Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

Your logic is faulty, once again. You are using a posteriori reasoning. "Because it is incredibly unlikely that the world could be ordered in the manner in which it is ordered, it must have been designed," you seem to say.

Not at all. I'm awaiting your alternate explanation. And when we have it, we can consider which explanation accounts for the immense amount of design evident in the universe. That's how "argument to the best explanation" works.

But anything that happens was once incredibly improbable.

That's a really poor argument, and one that is obviously a case of merely "assuming the conclusion" or "affirming the consequent". It runs, "Design has happened, therefore it was accidental."

Do I even need to bother to refute that? I should hope not. Any basic website on logical fallacies will do that for me.

The chances of the universe being arranged in the way it is arranged are 100%, because it has happened.

Good heavens! It actually looks like you DO think that's an argument.

[Alexiev]

Your logic is faulty, once again. You are using a posteriori reasoning. "Because it is incredibly unlikely that the world could be ordered in the manner in which it is ordered, it must have been designed," you seem to say.

Not at all. I'm awaiting your alternate explanation. And when we have it, we can consider which explanation accounts for the immense amount of design evident in the universe. That's how "argument to the best explanation" works.

But anything that happens was once incredibly improbable.

That's a really poor argument, and one that is obviously a case of merely "assuming the conclusion" or "affirming the consequent". It runs, "Design has happened, therefore it was accidental."

Do I even need to bother to refute that? I should hope not. Any basic website on logical fallacies will do that for me.

The chances of the universe being arranged in the way it is arranged are 100%, because it has happened.

Good heavens! It actually looks like you DO think that's an argument.

It's not an argument; it's a fact. The universe is arranged how it is arranged. That's obviously correct. An equally good explanation for its order to your "intelligent design" is "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The "best explanation", if it is one of thousands of potential explanations, remains extremely unlikely. If the answer is four, the "best explanation" is what is 2+2. However, what is 3+1, what is 16/4, what is 2x2, etc. etc. make it very unlikely that the best explanation will be the correct one. There's too much competition. What's the "best explanation" for the exact sequence of100 coin tosses? The explanation is precisely the one I gave: out of the billions of possible sequences, one is bound to occur. Same with an undesigned universe. What's the best explanation for stories about Orpheus and Eurydice? One explanation is that Orpheus went down to the underworld, charmed its lords with his music, was told Euridice could come back with him, but he was not to look back, etc. Then people told that history.

That's as good an explanation as any. Yet you don't buy it (and neither do I).

[Immanuel Can]

Your logic is faulty, once again. You are using a posteriori reasoning. "Because it is incredibly unlikely that the world could be ordered in the manner in which it is ordered, it must have been designed," you seem to say.

Not at all. I'm awaiting your alternate explanation. And when we have it, we can consider which explanation accounts for the immense amount of design evident in the universe. That's how "argument to the best explanation" works.

But anything that happens was once incredibly improbable.

That's a really poor argument, and one that is obviously a case of merely "assuming the conclusion" or "affirming the consequent". It runs, "Design has happened, therefore it was accidental."

Do I even need to bother to refute that? I should hope not. Any basic website on logical fallacies will do that for me.

The chances of the universe being arranged in the way it is arranged are 100%, because it has happened.

Good heavens! It actually looks like you DO think that's an argument.

It's not an argument; it's a fact. The universe is arranged how it is arranged. That's obviously correct.

That begs the entire question.

Sure, it's "arranged." But what we're debating is HOW it became arranged. It could be "arranged" in the way things usually get "arranged" -- namely, by some intelligence having arranged them. Or, you would have to say, mere randomness "arranged" them, and the perception we have that there is intricacy and specification in the arrangements is our projection of order where none actually exists.

The mere fact that the universe IS arranged doesn't tell us, all by itself, which explanation to prefer: but common sense does. The more complex, specific and improbable an "arrangement" is, the more that the explanation "intelligence arranged this" makes sense, and the less "randomness did it" has any plausibility at all.

What's the "best explanation" for the exact sequence of100 coin tosses?

Nor randomness. If you go to the casino, and find that there, in the casino, is somebody can predict a sequence of 100 "random" events, then you'd best place a bet on whatever he is predicting next.

The explanation is precisely the one I gave: out of the billions of possible sequences, one is bound to occur.

That's actually fallacious.

You've made a mistake called "the gambler's fallacy." What's happened, in this case, is that without realizing it, you're assuming that there is a limited number of sequences possible. But that's not the case. There are, by definition, infinite ways the universe could be, including (in most cases) no physical universe existing at all. This universe did not HAVE to exist, nor any other, nor anything at all, in fact. And mathematically, we know that it is much more probable that nothing would exist than that anything at all would...let alone this particular universe, including life, and including us, intelligences capable of knowing about it.

In an infinite universe of random possibilities, by definition, there are infinite variables, and consequently, there is no one sequence more likely to happen than any other. So the chance against any particular outcome randomly occurring is literally infinite. And again, we're back to the best explanation being that what we are seeing is not randomness at all.

[Alexiev]

That begs the entire question.

Sure, it's "arranged." But what we're debating is HOW it became arranged. It could be "arranged" in the way things usually get "arranged" -- namely, by some intelligence having arranged them. Or, you would have to say, mere randomness "arranged" them, and the perception we have that there is intricacy and specification in the arrangements is our projection of order where none actually exists.

The mere fact that the universe IS arranged doesn't tell us, all by itself, which explanation to prefer: but common sense does. The more complex, specific and improbable an "arrangement" is, the more that the explanation "intelligence arranged this" makes sense, and the less "randomness did it" has any plausibility at all.

What's the "best explanation" for the exact sequence of100 coin tosses?

Nor randomness. If you go to the casino, and find that there, in the casino, is somebody can predict a sequence of 100 "random" events, then you'd best place a bet on whatever he is predicting next.

The explanation is precisely the one I gave: out of the billions of possible sequences, one is bound to occur.

That's actually fallacious.

You've made a mistake called "the gambler's fallacy." What's happened, in this case, is that without realizing it, you're assuming that there is a limited number of sequences possible. But that's not the case. There are, by definition, infinite ways the universe could be, including (in most cases) no physical universe existing at all. This universe did not HAVE to exist, nor any other, nor anything at all, in fact. And mathematically, we know that it is much more probable that nothing would exist than that anything at all would...let alone this particular universe, including life, and including us, intelligences capable of knowing about it.

In an infinite universe of random possibilities, by definition, there are infinite variables, and consequently, there is no one sequence more likely to happen than any other. So the chance against any particular outcome randomly occurring is literally infinite. And again, we're back to the best explanation being that what we are seeing is not randomness at all.

Wrong again. As usual. IN the 100 coin tosses there are a limited number of sequences that can occur. In fact there are 2 to the 100th power.

The "usual way things are arranged" is NOT by some intelligence having arranged them. The sequence of coin tosses (for example) was not arranged by an intelligent being. It occurred at random. Or, perhaps, you could look at the books arranged by you on your bookshelf. Nobody could possibly think they were arranged by an intelligent being, because they were arranged by you.

If someone could predict a sequence, that would be evidence that there was some non-random pattern. If you can predict the future, Nostradamus, then you might have a point. But you can't. If the Book of Revelations comes true, I'll change my mind.

Also, given a starting point, there are a limited number of possible outcomes. Just not very limited. If we toss the coin a million times, the chances of any given sequence occurring are extremely remote, but not infinitely remote.

Also, the universe DID have to exist, because it exists. How can a universe that exists not exist? That's mere sophistry. Once something happens, it had to happen. How could it happen and not happen?

[Immanuel Can]

IN the 100 coin tosses there are a limited number of sequences that can occur. In fact there are 2 to the 100th power.

Yes, but only because coins have a limited number of sides...2. If coins had infinite sides, there would be no higher chance of any outcome at all.

The universe is a "coin flip" (if random) with infinite sides. Thus, any particular outcome is infinitely improbable...and we're back to the fundamental question, as to why we live in a particular, highly-ordered universe, rather than not existing at all, or having things any of the other infinite ways things could be.

The "usual way things are arranged" is NOT by some intelligence having arranged them.

Actually, it is.

If you have flowers growing in a field, they're not what we call "arranged." They're scattered. But if you have an "arrangement of flowers," it's because you got them at the florist.

If someone could predict a sequence, that would be evidence that there was some non-random pattern.

Exactly right.

And this universe is actually highly predictable, in particular senses of that word. For example, it corresponds to a big set of what we call 'scientific laws,' which enable us to predict with great regularity what sorts of outcomes will issue from our combination of variables. That's not to be expected from any random situation.

If you can predict the future, Nostradamus, then you might have a point. But you can't. If the Book of Revelations comes true, I'll change my mind.

Read the news. We're on the way.

Also, given a starting point, there are a limited number of possible outcomes.

No, that's only true if the possible variables are a restricted set. Otherwise, the possible outcomes are infinite.

If we toss the coin a million times, the chances of any given sequence occurring are extremely remote, but not infinitely remote.

But again, you're only talking about two variables: "heads" and "tails." There is an unlimited set of variables in was the universe could have been...or not been at all.

Also, the universe DID have to exist, because it exists.

That's a logical fallacy.

Yes, it exists, of course; but you're "assuming the consequent" again. You can't deduce from the mere fact that something exists that it came to exist randomly. It could exist because it was created.

So you and I are walking through a forest, and we come upon a piece of wood. It's exactly 8 feet long, 2 inches wide by 4 inches. It's smooth, perfectly rectangular, and has "Fred's Mill" stamped on it. Your argument would say we should believe that what we've discovered is a very unexpected kind of tree, that randomly grows in 8 foot rectangular shapes, adorned with mill stamps...

And your proof of your theory would be, "Well, it exists."

The point is simple: we know how to recognize irreducible complexity, specification and design. We do it every day. We know full well that randomness does not produce such things. We can recognize a 2X4 in a whole forest of wood. Nobody would fail to see the sense of that. Therefore, the best explanation for an irreducibly complex, specifying and designed entity is...it was created by an intelligence of some kind.

[Alexiev]

That's a logical fallacy.

Yes, it exists, of course; but you're "assuming the consequent" again. You can't deduce from the mere fact that something exists that it came to exist randomly. It could exist because it was created.

So you and I are walking through a forest, and we come upon a piece of wood. It's exactly 8 feet long, 2 inches wide by 4 inches. It's smooth, perfectly rectangular, and has "Fred's Mill" stamped on it. Your argument would say we should believe that what we've discovered is a very unexpected kind of tree, that randomly grows in 8 foot rectangular shapes, adorned with mill stamps...

And your proof of your theory would be, "Well, it exists."

The point is simple: we know how to recognize irreducible complexity, specification and design. We do it every day. We know full well that randomness does not produce such things. We can recognize a 2X4 in a whole forest of wood. Nobody would fail to see the sense of that. Therefore, the best explanation for an irreducibly complex, specifying and designed entity is...it was created by an intelligence of some kind.

Since you've decided to ignore what I've written, make arguments on my behalf, and then argue against them, my presence is not longer needed in this thread. I'm not deducing that anything (except the coin tosses) "came about randomly". Instead, I'm suggesting the possibility that some things did (like the extremely unlikely sequence in the coin toss).

I will say, though, that there are never "infinite" possibilities, and that if something exists, it exists. So the probability of the sequence of heads and tails that actually occurred is 100%, once it occurred. Same with the universe. It seems, of course, miraculously unlikely that any of us individuals are alive today, given the genetic combinations and random chances of thousands of ancestors meeting and having sex. But, since we are alive today, the probability of it occurring is actually 100%. This is obvious to everyone except you. Some "arrangement" of events is going to occur, just as some sequence of heads and tails is going to occur.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a logical fallacy.

Yes, it exists, of course; but you're "assuming the consequent" again. You can't deduce from the mere fact that something exists that it came to exist randomly. It could exist because it was created.

So you and I are walking through a forest, and we come upon a piece of wood. It's exactly 8 feet long, 2 inches wide by 4 inches. It's smooth, perfectly rectangular, and has "Fred's Mill" stamped on it. Your argument would say we should believe that what we've discovered is a very unexpected kind of tree, that randomly grows in 8 foot rectangular shapes, adorned with mill stamps...

And your proof of your theory would be, "Well, it exists."

The point is simple: we know how to recognize irreducible complexity, specification and design. We do it every day. We know full well that randomness does not produce such things. We can recognize a 2X4 in a whole forest of wood. Nobody would fail to see the sense of that. Therefore, the best explanation for an irreducibly complex, specifying and designed entity is...it was created by an intelligence of some kind.

Since you've decided to ignore what I've written, make arguments on my behalf, and then argue against them, my presence is not longer needed in this thread.

I've done none of the above. I've simply declined to accept when you've mischaracterized my argument, and pointed out what the right argument is.

I'm not deducing that anything (except the coin tosses) "came about randomly".

Well, we've already noted the presence of an astronomical amount of order, specificity and complexity in the universe. The best explanation for it is not a "coin flip" or randomness. That's the point.

I will say, though, that there are never "infinite" possibilities,

In an infinite universe of possibilities, that is unavoidable. The number of possible combinations there has to be infinite. There's no other logical conclusion.

if something exists, it exists.

Yes, but HOW did it come to exist? That's the real question.

Let's suppose a man walks into a casino. On the roulette wheel are 100 possible numbers. He spins the wheel 100 times, and every single time, the number "00" comes up. What is the best explanation of what you've seen?

It seems, of course, miraculously unlikely that any of us individuals are alive today, given the genetic combinations and random chances of thousands of ancestors meeting and having sex. But, since we are alive today, the probability of it occurring is actually 100%. This is obvious to everyone except you.

Actually, what's obvious to everybody is the error in your logic there. You're arguing from the conclusion that certain premises follow (which is "assuming the consequent") when there are far more plausible premises that would lead to exactly the same conclusion...and you're ignoring them.

Some "arrangement" of events is going to occur, just as some sequence of heads and tails is going to occur.

But apply this logic to the roulette scenario. Would you, as the croupier in the casino, conclude that since "00" has come up 100 times in a row, that it's okay, because "some arrangment of numbers is going to occur"? Or would you call security, and say something like, "I'm really sure that either this wheel is badly broken, or this guy is finding a way to cheat?"

The answer's obvious, isn't it?

But the croupier is only dealing with 100 numbers, and the coin-flipper with only 2, times 100 each. That's astronomically lower than any mathematical chance of the basic features of our universe occurring by chance. As I say, there are infinite possibilities in an infinite set of "possible universes."