A Working Draft Design Argument

[Acrobat]

Rocks are caused by x, y, z (Volcanos erupting, sediments compacting) x, y,z is caused by l, f,p, etc.. etc... to a point which no causal explanation is possible, an uncaused cause.

"all past and future events"? Rock formation is not a series of events?

It’s a series of casual events, that ultimately trace back to the cause of all things, not just the rock, but the person using it as spear. In a deterministic universe, all these developments were fixed/determined by such an ultimate cause. Determinism didn’t only become true at a latter point but at the beginning of all points

[Deesse23]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

[chimp3]

"all past and future events"? Rock formation is not a series of events?

It’s a series of casual events, that ultimately trace back to the cause of all things, not just the rock, but the person using it as spear. In a deterministic universe, all these developments were fixed/determined by such an ultimate cause. Determinism didn’t only become true at a latter point but at the beginning  of all points

So are rocks "author designed' or not?

[Pat Mustard]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

If I were trying to get to "evidence for design" I wouldn't be starting from here.

To expand a bit further, here are a few issues:

1) Acrobat's premises consist largely of assertions. That's ok if you're doing a thought experiment to see what's needed to prove a conjecture, but they do nothing to actually prove it.

2) His conclusions simply do not flow from his premises, again they are assertions. For example he simply asserts determinism is true for nothing more than the simple fact we have a word for it. Truth does not work that way. Actually, IMO proving the universe is deterministic is actually harmful to the god hypothesis, not helpful.

3) The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause? If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.

4) Value is subjective, a lump of anthracite was far more valuable in 19th century England than in 5th century CE Yucutan, simply because 200 years ago people knew a lot more about coal, what they could do with it and so on than 2,500 years ago. And it has since lost some of that value, because we know a lot more of the problems with using it.

Finally an observation, this all looks very similar in premise to William Paley's watchmaker argument, something that's been debunked for years.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause?

Spot on.  Positing, or even proving, a first uncaused cause in no way gets you to the Abrahamic (or any other) god.

Boru

[Belacqua]

3)  The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause?  If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.

I don't know why people insist on using the temporal first cause argument. It is easily knocked down, and was explicitly rejected by both Aristotle and Aquinas.

First cause is not in a temporal chain. The fact that some quantum events seem not to have efficient causes says nothing about the first cause argument. 

The first cause argument is about an essential chain. What must exist in order for X to exist? Not happen first, but be logically and essentially prior.

What has to exist for a rock to exist? The atoms that make it up -- let's say calcium. If the rock ceased to exist, calcium would still exist in the universe. If calcium ceased to exist, then the rock would cease to exist. That's why it's essentially prior. 

The first cause argument says that there is an end to this chain. What has to exist for the rock? Atoms. What has to exist for the atoms? Subatomic particles. What has to exist for the subatomic particles? The laws of nature. What has to exist for the laws of nature to exist? Existence has to exist. There must be existence for anything at all to exist. Therefore existence is the first cause. You can't say that something else has to exist for existence to exist. 

God doesn't exist in the way that any other thing exists. God is existence. Nothing could create existence, because to do so it would have to exist prior to existence, which doesn't work.

The first cause argument claims to prove ONLY that there is a first cause, and that it is existence. To get from there to the Christian God requires a set of different and elaborate arguments. 

I just get frustrated that people misuse this so much.

[Acrobat]

His conclusions simply do not flow from his premises, again they are assertions. For example he simply asserts determinism is true for nothing more than the simple fact we have a word for it. Truth does not work that way. Actually, IMO proving the universe is deterministic is actually harmful to the god hypothesis, not helpful.

If it’s harmful, then it should just be accepted for the sake of Argument. I’d point out that all request to demonstrate, assumes determinism a priori. Just like a request to decipher what’s true, assume objective truth a prior

3) The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause? If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.

I guess the question could be what makes a first cause a God? Either way I didn’t use the word God in my argument. You’ll still have first cause, that assigns meaning and values to reality in a deterministic universe, even if you don’t want to call it God.

Value is subjective, a lump of anthracite was far more valuable in 19th century England than in 5th century CE Yucutan, simply because 200 years ago people knew a lot more about coal, what they could do with it and so on than 2,500 years ago. And it has since lost some of that value, because we know a lot more of the problems with using it.

All knowledge of reality is derived from our experience of reality. Meaning and values are a part of that experience. In a deterministic reality terms like subjective and objective have no clear line. If I program a robot to value yellow balls, from the perspective of the robot is this value anymore subjective or objective, than the ball he’s programmed to see?

[Abaddon_ire]

1. We're not novel characters.

2. If this world is not a simulation/program, then it's not been established that it's intentional. Your hypotheticals don't support your OP argument; rather your argument depends on such hypotheticals in order for the conclusion to be true.

Ultimately, however, it's not clear that your argument is even valid.

1) assigning meaning and values requires intention, such as in my examples of a novel, and computer program. (Hence why they’re often referred to as mental properties)!

Do you agree?

Sure. That is the basis of Astrology. Assigning arbitrary meanings to reality. Thus Venus rules our hearts, a "value",  and it's position in the sky has "meaning". Thus you are forced to conclude that astrology is real according to your own argument.

The same argument can be applied to Tarot cards which all have values and meanings which are also assigned values and meanings. Thus you must accept Tarot readings as real.

In fact we can extend this to all methods of divination. Reading sacrificial chicken entrails must be real according to your argument.

Are you sure this is a route you wish to follow?

[GrandizerII]

I guess the question could be what makes a first cause a God? Either way I didn’t use the word God in my argument. You’ll still have first cause, that assigns meaning and values to reality in a deterministic universe, even if you don’t want to call it God.

Bolded mine. But your argument fails to establish that anyway. At least as it currently stands.

Did you see my previous post by any chance?

[Belacqua]

OK, let me take a whack at this. I'll try to think of the best rebuttal I can, though I lack confidence. I think your argument is strong. 

Mostly I'm worried that there haven't been any replies for a while, and I don't want the debate to peter out too soon. 

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

Agreed. It is the activity of the mind, pointed intentionally, which gives values and meanings. 

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

Also true. 

This is good, I think, because it doesn't claim that meanings exist in the absence of minds -- eternal and predetermined -- but that minds, being real and part of nature, assign these things. So even if meanings vary or change, that doesn't affect the argument. 

Meanings really exist because minds are real and a part of nature, and minds really assign meanings. 
And since we are not angels or sparks of Pure Reason downloaded from a divine source, it means that the meanings we assign are derived from the contingency of our physical existence. 

P3-Determinism is true. 

I think for the scale of this argument we'd all agree that's true. In a sense the meanings or values I assign to things are not a free choice on my part but something presented to me. I see something, and its meaning or value seems apparent to me, due to all the conditioning I have had, and all the contingencies of my background, including the history of my dna.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

Despite my rant about First Cause arguments earlier, I agree with a temporal chain in this case. You're not working backward to claim a God, but claiming that what we think and do results from causes which have other causes. 

I think that even if we accept an eternal universe with no beginning, the argument would still hold that every part of our minds and ourselves has causes that stretch back out of sight. 

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

This is the tricky part, obviously. 

How about this: 

~ Meanings and values need minds to assign them. (intentionality) 

~ Minds came about as the result of a chain of events, theoretically going back to the Big Bang. 

~ The meanings that minds create are not chosen at random but are themselves determined by a chain of causal factors. 

~ While the appearance of minds depends on the chain of events, there is no intentionality in the world until minds appear. 

~ The condition of the Big Bang made it inevitable that minds would appear, and even what meanings they would choose, but is not itself intentional. Because intentionality at that point would require a mind. 

~ Conclusion 1: there is a deterministic chain of temporal events going back to the Big Bang. This made it inevitable that minds would appear, and that minds would reach certain conclusions. The process of meaning-making, however, only appears when the first minds appear. 

~ Conclusion 2: therefore the singularity or Big Bang itself was not intentional -- it had no mind-like choice of meaning.