But again this is completely outside the realm of science. How can the nature of any supposed intelligent designer be objectively quantified when we have no (scientific) data to work with?
Right.
BTS
How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design
by hooberus 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
BurnTheShips
-
Spook
For a category mistake to be the case, it must be shown that I have assigned an antribute to a thing that it cannot possibly have. Not simply that it may possibly not have. This would then probably become an evidentialargument. I could furhter argue against divine simplicity the contrapositive that because God, if he exists, is simple, he cannot possible have the attribute of intelligence though that's probably beyond the scope here and well covered ground from both camps anyway. Whether this is applicable of Hoob's theism, I have no idea. Certainly my argument above is not beyond challenging - yet more sophisticated than the OP, which contained no actual information about complexity. Certainly complexity can justifiably be defined in other ways than #1.
And of course, I would also challenge the concept of divine simplicity - though not on this thread.
I would credit that I think the best deistic or pantheistic argument is one dealing with a 'god' which is a homogenous state of metaphysical mind.
-
BurnTheShips
Well either way, we both agree that complexity can come from simplicity, the OP notwithstanding. Simple things do combine into more complex things according to natural processes. This is the entire thrust of universal history of which we are the most complex (observed) part.
BTS
-
Spook
Well either way, we both agree that complexity can come from simplicity, the OP notwithstanding. Simple things do combine into more complex things according to natural processes. This is the entire thrust of universal history of which we are the most complex (observed) part. On face value of the statement, and to stay on the OP track, yes - especially your first and second of your sentences. That we are the most complex observed part might be problematic - since we're doing the observing and making the judgement of complexity. Let's not go there. (P.S> always like your comments Burn, even when we argue. Good to be challenged rigorously.)
-
mkr32208
Why are you guys even disgussing this? Does hoob every come back and respond?
He drives by and screams 'I disagree' out the window and drives away... Then you guys set to arguing... Pavlov would be thrilled!
-
jstalin
LOL. That video is precious.
-
hooberus
The main purpose of this thread is to show that the argument (from observed complexity) for the necessity of an intelligent designer if properly stated need not also necessarily require any logical problem- such as an inifinite regression. Before digressing more into the issue of what is meant specifically by "complexity", it needs to be pointed out that even if an intelligent desginer itself had to also be complex [which I don't nesessarily accept], the fact remains that the initial ID statement given in the OP here would still not necessarilry also require the designer to themself have a designer. This is due to the fact that the statement in the OP is referring only to complexity that has an origin being best explained as the result of a designer rather that as the result of natural processes. "The origin of complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes". Given that there is nothing in the above statement that also requires the desginer to themself have an origin, there is no requirement in the above for them to also have a designer themself. This is true even if the designer were also defined as being complex.
It also needs to be remembered that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the arguemt for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?
-
MissingLink
Is Hooberus really Kirk Cameron? Come on now, be honest.
-
mkr32208
HOLY SHIT! He came back!
I stand behind what I said though... WTF is the point?
-
Spook
If hoob can explain the difference between functional specificity (a phrase with a real non-tautological meaning) and specified complexity (a phrase which assumes what it sets out to prove as used) he wins a free link to what I think is actually a very good theistic argument - as far as theistic arguments go.