How does this make any sense to you? It's like saying 'if what I tell you is true, then it is unreasonable for you not to believe me'. But of course y...
The conclusion does not involve the prior assumption of "no other source of order". That is the conclusion, and this comes about from understanding th...
Just as I explained. That X is good, because it is efficient for bringing about the desired effect Y, is not a real justification, it's an illusion of...
This may be true, but strategies are applied as the means to ends. We still need to judge the ends themselves, to produce a true justification, a just...
You keep saying things like this. And when we find out that you were wrong you just go on to some other falsities. Colluded? He's a fucking puppet. Th...
I don't see how the argument is circular. You accept that it is a "conclusion", therefore there is logic behind it. One of the most useful aspects of ...
This is the problem with such exclusive definitions. It is quite possible, and probable, that acts which fulfill the requirements for "religious acts"...
I was not denying 2, I was critical of anyone who would say that absolute rest is impossible, without first defining what "absolute rest" means. Now y...
You are refusing to acknowledge the equivocation in your use of "AND" in the rule. In the case of "A is married to B", quoted above, "AND" is used as ...
I assume then, that you still do not understand the distinction I made between what a symbol means, and what it refers to, or stands for. Perhaps if y...
There's a further aspect which I explained earlier, which you don't seem to be accounting for, and that is that it is impossible that we will ever fin...
But we see design in plants as well, so design is not limited to animals. It's not the argument which is ridiculous, it's the way you interpret it whi...
There is no need to prove that. The person who claims that all motion is relative needs to prove that there is no such object as absolute rest. Until ...
You asked for an example, so I gave it. What objects do the two 4s in "4+4=8" refer to in the example, if not the group of chairs here, and the other ...
I demonstrated that your so-called "reasons" are unreasonable, so why are you falling back on this unreasonableness? Let's look again. You now agree t...
How the particles move is an unknown. Some aspects of their movements are predictable, but that only means that the movements are orderly. The capacit...
This is the lesson of the Theatetus, to start with a definition is to be mislead by that definition. They start out with a preconceived notion (a sort...
OK, but now it's clear that you and I have completely different views of "order". I think order is something that the physical world exhibits to us, y...
Actually, we do not really know these mechanisms. We can describe these processes to an extent, provide a partial description of them, but not enough ...
You're missing the point of the criticism. What is "concealed", is the fact that half of S is married to the other half of S. In the case of A and B, ...
You are the one who wants to talk about "personhood". I think this digression of yours is nonsensical. If you can come up with an ontologically based ...
I don't think we can talk of sets here, because set theory already premises that "4" in one set refers to the same object as "4" in another set, and t...
Clearly that order arose by design. You specified the desired order, you threw the dice intentionally to create that order, and succeeded in creating ...
Consider the definition of order: "a specified sequence". Without the "specified" part, the sequence might appear to be ordered, but it is not. So the...
Let me explain what I mean by the difference between what "4" means and what it refers to. What "4" means to me is that there is four objects signifie...
That's an odd description. I've never seen a cause, and the way I understand "cause" it would be impossible to see a cause, so I reject that claim as ...
That one ball stops having kinetic energy, and the other one starts, does not mean that kinetic energy was transferred. It could only be a transfer if...
I'll take a look at this for you. First, we cannot say that the ball "is" kinetic energy, because a ball is more than just that, and the fact that it ...
Actually I wouldn't be inclined to make such a distinction, it appears like if it is ordered, it must have been designed, so there is no need for that...
You seem to understand the difference between "force" and "kinetic energy", so why insist that kinetic energy is a force? Do you not recognize that fo...
Did I say that? It seems you do not know how to read. Either you haven't read Newton's laws, or you're just demonstrating further, that you do not kno...
No, there's a very big difference here. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. And momentum is equal to mass times velocity. "Kinetic energy" was ...
Observe: Newton's first law, a body will remain at rest, or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. Therefore, when we observe that a body's m...
Actually, in Newton's terms we would call this third thing a "force". But "force" is arguably entirely imaginary. Just like Hume said, its a concept d...
The question of the thread is how to tell the difference between design and no design. You refer to personhood; something can only have been designed ...
The problem is that when you think about the past, you are not really in the past, just imagining the past. So your claims about changing the past are...
For example: "The most common answer is that to be a person at a time is to have certain special mental properties..." Said properties are left undisc...
The problem is that in self-organization theory, "disorder" is not defined in any rigorous way. For something to be a "system" requires some form of o...
So let me see if I understand you. You are saying that we know whether or not something was produced by design, by knowing whether or not it was produ...
OK, now the question here is why does "2" represent one object, and not two objects. Intuitively I would say that the first "1" in "1+1=2" represents ...
OK, what defines "a person"? Is a beaver a person, or a bird a person? Is a rock a person? Now I understand why we might find ourselves to be wrong. W...
This is somewhat incorrect, "outside of space" can be found with the appropriate conceptions. The problem here is that "mathematical singularity" is r...
There is nothing wrong with the criticism, because the one (if it is correct) excludes the possibility of the other. So you could say that each of the...
As tim points out, #1 is the correct form. But this simple argument is rather pointless without including the difficult part, which is to demonstrate ...
How could you ever get info that you're wrong though? If, being created by design required , by definition, that the thing be created by a human being...
The point though, is that there is a number of problems with your approach. The first problem is that if it requires that we see a person making the t...
Thanks for the reference Zuhair, but I really can't read the symbols used. It's like learning a new language for me, and it's a type of language which...
As I said, there is no scientific validity to such a distinction. Human beings are natural and so are the things created by human beings. The "artific...
Comments