(February 27, 2018 at 11:39 am)Grandizer Wrote:(February 27, 2018 at 11:37 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Where do you think that the fallacy of composition is being committed here? It seems to me that this fallacy is often casually thrown in, when such an argument is not being made.
It's similar to the Watchmaker argument. He's extending what applies to things in this universe to the universe itself.
I don't see that in the argument. The fallacy of compositions would be, that because the things that make up the collection have this property, that that which they compose must have the same property. For example, a tooth pick is relatively weak, there fore, your bridge made out of many toothpicks is equally weak.
What is being done here, as far as I can tell, is making a statement about all physical things. Which if the universe is a physical thing (or collection of things), then it would apply. You are free to argue with the reasoning behind it. You can offer arguments against it. However I believe you hastily and wrongly dismiss it; with the fallacy of composition.
What special reason, would we not apply this reasoning to all other physical things, but not to the universe, if it is a physical thing?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther