A Working Draft Design Argument

[Acrobat]

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.

[Belacqua]

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.

Just to be clear down the road, maybe we should define "intentionality." 

In phenomenology, it has a specific meaning, but I think that's not what you're using here. Would you mind paraphrasing? Does it mean "made with a goal in mind"? 

Here is the meaning in Merleau-Ponty, et.al.:

"In phenomenology, the characteristic of consciousness whereby it is conscious OF something -- i.e. its directness toward an object."

[Acrobat]

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.

Just to be clear down the road, maybe we should define "intentionality." 

In phenomenology, it has a specific meaning, but I think that's not what you're using here. Would you mind paraphrasing? Does it mean "made with a goal in mind"? 

Here is the meaning in Merleau-Ponty, et.al.:

"In phenomenology, the characteristic of consciousness whereby it is conscious OF something -- i.e. its directness toward an object."

I think that definition is perfectly fine, but for those who might not think of values and meanings in terms of a goal, this general definition is fine as well:

the fact of being deliberate or purposive.
PHILOSOPHY
the quality of mental states (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes) that consists in their being directed toward some object or state of affairs.

I’m using determinism to negate the often repeated idea that we ultimately give things value and meaning.

[GrandizerII]

I don't see how you've established that reality possesses values and meanings ultimately rooted in some first cause. Causality need not require intentionality.

[Acrobat]

I don't see how you've established that reality possesses values and meanings ultimately rooted in some first cause. Causality need not require intentionality.

What ultimately assigns values and meaning in a deterministic universe?

[GrandizerII]

I don't see how you've established that reality possesses values and meanings ultimately rooted in some first cause. Causality need not require intentionality.

What ultimately assigns values and meaning in a deterministic universe?

Could be that ultimately, the answer is contingent beings with consciousness. It could be argued that consciousness is a mark of advanced limitedness.

[Acrobat]

What ultimately assigns values and meaning in a deterministic universe?

Could be that ultimately, the answer is contingent beings with consciousness. It could be argued that consciousness is a mark of advanced limitedness.

So are you trying to suggest that consciousness, conscious thoughts are not subject to determinism? Free of the shackles of such constraints?

That the reason why I contemplate x, isn’t caused by preceding factors?

[GrandizerII]

Could be that ultimately, the answer is contingent beings with consciousness. It could be argued that consciousness is a mark of advanced limitedness.

So are you trying to suggest that consciousness, conscious thoughts are not subject to determinism? Free of the shackles of such constraints?

That the reason why I contemplate x, isn’t caused by preceding factors?

Not necessarily, no.

You could accept hard determinism and still argue for the counterargument I stated in my previous post. The existence of consciousness may be contingent on prior factors that aren't conscious or aren't ultimately contingent on the conscious.

[Acrobat]

So are you trying to suggest that consciousness, conscious thoughts are not subject to determinism? Free of the shackles of such constraints?

That the reason why I contemplate x, isn’t caused by preceding factors?

Not necessarily, no.

You could accept hard determinism and still argue for the counterargument I stated in my previous post. The existence of consciousness may be contingent on prior factors that aren't conscious or aren't ultimately contingent on the conscious.

But the prior factors determined what I was to think, what thought transpires in my brain.

The prior factors produced the thought that arose in my consciousness. Consciousness is more like an awareness rather than an originator or assigner of things. A passenger observing the thoughts that form, then the cause of the thoughts themselves .

[GrandizerII]

Not necessarily, no.

You could accept hard determinism and still argue for the counterargument I stated in my previous post. The existence of consciousness may be contingent on prior factors that aren't conscious or aren't ultimately contingent on the conscious.

But the prior factors determined what I was to think, what thought transpires in my brain.

The prior factors produced the thought that arose in my consciousness. Consciousness is more like an awareness rather than an originator or assigner of things. A passenger observing the thoughts that form, then the cause of the thoughts themselves .

You're saying that consciousness under the postulate I provided must necessarily be an epiphenomenon, but I don't see why this must be so.

But even if I'm forced to concede that, the act of assigning values and meaning is then reduced to physical processes happening in our nervous systems (or similar such systems in possible alien beings), so we're still ultimately the arbiter of meaning and value, because we possess these systems.