Who designed the ID designer(s)?

RAZD in his OP seems to think he has provided some sort of deductive logical proof that belief in ID must be faith based rather than the result of poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from poor....or any number of other conceivable causes.But as far as I can tell his definition of "faith" simply entails there being an absence of genuine objective empirical evidence and has little to do with why people actually believe the silly things that they do.So this thread ultimately boils down to pointing out that there is no actual objective empirical scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design.Which could have been done without all the additional complications of deductive proofs or desigenrs of designers.

What if the person in question honestly and genuinely (albeit erroneously) believes that they do have "actual objective empirical evidence" for Intelligent Design is that belief still a form of faith?Were those who believed in the existence of a luminiferous ether believing on the basis of faith? What about those who believed that Piltdown man was the "missing link"....? Rather all-encompassing I would say.

OK. So as long as one genuinely believes that there is objective empirical scientific evidence it isn't faith. Right? Well let's consider a hypothetical IDist. An IDist who has genuinely concluded ID on the basis of what he genuinely (albeit wrongly) considers to be objective empirical scientific evidence. He is asked - "Who designed the designer?"After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly".Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be).Do you think this is faith?

But they honestly beieve that they do have the requisite evidence. So how is this different to Piltdown man (for example) in terms of being a faith based conclusion?

Well what if they don't do that? What if they cite the evidence on which they believe Intelligent Design? What if after you demonstrate to them why this evidence is not as good as the evidence for naturalistic answers they say "Fair enough. My previous belief was based on poor evidence. I realise this now"....?Did they previously believe ID on the basis of faith or just poor reasoning and/or ignorance regarding evidence?

What "nature"...?

But not by my hypothetical IDist.Why is he tarred with the "faith" brush....?

His tentative position is taken on the basis of the objective empirical scientific evidence that he genuinely believes to exist plus parsimony.It can certainly be wrong. But How can that be faith? Look RAZ can make a load of flawed definitions, provide a bunch of scales based on those flawed definitions and then construct a deductive proof based on these definitions and scales. It is all internally consistent and kinda convincing in it's own circular RAZlike way.But the idea that you can prove that a particular belief must be faith based rather than derived from poor reasoning or poor evidence or whatever is just silly.

Obviously not if the Intelligent Design proponent in question is a Hindu (or indeed any other form of non-Christian IDist)

quote:

---

The phrase intelligent design gets a lot of currency these days, from both its champions and foes. Its proponents contend that the organized structure found within the universe indicates an intelligent cause whereas its opponents claim that undirected natural processes are enough. I have heard some people claim that the notion of intelligent design is merely an attempt to repackage Christian creationism in a respectable way. But, this is clearly false. It’s a Hindu notion as well.

​

People with an interest in Indian philosophical and religious traditions will find it noteworthy that many of classical Hinduism’s greatest thinkers subscribe to a notion of intelligent design. To my knowledge, one of the earliest instances of the term intelligent designer is found in Sanskrit philosophical literature.

---

Creation, Karma, and Intelligent Design in Nyaya and Vedanta

Whether such an IDist actually exists or not has little bearing on the silliness of the idea that a deductive proof has been provided. Darwin himself would surely qualify? The full extract is well worth a read.