Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Saturday, March 06, 2010, 22:20 (5161 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT, on the subject of chance v. design: You don't use "must", and David hasn't publicly said "must", but it is implied via David's argument and my understanding of Adler's techniques. David clearly doesn't believe in chance, and since "OR" is exclusive ... if it's not chance, it "must" be:_________! [...] So a "must" is a fitting word here.-You are as stubborn as me! I can't speak for David, but here's the result of your logic, applied to my agnosticism. I don't believe in chance. Therefore I must believe in design. But I don't believe in design. Therefore I must believe in chance. And so now you have me believing in both. Withdraw your "must", or I shall find an effigy of Nietzsche and stick pins in it.-The combination of chance AND design, in the sense of "a creator that tinkers and surprises itself sometimes" is quite a different matter. Here design would refer to the origin of life and the mechanisms of evolution. What happens after that is a mixture of the two, depending on what you think were God's reasons for creating life. In the "brief guide" I've simply speculated on the various possibilities. In other words, the alternative (chance OR design) refers only to the origin.