Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  exjdub

  An intelligent designer would have to have a designer himself.

  This was a very powerful statement by No Apologies, however it was glossed over with no comment. So the question still hangs: If "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" where did the intelligent designer come from? According to the theory that you quoted, the Intelligent Designer cannot come from non-life, so how did he/she/it come to exist?

  If you say that the Intelligent Designer has always existed you have contradicted the theory you presented. If you say the ID was created from non-life, who is the ID's creator and where did he/she /it come from? Quite a big gaping hole...

  exjdub
• 

  hooberus

  xjdub said:

  If you say that the Intelligent Designer has always existed you have contradicted the theory you presented.

  There is nothing in the statement that: "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" that contradicts with a designer that has always existed. This is because the statement only states that a designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life, and thus a designer who has always existed would not fall under this since they would have no origin from non-life (nor any origin at all).
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus:

  Furthermore, I also agree with your previous point that ". . . there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical" (In fact I may later go into other issues besides the issue of logical consistency). However, for now I hope to deal specifically with the logical consistency/non-inconsistency issue.

  You see, for most of us that wouldn't be an issue. We expect the sentences people use in arguments to be self-consistent. It's a starting point that we normally take for granted. I think you should reflect on why you feel you need to spend so much time on this (non-)issue.

  Since we are in agreement that the previous simple ID theory and/or statement does not necessarily lead to logical inconsistency (such as being self-refuting, etc.), I will therefore proceed to post an additional longer ID statement that I feel is not inconsistent either.

  It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin. If you do happen to make a self-contradictory statement while doing so, don't worry, we'll tell you.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  Are you going to respond to the fact that ReMine's book is utterly flawed as he didn't read the manual for the software?

  Or will you, like him, ignore inconvenient facts? Oh... hang on... *slaps head* yes, I see a pattern now

  Thing I don't get is the seeming lack of realisation by some people that their evasiveness on these threads is rather obvious to any one reading them.

  It's like a politician trying to answer a question that suits their purposes, instead of the one they were asked that shows their behaviour or politics for what it is...

  Is there a scripture you use to justify being evasive and failing to "let your yes be yes and your no be no"?
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Hoob is trying to start an ID discussion without tripping over the "but the designer needs a designer, too" problem. It's a very narrow point, and he's trying to take it one small step at a time. I think that's why he's not addressing your points, Abaddon.

  If I'm right, he's not trying to run a general ID thread, but a more narrow one.

  FunkyD points out that it's no big deal to create a sentence that doesn't contradict itself. That's usually true, but not with ID. The very premise of ID (as I -- perhaps mistakenly -- understand it) contradicts itself: "A thing that appears well-designed MUST have a designer", thus requiring the never-ending backwards string of designers.

  I'm intrigued. I look forward to seeing what the expanded, non-contradictory version looks like.

  Dave
• 

  hooberus

  Before addressing any non-logic issues, I feel that it is still important to continue for a while to clarify on the original topic. I will give another hypothetical ID theory/statement (which builds on the first). Here it is:

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."

  Once again this statement requires:

  1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.

  2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.

  (Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).

  Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

  It's trivial to make statements that are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated in previous posts. You would be better served by attempting to provide evidence for some of your assertions, most notably the two beliefs essential to your original statement: the direct assertion you made that life requires an intelligent designer, and the corollary, that an intelligent designer can exist without having an origin. If you do happen to make a self-contradictory statement while doing so, don't worry, we'll tell you.

  If the above example is also agreed to be non-contradictory, then I hope to proceed to other related issues (including the points in your above comment, though I may begin initially with with some other relevant issues).
• 

  funkyderek

  AlmostAtheist:

  FunkyD points out that it's no big deal to create a sentence that doesn't contradict itself. That's usually true, but not with ID. The very premise of ID (as I -- perhaps mistakenly -- understand it) contradicts itself: "A thing that appears well-designed MUST have a designer", thus requiring the never-ending backwards string of designers.

  That in itself should make those who believe it stop and think. Why is it so difficult to form a statement of belief that doesn't fall at the very first hurdle? Avoiding the obvious problem of infinite regression by simply declaring the original designer not to have any of the properties of life that require a designer seems like a cheat, and hooberus has a lot of work to do to prove otherwise, or indeed to prove that his declaration has any more merit than any of the ones I pulled out of thin air.

  But like you, I'm intrigued and want to see where (if anywhere!) he's going with this.
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus:

  If the above example is also agreed to be non-contradictory, then I hope to proceed to other related issues (including the points in your above comment, though I may begin initially with with some other relevant issues).

  Agreed, it's non-contradictory. (It is, after all, practically identical to your original statement.) Now, can we move on please?
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I still want to know if there is an intelligent designer why was it so flawed it was allegedly destroyed in the flood - and I still would like to know which of Noahs sons had the task of going to the Artic and getting the Polar Bears onto the ark
• 

  Abaddon

  Almost

  Oh, assuredly, yes, I can see what he's trying to do.

  Pity in trying to create 'logically consistent theory of ID', all he does is show the tortuous ends one has to go to in constructing such a thing, and the fact that such a thing does not in itself mean anything (as funky pointed out) as logically consistent theories are not facts.

  One can come up with a logically consistent theory why Gimli and Legolas did or didn't make the beast with two backs. Doesn't mean either them or the Universe they inhabit is real.

  This is either missed by hooberus, or is unimportant to him.

  He also manages to behave in a manner INCONSISTENT with his purported beliefs, unless his scriptual citations show otherwise.

  Now he realises his 'cunning plan' wasn't all that cunning he's having another go. Rabbie Burns would be very pleased with the chaps persistence.

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."

  Once again this statement requires:

  1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.

  2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.

  (Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).

  Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

  Close but no spliff.

  This argument only works if you can show that the designer is not a complex machine of "interworking component parts".

  As I believe hooberus believe in the Trinity, he's really barking up the wrong bristlecone pine, as I think "interworking component parts" is as good a stab as any at describing 'the mystery of the Trinity'. Of course, as we obviously are calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I have no doubt that we will get into semantics regarding the meaning of 'machine', as no douby hooberus has chosen this as the definiton is normally regarding a device 'mechanical or organic'. However, 'machine' can also be described to describe a group of persons with a common purpose (like "Churchill's war machine", and I don't think he's quite ready to take on Sabellianism or denying the personitude of the component parts of the Trinity.

  Thus I see the nature of the postulated designer hooberusactually believes in as conforming to the description 'complex machine'.