AisA, I had not even thought of this! Cool. So, score 2 against ID. 
In any case, we are leaving out the entire law of identity, too. That the ID people posit an intelligent designer, but they cannot prove the existence of that designer. Score 3 against ID.
Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the “stolen concept”. The concept of “complex” has meaning only in relation to the concept of “simple”, i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of “complex” and “simple”. Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept “complex” has no meaning in relation to the universe.
Wait a minute … this means that you cannot say anything about the universe, like: It is big, it is empty, it is cold, etc. You clearly can compare the universe with a part of the universe. Just like you can say that a transistor is simple compared to the complexity of a Celeron processor.
what about evolution’s explanation for the origin of matter? i’ve asked a lot of people this and they all seem to talk about the big bang and other scientific explanations for the origin of matter, i know it might not be relevant to the debate, but i’d like to know.
AisA, I had not even thought of this! Cool. So, score 2 against ID.
In any case, we are leaving out the entire law of identity, too. That the ID people posit an intelligent designer, but they cannot prove the existence of that designer. Score 3 against ID.
of course they cannot prove the existence of it, every theory of an intelligent designer contains zero scientific fact, it is a philisophical argument, not a scientific one.
Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the “stolen concept”. The concept of “complex” has meaning only in relation to the concept of “simple”, i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of “complex” and “simple”. Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept “complex” has no meaning in relation to the universe.
this also means that nothing can be simple. i see what you’re tring to say, but it doesn’t invoke a fallacy into the argument. it’s like saying that it’s harder to lift the eiffel tower than to pour milk on my cereal, than someone telling me that it’s not from their point of view, which is totally acceptable under the theory of special relativity. something always has to be compared with something else.
Wait a minute … this means that you cannot say anything about the universe, like: It is big, it is empty, it is cold, etc.
The universe is not an entity; it is a collection of all entities. Thus, one cannot ascribe to it attributes of entities, such as size, temperature or complexity. The universe is everything that exists. One would not say that “Everything that exists is complex”, just as one would not say “Everything that exists is hot”.
What we can say about the universe are very general things such as it exists, it possesses identity, it follows natural laws, etc.
You clearly can compare the universe with a part of the universe. Just like you can say that a transistor is simple compared to the complexity of a Celeron processor.
Comparing a transistor and a processor is a comparison of two entities. Comparing the universe to an entity is meaningless. For instance, which would you say is hotter: the universe or your stove?
It’s not relevant to evolution since evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve, but it’s certainly an interesting question.
So, maybe one of you mods will want to split this into a difft. thread now, or Caulfield, you might want to check out some other threads on this topic by using the search option. This may have been discussed before.
My answer to you is to ask you this: Why do you assume there must have been an origin for matter, that it must have arisen from nothing? There are two possibilities. 1) either matter (the universe) exists because someone intended it to be so or 2) the universe just is. It just exists.
Using the existence of the universe as proof for the existence of a designer or intender is a faulty use of the principle of causality, since we have only one universe. We do not have more than one universe to observe, and one cannot make a link between cause and effect without repeated associations.
Assitionally, you have to step over another hurdle, which is to prove the existence of this “someone,” whoever or whatever that might be. You can say that the universe was created by a force, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a flying killer whale, or a three-headed dragon, or any infinite number of possibilities, but you have no evidence to support your claim that this being exists and you haven’t shown why anyone should believe you. Any such statement that a being exists without proving it exists is a rejection of rationality and an acceptance of mysticism.
You have to choose for yourself. Mysticism or reason.
AisA pointed out: "Note also that this [“the universe is complex”] argument invokes the fallacy of the “stolen concept”. The concept of “complex” has meaning only in relation to the concept of “simple”, i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of “complex” and “simple”. Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept “complex” has no meaning in relation to the universe.
Not only is this concept stolen from the context of referents (i.e., “complex…compared to what?”), but is stolen from another context as well: “complexity” is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one. A thing is not complex, except in its relation to a conceptual faculty attempting to grasp it. When a creationist utters “a tiger is complex, and couldn’t have just randomly formed without divine intervention”, what he’s really saying is “the theory of evolution is complex to me, and I don’t grasp how a tiger might have evolved.”
From a “metaphysical perspective”, there’s nothing essentially more or less complex about a tiger, and the rock upon which he naps. The universe and her laws, being somewhat more intelligent than the “intelligent design” crowd, sees no necessity to “explain” what already makes perfect sense.
Comparing a transistor and a processor is a comparison of two entities. Comparing the universe to an entity is meaningless. For instance, which would you say is hotter: the universe or your stove?
The stove. If you take a mean temperature of the universe known to man it is colder than my stove.
The universe is also bigger than any part it contains. Simply because it contains all the other stuff, too, like me for example.
It’s not relevant to evolution since evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve, but it’s certainly an interesting question.
So, maybe one of you mods will want to split this into a difft. thread now, or Caulfield, you might want to check out some other threads on this topic by using the search option. This may have been discussed before.
My answer to you is to ask you this: Why do you assume there must have been an origin for matter, that it must have arisen from nothing? There are two possibilities. 1) either matter (the universe) exists because someone intended it to be so or 2) the universe just is. It just exists.
Using the existence of the universe as proof for the existence of a designer or intender is a faulty use of the principle of causality, since we have only one universe. We do not have more than one universe to observe, and one cannot make a link between cause and effect without repeated associations.
Assitionally, you have to step over another hurdle, which is to prove the existence of this “someone,” whoever or whatever that might be. You can say that the universe was created by a force, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a flying killer whale, or a three-headed dragon, or any infinite number of possibilities, but you have no evidence to support your claim that this being exists and you haven’t shown why anyone should believe you. Any such statement that a being exists without proving it exists is a rejection of rationality and an acceptance of mysticism.
You have to choose for yourself. Mysticism or reason.
i don’t like those options, and i don’t believe that the rest of mankind likes them either, but they are the only two we have to choose from (unless you happen to be carlos castaneda).
and like i’ve said before, i can’t prove the existence of an intelligent designer, no one can; but then again, no one can prove that species have evolved from other species.
mysticism and reason cannot be seperated into two different entities of thought. whether you like it or not, reason is empirical, it cannot be taught.
[…]mysticism and reason cannot be seperated into two different entities of thought. whether you like it or not, reason is empirical, it cannot be taught.
Why are you here? After saying that, you have no claim to any argument you have intended to make.
When you understand the error in your statement you will then be able to say something valid.
“Whether you like it or not.”
Which I might add is not an argument, it’s a statement.
i don’t like those options, and i don’t believe that the rest of mankind likes them either
Too bad, that’s reality. Unless you choose not to live in it.
and like i’ve said before, i can’t prove the existence of an intelligent designer…
May I ask why you would choose to believe that something exists when you can’t prove that it exists? To satisfy an emotional whim, perhaps? Because of emotional needs you believe in an intelligent designer?
…no one can prove that species have evolved from other species.
I can assure you that people have proven this and will continue to do so. maybe you should pick up some of hte scientific journals about and start reading. Stop asserting, start reading. I showed how speciation happens a couple of paragraphs above. But you aren’t listening, are you? No matter how much evidence I provide, you will not believe or accept. Yours are blind assertions not backed up by any facts. I have provided data and facts and resources for you to go look at, while you have provided assertions without facts, supported only by your emotional need to reject evolution.
If, by “prove”, you mean that we would have to go back in time to see species changing into others, of course we cannot prove speciation in that way! That is impossible. This doesn’t mean that extant species have not left evidence of speciation: we have the fossil record, changes in morphology, and DNA evidence.
That is all I have to say in this matter if you cannot start using the rational part of your brain.
If, by “prove”, you mean that we would have to go back in time to see species changing into others, of course we cannot prove speciation in that way! That is impossible. This doesn’t mean that extant species have not left evidence of speciation: we have the fossil record, changes in morphology, and DNA evidence.
Unfortunately, even if you *could* do the impossible and browse through time “directly” to show speciation taking place, it still wouldn’t be enough for religionists. They are, after all, used to evading the direct evidence of their senses, much less higher level cognitive functions.
Ask your biology professor, if all species evolved from a common amoeba, why is there only one species able to adapt the environment to himself. All other species adapt to the environment.
Statistically, there should be several or many species that evolved to a higher level of intelligence. Think about this for a moment with an open mind.
Hmmm?
Obviously, you have never seen a beaver’s dam…
The stove. If you take a mean temperature of the universe known to man it is colder than my stove.
The universe is also bigger than any part it contains. Simply because it contains all the other stuff, too, like me for example.
There is no such thing as the mean temperature of the universe. There is only the mean temperature of some of its existents. There are many existents in the universe that do not possess the attribute of “temperature”, such as electromagnetic radiation. It makes no more sense to speak of the mean temperature of the universe than it does to speak of the mean wavelength of the universe – these are attributes of entities, that do not necessarily apply to collections of entities.
The fallacy you are committing is the fallacy of composition, which is the unwarranted assumption that the group or the whole possess all of the characteristics of its parts. As an example, consider a collection of money that includes both coins and dollar bills. The coins are rigid; the bills are non-rigid. The collection, however, is not both rigid and non-rigid. The collection is neither, since rigid and and non-rigid apply to the existents, not to a collection of them.
There is no such thing as the mean temperature of the universe. There is only the mean temperature of some of its existents. There are many existents in the universe that do not possess the attribute of “temperature”, such as electromagnetic radiation. It makes no more sense to speak of the mean temperature of the universe than it does to speak of the mean wavelength of the universe – these are attributes of entities, that do not necessarily apply to collections of entities.
The fallacy you are committing is the fallacy of composition, which is the unwarranted assumption that the group or the whole possess all of the characteristics of its parts. As an example, consider a collection of money that includes both coins and dollar bills. The coins are rigid; the bills are non-rigid. The collection, however, is not both rigid and non-rigid. The collection is neither, since rigid and and non-rigid apply to the existents, not to a collection of them.
Gravity has no temperature, too. Fields don’t have temperatures. But it is irrelevant to the temperature-question. Every existent is made out of quarks. They don’t have a temperature, because at that level the term temperature becomes meaningless. So if you isolate every quark in my stove, you cannot say that it has a temperature, because the quarks it consists of have none.
You cannot attribute a wavelength to the universe, because at that scale the concept of wavelength becomes meaningless. Even humans don’t have wavelength, because already there it becomes pointless. But here concepts like temperature find meaning and they don’t lose it if you expand your focus, even to the entire universe. There are electromagnetic waves coming through the window next to me. I don’t have to care about them because they are irrelevant for the question. Still the glass has a temperature.
My processor is hot even though the voltage isn’t. I see no problem at all.
The coin-example didn’t mention how the dollar bills and the coins are arranged. For a loosely arranged bunch of coins and bills, I would measure the rigidity of the bills and the coins separately and then I can calculate a mean based on volume or weight. If you have them glued together, they are as rigid as the weakest link. You have to further define what you mean by rigidity.
For the temperature of the universe you have to define that you want the mean temperature.
But if I throw a bunch of ice cubes into my glass of orange juice, this arrangement does have a temperature and I can calculate the mean temperature despite any gravity or electromagnetic fields that may be in the glass.
Gravity has no temperature, too. Fields don’t have temperatures. But it is irrelevant to the temperature-question. Every existent is made out of quarks. They don’t have a temperature, because at that level the term temperature becomes meaningless. So if you isolate every quark in my stove, you cannot say that it has a temperature, because the quarks it consists of have none.
All of which proves that the concept “temperature” has meaning only in certain contexts, i.e. only when applied to entities that possess that attribute. The universe is not an entity, so it cannot be one of the entities to which the concept of temperature applies.
You can say, “The mean temperature of all the matter that we have managed to measure is X degrees.” Likewise, you can say, “The mean wavelength of all the radiation that we have managed to measure is X nanometers.” That does not mean that the universe has a temperature and a wavelength.
You cannot attribute a wavelength to the universe, because at that scale the concept of wavelength becomes meaningless. Even humans don’t have wavelength, because already there it becomes pointless. But here concepts like temperature find meaning and they don’t lose it if you expand your focus, even to the entire universe.
This is a selective application of the fallacy of composition. You rule out the notion of the universe having a wavelength because it contains existents to which the concept of wavelength does not apply. But you arbitrarily insist that it can have a temperature, despite the fact that it contains existents to which the concept of temperature does not apply.
At this point, you have given good examples of the things to which the concepts of temperature and wavelength can apply – and you have given good examples of the things to which these terms can not apply. What you have not done is show why either of these terms should apply to a collection that includes all of the things you have mentioned, the things to which the concepts apply and the things to which they do not apply. This is a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.
There are electromagnetic waves coming through the window next to me. I don’t have to care about them because they are irrelevant for the question. Still the glass has a temperature.
My processor is hot even though the voltage isn’t. I see no problem at all.
You see no problem because you do not grasp the distinction between an existent, which has a metaphysical existence and attributes of its own, versus a collection, which has only an epistemological existence and does not have a separate, metaphysical existence (apart from the enitities it comprises) and which cannot, therefore, be ascribed the characteristics of an existent.
The coin-example didn’t mention how the dollar bills and the coins are arranged. For a loosely arranged bunch of coins and bills, I would measure the rigidity of the bills and the coins separately and then I can calculate a mean based on volume or weight. If you have them glued together, they are as rigid as the weakest link. You have to further define what you mean by rigidity.
This does not deserve much of a response. I think it is quite clear what rigidity means in this example. The point is that it is non-sense to say that the money collection is simultaneously rigid and non-rigid. The fact that you can glue the pieces of money together or measure the rigidity and calculate a mean changes nothing. It is still non-sense to speak of the collection as being simultaneously rigid and non-rigid.
But I will simplify it even further. Here is the essence of your error. The number 2 is even. The number 3 is odd. If we put them together in a collection, we will have the number 5. According to your argument, 5 is both odd and even. Or, 5 is 50% even and 50% odd.
For the temperature of the universe you have to define that you want the mean temperature.
But if I throw a bunch of ice cubes into my glass of orange juice, this arrangement does have a temperature and I can calculate the mean temperature despite any gravity or electromagnetic fields that may be in the glass.
So what? This issue is not what you can measure and calculate about any particular existents. The issue is whether you can ascribe the attributes of entities to things that are not entities, like the universe. You cannot.
The universe is not an entity, so it cannot be one of the entities to which the concept of temperature applies.
I think this is one of the problems in our discussion. Please say, what is the difference between an entity and a non-entity? And how do you know it?
You can say, “The mean temperature of all the matter that we have managed to measure is X degrees.” Likewise, you can say, “The mean wavelength of all the radiation that we have managed to measure is X nanometers.” That does not mean that the universe has a temperature and a wavelength.
Actually this is not what I meant. The wavelength of a molecule is not the mean of the wavelength of its atoms. It’s possible to calculate the wavelength of a human being, but it has no use. This doesn’t make it a fallacy.
I think it is quite clear what rigidity means in this example. The point is that it is non-sense to say that the money collection is simultaneously rigid and non-rigid. The fact that you can glue the pieces of money together or measure the rigidity and calculate a mean changes nothing. It is still non-sense to speak of the collection as being simultaneously rigid and non-rigid.
It was absolutely not clear what rigidity meant in the example. And I didn’t say that the collection was both rigid and non-rigid. Either something is or it isn’t. The problem is that the question ‘Is this collection rigid?’ was a misuse of the word rigid, it was a floating abstraction. I just put it back on two feet to give some answer to this question.
5 is odd. Just like the molecule has a different wavelength than the mean of its atoms.
What I am saying is that sometimes this ‘Saying something about all the stuff’ makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t you have to specify what you say. You can say that my kitchen is colder than my stove because it consists mainly of air having room temperature. All I am saying is that by the same argument you can say that the universe, consisting mainly of empty space (which is cold), is colder than my stove. Where’s the problem? It was a simple induction. The problem must have something to do with this “The universe is no entity”-argument that I don’t understand.
And I still don’t understand what’s wrong with my examples. The glass of orange juice has a temperature just like my window does. Here I don’t have to take into account any fields. Why when I speak about the universe? In both cases I just ommit the field stuff because it is irrelevant. Maybe our concepts of what the universe is are different. I still try to understand, but I just can’t.
This is a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.
I think this is one of the problems in our discussion. Please say, what is the difference between an entity and a non-entity? And how do you know it?
A single entity is a preceptual concrete which is differentiated from other perceptual concretes by an essential difference. The concept “universe” refers to every entity that exists. “Universe” is a concept, not an entity.
Please let me know if there is anything here I’ve failed to mention.
A single entity is a preceptual concrete which is differentiated from other perceptual concretes by an essential difference. The concept “universe” refers to every entity that exists. “Universe” is a concept, not an entity.
Please let me know if there is anything here I’ve failed to mention.
But why isn’t the universe not an entity? If I take some parts and build a robot, I have taken entities to build a new entity. Now the universe is all the entities that exist taken together. That’s an entity, too, isn’t it? 
But why isn’t the universe not an entity? If I take some parts and build a robot, I have taken entities to build a new entity. Now the universe is all the entities that exist taken together. That’s an entity, too, isn’t it?
Ask yourself this:
“What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?”
In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a ‘robot’ is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.
Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of ‘Universe?’ No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.
Ask yourself this:
“What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?”
In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a ‘robot’ is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.
Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of ‘Universe?’ No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. So an entity must be perceptually differentiated from something else. Good, if we take that definition, then the universe is not an entity because there exists nothing to differentiate it from except nonexistence but that doesn’t count because it doesn’t exist (Which leads to the interesting question if empty space exists, but I digress).
Is an electromagnetic field an entity?
