Who designed the ID designer(s)?

Who designed the ID designer(s)?I would like to address the problem of "who designed the designer(s)" -- even though ID proponents adamantly argue that the question is not relevant to the science involved, because I feel it is very relevant to the issue of whether ID is a faith or not. As such, I suggest that it be put in the {Faith and Belief} forum rather than the ID forum.I claim (here and elsewhere) that ID is de facto a form of faith.Now, let us evaluate the alternatives to see the result:(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).Ergo, ID is de facto a form of faith.Q.E.D.Note that this is a logical construction and therefore is dependant on the inherent truth of the statements to be a valid proof of the conclusions.Absent any refutation of the truth of these statements and the validity of the proof, this means that ID is a form of faith. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to the validity of the logical proof.Edited by RAZD, : removed {hide} per moose comment, and updated signature

---

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)

Point the first: Not one part of this whole post addresses the logical construction in the OT, thus leaving the logical conclusion of the OT intact and valid: ID is a form of faith is still a valid logical conclusion. Point the second: I said that ID is a weakened, form of Deism, as it relies on more assumptions of active supernatural activity and the "he did it" explanation. A more accurate equation would be {ID < Deism}. Thus this argument from ID man is a typical strawman and logically invalid on that basis. His argument also does not address the point that Deism is a form of faith (rather he confirms it), so this bit is an argument of misdirection and hides the fact he has no second term and no conclusion from this argument. This is logically incomplete. A logically incomplete argument is just an assertion, and not a valid logical proof of the claim. Point the third: ID man claims But in fact he fails to do so and thus fails to validate his claim in the manner that I did, thus this becomes an argument of ignorance, and is logically invalid. Point the fourth: ID man goes on to claim I have yet to see evidence of that logic, I have yet to see evidence that it is falsifiable. Every time an IC process has been raised by ID proponents there has been evidence provided that show it to be reducible, but beyond that, proving IC false does not prove ID false, so it is not a falsifiable test for ID. The only falsifiable test I can conceive for ID is to show that every single process is and has been through natural means, and though that is a tall order, I encourage the ID proponents to commence their work.This is an unsubstantiated claim and therefore (again) logically incomplete. A logically incomplete argument is just an assertion, and not a valid logical proof of the claim. Point the fifth: ID man goes on further to quote Paul Davies: This is an appeal to authority and logically questionable. The validity of the authority has not been established, the source is a book and not anything subject to peer review or held to a strict adherence to factual evidence, thus it could just as easily be science fiction. Further, the argument given by Davies is pure argument from incredulity (logically invalid), and the anthropic principle is a false argument, as it has not been confirmed as a necessary relationship rather than just a circumstantial one. This is a causal fallacy and logically invalid. Point the sixth: ID man goes on finally to claim Science does let the evidence lead us where it will. The problem with metaphysical elements is finding a way to determine them, measure them, quantify them. Science can only include evidence that can be determined, measured, quantified. This is true whether one posits a metaphysical agent tinkering with evidence or not. The problem here is affirming a metaphysical element must be included when there has been no evidence to support that. Another logically invalid argument. Conclusion: the statements by ID man have been invalidated on the basis of logical requirements, not one of his points addressed the logical construct of the OT, and thus the conclusion of the OT stands unchallenged.ID = faithFor more on logical fallacies please see; Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

off topic, but stick around.

I see that ID man has gone back to the OT in another attempt to discredit it, and then proceeded to dismiss my rebuttal of his first post. In the interest of conservation of attention I will combine both in my answers here. Nope, that would apply if I said that ID asked the question. I specifically stated that they don’t ask it, that in fact they try to avoid it. The problem is that Idists won’t address the question, and the question is inherent in the concept. It is part of the scientific curiosity approach to things: when a new artifact is discovered and somebody says this didn’t happen naturally, it was made somebody else is going to ask who made it? - the question just comes naturally. Nothing shown here against the OT. And yet, here you are arguing just that once more. And not for the first time on this forum. Your actions prove otherwise, sorry. And, btw, the actual statement was that the question is not relevant to the science involved and when you shorten it to that question the meaning changes (see strawman ). ooo now we have ad hominum (and still absent any logic argument ). No. It is a relevant question because of the rulings of the Supreme Court in relation to teachings based on faith in public school science classes, and it goes to the core of why Idist try to avoid the question. It is relevant because many people think that ID is just creationism lite designed to get a faithful foot in the door into those classes.This is also arguing style over substance, another logical fallacy that does not challenge the validity of the question or the argument of the OT.Forbidden Misuse of strawman again, and more style over substance. Add argument from incredulity to the list. I get to conclude that it is a form of faith because it necessarily involves belief in supernatural beings, part of the common dictionary definition of religion (Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.). To argue otherwise you need to show that it is false. You haven’t, therefore the argument in the OT is still valid. No, the truth of the statements relies on logic, to challenge them you have to show that either they are false or that the logical construction is false. You still haven’t done that, so the OT is still valid. Sounds like an appeal to pity (another logical fallacy), plus repeated appeal to authority (addressed before as a logical fallacy).Forbidden
ForbiddenFact is that you have not shown ID is evidence driven just made that claim several times. I could also claim that you have not read every book on evolution and thus are in no position to argue against it. An obvious fallacy.The quoted passage from Behe is all argument from incredulity, as logically invalid as the previous one quoted from Davies. And the cilium has been shown to be reducible into parts used for other purposes, especially as a gradation of similar structures are found in other organisms.Nor does the issue of ID evidence, IC systems etcetera bear on the question of ID being a faith, making this a diversion from the argument and not a challenge to it. The validity of the OT is still unchallenged. Argument from incredulity and appeal to authority again yawn. Yes I would say that the evidence does not need an assumed designer to explain it and therefore you cannot insist that ID is the explanation (assuming that is begging the question, another logical fallacy),if that were related to the topic presented in the OT: it isn't, so this is more misdirection that does not challenge the OT.ForbiddenNEXT POST: More ad hominum that does not address either (1) the OT or (2) the rebuttal to your first response. I repeat: I have yet to see evidence that it is falsifiable.Feel free to provide that evidence here instead of complaining. NOTE: not IC or any of those other subcategories, but evidence of a test for ID that would make it falsifiable, that would prove there is no designer, no intelligence in the design. Which one?On the IC processes, it now appears you are the ill-read one . Do yourself a favour and google each IC process and see what comes up for rebuttals. There are several websites that destruct these IC arguments. Take your time.As far as IC being a falsifiable test for ID, just consider that there are no IC systems in the whole of the universe, and then argue that there is no evidence for design, say in the orbit of the earth and moon system (seeing as you seem to like the anthropic principle) If falsifying IC does not falsify ID then it is not a falsification test for ID, just as I claimed. More appeal to authority yawn. Strawman — that is not the point of the OT, the point of the OT is that ID is necessarily a form of faith. The argument is based on logic and has not been challenged on that basis. Not one of the statements yet made by ID man has rebutted a single point made in the OT, and thus far the conclusion in the OT remains valid. More ad hominum that does not address the OT, plus a little strawman again: the OT does not argue that materialistic naturalism the only viable option just that ID is a form of faith.For someone who is supposedly steeped in logic and rational approach to the issues, it looks like your presentations are no match for the OT yet. You have failed in 3 posts to address the logical construction of the OT argument and have not challenged a single premise of the argument I made there. The only valid rational logical conclusion to date is that the OT argument stil remains a valid logical construction and, therefore, that ID is a form of faith.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ahhh. Attempt #4, what fun: lets see if it is any better at addressing the logical construction of the OT. Still complaining about having to deal with the question while claiming that you don't try to avoid it (especially by saying it is irrelevant). I love it. All of this section is just arguing the legitimacy of the question instead of addressing the issues addressed in the OT. This is just more style over substance logical fallacy.ForbiddenAnd we don’t have to assume any supernatural ability on the part of the agent, we assume a natural answer until proven otherwise. That is the Occam sharp razor thingy part of the job. If we don’t know the answer we go looking for it instead of saying wait a minute — if we assume god did it our job is done! That would be like a surgeon getting into a really complex operation with life hanging in the balance and getting to a point where he was unsure what to do and saying Well, we can close up now, god will finish it for me. Still no evidence given here, this gets tiresome. Now we have another appeal to authority (Del Ratzsch), only this time nothing is shown for it. With nothing to judge the validity of this claim it is logically incomplete, and as such does not challenge the validity of the OT.ForbiddenAnd btw, those refutations are just more same-old-same-old, like your arguments here, and don’t really address the issues in the rebuttals.This still does not address the issue that IC is not a falsification test of ID, only of IC (which is non-scientific, imho, as much as by it’s lack of discipline as by the failure of its examples — where is the theory stated and terms defined in precise terms? Where is the falsification test given in precise terms?). The main problem with IC is that all it is, however dressed up and put on stage, consists of a failure of imagination: I can’t imagine how that came to be (said with expression of shock on face).Let me put this to you: evolution is 100% correct because it was designed that way to allow for the evolution of more complex organisms and mechanisms, including the cilia things.That statement (if true) means that IC is false but ID is not. This shows the logical fallacy of using IC to prove ID. Quotes given from here to the end are taken from one or two other topics and have been (or should be) addressed there. This has no bearing on the OT and is another attempt to deflect the argument away from the OT rather than answer it. This is a form of strawman argument, as it attempts to redefine what the issue is about. It is also a form of composition fallacy as it attempts to show {what you think ID is} as an argument that shows {what it isn’t} — that what you present is all of what ID is, exclusively.Forbidden Thus once again the validity of the OT is left unchallenged on its logic, and the conclusion that ID is a form of faith is still valid on the logical basis given.

---

I will address two points you raised in the remainder of your {off-topic strawman\composition fallacy section} just for clarity: And if you are an Atheist or an Agnostic? What does it tell you then? That there is a god? That’s assuming that your statement Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer can be validated, of course: as noted, this has not occurred yet. By what reasoning and evidence do you conclude this? The dictionary definition is The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. The definition of religion is Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. And one of the definitions of god is A being of supernatural powers or attributes — so: Claiming something is false is not the same as showing it is false. Because you have not substantiated your claim your syllogism was incomplete, but because your claim has been shown to be false itself, it is actually logically false and invalid.

---

Once again you have failed to address the OT in any way that challenges the logic of the argument presented there. As such the validity of the conclusion of that argument stands unchallenged: ID is a form of faith.

​

It seems that what you do not understand is that the logical structure requires the conclusion to be absolutely true whether you like it or not, if the syllogisms have not been invalidated and the structure itself has not been shown to be invalid. You have not done that.

​

Without addressing that issue the validity of the conclusion will continue to stand and show that ID is a form of faith. You are 0 for 4.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I warnded you before ...

ID man is now proving that he does not understand logic (as if that wasn’t already obvious).(Note: his material was taken from a different topic again, and is not part of the OT, nor does it challenge it.)You forgot a word: ID demands more assumptions than Deism, therefore ID is actually a less substantiated subcategory of Deism -- correction of your premise to include omitted word changes your conclusion by default.Strawman and fallacy of accent, a new one to throw in the mix.Forbidden I do not give conditions for Deism to be reason based. You gave conditions that you thought showed ID to escape from being faith, and I showed those conditions to be insufficient in that endeavor. Deism is reason based by definition. ID claims to use reason up to the point where it says oops, gotta be a designer involved at which point it steps aside from reason based evaluation of the evidence, also by definition. Equivalence not established by your claim, and refuted here. Note that it is impossible for something to be more reason based than something that is purely reason based, hence the concept that ID could have more "substance" than deism is false from the get-go. This is almost humorous if it weren’t so pathetic.
There is no relation of premise (A) to premise (B) and no relation of the conclusion to either premise. This is like saying: You might want to look up what QED means before you misuse it so gratuitously again.And to recap, your (B) is invalidated, and a false premise invalidates your sillygism. and btw, just for the record ... this does not invalidate the OT, so the conclusion that ID is a form of faith is still valid.

​

Making it 0 for 5 ... and counting. What fun.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:51 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:54 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This issue is off topicthe issue is that ID is a form of faith.thanksThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This issue is off topicthe issue is that ID is a form of faith.thanksThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This issue is off topicthe issue is that ID is a form of faith.thanksThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This issue is off topicthe issue is that ID is a form of faith.thanksThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:47 PM

your post addresses why it is an issue, but not the issue directly.ID man seems to go off in the manner of {FIRE, COCK, AIM} so it is hard not to get dragged off course by his responses, especially as they do not address a single point of the OT (yet).thanks.

yes, that was ID man bringing in arguments from other posts. he's done it several times now, and still has not addressed the OT.places that argument occurs are
is ID properly pursued http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued? -->EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?
and
the I in ID http://EvC Forum: The I in ID -->EvC Forum: The I in IDthanks

the problem is discerning alien design (cause it ain't us babe) and apparent design (the pattern seen in a kaleidoscope)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ID manJust to let you know. I expect you are busy elsewhere and I don't want this to get lost. I am waiting for you to respond to posts #19 and 23http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?
http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?Please do not bring in any more material from other topics and address the issues of these posts or start again with the OT to attempt to show that ID is not a form of faith.So far you have not been successful in establishing your claim in this regard, and while you like to pretend that it is just "playing silly (RAZD) word games" the fact is that the logic is real and valid. Ignoring it will not make it go away or change the reality of the truth of the syllogistic construction. Alternatively you can accept this truth, and we can move on to other exciting aspects of ID and the search for "life, the universe, and everything." Call this my pre-emptive strike if you will but, in accordance with evo protocol 42, if you fail to respond further this will be taken as evidence that the conclusion of the OT remains valid and that:

​

it has been shown that ID is a form of faith.

​

and thank you for playing.I will be waiting.6OEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}