(March 13, 2021 at 5:58 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I agree about Apollo's argument being human-centered, but I kind of think that was the point. Design proponents will frequently try to make their case that the universe was designed with humans in mind.
The flaw in arguing that the universe is human centered doesn't lie with Apollo, but with people try to prove design.
Boru
What I have maintained throughout this thread is that design is an anthropomorphic notion. When we talk about a designer we inevitably talk about intent and purpose—we can call this intent and purpose human-centric but we can even take it further and say that the intent and purpose is matter-centric —i.e, designer intents the matter particles to form complex structures which further perform some function. We humans are one such manifestation of complex structure—but we are not the only thing. Sun, planets, solar systems, all are such matter-centric designed object from that point of view.
The reason we take these structures into consideration to further build predictive models to hypothesize that whole universe would like this (with abundance of structures) and NOT predominantly empty space is because “design“ is an anthropomorphic notion and we have to use the same anthropomorphic principle to build the predictive model to verify if universe is rife with structures or not.
It makes no sense to say we see motion and structures all around us and in the galaxy but I betcha most of universe is empty. What are the basis of such model? It’s the same with life elsewhere in universe: we predict that there is life elsewhere in universe and NOT that there is not.
I have yet to hear a predictive (and not after the fact) basis of predominant empty space in the universe building upon design argument.
