Jason
>And I say you are adding accidental origin without evidential /cognitive
>need for it. Sure we agree on the existence of the universe, but you go on
>to postulate accidental origin without a basis for such, while I see what I
>consider amazing design and look for reasons for the design I see. (yeah
>yeah not everyone sees it, and you'll probably try throwing another burden
>my way, but hopefully you'll get my point)
Chris
Perhaps your definition of "accidental" is different from mine. You're still
postulating a universe AND a designer. Clearly, of the two theories, yours
has the greater burden of proof. You're the one making special claims about
the universe and its origin.
I'm simply postulating a universe. PERIOD. If you want to call it
accidental, and then claim that this is a POSITIVE statement, you can do so,
but all I'm saying is that there is no evidence of design.
However, saying that something is apparently accidental is NOT to make any
positive statements about it. You seem to be saying that accidentalness is a
positive characteristic, like design, which it is not. Something is
accidental if it LACKS design (or purpose, etc.). You're asking for a proof
of a negative
Yes: Given two theories, one that postulates merely a universe and the other
that postulates the same universe AND a designer, the design theory DOES
have the burden of proof. Otherwise it's multiplying entities needlessly. In
science and philosophy, you don't get to PRESUME positive claims, only
negative ones. Additional "entities" are included only as cognitive needs
warrant (i.e., only as epistemologically required by the data). Knowledge is
cumulative; you don't simply take as true any positive claim you want and
concern yourself with evidence later (if ever).
I think my friend Susan "Brassballs" had a good point when she said to
Bertvan, "could you give an example or two of the more rational answers
generated by design?"
Where are the scientific RESULTS of design theory? Where are the medical
advances? Where are the advances in demonstrable biological factual
knowledge? Where are the advances in nutrition based on design theory? For
that matter, since you seem to be claiming that not only is LIFE designed,
but so is the Universe as a whole, we can ask: Where are the advances in
physics, chemistry, astronomy, subatomic particle theory, and computer
science that should be possible on the basis of ID theory, if it's true?
Where are the advances in genetics based on the theory that "junk" genes
AREN'T really junk (or, at best, just "libraries" of available variation
material from the past that MIGHT come in useful in the future if
environmental pressures MAKE it valuable to the organism). Where is the
large statistical database that shows that only HARMFUL variations are
random/accidental? Where are the advances in neurology based on the theory
that the human mind is something other than a (portion of) brain
functioning? Where are the advances in discovering new laws of chemistry
that demonstrate that the simplest forms of life must have been designed?
In general, where is the specific evidence of design? You say you "see"
design where I see mere logically necessary causal ordering of things and
events. Fine: Tell us precisely what aspect of a supposedly designed thing
distinguishes it from ordinary causal ordering of things and events. I, too,
find the structures in nature amazing, but as amazing as many of them are, I
don't see DESIGN in them; instead I see STRUCTURE, ORDER, exhibiting the
causal nature of what exists. If you want to limit design to the laws of
physics, then, again, fine: Specify how there can be a universe without some
set of "laws of physics" that would produce order of SOME sort. How do you
eliminate order as such from a causal universe? It can't be done. If things
exist, they have identities. If they have identities, they behave in certain
ways and not in others (balls roll, cubes tend to resist rolling or they
bounce along, etc.). If they behave in certain ways and not others, then you
have order.
How do you, even INTENTIONALLY, PREVENT order of SOME kind from being
present? Give it a shot. Design a logically consistent "physics" that
prevents all order, and that would keep someone in a universe based on such
a physics from "seeing" design. I suggest that there is no possible universe
that you could be put in that you would not be able to see as designed,
because (I suggest) you automatically (or nearly so) "translate" order to
design (at least in certain contexts).
Event total 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-death, were it possible, would be
a kind of order: "Gee, look at how perfectly EVENLY the energy in that dead
universe is distributed. There is not even the TINIEST irregularity in it.
OBVIOUSLY, it MUST be the result of design."
If you want to seriously argue for a design theory, you must specify actual
facts about our universe that almost certainly would NOT be the case in a
non-designed universe. If you can't, you have no basis for distinguishing
design from non-design with respect to universes.
Evolved life? Fine; WHY couldn't it evolve in a non-designed universe? What
would be missing from the basic physics of a non-designed universe that
would prevent low-level "molecular" evolution from occurring, and then,
eventually, life? What specific laws of physics in our universe require
design? Couldn't those same laws be accidental? If the Full Universe
(counting our local Big Bang as a mere neutrino-sized particle in the
overall scheme of things) has "meta-laws" of physics that allow for
"universes" with differing laws of physics, wouldn't SOME of those
"universes" almost necessarily have combinations of laws that would support
and produce life?
Yes, we CAN think of some sets of laws of physics that would prevent life. A
universe with no particles or other ways to form complex structures, for
example, could not support life. A static universe would not support life;
energy flow is needed. A universe that had laws that only allowed extremely
simple structures would not support life. A universe that was so "hot" and
chaotic that not even semi-stable structures could form would not support
life (at least not until it cooled down a little).
But, out of all imaginable sets of laws of physics, there must be millions
of (at least technically) distinguishable sets of laws that would support
life. Further, if the basic metaphysics of Existence happens to be of a
certain kind, then it might not even be possible for there to be set of laws
of physics that DON'T support life simply as a side-effect of what it is for
a universe to exist at all. I'd guess that this is the case, though I have
no real argument for it except the fact that I exist and therefore know that
at least one universe has laws that DO support life.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to more or less
conclusively distinguish designed from non-designed universes in such a way
that the distinguishing criteria are themselves supportable and in such a
way that OUR universe CLEARLY falls into the designed universes category.
Or, if you DON'T choose to accept it, your alternative mission is to admit
that you don't yet have a case for design.