Re: What is SCIENCE?

On 3 Dec 2003 15:12:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Still) wrote:

>Steve Mading wrote...
>>  
>> : I disagree.
>> 
>> Then, (offense intended) you are an idiot.  People pop out of the
>> womb not even knowing how to talk yet, and yet you say they believe
>> in a god before they even understand how to say "mama".
>
>That's not what I believe or what I meant.  People everywhere can look
>around and see design in the universe.  

And imagine they see design.

The ex-atheist you lie about being would realise that there is no way
to determine design in the universe because (a) you need something
not-designed to compare against, to determine design, and (b) we
recognise design because we know have sufficient knowledge of how a
designer designs. 

He would substitute megadesigner for designer to differentiate betwen
our designs and this hypothetical designer-of-everything. 

The equivocation becomes obvious: if a megadesigner designed
everything there is nothing meganatural for comparison and the only
way to determine megadesign would be from knowledge of how this
megadesigner megadesigned everything.

Which puts the cart before the horse and makes the argument from
design circular and therefore worthless. You cannot determine
megadesign without presupposing this megadesigner - which is itself
supposed to be the conclusion from the design argument.

The ex-atheist you lie about being would know this.

>                                        No matter where or how they
>were raised. 

Nope. The only reason even to suspect design is pre-existing belief in
deity/megadesigner. 

>             They can see that some things are right for everyone at
>all times.  They can see that some things are wrong at all times for
>everyone.  And they understand that the best explanation for this is
>god(s).

The ex-atheist you lie about being would realise this is a load of old
cobblers.

Because the ex-atheist you lie about being has other simpler
explanations that don't involve inventing deity. Once again there is
no way to conclude god(s) from morality. It has to be a pre-existing
belief. 

>> Do you also have trouble believing that so many people learn language
>> at that age in that very same way?
>
>No.  That's a good point.
>
>Dan