Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that It is difficult to firmly establish design empirically on the basis of the types of properties we usually find in nature.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Paley's design inference proceeds from functional complexity and specified improbability, not merely from gaps in natural explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dembski's explanatory filter identifies design positively via independent specification, making the inference logically prior to any gap-filling attempt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A positive empirical marker for design (specified complexity) survives naturalistic gap-closing because it doesn't depend on ignorance of causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The fine-tuning of physical constants constitutes a nomological rather than a contingent gap, since no successor physical theory can render the constants necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collins and Swinburne argue this resistance to naturalistic closure makes cosmological design inference structurally unlike discredited god-of-the-gaps arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Gaps in nature would suggest supernatural agency, and some take science to operate under an obligatory exclusion of such (methodological naturalism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Established' limitations both on science and on nature can and have been overturned in the past.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The possibility of discovery or postulation of alternative 'natural' means of production would constitute a standing threat to any argument resting in part on a perceived absence of such means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.