For PixyMista – The Problem With Metaphysics

PixyMisa said:
All you have done is give some examples that agree with your argument. That's not a proof. It doesn't even resemble a proof.
Click to expand...


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?
 
!Kaggen said:
When you say hallucinations are caused by intelligences(I assume you might also say supernatural beings) you are saying experiences in the natural world are caused by the supernatural. This is a claim about happenings in the natural world for which we know the scientific method has had overwhelming success. We have yet to find a better method for understanding the natural world. The scientific method requires those making a claim about happenings in the natural world to provide evidence for such a claim.

So unless you come up with another method for coming up with explanations of how things work in the natural world I suggest you refrain from making claims without evidence.
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is that every single thing - time, love, hate, heat, thought, numbers, etc. - are all established by beings, because we observe this principle when we live our lives. We know that a cup, car, space shuttle, electricity, all have to be established by intelligence (man). We also know that the principle also extends to things that are not so obvious (like disease), because recently we developed the wherewithal (microscopes) to see that this is so. Therefore in the absence of evidence proving that it is possible for things to be established without intelligence, we have to conclude that all things are established by intelligence - consistent with the principle we observe, and consistent with the claims of the Bible, which billions of people, and many societies regard as being credible.

Quite frankly what more proof do we need?
 
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 don't have evidence; you have an argument. And "man made a cup therefore god made the universe" has got to be just about the worst argument I've ever seen.
 
PDoug said:
Therefore in the absence of evidence proving that it is possible for things to be established without intelligence...
Click to expand...


As evidence that it is certainly possible for things to be established without intelligence, I refer you to the posts made by yrreg.

But more seriously, do you mean that things can only be made intentionally, or that things can only be made by beings that possess intelligence? For example, I can make a lovely piece of excrement, but it doesn't require any application of my intelligence. I can also make a lovely dish of Ma Po tofu, but that does require application of my intelligence.
 
PDoug said:
I stated a law of the universe
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You stated something that you claim to be a law of the universe. Big difference.

- that all things need intelligence to be established
Click to expand...
- and backed it up with examples. What more evidence is needed?[/QUOTE]

You really don't see it? Fine. Let me spell it out for you.

You claim that everything in the universe requires a driving intelligence to exist. Giving examples of some things in the universe that require a driving intelligence to exist does nothing to prove that everything in the universe requires a driving intelligence.

PDoug said:
What I'm saying is that every single thing - time, love, hate, heat, thought, numbers, etc. - are all established by beings
Click to expand...

And you are wrong.

because we observe this principle when we live our lives.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that we don't. I, for one, am pretty sure that heat is merely a type of energy, and requires no one to will it into existence.

We know that a cup, car, space shuttle, electricity, all have to be established by intelligence (man).
Click to expand...

The highlighted doesn't, but even if it did, it would be irrelevant. That these things require intelligence to exist does not prove that everything requires intelligence to exist.

We also know that the principle also extends to things that are not so obvious (like disease), because recently we developed the wherewithal (microscopes) to see that this is so.
Click to expand...

Uh... no. We didn't. What are you banging on about?

Therefore in the absence of evidence proving that it is possible for things to be established without intelligence, we have to conclude that all things are established by intelligence - consistent with the principle we observe, and consistent with the claims of the Bible, which billions of people, and many societies regard as being credible.

Quite frankly what more proof do we need?
Click to expand...

Any proof whatsoever.
 
D'rok said:
You don't have evidence; you have an argument. And "man made a cup therefore god made the universe" has got to be just about the worst argument I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
As evidence that it is certainly possible for things to be established without intelligence, I refer you to the posts made by yrreg.

But more seriously, do you mean that things can only be made intentionally, or that things can only be made by beings that possess intelligence? For example, I can make a lovely piece of excrement, but it doesn't require any application of my intelligence. I can also make a lovely dish of Ma Po tofu, but that does require application of my intelligence.
Click to expand...


No. What I'm saying is that things can only be established by beings with intelligence. When your body produces excrement, it takes a coordination of resources in your body to produce it. This coordination of resources is called intelligence. Also when you make "a lovely dish of Ma Po tofu", you do the same thing, but at a higher level.
 
Pure_Argent said:
No, you didn't. You stated something that you claim to be a law of the universe. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Pure_Argent said:
- and backed it up with examples. What more evidence is needed?

You really don't see it? Fine. Let me spell it out for you.

You claim that everything in the universe requires a driving intelligence to exist. Giving examples of some things in the universe that require a driving intelligence to exist does nothing to prove that everything in the universe requires a driving intelligence.
Click to expand...


As I've said before, in the absence of evidence proving my claim wrong, you have to give credance to my claim. Do we assume that though 1 + 1 = 2 in the U.S., Europe, Asia, the Caribbean, the moon, it is true in these places but not in others? Or do we assume it is true everywhere?
 
Hokulele said:
Ah, so you are completely redefining the word "intelligence". Got it.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And, as we've explained, this is entirely irrelevant.

And we know for many diseases, these things cannot occur without invisible agents (microorganisms) establishing them as well.
Click to expand...

Which are not intelligent.

So again, there is no reason to believe that the principle extends 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...

Except for the fact that we can observe things (like diseases) which do not require a driving intelligence.

PDoug said:
No. What I'm saying is that things can only be established by beings with intelligence. When your body produces excrement, it takes a coordination of resources in your body to produce it. This coordination of resources is called intelligence. Also when you make "a lovely dish of Ma Po tofu", you do the same thing, but at a higher level.
Click to expand...

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.

PDoug said:
As I've said before, in the absence of evidence proving my claim wrong, you have to give credance to my claim.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, bollocks.

Do we assume that though 1 + 1 = 2 in the U.S., Europe, Asia, the Caribbean, the moon, it is true in these places but not in others? Or do we assume it is true everywhere?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hokulele said:
Incorrect. For example, in the absence of evidence proving that my claim there is an invisible menehune sitting on my lap right now is wrong, you have to give credence to my claim.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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 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."
 
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...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom