Who designed the ID designer(s)?

No, not according to the definition of faith that RAZD is using here in this thread.But, this thread is for the specific case of the Intelligent Designer. Not that particular part, but according to the definition in this thread, the position of there being a designer would be because the person does not actually have the evidence.

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?

Because of the nature of the Intelligent Designer, itself.

What "nature"...?

As proposed by IDists...

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

For clarity's sake: Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me:

quote:

---

(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).

---

But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.You are creating a "hypothetical IDist", but that person is merely exposing a position they've been tricked into by Creationists intent of installing a theocracy.He may not feel as though what he is saying is a religious belief, but that doesn't change what it is.Strike "religion" and replace it with "racism" and let's have another look.What if a hypothetical Jew hater complained about their wickedness, their horns, their tails? What if he were quoting off pro-Hitler webpages? Would he be racist? Even if he said, "No, I really believe these things are true. I don't dislike Jews, they are just an inferior race and must be exterminated. Honestly."His position is racist. He comes to it from information give to him by racists. His arguments are coached for him by racists. It's racism top to bottom.The same is true here.A Creationists is a creationist is a creationist. Deep down, they are all saying that the Bible is literally verbatim true and that the Earth is 6000 years old.Some of them pretend to say otherwise because they've found that their real argument is unconvincing.But none of them ACTUALLY believe anything but YEC. The rest is all just dishonesty.

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

Can you conceive of an IDist that would do this and change their mind if they were shown their evidence was false?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It is unimaginable to me how not one but thousands of well educated academics can entire lifetimes debating and researching how things have come to be. I’m talking about the evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design vs. whatever conundrum. It’s really a simple topic and not worthy of the time and energy expended on it. I can say with certainty that I have never researched this topic none and never will because there is nothing to research. It’s all conjecture and always will be. I know with 100% certainty that the answer not attainable because of one simple unarguable truth: Since all beginnings have a beginning, there is no true beginning to anything. Since there is no true beginning, you can never ascertain the essence or how of anything. You can only observe what is observable and the paradox created by the what happened before that? question makes the how question unsolvable - actually barely even a valid question. Simply put, there are unknown variables that can never be proven or otherwise derived. So, whether you believe in intelligent design, randomness or directed evolution, it’s irrelevant because any 6 year old can always legitimately ask: What happened before that?

I dunno, man, but you're crazy!my response would be the same as it was:

quote:

---

But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.

---

That's what I said...But its not really about the "motivation for a belief" but "this entity has these properties that prevent it from having true evidence for it therefore we'd have to rely on faith to accept it".

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.