|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Peter writes: Taking a sort-of intuitive concept of complexity,.... The fact that we have an intuitive idea of what we mean by complexity without actually being able to define it in any measurable way is a large part of the problem here.
Peter writes: ...then I would argue that many artefacts of human design are of greater complexity than humans. I have seen the human brain described as "the most complex known system in the universe" on numerous occasions. But - again - I guess it all comes down to what we mean by 'complexity'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
PaulK writes: I suppose that I should add that I am not sure that Dawkins position is as you have stated it. He certainly argues that the designer must be complex - but we both agree with that. I think you might be right. Having looked up Dawkin's comments on this exact issue more thoroughly it seems that he is talking specifically about an omnipotent omniscient designer as being necessarily even more complex and thus improbable than anything IDists infer such a being to have designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Brains are not structurally complex, but they exhibit complex behaviours.
The 'complexity' in this case comes from our inability to figure out exactly how it works -- which is not necessarily a measure of complexity at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peter, and welcome to the fray.
Or the designer(s) was/were sufficiently simple as to not need to be designed Curiously, that does not answer the question:
quote: You will note that none of those scenarios required that the designer be particularly complex, per se, just that it have an origin of some form, either supernatural or natural.
Message 155 However, a designer can use tools to manage greater complexity, so we can imagine a bootstrapping process whereby more and more complex designs become possible. Indeed, just as we can design systems to design systems of such complexity that we cannot understand them. That still does not answer the question of the designer origins.
Message 158 Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"?
If one allows design by simple rules (which may have come about via purely natural process) one eliminates the 'intelligence'. Unless the rules are put in place by the designer, who just has to know that simple rules are all that is needed. We do similar with evolutionary design programs that have designed things where we are not sure how they operate. The assumption that simple rules are not designed is begging the question.
Message 159 So is it perhaps the case that the designer does not HAVE to be more complex than the systems it designs, but that often in 'intelligent' designs one is striving for the simplest way of accomplishing something? One could, therefore, argue the development of a simple set of rules that generates the diversity of life we see is far more complex a design task than designing a mamalian eye. Indeed.
That thinking would (based upon prior experience) simply push the 'designer' question back out of the biological world and into the chemistry or physics of the universe. Or the "world" that existed before the formation of the universe? Again we come back to the origin of the designer and the four possibilities in Message 1 Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Peter writes: Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"? The reasoning behind Peter's statement is something along the following line - IDists conclude that complexity requires intelligent design. A designer that possesses intelligence is necessarily complex. Therefore the introduction of an intelligent designer to explain the complexity of the universe is not an answer at all and is simply pushing the question back an additional step so that the object of religious belief can be included. I think that is a fair summary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
That IS a fair summary of my reasoning there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
My intention was to suggest (1) ... that is if any designers actaully exist they were of such low complexity that they could easily come-about by natural processes.
However, if something of low complexity can create something of greater complexity, then we don't need a designer at all. When I mentioned simple rules I also pointed out thet they could have arisen naturally. But here's the rub ... if we conclude (1): The designers were sufficiently simple to arise naturally.They could design entities more complex than themselves. Those entities could design entities more complex than themselves. Etc. We could separate ID from the origin and set it purely as an alternative to evolution. In which case ID would (in my opinion) fall over for a whole other set of reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
The reasoning behind Peter's statement is ... ... for Peter to say. You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it.
RAZD writes: Peter writes: Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"? {Straggler interpretation of Peter's position}... - IDists conclude that complexity requires intelligent design. So you claim that IDologists conclude that the complexity of an intelligent designer would require an intelligent designer to design the complexity of the intelligent designer? If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers (aka case 4 in Message 1) or complexity does not matter. Which still doesn't answer the question of the IDer origin. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ... 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 Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peter, thanks.
My intention was to suggest (1) ... that is if any designers actaully exist they were of such low complexity that they could easily come-about by natural processes. However, if something of low complexity can create something of greater complexity, then we don't need a designer at all. When I mentioned simple rules I also pointed out thet they could have arisen naturally. But here's the rub ... if we conclude (1): The designers were sufficiently simple to arise naturally.They could design entities more complex than themselves. Those entities could design entities more complex than themselves. In other words, you have case 1 in Message 1:
quote: We could separate ID from the origin and set it purely as an alternative to evolution. Why? This thread is about the origin of the designer. What alternative does it propose, if the designer is evolved? If the designer is NOT evolved, then we go to the other cases and we still end up with it being a matter of faith.
In which case ID would (in my opinion) fall over for a whole other set of reasons. This thread is not about how valid the reasoning behind IDology is, but whether it is a matter of faith, rather than a scientific conclusion.
Note that I have absolutely no problem with it being a matter of faith, what I have trouble with is the premise that it is a scientific position. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : tips Edited by RAZD, : ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it. Except that Peter has confirmed that it was. Message 171 RAZD writes: So you claim that IDologists conclude that the complexity of an intelligent designer would require an intelligent designer to design the complexity of the intelligent designer? If IDists follow their own logic regarding the need for complexity to be intelligently designed this is what they should conclude. But in reality we all know that actual IDists just assume that their particular designer exists regardless of any other considerations.
RAZD writes: If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers or complexity does not matter. I think evolution by natural selection demonstrates exceptionally well that complexity doesn't require intelligent design.
RAZD writes: Which still doesn't answer the question of the IDer origin. Which is the problem IDists face. If one insists that complexity can only come about as a result of intelligent design then one has to explain how the intelligent (and therefore complex) designer came to be. But at that point IDists inevitably start spouting semantic waffle in an effort to exempt the particular object of heir belief from that particular problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
RAZD writes:
Except that Peter has confirmed that it was. Message 171 You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it. Irrelevant: I can personally confirm many instances where your interpretations have been wrong. My experience is that you are often wrong in interpretations of other people, and should refrain from doing it. My approach would be to ask the person summarized if "(statement)" is a fair summary (and not repeat summary statements on other debate forums, another thing you like to do regardless of the accuracy of your view).
If IDists follow their own logic regarding the need for complexity to be intelligently designed this is what they should conclude. But in reality we all know that actual IDists just assume that their particular designer exists regardless of any other considerations. Here you infer that IDologists proceed on the basis of faith that a designer exists, which falls into case 2 in the OP.
RAZD writes: If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers or complexity does not matter. I think evolution by natural selection demonstrates exceptionally well that complexity doesn't require intelligent design. Agreed, but that does not mean that evolution can't be the process through which complexity is driven, and that, however, still does not provide us with an answer to the origin of the designer.
[qs]Which is the problem IDists face. If one insists that complexity can only come about as a result of intelligent design then one has to explain how the intelligent (and therefore complex) designer came to be.[qs]
Which gets back to the four cases in the OP.
But at that point IDists inevitably start spouting semantic waffle in an effort to exempt the particular object of heir belief from that particular problem. Which again, I will leave to actual IDologist to discuss. So far all we are doing here is repeating the problem outlined in the OP and the four cases presented their, which show that it is a matter of faith. In a side note, it seems to me (my opinion) that most IDologist come to ID from a previous faith background, where faith is an integral part of their life, and as such do not see it as {new} faith, so much as an explanation for their faith. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : more 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Yep ... case 1.
BUT case 1 does not preclude the scenario in which a designer (or race of designers) came about naturally, the designed some life for their own amusement I can't see anything BUT faith in ID myself ... well apart from incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Straggler writes: I think evolution by natural selection demonstrates exceptionally well that complexity doesn't require intelligent design. Agreed, but that does not mean that evolution can't be the process through which complexity is driven, and that, however, still does not provide us with an answer to the origin of the designer. If complexity isn't the reason for considering an intelligent designer then on what basis is an intelligent designer being posited at all?
RAZD writes: So far all we are doing here is repeating the problem outlined in the OP and the four cases presented their, which show that it is a matter of faith. I don't think you, Peter or I are disagreeing that ID is a faith based position.
RAZD writes: In a side note, it seems to me (my opinion) that most IDologist come to ID from a previous faith background, where faith is an integral part of their life, and as such do not see it as {new} faith, so much as an explanation for their faith. I share your "opinion".
RAZD writes: I can personally confirm many instances where your interpretations have been wrong. When I (or others) point out your much demonstrated inability to differentiate between pure deductive logic and tentative conclusions derived from evidence based inductive scientific reasoning you are not being misrepresented RAZ. But what this has to do with this thread I have no idea.
RAZ writes: My approach would be to ask the person summarized if "(statement)" is a fair summary This of course relies on the person being queried having a consistent argument. With regard to Peter's statements in this thread I had little doubt that this was the case.
RAZD writes: (and not repeat summary statements on other debate forums, another thing you like to do regardless of the accuracy of your view) It seems that you are getting paranoid in your old age. I haven't posted on any other debate sites for years and don't believe I have ever exhibited the behaviour you are accusing me of. So what are you talking about? Could you provide a link to one of these posts on another debate site? If there is a Straggler imposter out there I want to know!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ryan Junior Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
RAZD writes: 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. The designer always was, I know you can't understand that, but, let's say an ID was real, if you were able to understand Him, that would mean that is intellect is equal to yours, and if the creator of the universe's intellect is equal to yours, mine, or anybody else's, you all, are in a world of hurts. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed quoting of RAZD's edit record of message 1. Removed an extraneous "[hide]" (Don't know why RAZD had such in message 1). Cleaned up a bit of other coding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Ryan, and welcome to the fray.
The designer always was, I know you can't understand that, ... Curiously, that is covered by case 2:
quote: ... if you were able to understand Him, that would mean that is intellect is equal to yours, and if the creator of the universe's intellect is equal to yours, mine, or anybody else's, you all, are in a world of hurts. Which just shows, again, that for you it is a matter of faith, a belief in god/z. That is the point of this thread, that ID is a form of faith. Enjoy. ps - you might want to read my signature ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024