The point is that we do have objects that don't fit your criteria, and yet we know they're intelligently designed. — Sam26
Similarly, the designer must have been the starting point, not designed by another entity. — gevgala
I was simply responding spontaneously to your question about what is evidence of intelligent design. I think my answer is pretty sound, but I never pretended that it would determine with 100% accuracy all cases. No doubt there are elaborate things crafted from metal, stone and wood that are mysteries. Nevertheless, the fact that we can all tell they are crafted suggests design isn't entirely elusive. — Tom Storm
Nevertheless, the fact that we can all tell they are crafted suggests design isn't entirely elusive. — Tom Storm
Here is the logic:
God created the universe therefore God must have a creator.
Humans created the piano therefore humans must have a creator. — Andrew4Handel
There are just too many similarities between human artifacts and artifacts of nature that point to ID, they're innumerable. — Sam26
The only thing that I can see that you have going for you is that most philosophers and scientists don't believe in ID, although many do. — Sam26
the human brain is probably the most complex thing in the universe, if it's not, it's certainly among the most complex; and to think it happened by chance (which maybe logically possible, although probably not metaphysically possible) is to strain credulity. — Sam26
I don't think there is any way to explain, how for example, the human body happened without some intelligence behind its structure, other than to appeal to ID. — Sam26
I have no illusions that this will be convincing to many of you, but I think it's an important point to be made. — Sam26
I think the architecture of ant colonies is instructive because it involves many ants doing specialized tasks. If it is intelligent design then which ant or ants is the designer? — Fooloso4
I don't deny "ID" any more than I deny "magic". :roll:Are you denying the existence of intelligent design? — Andrew4Handel
I know the primeval soup is not an artifact like your phone or house or the city. Compositional fallacy, Andrew: just because there are designed artifacts in the universe or that physical regularities appear "designed" to us in no way entails they are "designed" or the universe it is "designed". Same applies to "cause" – causes in the universe do not entail that the universe is the effect of a cause In both cases, the evidence against cosmic "creation / design" is e.g. (1) quantum uncertainty > (2) planck-radius universe > (3) low entropy past > (4) deep time > (5) deep space ... (6) autopoeisis > (7) evolution. :fire:Do you believe my phone created itself from a primeval soup?
The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist.If you believe humans can create things but are uncreated then the same can apply for a hypothetical creator deity. — Andrew4Handel
Your points are interesting to me, I think it 's certainly possible to see similarities in things if you choose too. — Tom Storm
There's another fallacy from incredulity. 'I can't imagine how else it could have happened..." — Tom Storm
My argument is not simply based on, "Well, it's just common sense, or it must be true because it's easy to understand," — Sam26
(1) Human artifacts that have a structure such that the parts fit together to accomplish a purpose which is higher than any part alone, such as a watch, car, or computer, are the result of intelligent design.
(2) Artifacts of nature have a structure where the parts fit together to accomplish a purpose which is higher than any part alone, such as the human body. — Sam26
There's much more to the argument, but I'm going to leave it here. — Sam26
Thanks for the response though. — Sam26
My argument is not simply based on, "Well, it's just common sense, or it must be true because it's easy to understand,"
I never said it was. I said you were making a fallacy from incredulity. Might I say, a textbook example. — Tom Storm
The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist. — 180 Proof
This statement is not true unless, of course, you / someone can cite conclusive scientific evidence in favor of "ID". As I've pointed out already, unique and testable predictions cannot be derived from it, and so, like other creationist myths, "ID" doesn't explain anything about the natural world.What we do know is that intelligent design exists — Andrew4Handel
No. However, I always avoid posting excessive word salads and tendentious run-on non sequiturs. Search my post history.PS do you only make short posts?
This statement is not true unless, — 180 Proof
I am referring to intelligent design by humans which is intelligent design. — Andrew4Handel
"to accomplish activities of a higher order," — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.