Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[rossum]

How do you define intelligence, if there is no essential quality?

I am Buddhist. There are no essential qualities anywhere. See Nagasena’s Chariot analogy for an introduction to the Buddhist approach. The chariot is not present in any of its individual parts, yet we can recognise a chariot when we see one.

Can you recognise water, despite there being no water present in either hydrogen or oxygen?

 

[rossum]

The usual skeptic mumbo jumbo. If you want to know the Catholic / Christian understanding of God, it’s easy enough to find. I understand, and I know. 'Nuff said.

That applies to the Abrahamic God. ID deliberately defined their Designer so that there were potential alternatives to the Abrahamic God in that role. The point was to avoid obviously teaching religion in schools, so there had to be plausible deniability about who/what the Designer actually was.

 

[Bradskii]

As interesting as this thread it, it might need pointing out that the OP is simply suggesting that ID is bunkum. Proving that doesn’t disprove God.

And where is Bufallo anyway…?

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligence is an emergent property. It is present in the final result, but is not present in any of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Hydrogen is not water. Oxygen is not water.

Examine the causation from the effect Water can only be caused by hydrogen and oxygen. Intelligence can only be caused by intelligence beings.

A sperm is not intelligent. An egg is not intelligent.

The donor of the sperm is intelligent. The cause of the egg is also intelligent.

If every observation of intelligent beings evidence only intelligent causes then why invent a novel cause (emergence, as in no cause) for the first instance?

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Intelligence is an emergent property. It is present in the final result, but is not present in any of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Hydrogen is not water. Oxygen is not water.

Examine the causation from the effect Water can only be caused by hydrogen and oxygen. Intelligence can only be caused by intelligence beings.

So you are allowed to use a reductive argument for water but not for intelligence?

A quark isn’t a proton. But protons consist of quarks. And a proton and a negative electron makes up a hydrogen atom. But that isn’t water. For which you need two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Is any of this ‘wet’ yet? Can we describe any of the constituent elements as being so? How many molecules of water do we need?

Well, eventually, we reach a point where all those quarks and protons and electrons and molecules give rise to something we accurately describe as being wet. An emergent property. Being so because none of the constituent parts have that property but the whole does.

But intelligence can only be caused by intelligence? No need to delve any deeper? Dualism in all its glory.

 

[Shakuhachi]

The second option also contradicts the basic premise of ID, stated in the first paragraph: specified complex intelligence, superior to human intelligence, has arisen without requiring design.

It didn’t “arise”. It is eternal.

 

[rossum]

Intelligence can only be caused by intelligence beings.

Which is exactly the infinite regress I pointed out in the OP. Is God intelligent? Which other intelligent being caused God?

See what I mean? ID includes an infinite regress, which can only be stopped by falsifying the basic hypothesis of ID: that complex specified things must be intelligently designed.

 

[rossum]

It didn’t “arise”. It is eternal.

It exists and was not designed. Hence the ID premise is still falsified.

 

[Gorgias]

Which requires that the Designer is one of those “objects in the universe”.

No it doesn’t. Christians do not make the claim that God is one of the “objects of the universe”. (That, in itself, would be nonsensical. God created the universe; He cannot be of it.)

Generally speaking those that insist on a first cause are firmly nested in Aristotlean thought. If you don’t buy into Aristotlean metaphysics, then you and your theistic interlocutor are at an impasse.

Interesting take. However, I think there are more ways to understand God than simply Aristotelian philosophy…

How do you know [that God is omniscient]?

The answer to that comes down to definitions. In this case, the definition of “God” (as creator ex nihilo) and of “omniscient”. In this case, we might agree that ‘omniscient’ means having knowledge of His creation (which is something other than Him and which He is not part of, per se). From that assertion of “creation”, we’d conclude that He knows what He’s created.

Ask them about an event which has not happened yet. When they assert that event “X” or action “X” will happen - performed by you, use your free will and do something else, thereby invalidating the claim of omniscience.

This red herring seems to never get old with some folks.

“You will attempt to do something different than you think I know you will do.”

And where is Bufallo anyway…?

 

[Bradskii]

looskanal:

How do you know [that God is omniscient]?

The answer to that comes down to definitions. In this case, the definition of “God” (as creator ex nihilo) and of “omniscient”. In this case, we might agree that ‘omniscient’ means having knowledge of His creation (which is something other than Him and which He is not part of, per se).

That’s a very loose definition. It could mean the the creator has knowledge of his creation at the point at which it was created. But no more. On what basis do you claim that the creator would know literally everything?

And in passing, on what basis would you assume that the creator did not cease to exist in its original form at the point of creation. Other than defining it so.

 

[Gorgias]

It could mean the the creator has knowledge of his creation at the point at which it was created. But no more. On what basis do you claim that the creator would know literally everything?

Not just “at the point at which it was created”, because God creates time with and as part of the universe. Therefore, He’s outside of time. That implies that He sees all of the universe, and all of its temporality, all together. So, necessarily, it’s not just knowledge of the universe “at its creation”, but in its entirety.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It could mean the the creator has knowledge of his creation at the point at which it was created. But no more. On what basis do you claim that the creator would know literally everything?

Not just “at the point at which it was created”, because God creates time with and as part of the universe. Therefore, He’s outside of time. That implies that He sees all of the universe, and all of its temporality, all together. So, necessarily, it’s not just knowledge of the universe “at its creation”, but in its entirety.

So like a director who makes a film allowing all his actors to ad lib (free will). He has seen the final cut but we are just living the part.

So He knows exactly what each of us will do and act and where we will end up.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

Generally speaking those that insist on a first cause are firmly nested in Aristotlean thought. If you don’t buy into Aristotlean metaphysics, then you and your theistic interlocutor are at an impasse.

Interesting take. However, I think there are more ways to understand God than simply Aristotelian philosophy…

I’m sure there are, but when it comes down to asserting the necessity of a prime mover, Aristotlean metaphysics will inevitably rear its head.

 

[LionHeart]

That implies that He sees all of the universe, and all of its temporality, all together.

Bradskii answered this beautifully, so I will just express it in a slightly different format.

Your assertion is that there is an outside - actual - reality, which is available to God to observe (being outside of time), but which is only revealed to us (the beings in time) as a “moving camera” which allows us a peek into what we call as “present”. We may remember some of the past (imperfectly) and we can make (imperfect) guesses about the future, but we can only know the present. Our knowledge is caused by our observation. By the way, your assertion also says that God’s knowledge is caused by observation, as well.

And there is another corollary to your assertion: “Our so called free will is a sham”, since the future already exists (though we are unaware of it), and whatever exists is already actual (aka frozen). There is a difference between the potential and the actual. Only actual events exist as reality, potential events do not exist as reality.

Just like the concept of “omnipotence” does not mean that the omnipotent being can do everything (even logically nonsensical acts), the concept of “omniscience” cannot mean that the omniscient being can know everything, even something that does not exist, does not exist and will never exist. So the “omnimax” attributes are meaningless.

 

[o_mlly]

So you are allowed to use a reductive argument for water but not for intelligence?

A quark isn’t a proton. But protons consist of quarks. And a proton and a negative electron makes up a hydrogen atom. But that isn’t water. For which you need two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Is any of this ‘wet’ yet? Can we describe any of the constituent elements as being so? How many molecules of water do we need?

Just one molecule of anything will do nicely. The flaw in the “emergent water (or wetness)” analysis is that the combination of hydrogen and oxygen under specific conditions is most accurately described as simply H2O. As all other molecules, at certain ranges of temperature and pressure, the H2O molecules are solid, liquid (wet) or gas but always they are H2O. Being “wet” is a potential property in all molecules in their liquid state; not just H2O. The reason water is “wet” is because it is a liquid. No need to grasp for the “emergent” card on that one.

But intelligence can only be caused by intelligence?

Logically, the best conclusion after examining all the data, yes. Can you evidence an intelligence caused by non-intelligence? I think not.

Dualism in all its glory.

Obfuscation in all its fatuity.

Which is exactly the infinite regress I pointed out in the OP. Is God intelligent? Which other intelligent being caused God?

See what I mean? ID includes an infinite regress, which can only be stopped by falsifying the basic hypothesis of ID: that complex specified things must be intelligently designed.

The proposition that only intelligent beings can beget intelligent beings does not imply any theistic properties in the cause, only intelligence.

The argument for the truth of the proposition is inductive (scientific): All observations of intelligent beings have intelligent causes. The proposition, also in harmony with the philosophical principle of sufficient reason, is the best available. Conclusions that oppose both what we do know and what is logical are non-scientific and unreasonable.

 

[fhansen]

The point with ID is that intelligence has to come first. We don’t experience complexity arising from non-complexity so the Ultimate Complexity must pre-exist. Everything we observe in nature attests to it. Something as simple as a doghouse requires design.

 

[o_mlly]

Everything we observe in nature attests to it. Something as simple as a doghouse requires design.

Wait for it: Boy emerges from doghouse.

https://www.videoblocks.com/video/1...-ball-dog-walks-around-boy-swmqzxonkfjeoqk3tf

 

[rossum]

The point with ID is that intelligence has to come first. We don’t experience complexity arising from non-complexity so the Ultimate Complexity must pre-exist.

Which goes to show that ID has no explanation for the origin of complexity. It just assumes an initially complex entity. It is very easy to answer a question if you assume your answer. Science requires more than just an assumption.

Everything we observe in nature attests to it. Something as simple as a doghouse requires design.

Everything? The route of an underground stream cutting a cave in rock is not designed, it is caused by natural forces. A dog can make its home in the cave formed by the stream. Your “everything” here is an obvious overstatement.

 

[rossum]

No it doesn’t. Christians do not make the claim that God is one of the “objects of the universe”. (That, in itself, would be nonsensical. God created the universe; He cannot be of it.)

That depends on the definition of “universe” you are using. ID allows that their designer may be a part of the material universe – space aliens were sometimes mentioned.

If we are moving outside the material STEM universe, then we are in the philosophical universe, which I define as “All that exists” (ATE). If God exists, then He is part of the ATE universe and, obviously, did not create that universe since He is not created. The ATE universe is eternal, and so does not have an origin.

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

Intelligence can only be caused by intelligence beings.

Which is exactly the infinite regress I pointed out in the OP. Is God intelligent? Which other intelligent being caused God?

See what I mean? ID includes an infinite regress, which can only be stopped by falsifying the basic hypothesis of ID: that complex specified things must be intelligently designed.

People aren’t formulating the clauses correctly. And also, ID isn’t about intelligence in humans but about complex systems requiring intelligence to order them. Still, if I were to make a proposition about intelligence in nature it would be that which has intellect in a derivative way must have its cause in something which has intellect intrinsically and in a non-derivative way. Note I’m only reformulating the claim as it should be formulated. Obviously a person should then ask for reasons then why intellect in humans is derivative and not non-derivative and so on, which I haven’t supported here.

But this is like when people (atheists and theists) mistakenly claim or strawman that “everything has a cause,” which is an absurd premise and not how theologians actually approach the issue.