Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

[Freodin]

I shall respond to this with a question:

"Would the existence of the electronic device you used to post that comment be best explained by :

A. Its existence was the result of natural forces and matter acting upon other matter over a period of time with no intelligent mind superintending the process.

Or..

B. Its existence was the result of the creative mind of the engineer who designed it and made it?

Surely, you will answer "B".

But if you answer "B", then you are unknowingly agreeing with the concept underlying I.D. arguments. That concept is that design is evidence of a designer.

No sincere academic would deny this very simple premise. And notice that the word "evidence" is used here. Evidence must always be interpreted by each individual "weighing" the evidence.

So the actual question is not: "is design evidence of a designer?" That is patently obvious. But the question is: "is there (what we would refer to as) "design" in the universe that cannot be sufficiently explained by utilizing a purely naturalistic explanation.

Obviously you would say no. You would say that everything that exists is not the handiwork of a creator but that our universe is simply what "is" and as such "just exists" as a brute fact.

But this is the very reason why your argument fails as a valid argument in philosophy.

Throughout this line of thought is the assumption that naturalism/atheism is true. But this is never proven. It "begs the question" for naturalism.

In order for this line to work, one would have to first give a compelling argument for believing atheism is true. But the strongest argument one can use for the non existence of God would be the argument from evil/suffering.

But several plausible theodicies handle this objection.



As long as you are begging the question, you will never be able to formulate a sound argument against I.D.

I fear it is you who is begging the question here.

You cannot start with an example that we know is designed - because we humans did the designing and are aware of the processes that were involved - and then ask what the best explanation is. You would have to find something that is of unknown origin, and then find evidence for "design" or not.

It is this kind of "evidence for design" that I am still waiting for.

One approach - not completely conclusive, but at least an attempt - would be to look at the methods from which something originated.

But here "atheism/materialism" wins out. We do know of methods beyond "intelligent design" that can form certain types of objects. And we do know how the kind of "intelligent design" works that forms other kinds of objects.

Yet we haven't seen a single instance of the proposed "divine" method of "intelligent design".

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Where is this sound evidence of ID you guys keep promising? The anticipation is killing me.

 

[quatona]

I shall respond to this with a question:

"Would the existence of the electronic device you used to post that comment be best explained by :

A. Its existence was the result of natural forces and matter acting upon other matter over a period of time with no intelligent mind superintending the process.

Or..

B. Its existence was the result of the creative mind of the engineer who designed it and made it?

Surely, you will answer "B".

Yes, mainly because I know that electronic devices have been and are invented and built by humans.

But if you answer "B", then you are unknowingly agreeing with the concept underlying I.D. arguments. That concept is that design is evidence of a designer.

Yes, that´s not a "concept underlying I.D. arguments", though - it´s tautologically true, trivial, and (knowingly) undisputed.


The question now is: How do we recognize "design" - particularly when we neither know that the object is designed, nor know that there is a designer nor know anything about the process by which this object may be designed?

Plus - and I have said it before: The appeal to our usual ways of discerning designed objects from undesigned objects is absurd once you want to use it to show that *everything* is designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, mainly because I know that electronic devices have been and are invented and built by humans.

And even more importantly, if we leave a mommy and daddy computer together we don't get a baby computer a few months later that is an imperfect copy of daddy and mommy computer.

Also, computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[Elioenai26]

Thus far, the line of reasoning from the atheist camp is:

1. I.D. is false because it is unsubstantiated.
2. Computers are evidence of a designer because we know that computers are designed by designers.

Now, 1 is actually a statement that is self defeating for the person who believes 1. and provides no sound argument for it. The reason why is that no one has actually demonstrated that I.D. is unsubstantiated. Which means that the assertion "I.D. is false because it isitself, unsubstantiated", is itself false because it is not substantiated. Until someone comes up with some type of valid argument as to why I.D is false, the proposition "I.D. is false because it is unsubstantiated", remains an opinion.

2. You all have agreed with me this whole time regarding the implications of evidence of design. When we see a computer, we assume that it was designed by a human. We assume this because it would not be rational to believe that the components of the computer somehow caused themselves to be what they are and assemble themselves together into a functional computer. We see evidence of design, we assume a designer. And rightly so.

So I will ask the atheist camp: "What is the point you all were trying to make?"

 

[Gadarene]

So I will ask the atheist camp: "What is the point you all were trying to make?"

The rest of the stuff you left out, Eliarnai.

 

[quatona]

Thus far, the line of reasoning from the atheist camp is:

1. I.D. is false because it is unsubstantiated.
2. Computers are evidence of a designer because we know that computers are designed by designers.

Now, 1 is actually a statement that is self defeating for the person who believes 1. The reason why is that no one has actually demonstrated that I.D. is unsubstantiated. Which means that the assertion "I.D. is false because it isitself, unsubstantiated", is itself false because it is not substantiated. Until someone comes up with some type of valid argument as to why I.D is false, the proposition "I.D. is false because it is unsubstantiated", remains an opinion.

2. You all have agreed with me this whole time regarding the implications of evidence of design. When we see a computer, we assume that it was designed by a human. We assume this because it would not be rational to believe that the components of the computer somehow caused themselves to be what they are and assemble themselves together in a functional computer. We see evidence of design, we assume a disgner. And rightly so.

So I will ask the atheist camp: "What is the point you all were trying to make?"

In order to understand the point a poster is trying to make you would have to read his indidvidual post carefully - instead of addressing "the atheist camp" by summarizing what all posts have in common (and falsely, at that - e.g. as far as I am concerned I have neither said nor implied that "ID is false because it is unsubstantiated"; actually I do not even recall having seen this being said until you said it).
Until you aren´t willing or able to do that no further explanation will help you understand the points made.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So I will ask the atheist camp: "What is the point you all were trying to make?"

That ID has no predictive value, and is unnecessary for science to work.

ID is dead dogma, defeated in court, and useless in the real world.

Furthermore, I contend that the only reason you espouse an ID viewpoint is because of your religious beliefs.

So, again, where is this earth shattering evidence ya'll keep chattering about.

 

[quilbilly]

So far it looks like everyone agrees that computers and figures on mt rushmore were designed. By humans. Therefore we know things are designed
After that it gets kind of confusing. One poster says everything is designed. Another says that could mean that humans could have designed the universe. Ok so far but I've seen beavers build a dam!bees build a hive and moles build tunnels. So obviously animals design


Looks like design theory needs a little work. Intelligent or otherwise

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So far it looks like everyone agrees that computers and figures on mt rushmore were designed. By humans. Therefore we know things are designed
After that it gets kind of confusing. One poster says everything is designed. Another says that could mean that humans could have designed the universe. Ok so far but I've seen beavers build a dam!bees build a hive and moles build tunnels. So obviously animals design


Looks like design theory needs a little work. Intelligent or otherwise

Dawkin's "The Blind Watch Maker" explains all this very well.

(not that I would expect cdesign proponentsists to read anything written by an actual biologist.)

 

[Elioenai26]

So far it looks like everyone agrees that computers and figures on mt rushmore were designed. By humans. Therefore we know things are designed
After that it gets kind of confusing. One poster says everything is designed. Another says that could mean that humans could have designed the universe. Ok so far but I've seen beavers build a dam!bees build a hive and moles build tunnels. So obviously animals design


Looks like design theory needs a little work. Intelligent or otherwise

Intelligent design in its most basic understanding is simply espousing that design is evidence of a designer.

That assumption is the foundation of I.D. It is also a foundational assumption that everyone here thus far has admitted to believing is warranted. When we see evidence of design, that leads us to think that a very good explanation for said entity is that it was designed by something at least qualitatively equal to, if not greater than itself.

No one here would venture to say that Mount Rushmore formed over a period of millions of years by erosion and wind and rain acting upon the rock face. We wouldn't say that because it is virtually undeniable that some form of intelligence would have had to carve those heads and faces into the Mountain.

Now if something such as a couple of sculptures being carved into rock needs an intelligent cause as the explanation for its existence, why would not something such as the human eye, which by comparison is far more complex and intricate than a rock sculpture, need an intelligent designer as its ultimate explanation?

That simply seems logical no?

 

[quilbilly]

Intelligent design in its most basic understanding is simply espousing that design is evidence of a designer.

That assumption is the foundation of I.D. It is also a foundational assumption that everyone here thus far has admitted to believing is warranted. When we see evidence of design, that leads us to think that a very good explanation for said entity is that it was designed by something at least qualitatively equal to, if not greater than itself

That simply seems logical no?

Not logical at all

A snowflake looks designed but natural forces make it. Not sure how you could decide which is greater.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Intelligent design in its most basic understanding is simply espousing that design is evidence of a designer.

First things first. You keep ignoring the fact that you need to provide a working definition of "ID." You must do this before you proceed any further!

And you keep ignoring the fact that ID is extraneous to science, it's unnecessary, and has no predictive value.

Unless you provide a working definition of "ID," I'll have to back out of this conversation, as it will be pointless to continue.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not logical at all

A snowflake looks designed but natural forces make it. Not sure how you could decide which is greater.

Which is greater....the hammer....or the carpenter who wields the hammer?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Which is greater....the hammer....or the carpenter who wields the hammer?

It's starting to feel like we're "playing chess with pigeons."

 

[Non sequitur]

Intelligent design in its most basic understanding is simply espousing that design is evidence of a designer.

That assumption is the foundation of I.D. It is also a foundational assumption that everyone here thus far has admitted to believing is warranted. When we see evidence of design, that leads us to think that a very good explanation for said entity is that it was designed by something at least qualitatively equal to, if not greater than itself.

No one here would venture to say that Mount Rushmore formed over a period of millions of years by erosion and wind and rain acting upon the rock face. We wouldn't say that because it is virtually undeniable that some form of intelligence would have had to carve those heads and faces into the Mountain.

Now if something such as a couple of sculptures being carved into rock needs an intelligent cause as the explanation for its existence, why would not something such as the human eye, which by comparison is far more complex and intricate than a rock sculpture, need an intelligent designer as its ultimate explanation?

That simply seems logical no?

That does (sorta) sounds logical, so let's stay on the logic train. (You can't depart at Begging-the-Question Station and re-board.)

Who designed the intelligent designer?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That does (sorta) sounds logical, so let's stay on the logic train. (You can't depart at Begging-the-Question Station and re-board.)

Who designed the intelligent designer?

Another really intelligent designer of designers.

 

[Non sequitur]

Another really intelligent designer of designers.

That is very logical... let's do more logic! We'll finally figure it out!

What or who designed the really intelligent designer of designers?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That is very logical... let's do more logic! We'll finally figure it out!

What or who designed the really intelligent designer of designers?

Oh, that's easy, the really really intelligent ultimate designer of designers, and it designed itself, because it's soooo intelligent. How's that for a logic bomb? BOOM!

 

[Elioenai26]

That does (sorta) sounds logical, so let's stay on the logic train. (You can't depart at Begging-the-Question Station and re-board.)

Who designed the intelligent designer?

Who said the Intelligent Designer was designed?

I surely did not say that.