Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17
101
Quote
But that is not necessarily so, and ignores the possibility that what we see as design and what we design is a result of our distinct ability to understand and manipulate the natural world, which, in turn, just exists inexplicably.

If Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason is generally warranted and credible, and it is, of course, then we cannot say our ability to understand and manipulate the natural world simply exists without explanation. Rather, there is some sufficient reason for why we may understand and manipulate the natural world. I'm sorry, GD, I simply don't see how your understanding of Hume relates to my abductive form of argument to a designer from the likely presence of design.

ETA: If every designed object we know of bears qualities B, C, D and E and if object F bears these qualities then it is more reasonable than not to think F is designed until and unless we obtain countervailing evidence to the contrary. You seem to think that if F has other qualities in addition to B, C, D and E then we are not justified in thinking F is designed. But this is true only if these other qualities count as evidence against the idea that F is designed, which depends on what these qualities actually are. You also seem to think the mere possibility that we are mistaken about design in nature counts as evidence against the idea that F is designed. Possibilities do not count as evidence, however.

Quote
To go off on a tangent, I just happened to be listening to Joseph Campbell last night and he said something which seems to reconcile Hume's conundrum with an idea of design. He quoted a Hindu passage which said (paraphrasing): "God created the Universe and realized that because it flowed through him and originally from him, and it was everything that existed, it was him. When we realize that everything is God, including ourselves, we can finally realize our existence as a part of the Creator and as creators ourselves." I find this interesting with respect to Hume because it implies that what we create ourselves, which is based on everything we know from the created world around us and knowledge of our own connection to it all, is our creation as a part of God and thus, still one of God's creations. But, at the same time it also implies that we are a part of God and everything is a part of God. This means there can be no moral facts apart from respecting and helping our collective self.

The idea that all is God and God is all (pantheism) is problematic, to say the least. Shall we shift from Hume to a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of pantheism?

102
Quote
design is not proven and belief in it is equally rational to not believing it.

If every designed object we know of bears qualities B, C, D and E and if object F bears these qualities then it is more reasonable than not to think F is designed until and unless we obtain countervailing evidence to the contrary.

Quote
I'm checking out for now. Get back to you later.

Take care.

103
Trivial.

104
Quote
Well, strictly using Hume, and if F was not man-made, then you are interpreting those qualities BCDandE as the qualities that bespeak design when in fact they are merely attributes that are common to a designed object and another object. It could be coincidence.

If all objects we know to be designed have qualities B, C, D and E then if some object we don't know to be designed bears these qualities we are justified in thinking that object is designed. We could be mistaken. The similarity could be coincidence. But the mere possibility of being wrong does not count as a reason to think we're actually wrong so we remain justified in thinking the object is designed.

105
If there are no moral facts then anything and everything is morally permissible.

106
If I know object A is designed, perhaps because I designed A myself, and if A has qualities B, C, D, and E then if I want to know whether object F is also designed I need only check to see whether F also possesses qualities B, C, D and E. If F has these qualities then I am justified in thinking F is designed. I don't see how your understanding of Hume speaks to this.

107
Design most often means something like the pre-planned arrangement of parts into a whole that serves a preconceived purpose. Talk of design need not reference order in the world, either real or only apparent.

108
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you believe in the Devil?
« on: June 21, 2007, 01:55:20 PM »
Ah.

109
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you believe in the Devil?
« on: June 21, 2007, 01:47:03 PM »
Are we talking about the devil or something else?

110
Define what you mean by design.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17