Yes, this is true of objects that show signs of design. However, self-replicators (animals etc) are explained by a Darwinian process. If the pheromone to be explained is complexity, invoking designers only takes you a little bit, since you a designer will exhibit the signs of design, so a bottom-up, reductionist, Darwinian-type explanation is needed.
You're last sentence didn't make much sense, care to clarify? Then you cannot exclude that it does at least LOOK like design correct? Whether it is explained, still leaves the origin of life unexplained. If explaining something is evidence that Darwinian processes occurred, then the unexplained origin of life should be evidence that it didn't originate...
Clever. Yes, this is the correct conclusion in a vacuum, excluding other considerations. When you take into account the origin of the universe, life could not have existed when the big bang happened.
Thank you
. I had a feeling that this would be one of the objections posed against my argument which is reasonable. The anthropic principle explains that this universe is finely tuned for life so we are taken a step backwards since the Big Bang argues for a beginning... If no life existed before the big bang, then it would be reasonable from someone's perspective, that life cannot exist at that time of course.
1) Historically, there hasn't been life in this universe.
2) Therefore, it would have been reasonable to conclude that there will continue to be no life.
Now you are stuck with another dilemma I believe... You cannot infer a naturalistic explanation for the evolution of non-life to life because all observations pointed to life not existing at that time. The christian, on the other hand, is again justified in saying that life always existed (God) and therefore this existence can bring others into existence. Once again, you could argue that these observations doesn't entail what the future will hold but that is exactly my point! Merely because we continually explain things through naturalistic means doesn't imply that the past and/or future will be the same and so God cannot be excluded.
Past
Future
<------------------------------------------ GAP -------------------------------------------->
The past says that life did not exist, but the future of the big bang says that life does exist. Therefore, inference cannot work even in this situation with 2 considerations unless you can come up with a further argument.
It is true that you can come to false conclusions using inductive reasoning, given there are other considerations that show such conclusion could not be true.
Yes and excluding the consideration that God could've created it would therefore give you FALSE reasoning! For example, as you said the scientific method is consisted by drawing inferences on observed data but many times this conclusion is reached by a colored rejection of certain kinds of facts. The field of observation is then limited by the criterion of the scientist is then narrowed and the conclusion may be incorrect. By rejecting data that one dislikes, they can arrive at the wrong principle. Attempts to explain the origin of life point to a intelligent designer but if a biologists is a Mnaturalist, he rules out such data as impossible and limits his findings to his own group. Yet you insist that "historically all confirmed explanations have been naturalistic explanations". The reason for something being explained by naturalistic processes is because what we observe is in itself part of the natural world! As I said, origins science cannot be observed. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be able to observe since everything would be unpredictable. Fact is, we never observed the Big Bang ever occurring! Thus you cannot exclude God and naturalism is not justified. I personally believe that christianity provides a more coherent explanation than naturalism. As C.S Lewis said:
‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
And:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
I am unaware of any considerations that make MNaturalsim difficult.
One could also be unaware of the existence of Mars, so this doesn't necessarily say anything. Frank Walton, as I have read his blog for a 6 months now, has presented a lot faster refutation of the argument so much that I feel like I made some unnecessary evaluations. After all, I am only 15 years old and am still very aware of the fact that many of you folks are at least 2x more clever than I am. As with most of my discussions, what I value is improving my logic in hopes that I may become a legitimate person to argue with. My thanks for spending time on answering my arguments.
Thats a quote from another post, I did not say that in my opening.
My apologies as I noticed that right when I posted that but I couldn't edit! It was carelessness on my part since I forgot that people cannot edit their posts here.
