The Undesigned Designer

[Barry Desborough]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

Why do you care what those people think?

And "some people" come here and try to tear down those that are very happy with their believes because they are so insecure with their own lack there of...and that doesn't bother me that much.

Most of us aren't so insecure we have to do the same by hanging out at an Atheists site, so at the very least, consider the fact we may be on to something.

 

[Galatea]

On the contrary, the very fact that we CAN find things out, and the things we find out are based on logic and laws point to a designer.

If everything was haphazard and senseless, that would seem more like the universe had no designer and just "happened".

I know there are some strong arguments for evolution and the absence of a creator, but this is not one of them.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Why do you care what those people think?

And "some people" come here and try to tear down those that are very happy with their believes because they are so insecure with their own lack there of...and that doesn't bother me that much.

Most of us aren't so insecure we have to do the same by hanging out at an Atheists site, so at the very least, consider the fact we may be on to something.

With Mike Pence and Betsy DeVos threatening to wreak havoc in science education in the States, I'm very bothered. Read this to see where I'm coming from. Veritas: ERV FAQ: Aren't you just a plagiarist? Why don't you attribute your sources? And who are you anyway?

 

[Barry Desborough]

On the contrary, the very fact that we CAN find things out, and the things we find out are based on logic and laws point to a designer.

If everything was haphazard and senseless, that would seem more like the universe had no designer and just "happened".

I know there are some strong arguments for evolution and the absence of a creator, but this is not one of them.

I'm merely pointing out that the "there must have been a designer" argument shoots itself in the foot. (Or the head.)

 

[Galatea]

I'm merely pointing out that the "there must have been a designer" argument shoots itself in the foot. (Or the head.)

No, you are pointing out that the argument "that we can know and find out about the universe, therefore it must not have a designer" is ridiculous. Logic would state otherwise.

Vice versa, you are pointing out that "since we can not know everything about the universe, it must have a designer" is a dumb argument for Creation. I don't accept this fallacy, anyway.

I am saying, since we CAN know some things about the universe and it works on laws and logic, then our knowledge points to a Creator.

I can look at a house and certainly not know how it was made, but the simple fact that it works as a system and follows a plan, lets me know there must have been an architecht.

I am saying if we could not figure out anything, or if the universe made no sense at all- like a random, haphazard pile of sticks that did not function as a system, I would think "this chaos has no Creator."

I don't think very many people accept the fallacy you are trying to debunk.

 

[Barry Desborough]

No, you are pointing out that the argument "that we can know and find out about the universe, therefore it must not have a designer" is ridiculous. Logic would state otherwise.

Vice versa, you are pointing out that "since we can not know everything about the universe, it must have a designer" is a dumb argument for Creation. I don't accept this fallacy, anyway.

I am saying, since we CAN know some things about the universe and it works on laws and logic, then our knowledge points to a Creator.

I can look at a house and certainly not know how it was made, but the simple fact that it works as a system and follows a plan, lets me know there must have been an architecht.

I am saying if we could not figure out anything, or if the universe made no sense at all- like a random, haphazard pile of sticks that did not function as a system, I would think "this chaos has no Creator."

I don't think very many people accept the fallacy you are trying to debunk.

Please don't tell me what I am pointing out. I'll do my own pointing, thankyou. I'm basically saying, "If everything must have had a designer, why is the designer an exception"?

Separate points: 1) It is theologically dangerous to rely on gods of the gaps arguments. If a gap gets filled, you end up looking silly, and having nothing to base your faith upon. This is what has happened with evolution-denying creationism. 2) There is no good reason why the universe owes it to us to be comprehensible to us. Our ideas of what constitute "laws" and "logic" could well be very parochial. Much better to believe because you want to believe, (if you do).

 

[Galatea]

Please don't tell me what I am pointing out. I'll do my own pointing, thankyou. I'm basically saying, "If everything must have had a designer, why is the designer an exception"?

Separate points: 1) It is theologically dangerous to rely on gods of the gaps arguments. If a gap gets filled, you end up looking silly, and having nothing to base your faith upon. This is what has happened with evolution-denying creationism. 2) There is no good reason why the universe owes it to us to be comprehensible to us. Our ideas of what constitute "laws" and "logic" could well be very parochial. Much better to believe because you want to believe, (if you do).

What are gods of gaps?

I believe in Gap Theory.

I believe, but I also believe there are evidences if we have the eyes to see them. Fingerprints, if you will.

 

[Barry Desborough]

What are gods of gaps?

I believe in Gap Theory.

I believe, but I also believe there are evidences if we have the eyes to see them. Fingerprints, if you will.

Gods of gaps are any instances where someone says, "I don't understand (insert phenomenon/puzzle here) therefore (insert favourite god here)."

I'm saying that this is an argument from personal incredulity - a fallacy.

So what are these "fingerprints"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer.

Not me.

I don't believe you guys half-way understand it.

"Fully" is expecting too much.

 

[timewerx]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

The Bible doesn't go further down that detail unfortunately.

The Gnostics seem to have an answer but they are considered heretics.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Not me.

I don't believe you guys half-way understand it.

"Fully" is expecting too much.

I agree. In the words of Dawkins,

"Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention."

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree. In the words of Dawkins,

"Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention."

I thought he was against it?

 

[Barry Desborough]

I thought he was against it?

He's against pseudoscience of all flavours.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's against pseudoscience of all flavours.

Including Lamarckism and Phlogiston theory?

How did we get our moon, according to him?

How did we get our moon, according to you?

There are some ten different theories, each supported by evidence.

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

So even if one was right, that means the other nine are pseudoscience, doesn't it?

 

[xianghua]

I know there are some strong arguments for evolution and the absence of a creator

such as?

 

[xianghua]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

if he internal he dont need a designer. we know that nature have a beginning so its not the same situation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people think that because we don't fully understand how life, the universe and everything came about, it must have been designed by a designer. This is a basic fallacy, known as the fallacy of personal incredulity. The irony is that it is never applied to the supposed designer itself. All sorts of special pleadings are employed to try and argue that the undesigned designer is an exception to the "logic" that is being used.

Until we find out more, what is so unacceptable about admitting that we don't fully know or understand?

I think the entire problem with the "designer" argument can be summed up in a single, rather famous, statement:

"You can not explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable"

 

[Barry Desborough]

Including Lamarckism and Phlogiston theory?

How did we get our moon, according to him?

How did we get our moon, according to you?

There are some ten different theories, each supported by evidence.

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

So even if one was right, that means the other nine are pseudoscience, doesn't it?

I don't think you understand the nature of scientific knowledge, nor what is meant by pseudoscience. There may be many different competing hypotheses concerning certain natural phenomenon. That doesn't make them pseudoscience. Pseudoscience - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you care what those people think?

Because they actively lobby to impose their religious beliefs upon a secular society.
Any good patriot should oppose such activity.