At 11:32 AM 07/16/2000, you wrote:
>Chris:
> >Since the person who makes the claims of free will (especially
> >*indeterministic* free will) and design is making positive claims, the
> >burden of proof naturally rests with that person.
>
> >I do not deny that there is free will. All I deny is that there is
> >*indeterministic* free will.
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris,
>I've been told that since I have no desire to change anyone's beliefs, I have
>no "burden of proof". I'm quite content for you, or anyone else, to believe
>free will exists, but indeterministic free will does not. I'm content for
>Dawkins to believe his version of Darwinism. I merely argue for the right of
>anyone to express contrary beliefs, without fear of ridicule or condemnation.
> If we all express our views, it helps others clarify their own beliefs.
>
>Chris:
> >I *do* deny that there is any evidence of design in nature. Design is not
> >merely order, not merely complexity, not merely structure or function. It
> >is these things created by a designer. How do you distinguish between
> >naturally occurring order (etc.) and *designed* order? And what would be an
> >empirical test for design that non-design could not pass?
>
>Bertvan:
>I'm not sure there is any difference between what you call "naturally
>occurring order" and what I call "design". You seem to believe it "just
>happened", but insist that is not "mystical". I have no idea where
>"natural order" or "design" came from, and regard its origin as extremely
>mystical -- meaning that I not only don't know where the it came from, but I
>doubt anyone will ever know. You don't know the origin of "natural order",
>but do claim to know for certain that no theist concepts were involved. I
>don't know how "design" originated and therefore can't rule out theism (or
>lots of other explanations).
Ultimately, *disorder* is logically impossible. In a sense, there is no
such thing as true disorder. There is only order that is too complex for us
to understand, or order that we might understand but which is not
sufficiently significant to us for us to bother to come to understand it.
If absolutely every particle in the universe were unique and had a huge
number of independent attributes, you could have a universe that would make
no sense, exhibit no order, to us humans, but then we wouldn't even exist
in such a universe.
If a universe is made of some uniform "Dumb Stuff," and if it is capable of
forming more complex entities out of it (i.e., structures such as protons,
atoms, etc.), then it will exhibit what we call order (whether we exist to
see it or not).
I challenge anyone to describe a universe in non-abstract terms that would
not exhibit order, and to show that it would not. I've made this challenge
before on another list. Only one person took me up on it, and I showed how,
based on his description, order would necessarily be present in such a
universe.
You say that you doubt that anyone ever will know where order comes from.
Saying that you doubt that anyone will know or understand something is one
of your standard answers to many questions. If you can specify *why*, in
logically defensible ways, some question will not or cannot be answered,
such a non-answer might be justified. But, to me, it just seems that you
lack the intellectual drive to clarify and validate (and correct as needed)
your concepts, to sort things out well enough to answer such questions, and
a lack of drive to seek to understand and think in terms of *fundamentals*.
You seem to live, intellectually, on the philosophical "surface." You seem
to give up, essentially, at the first sign of difficulty in gaining a deep
understanding. This is the way I am about issues such as "Fermat's last
theorem," and details of auto mechanics, but then I'm not on any lists
saying things like, "I don't understand carburetion, and I doubt than
anyone ever will."
It's this dilittantish attitude of yours combined with assertive mysterian
claims and a what appears as a kind of self-induced intellectual fog that
provokes me to lose patience with you (when I respond to your posts at
all). You seem to derive some sort of *comfort* from *not* understanding
things, from swimming around in a miasma of woozily defined concepts and
questions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 13:17:47 EDT