>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.
We both postulate a universe. Fine. But you're lumping a designer into the
exact same equation on my side, but neglecting to inject your postulation of
NO designer (i.e. accidental origin).
>Something is accidental if it LACKS design (or purpose, etc.). >You're
>asking for a proof of a negative
Yes I am. Assumptions BOTH ways need verification.
>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.
Except that again, you're forgetting something. The designer section is a
different field altogether. Whether there is a designer is not the same
theory as saying the universe exists.
>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).
Ok, so my negative claim is that the order in the universe is NOT
accidental. Negative claim, therefore I can presume it. This is bad logic.
About any claim can be made negative or positive, depending on what you feel
like making negative claims about or refuting.
>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.
Sounds like an awfully positive claim to me. You say you "see" ordering of
things and events, where I say I see mere design.
>How do you eliminate order as such from a causal universe? It can't >be
>done.
Prove it.
>If things exist, they have identities.
Prove it.
>How do you, even INTENTIONALLY, PREVENT order of SOME kind from being
>present?
Well, since I would be designing that, it's impossible. It would be a
designed set of 'physics', created by me. So how do you, even intentionally,
prevent design of some kind from being present?
>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).
I suggest that you automatically translate design to order (at least in
certain contexts).
>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?
>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?
Ok, evidence please. Full universe? Is there evidence of universes in
addition to the one I look at out of a telescope? And no, I don't think some
of those universes would "almost necessarily" be able to support life. You
are asserting this, prove it.
>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.
There must be huh? Why so? And your argument for all sets of physical laws
supporting life is about the same strength as you are accusing me of having.
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com