For PixyMista – The Problem With Metaphysics

PDoug said:
I'm saying humans, animals, quarks, time, the world's sophisticated ecosystem, all have diverse intelligences.
Click to expand...
:boggled:

If time is intelligent, it better smarten up and get to 5pm soon if it knows what's good for it. D'rok hungers.
 
PDoug said:
Fine. Produce the evidence that there is an invisible menehune sitting on your lap right now. If I or anyone else cannot refute your evidence, then your claim wins.
Click to expand...


My evidence is the fact that there are numerous structures in Hawai'i that legends state were built by menehune. In addition, during the 1820 census, 65 individuals were listed as being menehune. Since these are examples of their existence, my claim is that the pressure I currently feel on my lap is due to an invisible menehune wins.

Unless you can refute any of these facts.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Ah, so you are committing the equivocation fallacy as well, then. Very good. At this rate, you'll win this year's Most Fallacies in a Single Blog Post Award for sure.
Click to expand...


Fine. See my definition of intelligence here.

Pure_Argent said:
We assume that it is true everywhere, because we possess a proof that it is so. We do not possess a proof that your proposed "law" is true everywhere, so we do not assume that it is.
Click to expand...


Okay. Show me your direct evidence that 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere.
 
Hokulele said:
If you are defining intelligence as simply being a property of existence, then, well, all you really have is a tautology, not an argument.

"If everybody is special, nobody is special."
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is that all things have their own intelligences, and man's own intelligence is unique to him.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Exactly! Thank you. Now, reverse this.

ME: Everything in the universe requires a driving intelligence.
YOU: Produce your evidence.
ME: ...
YOU: Aha! You can't back it up! REJECTED

Get it now?
Click to expand...


No. I say, everything in the universe requires driving intelligence. You ask, what is my evidence? I say it takes driving intelligence to establish cups, cars, houses, space shuttles, and everything man creates. I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).

You say that intelligence is not required for some things to be established. I say, where is your evidence? You cannot produce any. I say because you cannot produce any evidence, my cited principle stands.
 
PDoug said:
No. I say, everything in the universe requires driving intelligence. You ask, what is my evidence? I say it takes driving intelligence to establish cups, cars, houses, space shuttles, and everything man creates. I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).
Click to expand...

You are just calling stuff names. Inappropriate names.

Microorganisms are NOT intelligent. At least not, if you go with what most people understand by 'intelligent.'
 
PDoug said:
No. I say, everything in the universe requires driving intelligence. You ask, what is my evidence? I say it takes driving intelligence to establish cups, cars, houses, space shuttles, and everything man creates. I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).

You say that intelligence is not required for some things to be established. I say, where is your evidence? You cannot produce any. I say because you cannot produce any evidence, my cited principle stands.
Click to expand...

Your "cited principle" is unfalsifiable because you simply define everything to be intelligent. It's just a ham-fisted tautology.

"Everything requires intelligence to be established because everything that establishes is intelligent."

Bravo.
 
PDoug said:
No. I say, everything in the universe requires driving intelligence. You ask, what is my evidence? I say it takes driving intelligence to establish cups, cars, houses, space shuttles, and everything man creates.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant.

I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant and wrong.

You say that intelligence is not required for some things to be established. I say, where is your evidence? You cannot produce any.
Click to expand...

And I say that you are a) committing the burden of proof fallacy, b) equivocating shamelessly, c) failing to provide evidence, and d) failing to understand what is meant by "proof".

I say because you cannot produce any evidence, my cited principle stands.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to link you to the article about the burden of proof before you read it?
 
Hokulele said:
My evidence is the fact that there are numerous structures in Hawai'i that legends state were built by menehune. In addition, during the 1820 census, 65 individuals were listed as being menehune. Since these are examples of their existence, my claim is that the pressure I currently feel on my lap is due to an invisible menehune wins.

Unless you can refute any of these facts.
Click to expand...


There are questions about whether the legends are reliable. Therefore the legends cannot be used as evidence - at least not in and of themselves. Unless the 1820 census menehune claims can be authenticated, I see know reason to believe the menehune claims on the census.

You have not produced likely or irrefutable evidence for the existence of menehune. I therefore see no reason to believe your claim. I on the other hand gave you irrefutable examples of things created by intelligence. That is why you can believe my claim but not yours.
 
PDoug said:
I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).
Click to expand...

Where is your proof that it takes intelligence to establish diseases?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Where is your proof that it takes intelligence to establish diseases?
Click to expand...

He's already admitted that this is nothing more than equivocation. Or, at least, he's proven that he's doing nothing more than equivocating - I don't know whether he realizes it or not.
 
PDoug said:
There are questions about whether the legends are reliable. Therefore the legends cannot be used as evidence - at least not in and of themselves. Unless the 1820 census menehune claims can be authenticated, I see know reason to believe the menehune claims on the census.
Click to expand...


They are just as reliable as the Bible upon which you based your earlier argument.

You have not produced likely or irrefutable evidence for the existence of menehune. I therefore see no reason to believe your claim. I on the other hand gave you irrefutable examples of things created by intelligence. That is why you can believe my claim but not yours.
Click to expand...


Pure Argent, please add special pleading to the list.
 
PDoug said:
No. I say, everything in the universe requires driving intelligence. You ask, what is my evidence? I say it takes driving intelligence to establish cups, cars, houses, space shuttles, and everything man creates. I say it also takes intelligence to establish diseases - which we know directly in many cases, are established by microorganisms (things we cannot see), which can act in sophisticated ways to thwart our health (e.g. the AIDS virus).

You say that intelligence is not required for some things to be established. I say, where is your evidence? You cannot produce any. I say because you cannot produce any evidence, my cited principle stands.
Click to expand...

PDoug, guess what: you are actually a cat!

My proof:

Cats have lungs. You have lungs.
Cats have eyes. You have eyes.
Cats have fingers. You have fingers. Yes, cats *do* have fingers. Those things with claws on the end, those are fingers, just like those things you've got with claws (er...fingernails) on them.

Ergo, you are a cat.

Prove me wrong. No, seriously.
 
PDoug said:
No. I mean for the cup and tea to be established, it was necessary for intelligent man to make them. You cannot get a cup or a car to come into existence with an intelligent agent making it happen. And we know for many diseases, these things cannot occur without invisible agents (microorganisms) establishing them as well. So again, there is no reason to believe that the principle does not extend to all things everywhere - just as we see assume that 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere, based on our local observation of the phenomenon.
Click to expand...

So god is pretty much like a human just with a bigger tool chest?
 
Last edited:
PDoug said:
No. I'm saying there exists a range of intelligences throughout the universe. I'm saying humans, animals, quarks, time, the world's sophisticated ecosystem, all have diverse intelligences. It is an old notion - not my recent invention.
Click to expand...

If time, energy, quarks, neutrinos and whatnot are intelligent then yes, everything is the product of intelligence.

However the idea that such things are intelligent is very strange indeed.

Intelligence is something we have only ever observed in meaty animal-type things with brains, or very arguably in complex arrangements of silicon chips that perform vaguely similar information processing.

Calling anything else intelligent goes beyond "diversity" into "blatant misuse of terms".

If that logic goes through, I can prove that you are a carrot using exactly the same logic:

(1) There exists a range of carrotness throughout the universe.
(2) I'm saying that humans, animals, quarks, time, the world's sophisticated ecosystem, all are diverse forms of carrot. Very, very diverse.
(3) This is an old idea and not my invention, therefore it must be right.
(4) PDoug exists in the universe.
(5) PDoug is a carrot.

Can you prove me wrong, except by pointing out that my use of the word "carrot" bears absolutely no resemblance to the normal use of the word?
 
PDoug said:
I stated a law of the universe - that all things need intelligence to be established - and backed it up with examples. What more evidence is needed?
Click to expand...
You gave examples. That does not constitute a proof. It does not even resemble a proof.

Here's my "proof" that all animals are marsupials:

All animals are marsupials. Here's a wombat. Look, it has a pouch - a specially adapted backwards-facing pouch. Here's a koala. Pouch. Here's a platypus - oops, it got away. Never mind. Here's a kangaroo. Pouch. Here's another kangaroo. Also pouch.

QED. (Not.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom