APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

Mott the Hoople said:
except were not playing "Gotcha" here. I've simply provided evidence to the flawed nature of Dixie's analogy by using this little known tool called research.
Click to expand...

Not playing gottcha Mott. It just seems if I was gonna use someone elses argument, no matter how much I parsed it, it would be dishonest not to cite it as someone elses.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.
Click to expand...


I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.
 
Damocles said:
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus
Click to expand...

I have already pointed this out, see post #94
 
Dixie said:
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.
Click to expand...

Yes. Readers try to project some kind of sense into what people write. But at least you cop to your own pointlessness. That seems kind of nihilistic though.:cool:
 
Ice Dancer said:
Not playing gottcha Mott. It just seems if I was gonna use someone elses argument, no matter how much I parsed it, it would be dishonest not to cite it as someone elses.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. Though this is an informal setting and my approach of summarization was more concise and to the point (not to mention not as time consuming) then pasting a link. Though you are correct, I should have noted the reference. I concede the point. That does not in anyway, however, negate the flaws of Dixie's analogy that were pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.
Click to expand...
Dixie, what do you think an analogy is but a comparison which is what your hypothetical was? As I pointed out your hypothetical (analogy) was based on Paley's argument from design.

Analogy; Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
 
Dixie said:
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.
Click to expand...
By the way, I think I actually prefer to be called a "Pin Head" then a "atheist single-cell origin believer". "Pin Head" has more literary style to it.

BTW, did you receive my apology for the accidental neg-rep? Sorry bout that dude.
 
Threedee said:
Midcan, we have been this way since the Enlightenment. But I guess you would prefer we just got back to the Middle Ages...
Click to expand...

We've (humans) done worst for much longer! Is that your only thought. And it is hypothetical - well pretend hypothetical.

Since you quote me out of context, please check out this book about freedom. You may learn something. [remove space]

h ttp://www.amazon.com/Burning-All-Illusions-Personal-Political/dp/0896085317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249135158&sr=1-1


"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
 
What's the scoop with ID?

It's implausible that a single cell started replicating on it's own, but it makes perfect sense that an all-knowing, timeless being who apparently arose out of nowhere was around to do the design?
 
Onceler said:
What's the scoop with ID?

It's implausible that a single cell started replicating on it's own, but it makes perfect sense that an all-knowing, timeless being who apparently arose out of nowhere was around to do the design?
Click to expand...

shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me....
Click to expand...
Ok, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science? Keeping in mind that ID is in no way, shape, or form, science.
 
Dixie's whole logic on ID - with this thread being the latest installment - is "this is too complex to have not had a designer."

However, any logical explanation for a "designer" would involve a being or set of beings who would be as complex, and likely much more so, than anything that was "designed."

Ergo, the logic in favor of design works against the idea of an actual designer.
 
Onceler said:
Dixie's whole logic on ID - with this thread being the latest installment - is "this is too complex to have not had a designer."

However, any logical explanation for a "designer" would involve a being or set of beings who would be as complex, and likely much more so, than anything that was "designed."

Ergo, the logic in favor of design works against the idea of an actual designer.
Click to expand...
True. The whole argument from design is based on a contradictory and illogical paradox. If complex life was designed by an Intelligent Designer then who/what is this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed the Intelligent Designers Designer, ad nauseam?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
True. The whole argument from design is based on a contradictory and illogical paradox. If complex life was designed by an Intelligent Designer then who/what is this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed the Intelligent Designers Designer, ad nauseam?
Click to expand...

That's precisely why anyone who espouses intelligent design and says God isn't necessarily involved, the only way this paradox can be avoided is to have God as the designer because they can say God is exempt from logic/first original rules they impose on everything else.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ok, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science? Keeping in mind that ID is in no way, shape, or form, science.
Click to expand...
what established science?.....if we're going to be comparing, I would like to know which apple I am balancing my orange against.....are we dealing with the origin of the universe, the origin of life?.....what is your thesis?.....I don't want to get half way through this and have you pretend you were debating something else again.....

state what it is that you intend to prove.....
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
That's precisely why anyone who espouses intelligent design and says God isn't necessarily involved, the only way this paradox can be avoided is to have God as the designer because they can say God is exempt from logic/first original rules they impose on everything else.
Click to expand...

also, it would be rather illogical to consider there is a designer out there who wouldn't qualify for the title "god"........
 
I agree with DivingDW. Enforce your rules or get rid of this forum.

Personally a little namecalling doesn't bother me at all and I think Dixie should grow some thicker skin, but it's ridiculous of you to have this subforum and allow 1by to harass him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top