAT ANT IT"? That was NOT TRUE. You had not said function every time. That was a LIE.
Joe: You must have been off distorting arguments when they passed out the info that there is more than one way to say tings,
ankn wi rad ghe posgs knowsI havesaidit ever time, I hae dneeiedeerytime itisnotabout produicing cars, not aboutnubers,
So you cannot support your false accusation of lying. Of course not, it was not true. I wonder how impressed God will be with that on judgement day.
Joe: why don't you try to make a real argument, instead of using cheap highschool debate tactic.you are what we would have called a greasy debater
I have made a real argument.
Premise (1) is unsupported. You claim that a mind is the best source of ordering is not supported - indeed it cannot be supported because you have no way to determine efficiency or dependability of ordering, and hence no way to say what is best. Your claim depends on you using these vague terms without any intention of - or any clue how to - properly define them.
It is based on wishful thinking and no more than that.
And as the rest of your argument depends on premise (1), your argument is refuted.
Pix
Joe: That's like asking for one that says, "Joe is right and pixie is wrong." It's obvious from what he does say that he thinks the universe appears designed.
PX:But you were asked to support your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know" is a "classic point". It is clear from your comment you know that that is not the case, and that instead you chose to address a completely different issue.
Everything I've argued says you are wrong, you have answered nothing. The car s salt crystal thing: he crystal is complex on one level but it doesn't do nearly what a car can do. It's obvious which is planned by a mind.
PX: Presumably because you know you cannot support your original claim.
I just did and you have no answer, you ignore the physicists I've quoted,
Joe: How is a quote about the universe looking designed not relevant? so relevant I put it in the first page of the argument,
PX: Because I asked to support your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know" is a "classic point". It is not rocket science Joe.
You have not answered the arguments I've made supporting it going back to the first speech.
If you make a claim, and I ask you to support it, I will reject anything you offer that fails to support it. You made a claim, and when challenged you chose to cite some guy saying something that is not related to that claim.
You Have not answered my arguments. just saying it ant true is not enough, you are pretending the quotes form the first speech aren't there,
Hence, not relevant.
your groundless denials are not relevant
Joe: you will knock off right now! If you can't win an argument by logic give it up! I will not allow this bull shit
PX:I will stop with the number-of-working-cars-made-per-day thing when you give an alternative measure of efficiency of ordering.
Number has nothing to do with it. If only one automobile existed it would still be obvious a mimed planned it.
We both know it is nonsense, but so far that is the best you have to offer. And this is fundamental to your claim that "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". How can we determine the most efficient source without a way to measure it?
That's real bull shit. you know you have lost, you are trying hard t keep from facing the fact that you have no answer. Automobiles are clearly planned and made by minds and compared to salt thy clearly more complex, the measurement is functionality is said that all along, you are ignoring the obvious,
Joe: You had to distort the first premise until it wasn't even about the argument any more,
I can only go on what you say. You said "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". I understand that to mean that you are comparing different sources of orderings, and more specifically their dependability and their efficiency, and when you do that, mind comes out on top.
you do actually admit there is a clear difference in things planned by minds and things that happen randomly?
Nothing you have said in this discussion has led me to think I am wrong about that.
You already know you are wrong. now you are going to pretend the issue is a value judgment about which better? That's not the issue either, the issue is merely planned processes work to do more things.
So the question remains, how do you measure the efficiency and dependability of ordering?
Clearly you have no clue. So how can you decide which source is best? Wishful thinking.
I just told you again, you have answer, pretend like I didn't say because you
have no answer,
Joe: Sometimes you can, you know shit about logic.
Really? You REALLY think that if a premise is shown to be wrong, the argument can still be valid? I appreciate the conclusion might happen to be true anyway, or I guess you might set up the argument so either A or B, then... but that is not the case here. Your argument is founded on premise (1), and if that is wrong, your argument fails.
I will grant you I am referring to special circumstances. you have not beaten any of my premises.
Joe: Besides You have not beaten any premise, you created a straw man and you are still pretending it/s my real argument,
And yet I see no attempt to correct my understanding.
U see no attempt to seek understanding,
If this really was a straw man you would be able to state: (1) what I am pretending you mean; (2) what you really means; and (3) what the difference is between them. The plain truth is that you shriek "straw man" whenever you are losing, but consistently fail to support the accusation, because you know as well as I do that it is not true.
bull shit. In debate I faced many who used that tactic of muddling the issues and creating confusion it always gives them the illusion that they won something, all they really did was suppress truth.
Joe: that is how you rationalize your refusal to read the posts, lying,distoirting creating straw man, because hey no God any way so I don't have to read or think about anything. Remember to tell God that on Judgment day, I'm sure he will be impressed.
The usual Christian fall-back when all else fails. So sad.
usual atheist smoke screen
Joe: It wasn't necessary to use that word until you began distorting the meaning
It sure as hell is! here is an exchange from the top ofthis page my firstcommemt:
You:How do you measure the efficiency of ordering? If you cannot say, then how can you possibly which source is the most efficient?
Me:We can measure it by what works. the difference between an automobile factory and a junk yard.
you:Same for dependability.
Me: a subset of the same issue.
what works = function, same issue, function!
Joe: You must have been off distorting arguments when they passed out the info that there is more than one way to say things,
the readers know I have said it every time, I have denied everytime it is not about producing cars, not about numbers,
So you cannot support your false accusation of lying. Of course not, it was not true. I wonder how impressed God will be with that on judgment day.
you just lied in saying I have not argued function before. notice: "That was NOT TRUE. You had not said function every time." I just proved you wrong. While literally true since I did not use those very words but creates a false impression since my argument is totally about the idea expressed even if in different words,
Joe: why don't you try to make a real argument, instead of using cheap highschool debate tactic.you are what we would have called a greasy debater
I have made a real argument.
twisting the other guy's argument is always cheap and wrong, creates falsehood.
Premise (1) is unsupported. You claim that a mind is the best source of ordering is not supported - indeed it cannot be supported because you have no way to determine efficiency or dependability of ordering, and hence no way to say what is best. Your claim depends on you using these vague terms without any intention of - or any clue how to - properly define them.
i argued that it is demonstrated by human gadgetry, planning produces more function. you have given no answer you spent all your time trying to deny i said it.
It is based on wishful thinking and no more than that.
It's based upon driving a car and putting salt on my food.
And as the rest of your argument depends on premise (1), your argument is refuted.
You have not answered the peruse all you have done is beat u your straw man.
This highlights the issue. The salt crystal is complex on one level. That means I can say it is more complex, but you can say that on another level it is less complex! It is the same with efficiency of ordering. On one level, mind might be, on another it is not. And your whole argument is founded on this!
If you want your argument to have any meaning, you need to say exactly what you mean by these things. You need to state what "level" you are talking about.
And so far the best definition of efficiency of ordering you have is how many working cars a system can produce by unit time. On that "level", your car factory wins every time. But change the definition, and the situation will be different.
You assert the mind is most efficient at ordering... Maybe it is, maybe it is not. Until you state how you are measuring efficiency, your claim is meaningless.
Joe: I just did and you have no answer, you ignore the physicists I've quoted,
But your answer did not address the issue we are discussing; hence I ignore them.
Joe: You have not answered the arguments I've made supporting it going back to the first speech.
Obviously you cannot copy-and-paste it here because.... It does not exist!
Joe: You Have not answered my arguments. just saying it ant true is not enough,
Which is why I keep saying why that first premise fails.
Joe: you are pretending the quotes form the first speech aren't there,
What does that mean?
Joe: Number has nothing to do with it. If only one automobile existed it would still be obvious a mimed planned it.
Is this you being deliberately obtuse? This whole discussion has been about your first premise "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". We are not arguing about whether the car was planned by a mind (that is a given), we are talking about how we measure that efficiency of ordering, and using the car factory and the salt crystal as examples for that.
Pix
If you mean, can we look at something and be positive in every case whether it was planned by a mind of not, then no. The "canals" of Mars are a great example of where people were mistaken.
Joe: now you are going to pretend the issue is a value judgment about which better? That's not the issue either, the issue is merely planned processes work to do more things.
But that is what you said: "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know". The word "most" in there to me makes it look exactly like a value judgment about which better.
And I see zero attempt by you to say what else it could be. Why not? Because I am right!
Joe: I will grant you I am referring to special circumstances. you have not beaten any of my premises.
So what was with the "Sometimes you can" BS if you knew full well it was not relevant? To muddy the waters, of course. You know you have lost the argument, so you throw out these red herrings to distract from that.
Joe: you just lied in saying I have not argued function before. notice: "That was NOT TRUE. You had not said function every time." I just proved you wrong. While literally true since I did not use those very words but creates a false impression since my argument is totally about the idea expressed even if in different words,
I might believe you it you had come up with that the first time. The fact that you waited until now tells me you have just invented this rationale.
Joe: twisting the other guy's argument is always cheap and wrong, creates falsehood.
If this really was me "twisting the other guy's argument" you would be able to state: (1) what I am pretending you mean; (2) what you really means; and (3) what the difference is between them. The plain truth is that you shriek "twisting" whenever you are losing, but consistently fail to support the accusation, because you know as well as I do that it is not true.
Just as you do with your accusations of lying, and just as you do with your accusations of straw man. They are all just the empty rhetoric of a guy who has lost the argument, but dare not admit it.
Joe: i argued that it is demonstrated by human gadgetry, planning produces more function. you have given no answer you spent all your time trying to deny i said it.
But this is the first time you have used the word "gadgetry"! It is the first time you have used the term "more function"! It is the first time you have said "planning produces"!
Do you honestly think you have said this previously? Where? Copy-and-paste it into your next post.
I STILL deny you have said that previously.
Joe: You have not answered the peruse all you have done is beat u your straw man.
Again the accusation of a straw man, and again you fail to substantiate it. Why is that? Because you know it is not true!
Pix
Joe: i argued that it is demonstrated by human gadgetry, planning produces more function. you have given no answer you spent all your time trying to deny i said it.
So let us suppose we have two items, one designed, one not. The designed item has a function, a purpose for which it was designed. In fact, all things that were designed, were designed with a purpose, with a function. Some things that were not designed can have a function too, but it is incidental; they do not have purpose.
So now we go back to that first premise:
"mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know"
What is really says is: Of the things that were designed by a mind, a mind is the mostly likely source of the design.
The car was designed by a mind, therefore the most likely source of its design was a mind. Brilliant!
Right?
Of course, I am being deliberately obtuse here. I know it is nonsense, but that is what follows from what you are saying here. This really is my best understanding of what you are claiming in premise (1), and if I have that wrong it is because you steadfastly refuse to make it clear.
And I very much suspect that that is deliberate.
Pix
Joe: Everything I've argued says you are wrong, you have answered nothing. The car s salt crystal thing: he crystal is complex on one level but it doesn't do nearly what a car can do. It's obvious which is planned by a mind.
This highlights the issue. The salt crystal is complex on one level. That means I can say it is more complex, but you can say that on another level it is less complex! It is the same with efficiency of ordering. On one level, mind might be, on another it is not. And your whole argument is founded on this!
Yes you could say that but y point it would be stupid to. Because the difference is clear, you are to pretend that a subjective view point that ignores reality is just as good as reality. I am richer than Donald Trump because I have real friends. But they wont let me join his country club.
If you want your argument to have any meaning, you need to say exactly what you mean by these things. You need to state what "level" you are talking about.
No argument works we the opponent has no concern for truth, you cannot entire the law like regularity of natural law, nor can you explain where it comes from instead you choose to pretend you can deny it,
And so far the best definition of efficiency of ordering you have is how many working cars a system can produce by unit time. On that "level", your car factory wins every time. But change the definition, and the situation will be different.
Lying again, lying again, and again I say I have always denied it
You lost. you have never made you refuse to ague fairly you refuse to deal with the argument honestly.
You lose. This thread is closed,
I do not think this defeats the argument, But it may need minor repair.