Intelligent Design: Did you design yourself?

[zebo-the-fat]

If we accept the idea of an intelligent designer, we must ask the question "Who designed the designer?"

[Heywood]

This is not how we identify design. This is an inductive argument that if things are like those things that are designed, then there is a probability that those things also were designed. Yet the only way that you've identified a designed lineage is by knowing its history. If that's what you mean by "experience" then it's a dry well, as we don't know the history of the seemingly naturally occurring lineage of life on earth. Can we look to similarity of construction? No we can't, as all artificial lineages of life created so far, and likely to be, are copies of the existing lineage, so what the artificial life looks like tells us nothing about what a lineage created de nuovo would look like. All artificial lineages created on the model of "natural" life would also be thus tainted. So your first premise doesn't lead to where you want it to go.

Moreover, this is just the abiogenesis / evolution dichotomy in cloaked form. No, I don't know where this current "natural" lineage came from. I never claimed I did, despite your asserting that I have. What I do know is that the development of life in this lineage can be explained by natural processes, even if its origin has not been explained.

Besides the problems with your first premise, judging which origin a lineage has based on the origin of known created lineages again is merely an inductive argument that most X are Y, therefore a new X is also likely Y. Yet there may be reasons why all X are Y that doesn't hold for this other X, and being purposely created as an imitation of the X is one such reason. You don't know that life created de nuovo would have any of the characteristics of life as it exists because nobody is coming close to accomplishing that feat, and may never be able to do so given that we are tainted by knowledge of this lineage.

You've constructed a clever argument to cloak the abiogenesis problem in new robes, but at the end of the day that's all it is. And your claiming that we know something is designed by "experience" by knowing that all things of its "kind" are also designed is a claim which doesn't ring true. We identify the "lineages" you've identified by knowing the history. We identify stone tools by a variety of factors, but them only being created by artifice isn't the main or only one. You're simply wrong. For more on why your argument from "experience" is wrong, see my previous thread debunking this line of reasoning.

On the appearance of design

I agree it is an inductive argument. It doesn't prove our lineage is the product of intelligent design. I never said it did, I always said it provided "good cause" for theists to make the claim.

Second you claimed my method of differentiating designed from not designed was wrong....but you don't offer an alternative method which is right. I think you are wrong about your assessment of my rule for how we differentiate designed from un-designed. You claim it relies on knowing this history of an object, this is not true. It relies on our experience on how those kinds of objects come into existence. The example of machinery found on Pluto I used in another post, we don't need to know the history of that specific piece of machinery to know it is the product of intelligent design. Our experience tells us those kind of things only come into existence via intelligent design so we have reason to rely on the assumption that this one did as well.

You stated, "...we don't know the history of the seemingly naturally occurring lineage of life on earth". You are claiming my argument must be wrong because of your a priori belief that the lineage of life on this planet naturally came into existence. This is an assumption you an others make....and really, what sort of justification do you actually have for that assumption? If you are to examine the question objectively, you need to set aside assumptions like this and take the position that it is logically possible our lineage could be designed and it is logically possible it could be the result of naturally occurring processes.

You said, "I do know is that the development of life in this lineage can be explained by natural processes, even if its origin has not been explained". What science has shown us, is that this lineage of life can also be explained by intelligent design. Where is this designer you ask? Well where is this natural process you speak of?

I'll take at look at your other thread later when I have a bit more time. I appreciate your response. You are one of the best in this forum and I always look forward to responses from you.

[Esquilax]

If we accept the idea of an intelligent designer, we must ask the question "Who designed the designer?"

Which is actually the fatal flaw in Heywood's argument, come to think of it. His claim that we've never seen life arise naturally gets completely fucked in the ass by the fact that, as a mere temporal fact, there would eventually have to be a first life form that acted as the designer, and that would have had to come into being without a designer... so even under the strictures of his own argument, we would need one example of undesigned life at some point.

[Heywood]

B) We are not privy to the details of how our lineage of life came to be.
C) Lineages of life have never been observed to come into existence via natural processes.

Isn't that just an argument from ignorance? 'We don't know we weren't designed'

No, what you singled out are not arguments but rather elements of arguments. Further the entire argument is not one from ignorance. An argument from ignorance would be, "We don't know....therefore God". This argument goes like this, "Life looks like something intelligently designed, so that gives us good reason to claim that it is intelligently designed". There is no "We don't know" in this argument.

Now unless some new development happens, like we observe a new lineage of life emerge from natural processes, in the near future theists will be able to claim that our lineage of life is the product of intelligent design, because in our experience lineages of life only come into being via intelligent design.

They would be wrong to claim that. Just because we humans created life, it does not just follow that we were intelligently designed. They would have no evidence for this claim other than 'its possible for humans to make life'

The argument doesn't prove our lineage was intelligently designed. It is merely a rationale for categorizing it as such.

[The Grand Nudger]

I take it we've reached the point where we have to watch you repeat yourself ad naus?

[Bad Wolf]

The argument doesn't prove our lineage was intelligently designed. It is merely a rationale for categorizing it as such.

And I maintain it would be wrong to do that.

[Angrboda]

Second you claimed my method of differentiating designed from not designed was wrong....but you don't offer an alternative method which is right. I think you are wrong about your assessment of my rule for how we differentiate designed from un-designed. You claim it relies on knowing this history of an object, this is not true. It relies on our experience on how those kinds of objects come into existence.

This is knowing the history of "these kinds" of objects. The real problem is that there is no way to, by inspection of the artifact alone, determine which are "these kinds" which are designed from "these kinds" that are naturally occurring. We identify design by having a plausible story for how the article might have been designed. If you want to do the same for the current lineage of life, you also need a plausible story for how a designer did it. You have no designer and no story; therefore your inference that the current lineage is also designed is unsupported.

The example of machinery found on Pluto I used in another post, we don't need to know the history of that specific piece of machinery to know it is the product of intelligent design.

If the machine on Pluto resembled the metallic blob of a crashed asteroid, we'd have no way of knowing it was designed. You're trying to cheat by smuggling the assumption that it is a machine that has traits like a machine that we might have designed would have. If so, we would know that it was designed because it shows signs of having been worked by a designer, which, again, is something you don't have for life. Let's turn this around a bit. Let's assume that the first lineage of life on our planet is designed. Can you tell me what traits of this life show signs of having been designed? If you can't demonstrate that life on earth either was or wasn't designed by its traits, then you have no reason to suspect that it was designed rather than natural.

Our experience tells us those kind of things only come into existence via intelligent design so we have reason to rely on the assumption that this one did as well.

Only if "those kinds of things" show signs of artifice similar to the ones we make, and there were a plausible scenario for how a designer might have been responsible. As already remarked, if the machine appeared to us as an amorphous blob of metal or a lump of crystals, we'd have no reason to suspect it was a machine at all. You've loaded the example by assuming "a machine" would look like a human artifact. It wouldn't necessarily. Without knowing the typical effects of the designer, we would have know way of knowing that a specific "machine" was designed. Do you know the typical effects of the designer of the first lineage of life? No? Then you don't know that life is designed.

You stated, "...we don't know the history of the seemingly naturally occurring lineage of life on earth". You are claiming my argument must be wrong because of your a priori belief that the lineage of life on this planet naturally came into existence. This is an assumption you an others make....and really, what sort of justification do you actually have for that assumption?

First of all, it's not an assumption I make. a) I used the word 'seemingly' to imply that it has the appearance of being a naturally created lineage, I didn't assume it; and b) I've already stated that I don't know whether it was natural or designed. However you're wrong in concluding that believing the original lineage to be natural is an assumption. It's not. We have plenty of evidence of natural processes and none of any hypothetical designer. We also have plausible scenarios which might explain the origin of life which don't depend on a designer. So you're simply wrong in calling it an assumption; it's a hypothesis with evidence supporting the belief that it is a true hypothesis. Your support for the notion of the lineage of original life being designed, on the other hand, rests on a weak philosophical argument. You have no designer, and no way to measure "like those kinds of things" so that you can look at something, life or a blob of ore on Pluto, and tell it was designed solely from "experience."

If you are to examine the question objectively, you need to set aside assumptions like this and take the position that it is logically possible our lineage could be designed and it is logically possible it could be the result of naturally occurring processes.

Logically possible, yes. Is it as likely that the lineage of life is the result of design as natural processes? No.

You said, "I do know is that the development of life in this lineage can be explained by natural processes, even if its origin has not been explained". What science has shown us, is that this lineage of life can also be explained by intelligent design. Where is this designer you ask? Well where is this natural process you speak of?

Really, you're going to an argument from ignorance now? I've already pointed out that abiogenesis is not an assumption but a working hypothesis with support. Where is the support for the activity of a designer. Where is the designer. We know natural processes exist.

[Heywood]

If we accept the idea of an intelligent designer, we must ask the question "Who designed the designer?"

This is a perfectly valid question. However it is not a refutation of the argument that our lineage of life appears to be intelligently designed.

[Esquilax]

If we accept the idea of an intelligent designer, we must ask the question "Who designed the designer?"

This is a perfectly valid question. However it is not a refutation of the argument that our lineage of life appears to be intelligently designed.

That argument doesn't need refutation, given that it has no evidentiary basis in itself. It's just a claim that you're making.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Isn't that just an argument from ignorance? 'We don't know we weren't designed'

No, what you singled out are not arguments but rather elements of arguments. Further the entire argument is not one from ignorance. An argument from ignorance would be, "We don't know....therefore God". This argument goes like this, "Life looks like something intelligently designed, so that gives us good reason to claim that it is intelligently designed". There is no "We don't know" in this argument.

Yes there is. It's the intellectual equivalent of OJ searching for "The Real Killers." It makes about as much sense as a lawyer in the middle of a murder trial going "Ok, yes, all of the physical evidence points toward my client conclusively; but why haven't the police investigated my client's claim there was second killer the police didn't bother to look for?"

You assume the existence of an intelligent designer based on religious convictions, and based on a complete misunderstanding, demand science search for evidence of that intelligent designer, without having a single piece of evidence to support the claim the designer exists at all.

"This stuff looks designed :. God"

"What stuff?"

"I dunno, all the stuff looks designed"

"You mean evolved over 4 billion years by trial and error?"

"No, I mean all the stuff looks like a person must have made it the way it is."

"Do you have any evidence for God, let alone that anything is designed?"

"Well, just look at it: it looks designed. Must have been God."