A fresh perspective. Congratulations OP.

Well, if there's gotta be a starting point then why can't the universe be that? The argument for a designer is predicated on the need for a designer. If the designer of x doesn't require a designer, then why should x have to have one? [x = the universe]

Helio Gracie! :up:

I'm thinking of a particular artifact that I can't find at the moment, but I've come across it many a time. It's metal, but we have no idea who made it, or what it was for. It almost looks like some kind of propeller, but not quite. The Antikythera mechanism is also one such object. When it was found they had no idea what it was or who made it, but no one would dispute that it was intelligently designed. They recently figured out what the Antikythera mechanism did and how it worked.

The point is that we do have objects that don't fit your criteria, and yet we know they're intelligently designed.

The point is that we do have objects that don't fit your criteria, and yet we know they're intelligently designed. — Sam26

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.

What we come back to is the notion that we have yet to demonstrate that the world or universe is designed. I am not convinced by any of the arguments in support of the proposition, as I've stated earlier, just as I am unconvinced there are gods. It's a judgement I make and others will make different judgements.

Similarly, the designer must have been the starting point, not designed by another entity. — gevgala

Why can't an undesigned universe be the starting point?

In fact, your argument can be used to refute the argument that the universe was designed. If the complexity of the universe suggests that it was created, then the complexity of its creator suggests that it too was created. This leads to an infinite regress which is untenable. Therefore, the complexity of the universe does not suggest that it was created.

It's special pleading to argue that this infinite regress proves that the creator wasn't created but not that the universe wasn't created.

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

I understand, and by the way I never spelled out my argument, I'm just responding to what people generally mean by ID. I don't think the argument against ID is even rational, let alone sound. There are just too many similarities between human artifacts and artifacts of nature that point to ID, they're innumerable. 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. This gives the feel of being compelling, but is only a psychological point of strength (similar to peer pressure), probably based on many of the irrational arguments that come from a religious point of view. This is also what's behind many of the anti-metaphyiscal arguments, although not all.

Nevertheless, the fact that we can all tell they are crafted suggests design isn't entirely elusive. — Tom Storm

The fact that we can tell that they are the result of ID has to do with what we generally mean by ID (a linguistic point), which I talked about earlier in this thread; and the analogical similarities between human artifacts (and human artifacts that we have a difficult time explaining) and artifacts of nature. The alternative to ID is that the human body happened by chance, and this seems a bit of a stretch to say the least. 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.

It's interesting to me that when many scientists and philosophers who oppose ID talk about nature they give it the very thing that ID proponents say is lacking, viz., intelligence. Without intelligence nature would be completely random, not expressing a will that chooses this over that because of it's predilection to survive.

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. Chance is certainly possible (although I wonder), but not likely. Because something is possible, this gives us no reason to believe it's true. This is one case where the general public is smarter than many of the academics.

I have no illusions that this will be convincing to many of you, but I think it's an important point to be made.

Il est facile de voir que ... if Richard Dawkins is correct, evolution is impossible.

I live in a house, in a city. I am typing this on a smart phone. So yes. I see intelligent design all around me all the time.

Are you denying the existence of intelligent design?

Do you believe my phone created itself from a primeval soup?

Here is the logic:

God created the universe therefore God must have a creator.

Hence.

Humans created the piano therefore humans must have a creator.

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?

Here is the logic:

God created the universe therefore God must have a creator.

Hence.

Humans created the piano therefore humans must have a creator. — Andrew4Handel

I do not follow your logic because the first premise is false and ends with a doubtful conclusion. There is not evidence of God created the universe, therefore we cannot conclude he has a "creator"
In the other hand, sorry but I don't see the logic of creating a piano and depending on a creator

There are just too many similarities between human artifacts and artifacts of nature that point to ID, they're innumerable. — Sam26

Your points are interesting to me, I think it 's certainly possible to see similarities in things if you choose too.

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

I'm neither a philosopher or scientist nor know those worlds, so they don't really impact upon my views other than indirectly.

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

That seems a classic fallacy from incredulity - you even used the word credulity. I don't know the universe well enough to make any totalising claims about human brains. But I do know it is us making value judgments like this and we're a bit biased. 'Complexity' is an idea defined by us and who knows what counts as complex outside of the human imagination.

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

There's another fallacy from incredulity. 'I can't imagine how else it could have happened..."

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

It's not convincing because we still lack a demonstration of how nature is the product of design. It still seems a wonky inference to make, but it's easy to see why people might make it.

Of course many consider the hallmark of good design to be simplicity. Something being complex is just something being complex. One would need a demonstration of how complexity would be impossible without a designer. Not just an argument from personal incredulity.

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

There must be a university educated chief engineer ant who directs it all. It's impossible to imagine how else they could do it. Of course we know the answer here - god directs it all - the ants are entirely incidental...

There must be a university educated chief engineer ant who directs it all. — Tom Storm

That explains the tiny diplomas on the wall.

Are you denying the existence of intelligent design? — Andrew4Handel

I don't deny "ID" any more than I deny "magic". :roll:

Do you believe my phone created itself from a primeval soup?

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:

So you don't deny that computers are intelligently designed then?

Non sequitur.

If a creator does not need a creator then [it]there is no infinite regress of creators[/i].

The believer in a creator does not need to say where the creator came from.

If you believe humans can create things but are uncreated then the same can apply for a hypothetical creator deity.

If you believe humans can create things but are uncreated then the same can apply for a hypothetical creator deity. — Andrew4Handel

The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist.

Design is an empirical-type of knowledge and is therefore flawed in the same way as any scientific-type knowledge.

Your points are interesting to me, I think it 's certainly possible to see similarities in things if you choose too. — Tom Storm

It's not a matter of just choosing to see similarities, as though there aren't objective things that make them similar. It's that there are objective similarities.

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," so there's no fallacy here except what you want to see. It's an analogical argument between human artifacts and artifacts of nature. Sure, it's easy to understand, and it sure does involve common sense, but that's not the basis of the argument.

This is what the argument would look like with premises and a conclusion, it's an inductive argument.

(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.

(3) Therefore, since the objects of nature exhibit the same kind of structure, they are the result of intelligent design.

There is no fallacy here. If you think so, then you don't understand the argument. There's much more to the argument, but I'm going to leave it here.

Thanks for the response though.

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

I never said it was. I said you were making a fallacy from incredulity. Might I say, a textbook example.

(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

That's an example of a false equivalence fallacy - based on some resemblance. I think you need stronger premises.

There's much more to the argument, but I'm going to leave it here. — Sam26

Perhaps better we leave this discussion to people with actual philosophy and science expertise.

Thanks for the response though. — Sam26

You're welcome. I enjoyed the discussion.

There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word 'purpose' between #1 and #2. In #1 something is designed for a purpose - the watch is designed to mark time. What is the purpose of the human body in #2 [added: for which it was designed]?

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

I never said it was. I said you were making a fallacy from incredulity. Might I say, a textbook example. — Tom Storm

The fallacy of incredulity includes what I said, but it also includes other things. Sometimes it takes the form that you can't imagine how a proposition could be false or true, therefore it must be true or false. Again, I know the logic , so don't insert this fallacy, it's not there.

A better way to say it is this:

instead of purpose one could insert "to accomplish activities of a higher order," that would be more precise. So, in the case of a watch, we observe the parts working together to achieve a higher order, and the same in the case of the human body. The watch's higher order is to achieve the time, the body doesn't have one particular higher order but many, such as reproduction, digestion, immune response, etc.

The fallacy of incredulity includes what I said, but it also includes other things. — Sam26

And includes what I said. :wink:

There seems to be an equivocation in the use of the word 'purpose' between #1 and #2. — Fooloso4

Indeed.

The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist. — 180 Proof

It is not really a fundamental difference. What we do know is that intelligent design exists and that is all that matters to allow intelligent design. Now you seem to be saying something doesn't exist if humans can't perceive it.

Well, take the example of Black swans. Black swans were viewed by Europeans as the the paradigm of implausibility because every swan they found was white.

But really the existence of swans makes it possible swans of any colour could exist.

The lack of evidence of black swans appeared to make them implausible but it was a limitation in European humans current perceptual scope.

So because we know intelligent designers exist that itself cannot be ruled out and the issue then becomes one of faith.

Is there intelligent design elsewhere?

People who are adamant there isn't God believe there must be life on other planets and use the existence of life here to take that stance and are quite adamant. But apparently we can't stretch human capacities like intelligence and consciousness in the same way but must reduce everything else to brute insensate mechanism.

PS do you only make short posts? If so why?

What we do know is that intelligent design exists — Andrew4Handel

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.

PS do you only make short posts?

No. However, I always avoid posting excessive word salads and tendentious run-on non sequiturs. Search my post history.

This statement is not true unless, — 180 Proof

I am referring to intelligent design by humans which is intelligent design.

Whether the whole or reality is intelligent designed is another issue. But there is evidence of intelligent design. Which increases the likelihood of intelligent design elsewhere.

Humans have got to the stage where we are genetically modifying species, cloning species and creating artificial reality. It is making a theory of intelligent design or even the brain in a vat more plausible every day,

The White swan is not evidence of the Black swan but it makes the existence of black swans unproblematic but as I say Europeans didn't see it that why.

I don't see why humans assessment of nature and physics should be the final measure of what exists.

I am referring to intelligent design by humans which is intelligent design. — Andrew4Handel

We know human technological artifacts are designed for specific purposes; they are utilities, tools, machines. Although natural systems. including animals and plants, behave in more or less invariant ways, we cannot say they are designed for any specific purpose; they are not utilities, tools, machines.

The same goes for the Universe as a whole. If something within a system is a tool or machine, then it has a purpose for something else within the system. In the case of the Universe as a whole this is impossible, since there is nothing outside the system that it could be the tool or machine for.

Word salad. :shade:

While it is true that there are human capacities not shared with organisms with a lesser degree of order it does not follow that humans are designed in order to have these capacities.

There is another problem. Either your version of the design argument applies only to humans or organisms that are able

"to accomplish activities of a higher order," — Sam26

in which case only these things are designed or it applies to all things, in which case activities of a higher order does not apply.