RE: A Working Draft Design Argument
October 16, 2019 at 3:49 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2019 at 3:50 am by GrandizerII.)
(October 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote: 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.
I'm going to modify the argument according to my understanding. Correct me if I word something wrong. Note premises won't necessarily match yours, but the argument should hopefully be the same overall.
P1) Something indicates intentionality if values and meanings are assignable to it and all that it contains.
P2) If values and meanings are assignable to reality and all that it contains, reality indicates intentionality.
P3) If something indicates intentionality, then this intentionality is grounded in a being that is apart from (or independent of) this something and is able to assign values and meanings.
C) Reality, indicating intentionality, must have this intentionality grounded in a cause that is apart from (or independent of) it and is able to assign values and meanings.
Unless I'm mistaken, this appears to be a more clearly valid argument.
The question is whether the argument is sound. In this case, I sense that the problem is with P3 of this modified argument.