DT writes:
Re. premise 3. I don't believe this is begging the question. I am not assuming that life on earth is the goal.
Now you're just being dishonest or are confused. The premises in an argument are assumptions. Let's look at P3 again:
DT writes:
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.
See that bit in your premise about "toward a goal"? Something that is "toward a goal"
must have intention behind it (if it didn't have intention behind it, you wouldn't refer to it as a "goal"). That there is intention behind nature is meant to be your
conclusion, but you have assumed it in one of your
premises. This is the definition of the begging the question fallacy; assuming your conclusion in your premises. However, if your intention is to be true to logic and reason, and thus to not beg the question in your argument, surely you will not object to your premise being restated in such as way so as to not beg the question. I will do so now to see what effect it has on your argument. (I'll also remove "(the goal)" from P4 which is a carrying over of the question begging, and I'll add "proven to be" in P2 b/c it makes the obvious clearer.)
DT writes:
Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.
P2: If something is proven to be made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth result in life as we know it.
P4: There is life on earth.
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.
Now it becomes clear that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. This is because it doesn't logically follow from the simple fact that life as we know it exists that it was a goal, that it was intended, and that it was designed. It's entirely possible that it wasn't. These things MAY actually be true, but in terms of your syllogism and logic, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You haven't logically proven design.
Now a bit more in regards to your defense of P3:
DT writes:
I am proceeding from this observation: (1) right distance, (2) right condition... and then life. Life obviously is the goal for the preceeding two observable facts. If not, what else? Would chance be a goal... Chance is not a goal. It is a happening, or a frequency, I guess.
Life is not obviously the "goal", but is obviously the "result". Your use of the word "goal", which implies intention and design, is the issue here, and why you are begging the question. You must use language in your premises that does not assume your conclusion, if your logic is to be considered sound. When you go with "result" instead of "goal", your conclusion is a non-sequitur.
DT writes:
Here is another proof why premise 3 is not begging. If the distance is right but condition is not, then no life. If distance is wrong, but condition is right life may exist for a while but eventually will die. So? the two must be present to achieve a goal--life.
Again, same thing. Switch the word "goal" out with something else (which you must do so as to not beg the question) that's neutral in regards to your conclusion and you see that your conclusion doesn't follow. Surely you can see that assuming life is a "goal" is making the assumption that life is the result of design, which is supposed to be your conclusion. To make sure you understand the implications of the word "goal" here is it's definition:
"the end toward which effort is directed". Effort can only be directed by a conscious being, aka a designer, so this reveals why use of the word in your premises is begging the question.
You make a further plea in
Message 51 that P3 isn't begging the question, so I'll move on to that now.
DT writes:
Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.
Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:
- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.
B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.
I think the "facts" could be more clearly stated, but the issue is really your "interpretation", which a few people have already taken issue with. Is probability on the side of the right conditions for life occurring?
quote:
"... there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our Galaxy," Lineweaver said. "With about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, our result suggests that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems in the Universe."
Whoops! Page Not Found | Discovery
10 trillion planetary systems, and many of them undoubtedly contain more than one planet. When you think about it, with that many planets it's actually mathematically unlikely that at least one (but probably many more) of them would not have the right conditions for life. The answer to your next question becomes clear...
DT writes:
Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?
Chance.
As to why we haven't discovered life on any of these other planets, it's because we don't have the means to observe them closely enough yet. There could literally be life on a million different exoplanets in our universe, and we wouldn't even know it. Perhaps in the future we'll be more capable of searching more planets for life, but at the present it's extremely difficult. We're still trying to be certain life doesn't exist on (or in) a planet (Mars) that's in our very our solar system, so you can only imagine how difficult it would be to comb all planets in the universe for life. To give you an idea, there is estimated to be about
70,000 million million million stars in the universe, but the
nearest one,
Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. That means if you traveled at the speed of light, 186,282.397 miles per second, it would still take you over 4 years to get there. And most stars are much, much farther away than that and space craft travel MUCH, MUCH slower than the speed of light.
DT writes:
Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL”the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition”also has a GOAL: Life !
So if we see a muffin, we can pretty safely conclude that it was baked by someone; that's true. I've never seen a muffin that didn't have an Intelligent Baker behind it, and I've seen more than a few muffins in my time. But are muffins and bakers good analogies for life and potential Intelligent Desginers? Well, we all have direct experience with muffins and bakers, and the intentions of bakers, so we can reasonably make conclusions about them. However, we don't have direct experience with the original creation of life and with gods, so we can't reliably make any conclusions about them. Muffins, not suprisingly, aren't a great analogy for life.
For any who are interested, in David Hume's
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding he addresses the argument about whether intention and design can be concluded from observing nature. (Back in 1748 BTW!) This is discussed in
section 11, OF A PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE AND OF A FUTURE STATE.
I agree with the sentiment presented in that argument which states
quote:
While we argue from the course of nature, and infer a particular intelligent cause, which first bestowed, and still preserves order in the universe, we embrace a principle, which is both uncertain and useless. It is uncertain; because the subject lies entirely beyond the reach of human experience.
A summary of the criticism of the argument from design is here -
David Hume - Wikipedia
2 points from there worth noting due to particular relevance to the current discussion:
quote:
1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
Finally, the "face on Mars"...
DT writes:
I saw the link and the picture.I honestly don't see any image of man. What I saw were black dots on greyish spots. Sorry, I guess I'm not superstitous. Or, I see things differently from most.
I find it kind of ironic that you can observe life and conclude a Designer, yet claim not to be superstitious, lol, but that's just my view. Anyhow, seeing something that looks like a human face in that image has nothing to do with superstition, it just has to do with the fact that in the right light, those hills kind of resemble a human face, at least according to nearly everyone that looks at it.
™ Version 4.2