The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)

by hooberus 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  On the thread "The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer" the poster "Elsewhere" wrote:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/187282/1/The-Probabilty-of-there-being-an-Intelligent-Designer

  Here is my basic reasoning on why I reject ID:

  1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being.

  2. I reject this because one is left wondering: Who created the creator?

  3. If the universe is so complex that it needs to have been created, then why does the creator not need to be created. The creator is, after all, more complex than the universe itself.

  4. I say leave out the extra step of the more complex creator and just leave the less complex universe by itself.

  There are several problems with your reasoning. First of all you are probably not consistent. You claim that you "reject ID", however I suspect that you (like other evolutionist) accept ID as a logical and valid explanation for things such as watches, pyramids, cameras, future confirmed SETI signals, etc. Therfore evolutionists are inconsistent when they claim that ID is somehow necessarily illogical.

  Secondly, you claim that the creator must be "after all, more complex than the universe itself" This assumes that a creator must be a material entitity composed of interdepenant parts. This is not something that the design argument logically requires, nor is it an attribute theologians believe that the God of the Bible posesses. Finally, you are overlooking the very revelant fact that the design argument has always either implicitly or explicitly dealt specifically with items believed to have an origin.- that is: "organized complexity (systems composed of componet parts) that has an origin (like watches, or biological life), is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as a result of purley naturalistic processes." There is nothing in such an argument that requires the designer himself to also be composed of organized complexity, nor even to have an origin at all, hence there is nothing in the above design argument that necessarily requires the designer to himself have his own creator.
• 

  bohm

  Just some thoughts..

  First off, i dont want to put words in the mouth of Elsewhere, but i believe the thread was a very odd mix of the cosmological argument and a whole lot of other stuff. I believe the main points Elsewhere put forth are valid, but it is not meant as a 'strict' but rather an intuiative argument.

  I dont think anyone would claim ID is a-priori illogical. It is likely that we are all entities in a large 'cosmic' computer simulation, or parts of a physical reality made by very powefull aliens, or made by a God - these are all valid ideas that incoorporate ID in the creation of the universe, or of how life evolved. But before i go into details i think we need to make something clear - when you discuss ID, do you then mean in the context of evolution, or in the contex of Big Bang? I think it is two very different discussions because of how little is known of the physical processes around Big Bang.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I say leave out the extra step of the more complex creator and just leave the less complex universe by itself.

  This assumes that a creator is necessarily more complex. If the natural world is any indicator, we see a progression over time from natural simplicity to natural complexity.

  BTS
• 

  nicolaou

  If the natural world is any indicator, we see a progression over time from natural simplicity to natural complexity.

  Isn't that evolution?
• 

  bohm

  This thread has really been haunting me, especially this:

  "Secondly, you claim that the creator must be "after all, more complex than the universe itself" This assumes that a creator must be a material entitity composed of interdepenant parts. This is not something that the design argument logically requires, nor is it an attribute theologians believe that the God of the Bible posesses.

  ...

  There is nothing in such an argument that requires the designer himself to also be composed of organized complexity, nor even to have an origin at all, hence there is nothing in the above design argument that necessarily requires the designer to himself have his own creator."

  Im going to assume that our designer is God for the rest of this discussion. What i am thinking is that we have a lot of things thrown around, such as a non-material designer and the concept of complexity which require a lot of work. So let me propose the following add-argument: An intelligent designer is certainly able to do computations, and so is this universe if arranged properly (note: the concept of what constitute a computation may be somewhat hard to nail down, but stay with me!). But thermodynamics also put a limit on how many classical computations it is possible to carry out with a specific quantity of matter, and thus also on the universe (i think a quantum computer would only move this limit upwards, not remove it).

  So lets think of our immaterial God. IF God was able to imagine the entire universe in his mind and calculate 2+2 at the same time, he would do more computations than the entire universe. Here i assume God is able to do that, so i am not talking about some wussie God, but a great, omnipotent, mighty God who can do all he set his mind to.

  Does this not make God more complex than the universe?

  (a similar argument could be produced with entropy creation taking the role of computation)

  I think there are two choices: Either our immaterial God must be of limited mental powers, or he is indeed in all practical sences of the word more complex than our universe. Again, it boils down to precicely what kind of God we are arguing about, and that is for Elsewhere and hooberus to know.
• 

  TD

  Interesting observations, hooberus. I've enjoyed your contributions over the years.

  When we posit the existence of a Creator not composed of matter, interdependant parts, organizational complexity, and possibly without origin as well are we still talking about something subject to factual analysis and argument?
• 

  VoidEater

  In the face of belief, truth doesn't stand a chance.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  God I got nothing to say in rebutal he's got all the bases covered with assumtions that make as much sense as:

  Apple and Oranges are round, they both grow on trees, and they are both clasified as fruits therefore since oranges are orange therfore so are apples.
• 

  VoidEater

  Without commenting on "god" or "the divine":

  You claim that you "reject ID", however I suspect that you (like other evolutionist) accept ID as a logical and valid explanation for things such as watches, pyramids, cameras, future confirmed SETI signals, etc. Therfore evolutionists are inconsistent when they claim that ID is somehow necessarily illogical.

  Actually, logic doesn't enter into it for me, it's a matter of evidence. There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer. There is plenty of evidence - records, direct observation - that artifacts in our world are made by men. Logic is not necessary to see that certain things are indeed made - but it takes the application of logic to entertain the notion of a designer of man.

  Further, we are psychologically conditioned to think of things as being designed, so are predisposed to think in terms of all things being designed.

  The lack of evidence for ID along with the known cultural bias for think of things as designed makes an Inteliigent Designer much more suspect than alternatives.

  Secondly, you claim that the creator must be "after all, more complex than the universe itself" This assumes that a creator must be a material entitity composed of interdepenant parts.

  I'm not sure that detractors of ID would nominally agree with this - it appears proponents of ID also say the complexity of the universe necessitates a complex designer.

  Again, we are psychologically conditioned to see what we think of as the most complex creature (man) only able to design things less than he is (a limited "thinking" device, unable to create life, etc.). So, yes, those that believe in ID would tend to think of that Designer as being greater (smarter, more moral, etc.) than they see themselves as.

  This becomes rather a moot argument.

  The second part of this - that the Designer is made per se into a material entity of interdependant parts - seems to come out of left field. I make no such assumptions.

  There is nothing ... that requires the designer himself to also be composed of organized complexity, nor even to have an origin at all, hence there is nothing in the above design argument that necessarily requires the designer to himself have his own creator.

  One of us is missing a point. If you posit life must have been created, then it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that the creator of that life must have been created. To plead a special case for a creator has no evidence, it's just a philosophical assertion.

  
• 

  cantleave

  Please watch the videos in the following thread!!!

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/187722/1/BBC-Program-A-Secret-Life-of-Chaos