(May 6, 2019 at 8:15 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: For those with imperfect eyesight:
Quote:Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
My rebuttal: any feedback is welcome. Thanks...John
Lets start with your syllogism:
1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.
2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe.
I reject your argument from the start until you define “specified complexity” and I want a thorough description. You are vague and pass around terms you do not justify. And, if you use Dembski’s concept of specified complexity this conversation is over. If I even detect a whiff of your continued dishonesty you’ll be blocked. Dembski’s concept has been exposed as fraudulent, pseudoscience nonsense and why the intelligent design argument has been defeated in court—facts I have been presenting since this thread started and you simply ignore them. So when I see specified complexity I reject it immediately unless you have a different definition— which you WILL present. So your syllogism fails at the first prong...no need to go further. And in the third prong you use the word “possibly”—so what? Anything is possible, congratulations, you can now identify as an Atheist. I argue that Theists have not met their burden of proof but never said it wasn’t “possible” a god exists, Theists have not met their burden of proof and either have you for your “intelligent Designer” which you will have to also define and not vaguely.
And your overall presentation is nonsense even without the non-defined specified complexity fraud. To show you how weak and a waste of time your argument is, let me demonstrate other ways to present it. First you’re just using a variation on the Kalam, which is useless to start with. 1) Everything has a cause. 2) The universe exits therefore has a cause. 3) That cause is god, intelligent designer, intelligent agent---yadda, yadda.
Try this one: 1) Many things are known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity. 2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity. 3) Therefore, many things are a possible cause for the universe and life. I know, it’s as vague as yours.
Or this favorite: 1) A blowjob is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity. 2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity. 3) Therefore, a blowjob is a possible cause for the universe and life. I call this the Argumentum ad Fellatio. And yes I used specified complexity in mine to mirror yours, but it’s not necessary to define it, you haven’t.
And another note and why intelligent design was tossed out of court when presented alongside EVOLUTION—is specified complexity as first described by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian Evolution is supposed to create. Dembski’s model failed—one of the pillars of ID---that’s why I keep saying to present something new and you simply rehash the old failed arguments.
And show me that some biological feature has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever. Because Dembski still hasn’t.
So your assertion that my “pond” example has to fit into YOUR syllogism and fit the fraudulent “specified complexity” world you so easily assert is valid is nonsense. My pond scenario is valid and you don’t like it because it doesn’t fit with your “opinion”. I have included several videos you can watch which cuts through all your circular arguments, bold assertions without evidence and fallacious statements. And there’s an island forming in the South Pacific—a complex, natural event. It’s natural, it’s unsupervised, there is no evidence of a designer—there’s your example of a highly complex process without a designer occurring in the natural world without a designer. And if you think the geology involved there is “not complex”, well, that’s your opinion and most people, especially scientist, would disagree with you.
Videos for your viewing pleasure.
https://youtu.be/u5uDDsQD8IU (Simplified Complexity)https://youtu.be/OP-ENz2Lr7M (Intelligent design)
[img=145x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/7880a9e1-44d2-4290-8fbe-07e81cf0fdb6[/img][img=143x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/6cfab903-1975-4107-a6da-764374e33274[/img]
- And criticisms of the complexity argument include: This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.
- In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.
- Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.
- Complexity is poorly defined.
- Just Google all the criticisms against the Complexity argument. Check out the work of Elsberry
and Shallit.
[img=38x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/b957b310-a73d-491e-b2b6-e54d750f2118[/img][img=65x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/5c75a125-defa-4243-924b-2b62ad707c25[/img][img=91x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/7857506c-4fff-48b6-863e-c41e60d9e672[/img][img=123x0.234375]blob:https://atheistforums.org/43938599-4a09-48f8-9883-e737d6fb4ced[/img]
And you must prove that intelligence existed before the universe was created—you’ve only asserted it.
Another one of your assertions: Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The answer is you’re again making an argument from ignorance. You’re assuming the signals coming from deep space, a region that you have NO experience in or reference for what is natural or an intelligent cause. It could be what you interpret as an intelligence could simply be a natural anomaly which you’re interpreting as intentional prime numbers---how do you know it’s from an intelligent source? You always make these huge leaps claiming you know it has to be an intelligent agent—you’re just wrong. I don’t care what you believe, I care what I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt...and you just made a huge leap with zero evidence.
Anyway, you have some homework to do. And stop your vagueness. Explain what you mean by “specified Complexity” and thoroughly. And as I said, if it’s even remotely similar to Dembski’s, the fraudulent, pseudoscience version, you’re done instantly. And I want a definition and description of this “intelligent Designer” or agent or god, you keep asserting to without any evidence.
