Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

[rossum]

@rossum argument, if correct, means the designer cannot be inside the universe. (nicely done) It would have to be a transcendent creator. Dawkins’ needs to read this.

If my argument is correct, then the basic premise of ID is false. A transcendent intelligent designer/creator is not itself designed, so contradicting the ID premise.

A self-contradictory premise is not going to make a great deal of headway.

Assuming a complex entity in order to explain complexity is not going to fly either. You cannot assume your conclusion; that renders any argument invalid.

 

[o_mlly]

The basic premise of Intelligent Design is that certain complex things require design.

A = certain complex things
B = Intelligent Designer

OK.
If A then B

… assume that human level or higher intelligence requires design.

The assumption introduces a new set of beings to incorporate into the argument. An additional explicit assumption relates the three:

E = All intelligent designers
C = Designers with Intelligence >= human level

C ⊂ E
and
B ⊂ E
but
B ⊄ C

These relationships admit to the existence of a categorically different intelligence capable of design that has no relation to human intelligence.

F = non-human intelligence

• B ⊂ F

 

[rossum]

These relationships admit to the existence of a categorically different intelligence capable of design that has no relation to human intelligence.

The question for ID is whether such an intelligence is complex enough to itself require design. ID requires that certain complex things require design. Given the political and religious motivations behind ID I think it is reasonable to assume that human level intelligence is seen as requiring design. Given that, then all superior level of intelligence will also require design.

In order to eliminate evolution as a cause, ID needs to require design in humans. Even more so for higher levels of intelligence.

 

[o_mlly]

The question for ID is whether such an intelligence is complex enough to itself require design.

A = certain complex things
B = Intelligent Designer

If A then B

As formulated, the property of complexity required is in the consequent, i.e., the effect, A; not in the cause, i.e., the intelligence of the designer, B.

Given the political and religious motivations behind ID I think it is reasonable to assume that human level intelligence is seen as requiring design. Given that, then all superior level of intelligence will also require design.

In order to eliminate evolution as a cause, ID needs to require design in humans. Even more so for higher levels of intelligence.

I believe the opposite assumption is as, or even, more likely. In scientific theories, simpler theories are frequently said to be more “beautiful” or more “elegant” than their rivals. The same may be assumed for higher levels of intelligence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Substitute the word intelligence with the word consciousness.

Unless evolutionary science has a better theory, I would say deliberate design is the best explanation for the phenomenon of rocks/dirt acquiring consciousness.

 

[Bradskii]

Substitute the word intelligence with the word consciousness.

Unless evolutionary science has a better theory, I would say deliberate design is the best explanation for the phenomenon of rocks/dirt acquiring consciousness.

Good point. If rocks or dirt attained consciousness, then yeah, ID is a winner.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures…”

 

[rossum]

I believe the opposite assumption is as, or even, more likely. In scientific theories, simpler theories are frequently said to be more “beautiful” or more “elegant” than their rivals. The same may be assumed for higher levels of intelligence.

If intelligence is simple, then design is not needed to produce intelligence: design is only required for complex things. Hence the ID premise survives, but humans are simple and hence do not require design.

 

[o_mlly]

If intelligence is simple, then design is not needed to produce intelligence: design is only required for complex things. Hence the ID premise survives, but humans are simple and hence do not require design.

The complexity of intelligence is not an either/or but both. Animal intelligence is lower than humans and the Designer intelligence is higher and simpler than both.

 

[rossum]

Unless evolutionary science has a better theory, I would say deliberate design is the best explanation for the phenomenon of rocks/dirt acquiring consciousness.

Are you proposing an unconscious designer, like evolution?

If your designer is conscious then you have the same infinite regress – where did the consciousness in the designer come from?

Or are you going the theological route and providing no explanation for the origin of consciousness, merely assuming that it already exists?

 

[rossum]

The complexity of intelligence is not an either/or but both. Animal intelligence is lower than humans and the Designer intelligence is higher and simpler than both.

Please show us how you are measuring simplicity and complexity. ID says it is scientific, and in science objective measures are needed. Personal opinion is not a valid scientific measure. Most ID measures of complexity start with Shannon complexity and work from there.

 

[o_mlly]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Simpler and more powerful.

 

[Wesrock]

o_mlly:

I believe the opposite assumption is as, or even, more likely. In scientific theories, simpler theories are frequently said to be more “beautiful” or more “elegant” than their rivals. The same may be assumed for higher levels of intelligence.

If intelligence is simple, then design is not needed to produce intelligence: design is only required for complex things. Hence the ID premise survives, but humans are simple and hence do not require design.

The human body and brain are still complex systems.

 

[Neithan]

Those qualitative concepts have always been an issue to physicalism, though. It seems to me that our ability to conceptualize qualities, and thereby formulate abstract reasoning (e.g. ground and consequent), indicates non-physicalism. I know that eliminative materialism is a thing but it really makes no sense to me, it seems like ideological denial and the opposite error to Occam’s razor when applied to ontology — removing entities unnecessarily and thereby actually losing explanatory power.

 

[niceatheist]

Can you cite anyone who says rocks and dirt acquire consciousness. This is a rather blatant strawman

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Interesting take! I hadn’t considered that analogy!

By the way, your assertion also says that God’s knowledge is caused by observation, as well.

That’s one way of looking at it. Of course, you’ll understand if I disagree with you.

If you want to claim that God only “has knowledge of his creation at the point at which it was created”, as @Bradskii has claimed, then you’ll understand my rebuttal. However, that doesn’t mean that I get gored by the other horn of the dilemma – that is, that if God only knows “at the point of creation”, then He must necessarily know “by observation.”

Rather, I’d assert, God’s knowledge of creation isn’t limited either by the point of creation or by His ‘observation’ of “where creation goes.” He knows – intimately and immediately! – by virtue of the fact that He is the creator. Not in a human sense, as we’d understand creators who create and become distant from their creation, but as the divine creator, who sustains creation personally.

But hey… I get where you’re coming from, and it’s a decent take on things. It’s just not the take that Christians are positing.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Fair enough. That’s not how Christians define God. He’s distinct from His creation. And, although you can attempt to draw a boundary, you’re missing the point that God isn’t created.

(Moreover, by positing that “ATE is eternal”, you’re conflating what is eternal with what is not. That kinda weakens your case substantially. )

It’s turtles special pleading all the way down.

‘Special pleading’ only works as an argument if there’s nothing special to plead. God is substantially different than His creation, and therefore, there’s no “special pleading”.

 

[catholicray]

The basic premise of Intelligent Design is that certain complex things require design.

The basic premise of ID is that information requires intelligence.
If theists adopted ID It would follow that intelligence originates in God.
It also seems that it would adopt the view that God is not information.
Well… perhaps not idk. Either way that’s the basic premise.

I think folks get messed up in this kind of argument because they can not fathom all that we perceive to, in a sense, end in a beginning (origin). It is a tough idea but it doesn’t seem any worse than the infinity you need otherwise. Or worse the something from nothing situation.

 

[mhmtas63]

The process is not random.

Process is not random but process cannot be by unconscious power or random chances. Process is so excellent and perfectly so an unconscious power and random chances cannot do that.

 

[rossum]

That’s not how Christians define God. He’s distinct from His creation. And, although you can attempt to draw a boundary, you’re missing the point that God isn’t created.

God exists. Creation exists. In the sense of existence He is not distinct from creation. He is distinct in many things, such as knowledge and lifetime, but He is not distinct in the sense of existence. The set of “things that exist” contains God and creation.