There is no need to recognize order, and in fact it is apparent that most animals do not recognize much order. This means that it is in no way necessary for survival.Originally Posted by MICAN
An example. Ever notice how if you walk a dog on a leash they appear to be actively trying to trip you up with it? This was the subject of some study, and apparently (thanks to helpful and admittedly sometimes flawed documentaries.. but I offer it here as a loose example) Dogs have no sense of the idea that once you connect two objects, they will act as a single object. So while the universe does in fact act in that order, they do not have access to that tidbit.
So to your point, they seem to make it just fine, though they are not "self aware".. so maybe that breaks with your example.
The second point, is that false or wrong thinking that has the same result is equally as valid for survival. So no, it should not be expected given naturalism to arise as it exists today.
If logic is not transcendent, then it is just a convention we made up. Which means, that in some world.. you are wrong.Originally Posted by FUTURE
So, you are wrong. Even if you are right.. you are still wrong in the same sense and in the same way. Because, logic is not transcendent.
Further, I offered actual evidence of why the mind is not emergent, and examples against it. Further I offered why we would not expect an emergent mind to be a logical one from naturalism.
So, your statements are not accepted and have been addressed. I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
If you can eliminate all the alternatives.. then yes it does.Originally Posted by FUTURE
Further, it is evidence in support of all the explanatory theories. That doesn't make any of them true, but it does make some more supported then those that don't explain it.
Also, it isn't simply "satisfactory for me personally", it is sufficient of an explanation to explain the effect. Design explains what we see, naturalism does not.
Not that you can't come up with some kind of exception so as to "explain it away" on naturalism, but given naturalism you would not naturally reach the results that we see.
Not at all. No less than recognizing a car has a designer is invalid.Originally Posted by FUTURE
We reference and recognize design in our everyday lives, recognizing it for the universe does not suddenly make it invalid.
Well we were kinda necroing this thread, so I was just offering some context. If you have a direct question I will be glad to attempt an answer.Originally Posted by FUTURE