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.
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, ...
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.
and the topic is still "Who designed the ID designer(s)?"
Hi Straggler,
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
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.
The designer always was, I know you can't understand that, ...
Curiously, that is covered by case 2:
quote:(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, ...
... 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.
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. ... ... This of course relies on the person being queried having a consistent argument. ... Could you provide a link to one of these posts on another debate site?
Amusingly, this is you once again misrepresenting me. There are many forums within EvC, and you blythly go from thread to thread posting your blather about my positions.
But what this has to do with this thread I have no idea.
It doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but everything to do with your inability to debate honestly, so that I feel inclined to warn others about you.
It amuses me when you talk about logic, yet have been shown many times to rely on logical fallacies in your arguments, and have yet to acknowledge it.
No need to reply, btw, because all you will do is turn another thread into a stream of misrepresentational nonsense.
The new Intelligent Design had predicted that the Intelligent Designer is God of the Bible. So, by definition of God as infinite, He is not created.
So you too claim that it is case 2:
quote:(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, ...
So you too agree that it is faith.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Yes you did. You may not realize it, but if you disagree then refute the logic, don't just make claims.
you in Message 183: The new Intelligent Design had predicted that the Intelligent Designer is God of the Bible. So, by definition of God as infinite, He is not created.
You are saying the the IDer is a god, therefore a belief in your IDer is a faith in a god.
You realize that a prediction is not a fact, nor is it necessarily a logical deduction.
Message 189 to Dr Adequate: No, you don't know what you are saying. If you can see all of my videos in YOUTUBE explaining the new Intelligent Design, then, maybe you will know what I'm saying. But for now, I will call you lazy.
I watched your linked video, sad to say, and I found it to be a curious confusion of concepts that revolve in a circular argument. You can't redefine the words to mean what you want them to mean in order for you to reach the conclusions you reach.
Now I realize that english is not your first language, but you need to put your argument into good english to be understood.
Assuming he did have a valid deduction for a god, ... Especially if he has that evidence via the deduction.
Point 1: he doesn't. I looked at the video, and it defines what is seen to be intelligent and then concludes that because it is intelligent that it must be due to a designer. There was nothing there about a prediction.
Point 2: getting from discovering intelligence in the world to a designer is a big leap of faith, getting from that designer to the god of the bible is another big leap of faith.
Point 3: logic is not fact\evidence, and logic alone is not enough to be a scientifically valid conclusion (no matter how much some would like it to be). Especially bad logic.
The topic of this thread is whether or not ID is a form of faith or not.
Yes, I had redefined the word "intelligence" ...
We need to be careful here that you are not (a) just making stuff up or (b) equivocating on the meanings of words (which is especially difficult here, where english is not your primary language - I am assuming that most of your communication problem is due to the difference between your primary language (japanese?) and english).
The basic problem I see is that you (re)define intelligence to be some aspect that is observed in nature and then claim that as intelligence is observed that (1) there must be an Intelligent Designer and (2) that this designer is the biblical god/z.
In answer to (1) you first need to understand that defining something to be intelligent does not make it so. For instance, you could define a tossed coin landing on heads or tails to be intelligence, yet coins are notorious for landing on heads and tails for randomly falling on either heads or tails. Second, you did NOT need to redefine it: there are several usable definitions of intelligence, including definitions that could develop into means of quantifying intelligence.
The equivocation here comes into the second use of intelligence -- in the term Intelligent Designer: using the above example of redefining intelligence to be the tossed coin landing on either heads or tails, means that intelligence is random choice, and what you have is a random designer. In other words, if you redefine a term, then you must be consistent in its application.
In answer to (2) you have not posted anything here on how you get here - why not Vishnu or Odin? Without any evidence for your conclusion then I can only conclude that it is a matter of faith for you.
If all you are doing is claiming that something is so, without providing any evidence or rational for your claim, then it is based on faith.
... since it is the only way for us in science to explain natural world.
Here again we have a potential for misunderstanding what you mean here.
Science is perfectly adequate to explain how the natural world works, in fact this is precisely what science does. What science does not explain is why it works that way. We could ask the question "why is the sky blue?" and most people would respond that it is because the atoms in the atmosphere absorb blue frequency light from the sunlight and then re-emit it in random directions, however this is just how the blue light occurs in the atmosphere, not why it happens to be blue.
Gravity works, we have seen several theories on how it works, each increasingly accurate compared to previous theories, however there is no theory (or really any way to form one) for why we have gravity at all (although without it there would be no "we" to contemplate the issue\question).
If you are going to claim\assert\etc that "why" is explained by intelligence then that is a matter of faith ... unless you can show a way to test it and invalidate it.
No one had ever defined intelligence scientifically.
Getting a useable definition of intelligence is more of a problem for IDologists than for scientiests.
The issue there -- if you are going to claim a scientific definition -- is to be able to quantify intelligence and make objective empirical measurements of it, rather than just claiming that "{X} is intelligent because I say so."
I knew that you will never see them but since I've already put them in Youtube, I think that it is good that you must look at them. They are all boring but if u know the contents, I think u will agree with me.
(1) it is against forum rules to argue by bare links, (2) nobody will be inclined to look at your videos if you can't summarize them in writing. I suggest you start a new thread and put it in writing rather than refer to your videos.
I still come around to the argument that ID is a form of faith, whether it is understood by proponents to be a form of faith or not.
Enjoy,
Edited by RAZD, : deleted error per Percy comment.
Regardless of how good their evidence is, or if you can make their argument look like a statement of faith, it really comes down to how they've come to accept the belief.
The issue is not whether person {Y} has faith or came to believe, the issue is whether ID is a form of faith or not.
As soon as the IDer is identified as a god, then IDism is by definition a faith.
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence.
No, this is how you define intelligence. Just like my example with the flipped coin - the actual result is rather arbitrary. Different eggs, different tissue, different results. Is 9 {intelligent} but 8 isn't when, in another test the egg has a "safe" landing at 8 tissues?
I think the premise of your thread is flawed. You cannot define or determine the reasons people believe ...
And amusingly, the premise does not attempt to do that -- it is looking at ID, not the people, and whether or not it is faith.
Hah! - No doubt you have a little step by step deductive logic exercise up your sleeve to definitively and objectively determine what it is that does or does not constitute misrepresentational nonsense.
If it's a reply from you about what I have said, then the probability is high that there is a misrepresentation involved (or two or three). Here we see that you have misrepresented the premise of the thread.
Unless, of course, the person places evidence of the existence of the god comparable at least to what we have for the existence of Galaxies and also presents the method/model that explains how that god intervenes and designs critters.
Hypotheticals are fun, but they aren't evidence. The reality remains, that as yet there is no such objective empirical evidence that I am aware of.
This is, of course, the pursuit of Intelligent Design (and deism) - to find such evidence, but believing that such evidence exists before finding any is faith.
This is no different that people looking for aliens, bigfoots, yeti, lake monsters, etc -- if they believe these exist without having objective empirical evidence that this is so, then they are basing their belief on faith in their existence.
Properly pursued, (see Is ID properly pursued?) ID becomes Deism, using science to understand the creation and how it works. Deism is faith, IDism is a crippled form of deism in that it carries creationist baggage.
What do you mean by "ID"? Are you talking about some thing independent of a person's belief?
Yes, in the same way that christianity is faith independent of any particular christian person.
I'm talking about "the belief that an Intelligent Designer created the world". And if someone came to believe that from some kind of evidence, then it would not be a form of faith.
If someone has objective empirical evidence then they need to provide it. I am not aware of any, are you?
Absent the objective empirical evidence, the conclusions that an Intelligent Designer is involved would be based on faith.
BTW, do you mean something different by "IDism" than just "ID"?
To recycle your phrase: the belief that one or more Intelligent Designer/s created some aspect of the world: IDism is the belief that ID is involved.
Not everybody relies on objective empirical evidence to come to a belief, even with an absence of faith. Like I said before, it could even be just a logical deduction.
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.
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.
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.
™ Version 4.2