• Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    Word salad180 Proof

    No it's not.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    We know human technological artifacts are designed for specific purposes;Janus

    That is not true though.

    A computer has numerous purposes and not one specific purpose and apparently unlimited potential. A pen can be used to sign a check, write a novel or draw a picture or to scratch an itch.

    There are many multi purpose artefacts that can be used in different ways in the future.

    The only point that matters to me is that humans are intelligent sentient designers so that paradigm is possible.

    Biology is very teleological in its need to describe what every mechanism in an organism does and how it contributes to survival.

    The no design position to me is more of an interpretation than anything falsifiable. We know the heart has a function because when it fails you get very sick or die.
  • Janus
    15.7k
    A computer has numerous purposes and not one specific purpose and apparently unlimited potential. A pen can be used to sign a check, write a novel or draw a picture or to scratch an itch.Andrew4Handel

    Computers were designed to compute, and their development has enabled many different manifestations of that basic function, but it is still the basic function and is what computers were designed to do.

    Same goes for the pen, it was designed to write; the fact that it can be used for other purposes is irrelevant.

    The no design position to me is more of an interpretation than anything falsifiable. We know the heart has a function because when it fails you get very sick or die.Andrew4Handel

    It does not follow from the fact of the heart having a function that it was purposely designed to have that function. As far as we know the heart and its functions evolved.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    It does not follow from the fact of the heart having a function that it was purposely designed to have that function. As far as we know the heart and its functions evolved.Janus

    But it has a specific function and serves an essential purpose just as much as a pen does if not more so.

    As I say I still think the no design position is equally as speculative as the design position and also unfalsifiable.

    In relation to the thread topic and as I said earlier. if humans are intelligent designers who were not designed then the same could apply to other intelligent designers avoiding an infinite regress. The benefit of an intelligent designer is that they can explain their creation and explain functions.

    For something that is not designed the human body succumbs well to a functional analysis.

    I don't think the onus is on the design advocate to find a designer the onus is on someone to explain reality without reference to a designer if that's what they think is the case.

    I feel like people want us to take a certain attitude to reality when it is an open question.

    Also the recent explosion of human technology in a short period shows that what is said to take millions of years to evolve can be created in a few years with intelligence.
  • Janus
    15.7k
    But it has a specific function and serves an essential purpose just as much as a pen does if not more so.

    As I say I still think the no design position is equally as speculative as the design position and also unfalsifiable.
    Andrew4Handel

    The "no-design" position is the natural selection position, and sure it is speculative. Is it falsifiable? Popper didn't think so, and then he did, if I recall correctly. I can't recall the details of his change of mind, but you can look it up if you're interested.

    The problem I have with the "designer" idea is that it is definitely unfalsifiable, and it involves an entity, which is not observable, and processes of which we can have no idea, so it would appear to be of little or no use to the speculative understanding.

    Also the recent explosion of human technology in a short period shows that what is said to take millions of years to evolve can be created in a few years with intelligence.Andrew4Handel

    The recent explosion of human technology is arguably mostly down to the fortuitous (or not) discovery of fossil fuels in my view.
  • 180 Proof
    14.4k
    I don't think the onus is on the design advocate to find a designer ...Andrew4Handel
    Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place. :roll:

    The recent explosion of human technology is arguably mostly down to the fortuitous (or not) discovery of fossil fuels in my view.Janus
    :up:
  • Tom Storm
    8.5k
    The problem I have with the "designer" idea is that it is definitely unfalsifiable, and it involves an entity, which is not observable, and processes of which we can have no idea, so it would appear to be of little or no use to the speculative understanding.Janus

    Yes, and it involves an entity for which we have no actual evidence in the first place - or a series of entities, or an advance alien species. Even if one accepts a designer it is impossible to say what or who that might be.

    The design argument resembles the 'something from nothing' argument or pre-suppositionalist justifications for reason - it's an attempt to prove a god figure without actual evidence of that god. This is done by avoiding the pesky question of evidence for a deity and pointing instead to debatable interpretations of phenomena as evidence of their works. 'You see, there is a god, I can't imagine how else we could explain the origin of life/design/reason, etc.' A fallacy from incredulity.

    Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place.180 Proof

    :up:
  • T Clark
    13k


    You started this discussion but haven't participated after the first post. That's considered impolite.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Set the cat among the pigeons ...

    I've seen this happen before, but later discovered the OP had been banished. The member in question was probably a real philosopher, but ill-mannered and hence his TPF career ended before it even started.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    I think that if humans died out and all that was left was our artefacts then our artefacts would be evidence of us and the explanation of their origin would involve our design capacities and mental states.

    It is not clear what conclusions you could draw from humans just by analysing the mechanisms of their artefacts.

    To me it is a choice to try and explain everything without a creator and that would be wrong in analysing human artefacts.

    I don't see why we have to try and explain reality as if it only consisted of insentient atoms bang together. To me that is an arbitrary choice that ignores other phenomena that exists like our mental states, consciousness, symbols language and so on.
  • javi2541997
    5.1k
    I don't see why we have to try and explain reality as if it only consisted of insentient atoms bang together. To me that is an arbitrary choice that ignores other phenomena that exists like our mental states, consciousness, symbols language and so on.Andrew4Handel

    To prove reality you would need physical evidence (whether you like it or not). I know is a very reductionist argument to use physicalism to prove things do exist.
    I wouldnt say it is an arbitrary premise where we do exist just for random circumstances. According to this point, only God's existence can be understood if we say existentialism goes beyond than just atoms banging together.
  • 180 Proof
    14.4k
    To me it is a choice to try and explain everything without a creator ...Andrew4Handel
    So tell us how you / we scientifically know that "everything" was created. If you cannot, then you / we do not have any grounds to believe there is / was a "creator" of the universe. :chin:
  • Thund3r
    10
    Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
    Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.
    gevgala

    Hi, gevgala, I appreciate when people lay out their argument; thank you!

    Premise 1 seems to assume everything has a starting point, but research in quantum fluctuations has really questioned our assumption of this. Although, saying not everything has a starting point would seem to push me towards the Humian “there is no cause and effect” camp. I think if at all possible, it seems like we are best to agree with the overwhelming evidence in favor of causation. But that alone doesn’t seem to resolve our debate.

    Premise 2 definitely highlights the problem of infinite regress, but I don't think this allows us to assert that a designer must've been the starting point. If we assume that everything indeed must have a starting point, then isn't it equally plausible that the universe/cosmos itself is the starting point or that it's the result of some other non-designer process? It seems like there’s an infinite array of theories one could come up with for what a necessarily basic anything would be.

    The conclusion here does not necessarily follow from the premises. The existence of a starting point does not automatically imply the existence of a designer. It is possible that the starting point could be a natural event or process, which could be explained without invoking a supernatural designer.

    Regarding the analogy with Helio Gracie and jiu-jitsu:
    The difference seems to be that we have a large amount of historical evidence for Helio Gracie inventing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. In our case, the designer's existence and role as a starting point are purely speculative. Additionally, Helio Gracie was a human being, a product of natural processes. This would differ from the concept of a supernatural designer that exists beyond the natural world.
  • Wayfarer
    21k
    A couple of things to bear in mind. One is the popular notion that order simply emerges spontaneously from chaos. This seems to be the conclusion favoured by many naturalists, on account of them having ruled a higher intelligence out of the reckoning. The idea of evolution then somehow becomes a complete explanatory metaphor for the whole universe, beginning with the Big Bang: things just evolve.

    The problems with that are various. First, it is now understood that the universe emerges from the Big Bang because there are very specific fundamental parameters which, had they been even slightly different, would not have resulted in the formation of any order whatever (see Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees). Second, science itself does not explain the order of nature. It explores the order of nature, to great effect and benefit (although benefit is not the only consequence). But as to why there is an order in the first place, science is mute, as it’s a different kind of question to the questions posed by naturalism and which are sought in the order of nature. Naturalism, in that sense, assumes an order of nature. To think that it explains that order, is comparable to the belief that the rooster explains the sunrise.
  • Gnomon
    3.6k
    I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer?" question. The question of "Who Designed the Designer?" is often asked as a challenge to the concept of intelligent design or the existence of a creator. It assumes that if everything in the universe requires a cause or a designer, then the designer itself must also have a cause or a designer.gevgala
    The Designed Designer (or Caused Causer) challenge assumes that the postulated First Cause exists within the normal space-time system of sequential causation. The implicit argument seems to deny a concept that is typically assumed as an axiom by Design proponents : Eternity. "Eternity" (like "Zero") makes no sense from a real-world perspective. The notion of a spaceless & timeless state is an Ideal concept, and is meaningless to a Materialist/Realist. Yet idealistic philosophers play around with non-existent notions all the time. Since Eternity is abnormal though, they may try to make Timelessness more sensible by defining it as an undefined quantity of Time. Which merely dodges the essence of Eternity.

    For example, Aristotle made a distinction between Potential & Actual. He didn't present a mathematical definition of "Potential", but today we could think of Potential in statistical terms. A mathematical "state" is an abstract quality similar to Eternity or Infinity, with unlimited possibilities, until a quantity is specified. So a statistical state is unreal (a mathematical variable : X) until something (a Causal input) provokes it to manifest as a real object with real properties & values. That actualization event is similar to a quantum particle that suddenly transforms from a holistic wave into a particularistic piece of matter. The Potential for that particle existed mathematically (Schrodinger's equation) even though the Actual dot of matter was undetectable in its entangled (holistic) state. But in Designer arguments, "Potential" is equivalent to "non-existent", for all practical purposes*1.

    Aristotle tried to bypass the non-existent implications of Eternity, as an infinite progression of causation, by proposing a hypothetical "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover", as a logic stopper. Still, the first instance of causation must logically be preceded by some kind of impetus. So, centuries later, Spinoza defined his First Cause as a self-caused Necessary Being*2. And he postulated that the real world is a physical manifestation of a metaphysical Potential. For example, the marble Taj Mahal was the real manifestation of an ideal concept in the mind of the designer : Ustad Ahmad Lahori. Of course, even spooky philosophers can't define a hypothetical Being into real world existence. So, to this day, the Designer of this "Grand Design"*3, remains an Idealistic concept that may or may not be imagined as a completely separate category from normal physical existence. :smile:


    *1. What is fallacy first cause? :
    This is the mentality of a savage or mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to nonexistence. Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing.
    https://www.wa4dsy.net/skeptic/firstcause.html
    Note -- Potential is a metaphysical state of being that is able to transform into a physical form of existence. Some thinkers cannot conceive of metaphysical (ideal) existence.

    *2. Spinoza's First Cause :
    God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

    *3. THE GRAND DESIGN
    quote-what-i-see-in-nature-is-a-grand-design-that-we-can-understand-only-imperfectly-one-with-albert-einstein-61-69-22.jpg

    THE MANIFESTATION OF DESIGN
    Taj_Mahal_2%2C_Agra%2C_India.jpg
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
    Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.
    gevgala
    The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes something like this:

    1. Complex organization entails designer (or at least: is best explained by design).
    2. The universe displays complex organization
    3. Therefore the universe is designed (or at least: is best explained by design)

    The problem with this is that #1 also applies to a God, because this God has an infinitely complex and organized mind. If an infinitely complex mind can exist without having been designed, then #1 isn't true.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.