Well, my brother finally did get back to me, and Esquilax, you were right, it did shut him up. 
He still doesn't quite see how we can distinguish "between design (as opposed to apparent design [in nature]) in both watches and dogs for example," and insists that it "seems to follow necessarily that design is actual or illusory in artificial and organic objects." Beyond that his only response was: "It seems to me that if you can't, you have to hold that either the Taj Mahal is the result of natural processes alone (design is illusory) or that the Taj Mahal is designed (non-illusory) in which case, we need at least a Prime Designer or a rejection of determinism in human agency (which is inconsistent with naturalism. You could just bite the bullet though a hold that the One World Trade Center for example is just apparently designed. I am not seeing any other options here... Thank you for hearing me out though. Do you mind if I send this over to Aaron to get his thoughts on the matter?"
By the way, Aaron is his theist friend with I believe a Ph.D in philosophy. I think we done well. Thanks a lot!
He still doesn't quite see how we can distinguish "between design (as opposed to apparent design [in nature]) in both watches and dogs for example," and insists that it "seems to follow necessarily that design is actual or illusory in artificial and organic objects." Beyond that his only response was: "It seems to me that if you can't, you have to hold that either the Taj Mahal is the result of natural processes alone (design is illusory) or that the Taj Mahal is designed (non-illusory) in which case, we need at least a Prime Designer or a rejection of determinism in human agency (which is inconsistent with naturalism. You could just bite the bullet though a hold that the One World Trade Center for example is just apparently designed. I am not seeing any other options here... Thank you for hearing me out though. Do you mind if I send this over to Aaron to get his thoughts on the matter?"By the way, Aaron is his theist friend with I believe a Ph.D in philosophy. I think we done well.
Thanks a lot! (February 4, 2014 at 7:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: That is a deeply stupid argument, for the simple reason that it fails to take into account the possibility that natural causes might give rise to intelligent beings capable of design. This is simply demonstrably true.
Yes, I suppose at some level all the things humanity has designed have come about via natural processes insofar as human beings and the things they think about are themselves natural, but this is more a word game than an actual argument, using one definition of the term "design" with regards to god creating organisms, and substituting another one when discussing humans doing the same sans god. Your brother is attempting to play with a loaded deck, Shonuff, and I suggest you don't let him get away with it.
Ask him to stick with a single definition of design, and hold it consistently; if he goes with the version of design that entails intelligent agents creating things that cannot arise on their own- the definition he wants to apply to god- then humans doing so is a trivial observation. If he wishes to stick with the nonsensical definition of design wherein things of natural origin can never design things as they're stuck obeying the naturalistic processes within them, then he suddenly runs into several problems, not the least of which is that he's failed to define this magic free will system that god apparently has in such a way that it can be differentiated from naturalistic human experience. Moreover, if he's intent on attributing every instance of design to the ultimate origin of its designer, then there is no design in anything ever, beyond the supernatural designer he wishes there was, but has not demonstrated. And even that designer could receive no credit, since its design of humans would have been the result of impulses within its brain or soul or mind or what have you.
Honestly, there's a lot wrong with this argument, but that should be enough to shut him up, for now.
