Prove the intelligent designer doesn't exist

[WinAce]

*sigh* you can say that about anything then winace. that building outside can't have a creator either. It leans, it shifts, it will fall if hit by a 9.0 earthquake.

Just curious, do you know what the phrase "apples to oranges" means? Alternatively, you may want to familiarize yourself with the fallacious argument known as bad analogy.

However, what can an earthquake-damaged building tell us about its origin if we find one, say, on a deserted planet?

(1) The building was not capable of withstanding what should be an obvious contingency in architecture. Thus, the designer(s) made a mistake, erred in predicting the geologic forces in the area, or had to compromise safety with practicality due to power limitations.
(2) All entities of complexity equal to buildings, especially those with systems whose goals stand in opposition to each other, are demonstrably designed by committee or by opposing forces. What does this tell us about who made the building?
(3) Buildings are made for specific purposes. If we find one with obvious signs of being intended as a torture room, down to blood-stained spikes, chains and assorted pain-inducing paraphernalia, what does that tell us about the personality of its architect(s)?

The hypothesis of a single, all-powerful, benevolent architect is falsified if any of the following are found:

• Design errors resulting from unforeseen contingencies or fallibility.
• Redundancy and excess complexity; evidence of design by committee.
• Sections whose obvious intent is inflicting gratuitous suffering.

With that taken into account, do you still want to stand by your analogy of biology to buildings? That's fine by me.

 

[Freodin]

Just curious, do you know what the phrase "apples to oranges" means? Alternatively, you may want to familiarize yourself with the fallacious argument known as bad analogy.

However, what can an earthquake-damaged building tell us about its origin if we find one, say, on a deserted planet?

(1) The building was not capable of withstanding what should be an obvious contingency in architecture. Thus, the designer(s) made a mistake, erred in predicting the geologic forces in the area, or had to compromise safety with practicality due to power limitations.
(2) All entities of complexity equal to buildings, especially those with systems whose goals stand in opposition to each other, are demonstrably designed by committee or by opposing forces. What does this tell us about who made the building?
(3) Buildings are made for specific purposes. If we find one with obvious signs of being intended as a torture room, down to blood-stained spikes, chains and assorted pain-inducing paraphernalia, what does that tell us about the personality of its architect(s)?

The hypothesis of a single, all-powerful, benevolent architect is falsified if any of the following are found:

• Design errors resulting from unforeseen contingencies or fallibility.
• Redundancy and excess complexity; evidence of design by committee.
• Sections whose obvious intent is inflicting gratuitous suffering.

With that taken into account, do you still want to stand by your analogy of biology to buildings? That's fine by me.

While that would indeed falsify the existence of an all-powerfull, benevolent creator in the common meaning of these terms, it does not falsify the existence of an intelligent creator, as the OP asked for.

(Yet I have that nagging feeling that the OP did not meant anything but this single, all-powerfull and benevolent creator whose name I don´t want to mention here.)

 

[Brimshack]

I would amend the initial salvo to suggest that it's not entirely true that we cannot prove the non-existence of anything. One can for example hold logical contradictions to be evidence of impossibility (which of course presupposes vthat the believer is willing to discuss the issue rationally). One can also deduce particular empirical conditions which would obtain is a well defined entity were to exist (well defined being the catch). I am fairly certain, for example, that I can demonstrate there is no VW bus in my living room. That said, I think it is pretty clear that belief in an intelligent designer does not really satisfy the conditions. At the very least we would have to know more about Her and Her supposed attributes. Failing to prove She does not exist, we would hardly have any reason to believe in Her.

 

[WinAce]

While that would indeed falsify the existence of an all-powerfull, benevolent creator in the common meaning of these terms, it does not falsify the existence of an intelligent creator, as the OP asked for.

Since the OP specified "THE" intelligent creator, it's safe to say what was intended. At any rate, there are good reasons for maintaining none of those exist, as well.

For one, it seems probable we would have knowledge of their existence outside of speculation about our origin and mythology, if they did exist. At least if they intended for us to find out about them, which, considering our intelligence, would be likely in the long term anyway.

For another, "designers" tend to manufacture things directly, not resort to long and drawn out evolutionary processes. This can be balanced out if the designers simply can't manufacture life directly, but that still makes a number of unwarranted extra assumptions.

But this is irrelevant. One all-powerful designer is downright improbable given the evidence, and no real reason exists for postulating many designers, a fallible designer or a sociopathic designer. And in the face of so many unevidenced possibilities, the null hypothesis is the only reasonable one to adopt, barring further evidence.

 

[Zoot]

What intelligent designer would create such a frown?

 

[delur]

the world would appear to be intelligently designed.

 

[Arikay]

Thats your opinion, which is fine.
Now, can you prove it?

 

[Freodin]

the world would appear to be intelligently designed.

Ah, from the "design" of the world, we could possibly conclude to an "unintelligent designer".

 

[justaman]

Can you prove the intelligent designer doesn't exist? (i.e. the intelligent designer of the universe and the biological and physical world)

The human appendix

Now go get yourself an avatar with a nice mask on it.

 

[gladiatrix]

Can you prove the intelligent designer doesn't exist? (i.e. the intelligent designer of the universe and the biological and physical world)

There is absolutely no need for "intelligence" to "guide" a design. Here is just such an example from another poster:

Design without a Designer, by IrishRockHound

I thought I'd post this up and see what you guys make of it - you might have heard of the Langton's Ant program, a cellular automata that starts with very simple rules, but produces very complex behaviour. Here's some links:

http://www.theory.org/software/ant/
- description of the program

http://users.libero.it/acnard/ant.html
- java applet that can run the program - watch the ant in motion!

The implications of this program are very interesting - what we see is a complex structure arising that was not explicitly programmed, because the ant is simply given a set of rules and allowed to move for as long as necessary. It is literally a design without a designer!

I feel that it refutes the idea that no new information can arise - as it obviously has in this case. I also feel that it shows that complex designs do not require a designer - so it is entirely possible that complex biological designs are possible without divine intervention.

Here's another program demonstrating the same principle by Data on the same thread

Check out my take on it.

Click the mouse to start a new ant.

Filename.. Antz.exe

http://exec.orcon.net.nz/

Intelligent Design is supposed to be "proof" that God exists (let's not kid ourselve here, we all know that IDists mean the Christian God, not just some anonymous, generic, Creative Force). However, to "prove" that there is such a thing AS intelligent design, one must first assume that a Creator, acting as an Intelligent Designer, exists. ID is NOT a logically consistent, reasonable theory because one escaped this paradox simply defining the primordial creator as being omnipotent and uncaused (back to the old cosomological argument, something that IDists like William Craig and Johnson do all the time in whatever failed version they try to drag up). That is a case of circular reasoning based on special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking oneself (or those one has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption (Ex. God is the omnipotent, uncaused cause and doesn't require an explanation or evidence).

It is a logical fallacy, because IDists/creationists require certain rules to apply to evolution that they do not require their "deity" to adhere to. Furthermore, IDists usually attribute characteristics to this "deity" whose existence they are trying to prove in the first place! (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, uncaused, various combos of these = The IDists' "omnimax" God).

It is also a case of "circular" reasoning aka "begging the question", because in the IDist's case to support the existance of a deity, one must assume the Intelligent designer is God in order to prove God exists! Worse yet, is the intellectually dishonest trick of trying to escape this trap (caught in the trap of "circularity") by trying to "plead" that God is the "transcendent, uncaused cause". PULLEEZE!!! With that kind of "logic" one can prove anything!

If your God indeed designed "creation", then He should be fired as an engineer! What follows is just a very small list of "god-awful" designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones. Designs are not "optimal" (what one expects from an "omnimax" God), but "Rube Goldberg", ad hoc designs the arise from natural selection. The design "selected" is one that works. The one that works isn't always the "best" or "optimal" design. Here is a list of other sub-optimal designs that would not be expected of an Intelligent Designer(s?), but are well-explained by the the untelligent "designer", natural selection.

Oolon's Big List of Suboptimal Designs Note: this may be a "long list" but it is by no means an exhaustive one.

IMO, the concept of so-called Intelligent Design is a form of blasmphemy because it claims that designs like the above are the direct creations of "god". Ironic, considering that ID is supposed to be "proof" that "god(s?--why not Mulitiple Designers?) exists, but the designs attributed to Him aren't an shining example of His alleged omnipotence. Think about it...

In short, there is no need for a supernatural entity (-ies? why not creation by Divine Committee™?) to "zap up" either life, specific organisms or parts of organisms when chemistry and natural selection will do the job just fine. As WinAce has already demonstrated, if such a supernatural entity (-ies?) is responsible for personally designing each and every species as it is today, then such a Being(s?) is(are) really bad designer(s?).

For those who think Micheal Behe with his "irreducibly complex" designs has the answer, HERE is a refutation (a good summary)

BTW, as others have pointed out, it is impossible for someone to "prove that something exists".

Why the Burden of Proof is Yours

Oh and before I forget KUDOS to WinAce for his examples on the first page of this thread of suboptimal designs...

 

[USincognito]

LOL man ... that is one scary frown!

I think he was going for a scowl. You need jowls in order to have a good scowl.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

You remind me of someone from Monty Python!

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of ants and design,

Here is a similar game, called the game of life,
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

And an evolution simulation program that treats computer code as the DNA of "organisms." Although much more complicated than the other two programs, it can be used as evidence that IC (irreducibly complex) systems can form from evolution.
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

 

[Citizen of Earth]

Speaking of ants and design,

Here is a similar game, called the game of life,
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

And an evolution simulation program that treats computer code as the DNA of "organisms." Although much more complicated than the other two programs, it can be used as evidence that IC (irreducibly complex) systems can form from evolution.
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

That's a great simulation, Arikay.

Could not one almost think of the repeating designs as inanimate objects, such as rocks?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

To th OP. While you may not be able to empricly proove that something does not exist-especially the nontangible non visable kind- you can logically show that it does not exist. There have been numerous proofs that god doesn't exist. Of course, this is only logic, not science. (IF you would like a couple of examples, either PM me or post here, and I will be happy to oblige you).

However, science can rationally explain the universe fully without resorting to final causes (such as reasons or creators like GOD). Science reaches for efficiant causes, and ONLY efficiant causes, and has no need for the supernatural. While science does not exactly presupose that god does not exists, it certianly discounts it.

This is exactly why evolution is precieved as such a threat to christianity, because it allows for an incredibly complex sustem with the appearance of design, without actually having a designer. It is precisly becasue of evolution that atheism has become repsectable.

One last thing, your questiuon is a loaded one. When you ask "can you proove that there is no IDer?" you are presuposing that there is an IDer. Instead, you should try and prove that there is one, because you are making the (extraordinairy) claim, so it your job to provide extra ordiniary evidence for your claim.

 

[Philosoft]

the world would appear to be intelligently designed.

Can you point me in the direction of the non-intelligently designed world to which you're comparing?

 

[monkenstick]

the existence of broken genes in various genomes is fairly convincing evidence against intelligent design

 

[Jet Black]

Can you point me in the direction of the non-intelligently designed world to which you're comparing?

here?

 

[Philosoft]

here?

 

[franklin]

Can you prove the intelligent designer doesn't exist? (i.e. the intelligent designer of the universe and the biological and physical world)

Can you prove that the intelligent designer you claim exists didn't have a creator ?