Who designed the ID designer(s)?

Thanks for the message.

Hi Catholic Scientist, Belief without evidence is faith, faith that you believe your conclusion/etc is true. If you don't believe it is true then it is not a belief.Belief Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

---

Faith Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

faith —noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

---

If you argue that a validly formed logical deduction not based on evidence is not faith, then you are still employing faith that the premises that lead to the conclusion are true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Okay, but the evidence doesn't have to be objective and empirical.The logical deduction, itself, could be the evidence.On the other hand, you could just as easily use this line or argument to say that everything is faith-based.You even have to have faith that the evidence you're seeing is real, but I don't see any merit in going that route.

---

Where you been? Your health holding up?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Hi Catholic Scientist,Getting a bit off-topic (as are most of the latest replies) . . . . . . yet that is just subjective evidence, good (perhaps) for making up opinions . . . certainly it cannot be used as the evidence for the logical deduction itself, though, as that would be self-referential. Indeed. The Buddhist position that all is illusion, and the scientific position that all knowledge is ultimately tentative come together at this point.In science we make one "faith-based" assumption that the objective empirical evidence is representative of reality, then follow the trail of objective empirical evidence with logical reasoning to determine what is most likely to be true. We infer with inductive logic to determine (hypothesize) what we think might be true, and deduce tests to check the hypothesis. Anything not contradicted by invalidating evidence is possible to be true, but is still only hypothetical unless confirming evidence is available to give it tentative support.A theory is a tested hypothesis, tested by objective empirical evidence, where the hypothesis passes validation tests and survived invalidation tests. Even then, after many tests, a theory is still a tentative explanation for observed objective empirical evidence. Yes, we can assume that it is real and proceed on that basis, subject to revision when\if more information becomes available. When you move away from objective and empirical evidence then the only elements you have left are a priori opinions & beliefs (ie world views) and logical deductions based on current knowledge (hypothetical concepts).Mind you, you could have personal experience that has not been replicated\validated\confirmed\tested, and this could lead you to form conclusions that would not be reached by people not having that experience (the aware conscious observer alone in the woods of previous threads).A subjective experience can thus be used as a basis for your conclusion, however (imho) that is still a personal conclusion that should be regarded as opinion. Subjective evidence (religious experiences) could lead people to conclude that god/z exist, however that is a side issue to the topic.The OP (Message 1) was written in 2004, almost 7 years ago, and as yet no-one has refuted the logic of the argument that there are four categories involving the existence (or not) of Intelligent Designers:

quote:

---

(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR

​

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

​

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

​

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

---

These categories all end up with belief in an Intelligent Designer being a matter of faith. Is there a fifth category where it isn't?You mention belief based on evidence, but now we have whittled away at that to the point where we have taken away objective empirical evidence (and none has yet been provided) to support their existence, so we are left with subjective evidence, appropriate for opinion and belief . . . which is still faith in my book.Belief in alien visitations without objective empirical evidence is faith.Belief in sasquatch\yeti without objective empirical evidence is faith.Belief in Intelligent Design without objective empirical evidence is faith.It is not science.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Dear intellen,Please stop playing games and address the issue of the thread: is belief in Intelligent Design (new, old, indifferent) based on faith as laid out in Message 1:

quote:

---

(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR

​

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

​

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

​

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

---

Is there a fifth category that I have missed? These are examples of what I call mental masturbation. You "define" intelligence to fit your observation, then "experiment" to show that your observation fits your definition of intelligence, and use that to conclude that intelligence exists in nature to support your faith that Intelligent Designers exist, using a different definition of intelligence for the designer.It is circular logic, it is false logic. Amazing then that we can actually measure intelligence in apes according to existing definitions of intelligence in humans: see google: ape intelligence measurement -- About 1,790,000 results (0.20 seconds)

quote:

---

Scholarly articles for ape intelligence measurement

​

The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence - Byrne - Cited by 650
Intelligence of apes and other rational beings - Rumbaugh - Cited by 105
Evolution of the brain and intelligence - Roth - Cited by 198

---

and Google Scholar: ape intelligence measurement -- Results 1 - 10 of about 21,100. (0.12 sec)Does the fact that we can measure intelligence in other animals mean that they are intelligently designed?No, it means they have intelligence. Real "how" answer: the bacteria evolved via mutation and selection, where mutation offered the possibility to use nylon as a food source, and selection for the increased survival ability of those with the mutation to use an additional food source.This, by the way, is a tested and verified "how" -- the kind of question science answers.btw "how come" is not "how" it is "why" . . . but I put this down to the obvious trouble you have with the english language (not your native language evidently). If you can quantify intelligence then please show me the measurements of intelligence for humans and apes so that they can be compared? Then measure the intelligence of an oak tree for comparison.If you can't do that then you don't have a quantifyable measurement. So how many tissues will it take to support a human? a Gorilla? is this how you measure the intelligence of these species?In other words you are NOT measuring intelligence but the resistance of tissue paper to falling eggs. You could use leaves instead, does that mean that the leaf is intelligent? You could use cannonballs - does that make the cannonball intelligent? Curiously, the ToE does remarkably well at explaining the objective empirical evidence we have that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities -- occurs and has occurred, and that it appears to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil record and the genetic record.The ToE makes no claim to be able to measure intelligence.Again, going back to the google scholar reports, the first three of them on the first page of results are:

quote:

---

[BOOK] The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence
R Byrne - 1995 - questia.com
... 158. Further reading, 161. 11 Apes and language, 162. Cognitive foundations for language in animals, 163. ... Estimating intelligence, 212. Brain enlargement reflects intelligence, 213. Allometry: getting the right scale of measurement, 214. Primate brain sizes, 215. ...

​

Evolution of the brain and intelligence
G Roth - Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2005 - Elsevier
... on the view that mental or behavioral flexibility is a good measure of intelligence ... Using mental and behavioral flexibility as a criterion for intelligence, among tetrapod vertebrates, mammals ... Among primates, apes come out as more intelligent than monkeys, and monkeys more ...
Cited by 198 - Related articles - All 18 versions

​

Intelligence as an emergent behavior; or, the songs of eden
WD Hillis - Daedalus, 1988 - JSTOR
... independent of representation. The measure suggested below is simple and important, if not sufficient. ... necessary to sustain symbolic intelligence? An ape is a complex sensory-motor machine, and it is possible that much of this complex ity is necessary to sustain intelligence. ...

---

That looks like there are a lot of quantifiable measurements made to determine the relative intelligence of apes, humans, and monkeys: measurements that can be applied to other species, measurements that can be replicated by other scientists -- unlike your system.But that is off-topic, the topic is whether belief in Intelligent Design is faith.Do you believe in "egg falling does not break through 8 sheets of tissue" design?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : uote not s

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

So that boils down to a hunch, then?

I see. I do understand your position better, I just don't agree with your usage of the word "faith" here.And you also seem to be dichotomizing it too much for my preferences, in that your leaning too much towards: "its either science or its faith"I think you're diluting the meaning of "faith" here, from the kind of usage people mean when they say, like, that they have faith in Jesus.A guy that saw a UFO and now believes that aliens are real is operating under a differ "thing" than a Jesus freak. I suppose that both of those things could be called "faith", but I don't see your arguments here as acknowledging that there is a difference.You seem to be suggesting that belief in ID is more like the faith of the Jesus freak, and I'm trying to show you that if its more like the UFO guy, then calling it out as faith isn't all that helpful.

The fact that something is not science does not mean that it is faith. This is a false dichotomy.You cannot prove that a form of belief is adopted on the basis of faith rather than poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from bad or any number of other possible reasons for belief. Your silly idea that you can logically prove that something is a form of faith is non-sensical to the point of stupidity.

Hi again Catholic Scientist, thanks. Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence or proof:

quote:

---

faith -- n

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
   
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
   
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )
8. bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
9. good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )

​

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009

---

I have not said it is a dichotomy. The reason that I mention the fact that ID is not science is because IDologists frequently claim that it is -- not because there is no middle grey area between science and faith, especially religious faith - definition #4 - which is where I see your position on faith leaning, and where I see ID being, because it is based on a priori beliefs.There is a spectrum of beliefs, from pure science to pure faith, where science is supported by objective empirical evidence, and faith is not supported by logic nor evidence. In between we have experiences we believe are true, they are based on the evidence of our experience, but do not meet the rigor of testing and attempts to invalidate concepts that is part of pure science. If we take deism - the original ID, btw - as the cutoff between religious faith and non-religious faith, then we can say that anything with an a priori belief in the existence of god/s is religious faith. Agreed, the UFO guy is not basing his belief on an a priori faith in the existence of aliens that have visited earth, but on a personal experience. This, of course, goes back to the long discussion with Straggler (and others) on the value and use of subjective evidence, and this is where the issue of faith vs science becomes muddy.As I said previously:

quote:

---

When you move away from objective and empirical evidence then the only elements you have left are a priori opinions & beliefs (ie world views) and logical deductions based on current knowledge (hypothetical concepts).

---

Logical deductions based on current knowledge do not get us to the hypothesis that there are Intelligent Designer/s -- that requires an a priori opinions or belief that god/s exist . . . or evidence that god/s exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I would like to discuss who the common ancestors are/is/were?I would also like to know how we got here? You know, our origins. Oh, you don't know. You say "the TOE only deals with existing life, go look up Abiogenesis".Abiogensis is far from being in agreement on most things. As for the TOE it doesn't deal with origins. Well neither does ID. Do you know what ID is? Why would you be so concerned about who designed the designer if you couldn't care less about how you got here? It's a hypocritical question. Once you've figured out your origins and the buck hasn't been passed to abiogenesis then you can ask who designed the designer.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck77,One of the things this board tries to do is keep threads on specific topics, rather than wander all over the place like most other boards. Once you get used to this idea you will see how useful it is for pursuing specific questions. An excellent topic for a new thread (or finding an existing thread on this topic), noting that this thread is not about common ancestry, it is off-topic on this thread. One of the things you will run into are definition aspects to the question. I think that you would agree that you and I share a common ancestor back in Homo sapiens past, although we may disagree how far back that is, and that is only dealing with humans. This would also be an excellent topic for a new thread (or finding an existing thread on this topic), noting that this thread is not about origins of life, it is off-topic on this thread. I agree that we don't know -- the oldest rocks known that could have fossils already show life had evolved before those rock sediments were laid down, some 3.5 billion years ago; there is no record preceding that, so no, we don't know. It may be abiogenesis (by any one of several possible means, it may be that life was carried here (panspermia) or it could be creation of one form or another.These two new topic suggestions could be combined into one, as you are likely talking about the earliest common ancestor, and that is part of the origin of life.Note that there is a whole forum on this board dedicated to OOL: Origin of Life, so look around it and see if one existing thread addressees your questions. Which is true of most science. Science does not claim absolute knowledge of anything, and new fields (like abiogenesis) have a lot of uncertainty and disagreement. They are making interesting progress, though, in developing possible scenarios. Here I presume you mean Origin of LIfe (OOL) rather than new species arising, and this would be better covered by that new (or the found existing) thread on this topic. Simplistically, ID is the faith that an intelligent designer designed some aspect of the universe. Most IDologists are christians rather than people really committed to the concepts of intelligent design.Do you know what Deism is? Here's a hint: Is ID properly pursued? (note that thread predates this one). LOL. How do you know whether or not abiogenesis and evolution are not mechanisms used by the intelligent designer in forming the world\universe we have around us?I look forward to further discussion on one of the OOL threads, just so you don't think I am brushing you off here.I also look forward to your reply on the Correlations thread, btw.Now, can you offer a fifth possibility to the four listed in Message 1?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

RAZD, your far to superior for me to debate with as i'll end up looking foolish (i've read a lot of your posts) so i'll keep it simple for mysake.So what if it takes faith to agree with ID, when we look at the complexity of things I suppose we are choosing between only two things, to design or not to design. Being that im a Christian I choose to believe we were designed. Maybe it depends on what backround we come from, that determines out beliefs. The heart, eye, eardrum etc are all there, that's the proof. I choose to believe that they were designed. Some might argue the design of these things is "flimsy", like the eye for example OR God chose to do it that way. So yes, I agree that ID is a form of faith. Maybe if one were to accept it as such, down the road they would appreciate it as the handiwork of a Creator.So, to choose one of your staments I would choose #2 as having always existed, and with that conclude (based on your assertion) that it's a form of faith.

Yes. 100% it depends on your background. Had you been raised in India, you would not be making these claims despite living on the same planet and having access to the same evidence. Here's the problem we have with people like you.These two sentences are completely contradictory.If you "choose to believe" you are doing so in the _absence of proof_.
If you are claiming you have proof, then you are no longer working off belief.I do not "believe" that I have a dog. I KNOW that I have a dog. I have proof that I have a dog.Creationists make statements like: "Well, this is what I believe, and I shouldn't have to defend it".
But the ALSO want to make statements like: "Here's the proof"As SOON AS you start to offer "proof", you forfeit your right to claim "this is what I believe".As SOON AS you start to offer "proof", you are subject to having that proof evaluated. You are forced to explain WHY this "proof" is "proof" at all.So, take a moment. Stop and think it through.Then, if you want to talk about what you believe, go share it with someone from your church. No one else cares. If your beliefs are unchanging and based solely on what your mother told you as a child, there's no reason to share them with us.However, if you want to talk PROOF and FACTS, then be prepared to back up any claims you make.

Well, RAZD cares, that's why I was responding to HIM. Im sorry that my opinion to RAZD has come as offending to you, maybe you should have just skipped over it and saved yourself the time.Incidently, when I said the ears, eye etc. is proof I WASNT saying it's PROOF of a Creater I was saying it's ALL our proof to do with it as we wish, weather we want to believe it was designed or not.BTW, I answered RAZD's question in my post that he asked me to do. You did not, your way off topic, are you new here? I think a big ole OFF TOPIC BANNER should be PLASTERED TO YOUR POST. You seem incapable of following a specific topic. I can't stand posters who go off topic. You owe RAZD an apology for being a dimwit and putting your nose where it doesnt belong. Believe me RAZD is smart enough to handle his own and doesnt need YOUR help defending him. Somehow you took offence to me simply explaining myself to RAZD so he knew where I was coming from. WHY? Don't answer, I don't care. You seem like a real D**K to attack me like that. You get off on it? Maybe you should learn how to conduct yourself in public. Im sure you don't get involved in many debates so you take what you can get. No suprise there. Good luck.

And you seem like a moron, but I was willing to keep it civil until you spouted off.The fact of the matter is this, the "V" in EVC is "versus".If you don't want to have your beliefs confronted, DON'T POST THEM.It's really simple. It's PAINFULLY simple.If you shut up and go away, you'll never hear from anyone who disagrees with you. If you want to stick around, then you are going to have to put up with people who are unwilling to let you say stupid things without calling you on it.It's your choice.