Epistemology of Design (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 23:59 (5464 days ago) @ David Turell


> > This question then presents a profound problem for claiming the opposite: Life was designed. 
> 
> 
> > I have heard David allude to the argument that this universe is fine-tuned for life; I would counter that claim. In all of the universe, only THIS planet is known to have this "fine tuning." The universe at large, is downright hostile to life; therefore it is not the case that the universe is fine-tuned for life. 
> 
> You are not following my line of logic. Because this universe appears to be designed for life, the 'fine-tuning' allows for the Earth to appear in a form that allows life to emerge.
> > -No--I get that. But the implication here is that in universal terms.-> > We also know that there is a finite amount of matter. That means, if the universe is big enough, then any event with any given chance of probability will be guaranteed to happen.
> 
> We are discussing the limited resources of the Earth. -And all of Earth's components are derived from stellar material that was created in the interstellar cloud that formed our sun and solar system. It's imperative we look outside our planet for these details. If you're only looking here, you're casting your net in shallow waters. -> 
> By your reasoning the Earth is finite. The chances for de novo life on this planet is limited to the Earth and are finite. 
> -There's a minor snafu in your logic: If you're stating that I assert that life can only exist here, I don't agree with that. If however you're stating that the chances for life on earth are finite, this I can accept, but it does nothing to our conversation outside of a general statement that there is a finite number of chemical combinations to create life; nothing new here for either of us. In mathematical terms: A solution exists. -> > 
> > Design isn't tenable due to the things we cannot know; we cannot call something designed when we've never designed something like it. 
> 
> 
> We use life's designs all the time to to develop micro-engines and adaptations. -That's not the same thing. Studying chemistry/nanophysics and applying it isn't the same thing as being able to say "This was designed." Far from it. You can make the argument that "you're studying a design" but there's no way to know it was actually designed. Life follows a pattern that breaks every design rule we would ever apply--and the only reason we know that a bridge was designed is because we know its component parts; rheebar, concrete, struts, girders--were all made by men, and something had to fashion them together. -Does this make it more clear what I'm driving at? We only know that man-made objects are designed. We can't know whether or not a non-man-made object was designed. -Human chemists can create chemicals in much more simple and efficient pathways than what happens in nature. So, if life was designed, why didn't the "supreme intelligence" use paths of lesser resistance? -In the end I'm still doing little more than pointing out that accepting design is still an act of faith. This whole exercise seems circular, even to me, at this juncture, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"