MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Armoured]

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki



Totally wrong! Your premise is flawed.

I don’t conclude that an intelligent designer is responsible because of an inability to imagine that it could happen otherwise. I conclude an intelligent designer is responsible because the evidence compels me to conclude an that an intelligent designer is responsible and that the proposed other mechanism, which I examine in detail before I reach a conclusion, is ridiculously absurd.

Still argument from incredulity

If I reject your claim to be an amoeba as absurd, it isn’t because I can’t imagine how you could possibly be an amoeba. Or if I reject your claim that two plus two equals a billion, it isn’t because I lack the imagination to conceive how your two plus two pieces constitute a billion pieces of equal size. I justifiably reject your proposition because of its sheer ridiculousness.

If that were ALL you were rejecting such claims on, that, too, would be argumet from incredulity

BTW
Is concluding that a person’s claim to being a Christian is bogus because he argues against God’s creating the universe also an argument from ignorance?

Um, I'm not sure what that is. A red herring, perhaps? Maybe an ad hominem? I don't see anyone doing anything like that, though. Do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I initially explained, I don't find the mindless chemical geniuses explanation acceptable.

"I can't see!!" is not a rebuttal.

For me to accept that would be as irrational as accepting that a Christian can be a Christian while denying God's hand in creation. Totally incompatible and unbelievable propositions.

When reality disagrees with your beliefs, then your beliefs are wrong. Not the other way round.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I conclude an intelligent designer is responsible because the evidence compels me to conclude an that an intelligent designer is responsible

What evidence?

If I reject your claim to be an amoeba as absurd, it isn’t because I can’t imagine how you could possibly be an amoeba

Who is claiming that you are an amoeba?

Or if I reject your claim that two plus two equals a billion, it isn’t because I lack the imagination to conceive how your two plus two pieces constitute a billion pieces of equal size

Who is claiming that two plus two equals a billion?

I justifiably reject your proposition because of its sheer ridiculousness.

You know what else is ridiculous? That time is relative to the observer.
But me finding it ridiculous doesn't change the facts of reality.

Perhaps reality is just ridiculous (to a creature that evolved to deal with masses from grams to a few tons and speeds from 0 to about 70 km/h)

 

[Radrook]

A response that merely constitutes :"No it aint! That's just what it is!" is no refutation whatsoever. It is like the playground game played by children when they argue:

"Yes it is!""-- "No it ain't!"

BTW
I once encountered this chess player in Miami who kept incessantly chanting: "Nah na na na nah! Nah na nana na nah!" all during the game. Such responses remind me of that.

 

[JackRT]

In short, discovery of mathematics in nature isn't an invention of mathematics, it is a DISCOVERY of mathematics in nature.

Mot having a mathematical or scientific education makes this an easy mistake to make. Every mathematical system is an invention that may later be discovered to have a scientific application.

 

[Radrook]

Mot having a mathematical or scientific education makes this an easy mistake to make. Every mathematical system is an invention that may later be discovered to have a scientific application.

I am not mathematically and scientifically illiterate. Neither did I claim the opposite of what you just wrote.

 

[JackRT]

I am not mathematically and scientifically illiterate.

I apologize, that was not obvious to me.

 

[Radrook]

I apologize, that was not obvious to me.

Your apology is barbed.

There is absolutely NOTHING in what I said for you to assume that I am illiterate mathematically and scientifically. If indeed there is point it out.

BTW
I could just as easily infer feeblemindedness from the inability to perceive the obvious but I don't and always give the person the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Radrook]

Please try to refrain from personal insults and misrepresentations of what I say. Thanks!

 

[JackRT]

Please try to refrain from personal insults and misrepresentations of what I say. Thanks!

In that case I withdraw that post, both apology and barb.

 

[JackRT]

post deleted

 

[KCfromNC]

Going one step further, He is the Creator of mathematics.

That's one opinion. Yet another is that math is (are?) man made languages that are useful for communicating certain types of information. On the plus side for the second claim is the fact we actually see actual people inventing new mathematical concepts. On the minus side for the first one is the complete lack of evidence of god(s) doing much of anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

As I initially explained, I don't find the mindless chemical geniuses explanation acceptable. For me to accept that would be as irrational as accepting that a Christian can be a Christian while denying God's hand in creation. Totally incompatible and unbelievable propositions.

Yep, good summary of the logical fallacy mentioned earlier.

 

[durangodawood]

Isnt this an exact repeat of the Fibonacci thread?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Of course others say that mindless chemicals did it.
I refer to that as the mindless genius explanation and find it totally unacceptable.

Yeah, me too - any fule kno that the mindless chemicals behave according to the fundamental rules, i.e. the mathematics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Math is a description of the universe, not a prescription.

Yes, things in the world relate to each other in consistent ways that can be described in mathematical terms.

 

[Speedwell]

As I initially explained, I don't find the mindless chemical geniuses explanation acceptable. For me to accept that would be as irrational as accepting that a Christian can be a Christian while denying God's hand in creation. Totally incompatible and unbelievable propositions.

Do you know any Christians who have taken that position? Certainly none in this forum have done so.

 

[Speedwell]

Is concluding that a person’s claim to being a Christian is bogus because he argues against God’s creating the universe also an argument from ignorance?

It would certainly be ignorant to conclude that a Christian who rejected lame arguments for the existence of God was arguing against God's creating the universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Is concluding that a person’s claim to being a Christian is bogus because he argues against God’s creating the universe also an argument from ignorance?

Yes, if being a Christian doesn't necessarily entail believing that God created the universe. In that case the ignorance would be in not knowing it is not a necessary condition of Christianity (I don't know whether it is or not).

 

[Radrook]

Isnt this an exact repeat of the Fibonacci thread?

Same tune different chords.