We know human technological artifacts are designed for specific purposes; — Janus
A computer has numerous purposes and not one specific purpose and apparently unlimited potential. A pen can be used to sign a check, write a novel or draw a picture or to scratch an itch. — Andrew4Handel
The no design position to me is more of an interpretation than anything falsifiable. We know the heart has a function because when it fails you get very sick or die. — Andrew4Handel
It does not follow from the fact of the heart having a function that it was purposely designed to have that function. As far as we know the heart and its functions evolved. — Janus
But it has a specific function and serves an essential purpose just as much as a pen does if not more so.
As I say I still think the no design position is equally as speculative as the design position and also unfalsifiable. — Andrew4Handel
Also the recent explosion of human technology in a short period shows that what is said to take millions of years to evolve can be created in a few years with intelligence. — Andrew4Handel
Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place. :roll:I don't think the onus is on the design advocate to find a designer ... — Andrew4Handel
:up:The recent explosion of human technology is arguably mostly down to the fortuitous (or not) discovery of fossil fuels in my view. — Janus
The problem I have with the "designer" idea is that it is definitely unfalsifiable, and it involves an entity, which is not observable, and processes of which we can have no idea, so it would appear to be of little or no use to the speculative understanding. — Janus
Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place. — 180 Proof
I don't see why we have to try and explain reality as if it only consisted of insentient atoms bang together. To me that is an arbitrary choice that ignores other phenomena that exists like our mental states, consciousness, symbols language and so on. — Andrew4Handel
So tell us how you / we scientifically know that "everything" was created. If you cannot, then you / we do not have any grounds to believe there is / was a "creator" of the universe. :chin:To me it is a choice to try and explain everything without a creator ... — Andrew4Handel
Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity. — gevgala
The Designed Designer (or Caused Causer) challenge assumes that the postulated First Cause exists within the normal space-time system of sequential causation. The implicit argument seems to deny a concept that is typically assumed as an axiom by Design proponents : Eternity. "Eternity" (like "Zero") makes no sense from a real-world perspective. The notion of a spaceless & timeless state is an Ideal concept, and is meaningless to a Materialist/Realist. Yet idealistic philosophers play around with non-existent notions all the time. Since Eternity is abnormal though, they may try to make Timelessness more sensible by defining it as an undefined quantity of Time. Which merely dodges the essence of Eternity.I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer?" question. The question of "Who Designed the Designer?" is often asked as a challenge to the concept of intelligent design or the existence of a creator. It assumes that if everything in the universe requires a cause or a designer, then the designer itself must also have a cause or a designer. — gevgala
The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes something like this:Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity. — gevgala
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.