Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Victor Drake · 12-05-2002, 04:20 PM

If we accept for a moment the premise that nothing as complex as a living cell can come into being without having been designed by an intelligence, we must recognize that an intelligence capable of such designing must necessarily be AT LEAST as complex as the thing it designs. Who, then designed the designer? If the complexity of a cell needs a designer, the designer must need a much more complex designer, which would need an even more complex designer, ad infinitum. If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium?
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 04:29 PM

Devils advocate:

No matter what you put forth as existing first it will always have at least some degree of complexity.
Therefor, it stands to reason that whatever came first must have been capable of creating itself.

So, if I wanted to argue against your line of thinking, I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself, yet whatever came first must have been able to create itself. An omnipotent deity would fit the bill.

Victor Drake · 12-05-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Devils advocate:

No matter what you put forth as existing first it will always have at least some degree of complexity.
Therefor, it stands to reason that whatever came first must have been capable of creating itself.

There you go again. You assume that to exist is evidence of having been 'created'. Nothing needs to create itself if it is possible to exist without a creator. You did not address my argument in even the slightest degree.

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 05:23 PM

Your argument was addressed.

If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium?

As I said, a paramecium isn't capable of creating it self.

You assume that to exist is evidence of having been 'created'

No, you assumed that I assumed that. I did not say that it is not possible to exist without a creation.

There are two possible choices:

A) Eternal Existance
or
B) Creation

If we assume B, then my statement appears valid. Whatever is the 1st thing to appear needed to be capable of creating itself.

If we have A, then there is no need for creation. However, the evidence is not in favor of A. The Big Bang model at least hints at a beginning.

PandaJoe · 12-05-2002, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
So, if I wanted to argue against your line of thinking, I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself, yet whatever came first must have been able to create itself. An omnipotent deity would fit the bill.

But before this omnipotent deity created itself, it it not exist. A non-existent deity can't be omnipotent, can it? So it won't have the necissary omnipotence to create itself.

Quote:

There are two possible choices:

A) Eternal Existance
or
B) Creation

Seems like a false dilemma to me. I'd like to invoke a clause I like to call the "No Fucking Clue Clause", which states that for every conceivable alternative, there is at minimum one other that we simply haven't a fucking clue what it could be.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: PandaJoe ]

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 06:16 PM

Now, of course there's no reason to talk in absolutes.

However, A and B are opposites that for all extensive purposes cover the entire spectrum of possibilities.

Can an non-existance deity be omnipotent?
No. But if nothing exists there is no time either. Therefore a deity could have a beginning and be omnipotent. Could being the key word.

Victor Drake · 12-05-2002, 06:20 PM

Again I quote your statement.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Devils advocate:

No matter what you put forth as existing first it will always have at least some degree of complexity.
Therefor, it stands to reason that whatever came first must have been capable of creating itself.

This does NOT stand to reason.

This is the assumption you made and which I reject. It is not necessary for something to have a 'creator' (i.e. an intelligence which consciously designed it) in order for the thing to exist.

Before you ask: The alternative is for the thing to have come into being as the result of a blind, undirected process which produced it by accident.

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 06:28 PM

No, it's not the alternative victor.
Because any process capable of procuding it is indeed pre-existing and would be the object of our discussion.

2 choices. Enternal or capable of self creation.

lpetrich · 12-05-2002, 06:42 PM

There is also the serious question of what "intelligent design" is. I got to a possible answer after considering the question of animal intelligent design.

Do spiders intelligently design their webs?
Do honeybees intelligently design their honeycombs?
Do beavers intelligently design their lodges and dams?

When I thought of chimps, Koehler's classic experiments, and Insight Learning, I came to the conclusion that doing intelligent design of something is making a mental model of it and then implementing that model. Thus, a chimp who wishes to get to an out-of-reach banana would imagine some stacked crates, and then would stack some crates to get to that banana.

I mentioned this solution in another thread, and pz asked about designing an airliner. That is clearly a case of distributed mental modeling, since none of the airliner's designers would have a comprehensive picture of all the design -- different designers would specialize in different parts of the plane and they communicate with each other about how all the pieces are to fit together.

Liquidrage · 12-05-2002, 06:53 PM

Remember
Devils advocate:

But I was adressing Victor arugment not from when life starts but from when the universe starts.

Do spiders intelligently design their webs?
Do honeybees intelligently design their honeycombs?
Do beavers intelligently design their lodges and dams?

I would say the answer is no.
But by those same lines do humans intelligently design anything? I would also say no.

12-05-2002, 04:20 PM	#1
Victor Drake Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 15	'Intelligient Design' theory not designed intelligently If we accept for a moment the premise that nothing as complex as a living cell can come into being without having been designed by an intelligence, we must recognize that an intelligence capable of such designing must necessarily be AT LEAST as complex as the thing it designs. Who, then designed the designer? If the complexity of a cell needs a designer, the designer must need a much more complex designer, which would need an even more complex designer, ad infinitum. If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-05-2002, 04:29 PM	#2
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Devils advocate: No matter what you put forth as existing first it will always have at least some degree of complexity. Therefor, it stands to reason that whatever came first must have been capable of creating itself. So, if I wanted to argue against your line of thinking, I would say that a paramecium isn't capable of creating itself, yet whatever came first must have been able to create itself. An omnipotent deity would fit the bill.

12-05-2002, 05:23 PM	#4
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Your argument was addressed. If at any point in this regression, it is possible for an designing intelligence to exist without a designer, then why can't a paramecium? As I said, a paramecium isn't capable of creating it self. You assume that to exist is evidence of having been 'created' No, you assumed that I assumed that. I did not say that it is not possible to exist without a creation. There are two possible choices: A) Eternal Existance or B) Creation If we assume B, then my statement appears valid. Whatever is the 1st thing to appear needed to be capable of creating itself. If we have A, then there is no need for creation. However, the evidence is not in favor of A. The Big Bang model at least hints at a beginning.

12-05-2002, 06:16 PM	#6
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Now, of course there's no reason to talk in absolutes. However, A and B are opposites that for all extensive purposes cover the entire spectrum of possibilities. Can an non-existance deity be omnipotent? No. But if nothing exists there is no time either. Therefore a deity could have a beginning and be omnipotent. Could being the key word.

12-05-2002, 06:28 PM	#8
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	No, it's not the alternative victor. Because any process capable of procuding it is indeed pre-existing and would be the object of our discussion. 2 choices. Enternal or capable of self creation.

12-05-2002, 06:42 PM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	There is also the serious question of what "intelligent design" is. I got to a possible answer after considering the question of animal intelligent design. Do spiders intelligently design their webs? Do honeybees intelligently design their honeycombs? Do beavers intelligently design their lodges and dams? When I thought of chimps, Koehler's classic experiments, and Insight Learning, I came to the conclusion that doing intelligent design of something is making a mental model of it and then implementing that model. Thus, a chimp who wishes to get to an out-of-reach banana would imagine some stacked crates, and then would stack some crates to get to that banana. I mentioned this solution in another thread, and pz asked about designing an airliner. That is clearly a case of distributed mental modeling, since none of the airliner's designers would have a comprehensive picture of all the design -- different designers would specialize in different parts of the plane and they communicate with each other about how all the pieces are to fit together.

12-05-2002, 06:53 PM	#10
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Remember Devils advocate: But I was adressing Victor arugment not from when life starts but from when the universe starts. Do spiders intelligently design their webs? Do honeybees intelligently design their honeycombs? Do beavers intelligently design their lodges and dams? I would say the answer is no. But by those same lines do humans intelligently design anything? I would also say no.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.