Design and the intelligence hypothesis

This is the start of a new topic that grew from another.In Moral Arguements for God {Faith and Belief} I answered a statement by 1.61803 as follows. Since the intelligent design theory requires that anything of great complexity requires that there must be a designer behind it {as in your "design elements"} then we are left with the puzzle of what designed the designer since,it is reasonable to assume,that the designer is of even greater complexity.So,if we ask what designed the designer necessary to support your hypothesis, and,continuing on in like fashion ad infinitum, what designed the designer of the designer of the design,we quickly see the absurdity of the position. But,in designing a system,we then need to ask the mechanism by which this was accomplished,since,in order to place a pattern in nature it seems necessary to place constraints upon the degrees of freedom of the system that the laws of nature reflect.The existence of the mechanism would proceed again,as with the designer,as a consequence of its complexity,into absurdity.Jar thought this was off-topic but would like to argue it on its own,hence the thread.Charles Knight alsos mentioned that this was along similar lines to discussions he wa carrying on elsewhere in which the ideas of infinte regression and Occam's Razor come into play.In the theory of intelligent design the complexity we observe within nature purportedly cannot be due to other than a designer of great intelligence.
However,an enigma arises when we apply the principle of intelligent design to the proposed intelligent deisgner.Any intelligent designer would,I assume,be quite the more complex than that which he designs leading to the question,which arises from the position taken of intelligent design,what deigned the designer? Naturally,the futrther consequence is that this designer now needs to be addressed in the same manner and we thus arrive at the infinite regression which of course is ludicrous.It answers nothing and adds unenecessarily to the phenomena a condition that is never observed.Occam's razor is often quoted in this forum and for clarity we will define this term.Between competing explanations of a given phenomena the one which makes the least number of assumptions sufficient to explain the evidence is to be given the greatest weight of credibilty.This same issue arises of believers of gods since the common escape is that the god itself is not subject to observation as a consequence of being a god. If the proposed god is not subject to observation that is without conditions{believe first,then see}it is not,therefore, an explanation at all
So is the idea of an intelligent designer or a god actually the answer to the question of the complexity of the world about us or is this a means to avoid the hard work of teasing out nature's secrets?We should probably run this in miscellaneous topics.

Thread copied to the Design and the intelligence hypothesis thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.