Question for believers in ID.

It seem to me that the ID argument can be applied to the designer, then applied to the designer of the designer, et cetera. Is there a way out of this hierarchy of designers?

Those who have a faith based belief in a creator do not have the above problem. For them god has always existed & created everything else. Their view is based on faith & not logic.

As an atheist, I do not accept the POV of either Creationism or Intelligent Design. The logic behind ID seems to lead to a hierarchy of designers. Creationism based on blind faith (if accepted) does not lead to more questions: God did it & is too complex for a human mind to comprehend --- end of story.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? You're saying that believing there has to be a starting point is illogical?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Try again, Jan.

This particular argument against Creationism is not that a universe that has "always been" is illogical. The universe very well may have always existed, creator or no. But if the IDers' argument is that creation necessitates a creator, then this argument could be pushed back to the creator itself ad infinitum. In other words, you can't say the universe requires a beginning and then say that a creator does not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the sake of argument: what if "the creator" and "the creation" arise in tandem, as in "a work in progress"?

 

If that were the case, then the creator wouldn't be the creator. It would just be part of the creation.

 

I agree, Dinosaur.

ID'ers seems to want to have things both ways. When it comes to the universe, they insist that any instance of functional form or causal regularity needs some kind of external explanation, distinct from whatever's observed. (And the assumption that the explanation must be a conscious "person" is just kind of slipped in there, by analogy with human craftsmen.)

But when somebody tries to apply the same argument to their hypothetical invisible super-powered craftsman that they are invoking to explain form and structure in our universe, suddenly a different principle is supposed to hold true. Now the craftsman's own form and structure -- "his reason" as theologies typically have it -- is supposed to be a given and require no additional external explanation at all.

Of course if we are going to make that move, then we might as well make it one step earlier, proclaim the universe's structure a given, leaving the hypothetical super-powered invisible craftsmen superfluous.

My own philosophical intuition is that there's a real fundamental 'something from nothing' problem. Unfortunately, I don't think that human beings even know how to go about framing the question at this point, let alone answering it. (I suspect that we never will be able to answer it and that it will always remain the greatest of mysteries.)

Having said that, I'm reasonably certain that creating a giant cosmological analogy with the actions of our own human craftsmen isn't the right way to conceptualize it. The problem that Dinosaur has just pointed out is one of the difficulties.

 

Yazata,

''Seems'' being the operative word.

Why wouldn't the original cause be ''intelligent''?
Without consciousnes, nothing can be observed let alone created.


At some point this material phenomena came into being and must have had a cause, since it couldn't have caused itself. At some point there must be an original cause, the cause of everything.

.

Being ''invisible'' to our gross senses doesn't mean this cause (whom I call God) doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

It's not a ''different principle'', it makes complete sense. Of course for an atheist, they choose not to go there because it make the existence of God (their main contention) a reality. And that will not do, as they ''cannot allo a divine foot in the door.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The source of information which is probably most credible to you, is not equipt to deal with anything which doesn't contain matter. In a sense by allowing that source to be the only source you respect, you've effectively
signed away any chance of understanding God.

That's just game playing.

You betchya.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And there's the conditioning.

The thing is if everything has come from this intelligent source, then as far as I'm concerned that thing is God. And funnily enough that's the claim of the scriptures. That being said waiting for something you can safely assume will never materialise in your life time, means you may missing an integral part of your human experience. Better to stop trying to explain it away IMO.

jan.

 

And why should there be an additional external explanation?

Please sketch out the reasoning that leads you to conclude that there should be an additional external explanation for God's existence.

 

Of course it is a logical view. You simply don't agree with some of the premises used in that theistic reasoning.

And what exactly is wrong with that being the end of story?
Can you elaborate?

What is threatened or compromised by declaring an "end of story" on the matter of "God"?

Why not? Elaborate.

 

Right back at'cha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s

 

Take this and be sure to close the door on your way out.

jan.

 

I wrote:

Wynn asks:

Because that's what the so-called "intelligent design" rhetoric demands. It points out instances of functional form in our universe and treats them as problems that must be solved, and hence as arrows pointing towards something other than themselves. ID proponents then introduce various implicit assumptions into the argument, such as the fundamental analogy with human craftsmen that gives the "intelligent design" argument its name and around which it intellectually revolves, guiding the conclusion (very much by design) towards something intended to resemble the Judeo-Christian deity.

If instances of functional form and order in our world need explanations, if they are supposed to point to something beyond themselves, then intellectual consistency suggests that if this hypothetical "God" displays any functional form or order (and "he's" supposed to be the so-called "Logos" after all), "his" functional form and order must also point to something beyond "him".

It's simply the logic of the "ID" argument -- If Paley's watch requires an explanation and somehow implies the existence of a watchmaker, then whatever hypothetical "God" that we imagine would in turn require an explanation too, so its existence would imply the existence of a Godmaker. And the Godmaker would imply a meta-Godmaker, and...

That's the point that Dinosaur made about infinite regress.

If we are going to employ an entirely different principle when we start talking about God, announcing suddenly that the 'watch requiring a watchmaker' thesis that was supposed to be so devastating no longer applies or even matters, and that we are going to saying instead (simply by theological fiat) that God's existence must be accepted simply as a given -- why not be intellectually consistent and just accept the functional order of this universe as a given, as something that simply is, something that requires no additional external explanation, and leave this hypothetical "God"-being out of our thinking entirely? (I expect that's what my dog does.)

Human beings have this fascinating tendency to ask questions. The thing is, once we start asking the questions, we're going to need very persuasive reasons why our questions must suddenly cease when somebody's chosen religious belief becomes the topic of discussion.

 

Because in saying that the universe requires a beginning, you are establishing a universal rule - "everything requires a beginning". Since God is something and not nothing, God, by your own rule, requires a beginning. It's not complicated, it's just what would be required for logical consistency.

 

I elaborated in the post you quoted.

Think about it, Wynn: The IDer says that everything requires a creator. If that is true, then surely the creator must have also required a creator, and then you fall into an infinite loop of creators of creators of creators... But most IDers will say that God doesn't require a creator, but in saying this they've abandoned the only logical argument they had for why a God must exist in the first place.

 

It always puzzles me that IDers don't see this self-evident gaping hole in their logic. Their own reasoning destroys their initial premise.

 

Then spell it out. You guys like to confirm the gaping hole in the logic, but when asked to put your cards on the
table, you either don't reply, or say you've already done it. But you just keep saying the same thing, who created the creator
and so on. Then we explain to you that at some point the buck must stop with the original cause of causes, but you will insist
on this ad-infinitum. Why?

If you think the universe just is, and wasn't created that fair enough, but in the same way, we say that God just is, and His defined nature supports that. The question is do you believe in an intelligent cause, or do you think things popped into existence complete with blueprint.

jan.

 

Because it's not really reasoning; it's belief, and belief can inhibit reason, not that it want to do any.

The answer to all:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/anecdotal-stories/6210-something-forever.html

 

I suspect that the universe "just is". If you want to insist that god "just is", that's fine... But at least we both know that the universe exists. While we both agree that the buck stops somewhere, I prefer not to pull imaginary realms out of my back orifice. If you choose to do so, that's fine. But I'm not required to give it any credence until you cough up some evidence.

 

We have spelled it out. Did you read any of the posts above you, or can simply not comprehend them? The flaw in your logic has been explained.

In most cases, we already have done it. Do I need to link you to the posts, or can I trust you to scroll up? In any event, you're lying, because no one has refused to lay their cards on the table except you. Or did you already forget running from me in our last conversation when you were asked to explain yourself?

Trolls don't fool anybody, Jan.

Because it musn't "just stop." If you insist that "stuff" requires a creator, then so must a creator. By that logic, there is no mechanism to stop a creator from requiring a creator of its own, so if you insist that there is an end to this chain, you are simply drawing an arbitrary line. You have to explain how and why existence only requires a creator up to a point, and you've failed to do that. (I don't mean you, literally, as you haven't even attempted to explain anything.)

If you want to say God "just is," then fine, but you have to abandon the ID position that the universe requires a creator, otherwise you're back to the infinite loop of creator and creator's creator.

 

And the persuasive reason is that one needs to take responsibility for one's questions and take responsibility for the choice of person of whom one asks these questions.

These are the points that many people, esp. those who consider themselves atheists, forget. Instead, they ask questions as if merely the fact that a question occured in their mind would be all the necessary justification to seek an answer for it, from anyone who is willing to try and reply to it.

It demands nothing, except what you project onto/into it and go along with.

So? If someone who claims to be a Christian, tells you to jump off a bridge, will you ask him "Why?" -?

I mean - the atheist stance is often the stance of a victim, an unassertive stance, and the endless philosophical loops it gets into are a consequence of that.
It's as if to say "My life doesn't matter, what I do with my time doesn't matter, what questions I ask and of whom, doesn't matter, so I should lend ear and give credence to anyone who happens to come along."

Like I said in the beginning: there is a basic act of discernment - responsibility - that is necessary when one gets involved in any exchanges with others.
Just like one can physically wander off into a forest and get lost, or fall into a quagmire, or off a cliff, similar can happen in philosophical arguments - one can wander off into mental landscapes in which one gets lost or hurt. And just like one would be careful not to walk off a cliff, so one should be careful not to walk off into the abyss of some philosophical arguments.

Do you think that someone operating out of goodwill (metta) would be concerned about this infinite regress argument in relation to God?

Here's I'd ask why you are considering the statements of some Christians?

Why do you wander off into what appears to be a quagmire?
Are you thereby showing goodwill for yourself and others?