A Working Draft Design Argument

[Pat Mustard]

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

Why? While I personally come down on the side of determinism, why should I accept in a supposed proof an unproven assertion?

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.

Your question is a nonsense. Onto the second sentence, you may not outright state it, but your whole argument is about proving that a god exists, and not just a generic god, but the impossible being of the Abrahamic faiths. And finally we don't have a first cause (you haven't proven it you've simply asserted it), especially if you are using the cosmological argument, because that flat out states that everything that exists must have a creator independent of itself.

PS I see that acrobat doesn't even try to begin to argue against my pointing out that value is a subjective judgement position, one that varies with time and perspective.

---

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..

That is quite a big IF. Why should reality have value and meaning except that which WE intentionally assign to it. Reality need not have any meaning at all. Any such value and meaning is intentionally assigned by minds, ours.

Plus his conclusion simply does not follow from his premise. There is no connection from "things have objective value and meaning" to "there must be a first cause". That is about as logical as saying "if the first car I pass by on my way to work on 27/11/2019, then Dublin will win the Liam McCarthy in 2025". You simply cannot infer that his conclusion happens based on his premise.