I didn't ask a question, only answered yours. But I'll try to posit a direct question here to keep the ball rolling.

It seems to me that what needs better elucidation between ourselves is the distinction between artifice and what is not designed (for lack of a better word).

You give the eddies in the sand or the rocks in the desert as not designed.

I give the tree as not designed, but the chair as designed.

I agree with your examples. Do you agree with mine?

Also, I'd like to hear more about what you mean by higher or lower order. Does higher or lower order mean the same thing as complexity? This was what my example between the tree and the chair was meant to explore.

I give the tree as not designed — Moliere

All life is self-developing. It is real evolution.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.

To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design.

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not.

Cool. The tree example was meant to get at the whole nature/artifice distinction as well. This is nice and straightforward. I'll have to think a bit before replying, but I'm glad to see your reply.

A few things I want to say. We can't escape our own minds and that comes with many presuppositions.

''Intelligent Design'' is a human perspective on the universe. We design and then we see links between our creations and the universe itself.

I just saw a documentary that basically says that the universe is mathematical in nature just as a computer simulated world is. Programmer=God...the connection is too obvious to miss.

That said, one needs to understand that nature, in the best possible version, is probabilistic (some say). All the mathematical laws we see in nature are just the most common state of affairs and that's why we see them more often - so often in fact that we perceive them as laws. There's no law that forbids a pig sprouting wings and taking flight. It's just that the probability of such events are too low to be noticed in a lifetime or even a billion years.

So, the order of the universe and our impressions that this order must have a source is an illusion so to speak. There is no order, hence no design and therfore no intelligent designer.

Among the first implications of intelligent design is just how unintelligent any such designer would be. One of the first things you learn when you study evolutionary biology is just how slapdash and thrown together most biological systems are; the most obvious example being the eye, which, despite it being taken as an exemplar of design, is in fact a functionally poor peice of equipment. Or else there's the fact that the human mind is basically a whole bunch of different systems cobbled together in way so inelegant that we're beset by all sort of mental illnesses and defects in judgement as a result. Otherwise, there's the well known example of the panda's thumb [pdf] - another kludge - which S. J. Gould wrote so lovingly about.

Evolutionary history is full of haphazard, jury-rigged contraptions which bear the mark of their contingent, bottom-up developmental paths which any 'designer' would balk at on account of their utter inelegance - unintelligent design. The first question one would put to any 'intelligent designer' is 'what the fuck is wrong with you?'.

The first question one would put to any 'intelligent designer' is 'what the fuck is wrong with you?'. — StreetlightX

That's why I like the idea of a semi-aware consciousness, that is only now becoming aware of what it really is, and what it is truly capable of doing. Either something childlike, creating what it can until its reasoning and skills develop, or in a just-waking-up kind of haze, where there creative capability is diminished, and some confusion between dream and reality persists.

Perhaps our creation was of a quantum nature, where a number of possibilities existed, which started being 'collapsed' by this awakening creative conscious observer, starting with a big bang, and beginning to establish the macro rules like gravity. Sentient life could have formed as an extension of this consciousness, and started co-creating our perceived reality at the micro level.

So, the order of the universe and our impressions that this order must have a source is an illusion so to speak. There is no order, hence no design and therfore no intelligent designer. — TheMadFool

Hmmm, never heard the illusion argument against intelligent design, interesting. You're quite Mad, Madfool. X-)

Let me see if I have this straight, I draw an analogy between human artifacts and artifacts in nature, and it's an illusion. The analogy is perfect, both exhibit the same evidence, so you would have to show that the analogy isn't a good one, not simply say that the evidence I see between human artifacts and artifacts of nature is an illusion. There is no order in, for example, the bacterial flagellum, which has a propeller, bushings, rotors, universal joint, etc. Now how can anyone look at this and not think that it is intelligently designed? This is exactly what we mean by intelligently designed. The only people that cannot see this are committed atheists, and maybe agnostics. Most people recognize these premises as true, which is probably why so many people believe in a designer/s.

Among the first implications of intelligent design is just how unintelligent any such designer would be. One of the first things you learn when you study evolutionary biology is just how slapdash and thrown together most biological systems are; the most obvious example being the eye, which, despite it being taken as an exemplar of design, is in fact a functionally poor peice of equipment. — StreetlightX

So let me see if I understand your argument against intelligent design. If something was put together shoddily, it means that it couldn't have been intelligently designed? We come across human artifacts all the time that were shoddily made, or of poor quality, do I then infer from that, that there was no designer? And does the thing designed have to be an exemplar of design in order for me to infer intelligent design? The answer is, no.

More than that: things are shoddily designed because they involve no designer: the shoddiness in question can itself be explained by the evolutionary paths that each shoddily designed thing took to get there; the eye is the half-crappy invention that it is because it started out as just a hole in membrane which gradually developed over time, with each step of that development constrained by the step before it. The brain is as shittily put together as it is because you can trace the way in which it began as a crude sensori-motor integration system only to have a whole bunch of other modules tacked on to it over time, in concert with the evolutionary pressures that shaped those tacking-ons (pressures that themselves can be tracked).

Design is not just a bad explanation - although it is that - it is also an explanation which would run counter to how things are actually put together. It's such a bad explanation that you'd more or less have to change the facts to fit it. Perhaps it could be called an anti-explanation.

As I said in another post I have nothing against evolution, but even evolution speaks to intelligent design. You have not given good reasons why I should reject the argument as I presented it. You basically just say it's a bad explanation, but saying something is a bad explanation is not enough unless you say how or why it's a bad explanation. Besides it's an argument with premises and a conclusion, not just an explanation. Where does the argument go wrong. I've already explained that because something is poorly put together, that in itself doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed.

Sure, but the same can be said about any fairy tale you'd like - of which intelligent design is one. 'Just because there's no evidence against it, doesn't mean it didn't happen' can be used to justify unicorns in party hats conjuring things up around a fire no less than an 'intelligent creator'. Fables and fictions for the intellectually fickle.

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.

To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design. — Sam26

God would also fit the description of intelligent design. Thanks for showing everyone that God was intelligently designed by humans. The circle is complete.

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not. — Sam26

It's evolution that negates intelligent design, or at least life designed with a purpose other than experimentation.

Reading your interaction with StreetlightX, I see that you have no problem devolving your intelligent designer into someone who isn't omniscient or omnipotent. Then your intelligent designer could be a long-lived alien biologist experimenting with life on Earth, right?

You also have an issue with your use of "parts" and "wholes". The parts of the cat have their own function, of which being a cat isn't one of them, and isn't suppose to be (apples and oranges). The heart has the purpose of pumping blood to the brain, etc., The cat is part of the ecosystem, or a human family, etc. The Earth is part of the solar system, etc. The only "whole" that exists could be the universe, or multiverse, of which the intelligent designer is part of.

I'd said:

S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.

You replied:

I have some sympathy with the idea of eternal (meaning not perpetual, but atemporal) existence. But we cannot conceive how that would be

Of course, because, for one thing, it's rare to remember anything about deep sleep. For another thing, of course the sleep at the end of lives of course will become deeper than that.

I try to avoid presumption. if something is knowable, and I convince myself that I know about it when I don't, then I'm cheating myself out of finding out about it. If something is unknowable, and I convince myself that I know about it, than that false knowledge cheats out of knowledge about what's unknowable, or a self-honest open attitude about what I don' know about.

Sure, I'm just making suggestions about it, But i try to justify them, below.

, so we cannot say "she neither knows, nor cares"

But I'm talking about a late stage of shutdown, shortly before actual complete (never-experienced) shutdown of consciousness. So isn't it a fair suggestion that there won't be knowledge or concern about matters of life, events, time, and identity? Aren't those things related to waking-life, and maybe not-so-deep sleep, which will be long-gone by then?

or "it's just sleep"

Of course it becomes deeper than the nightly deep-sleep. But, wouldn't it be a continuation and extension of that?

It's of interest, the matter of what's going to happen. Of course we can't know the details of what anything un-experienced will be like, but surely there are a few things that can be suggested. ...negative suggestions about it, and likening it to sleep? Comparison with sleep sounds like the best way to say something about, or try to somewhat understand that.

And isn't sleep what Atheists and Materialists expect too, at that time?

Shakespeare said, "...perchance to dream." Of course that allows for a lot of possibilities. I suggest that one of them is that metaphysically-implied reincarnation scenario that I've been suggesting. But, for those (probably very few) people without predisposition for that, it seems reasonable to suggest that the person remains present for hir shutdown process (which I suggest can be at least roughly likened to, best described as, sleep), right to the approach to Nothing.

or that it's "our natural, normal and usual state of affairs". These kinds of statements simply make no sense in the context of eternity

But doesn't timelessness imply that?

...and doesn't the fact that I'm talking about a person's final outcome, final state of affairs, imply that?

; they are 'temporamorphic' projections.

Of course I've been trying to avoid that, but as you suggest below, language isn't at its most effective in that area.

Probably we cannot form any statements that do make sense in that context

Nisargadatta said that anything that can be said is a lie.

Ok, but we can try to use language to suggest something about it.

..., other than apophatic ones.

Yes, other than suggesting that the experience can be likened to sleep, which proceeds to deep sleep, and then sleep that's deeper than usual deep sleep, I've been trying to limit what I say to negative statements (but suggested, not stated).

But i don't claim that any of this describes what it will be like, because I agree that that would be impossible. Convincing one that one knows about something unknowable is a way of cheating oneself.

Michael Ossipoff

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design. — Sam26

3 Does not follow from 1 and 2 even inductively.

In 1 you have taken a subset of the group 'all things where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone' The subset being 'those things of that type which humans have made'. You have neither demonstrated, nor deduced that this is the only or exhaustive subset of this group.

In 2 you have stated that there exists at least one other subset of the group 'all things where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone'. The subset being those type of things which are found in nature.

You've then simply declared that the two subsets must share all properties - if one subset is designed then so must the other subset be, but you haven't provided any logic as to why that should be the case. All we know about these two subsets, is that they must share at least and only the one property that makes them both part of the same set i.e that the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone. There's no reason, inductive or otherwise, to presume that they will share any other properties, such as being designed.

I'd said;

Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported.

This is more of a technical point, but I'm careful about using the term reincarnation, because of the religious baggage.

As a Vedantist, that doesn't bother me, though i consider reincarnation a matter of metaphysics, not religion.

That said, there seems to be plenty of evidence in what NDErs are claiming that supports the idea that we choose, for example, to come here to have specific experiences. Or that we choose to come here, not only for the experiences of being human, and the limitations that brings,

Oh yes, Like many people, I used to say (still sometimes tend to say), "I didn't choose this! I didn't ask to be born!"

But now I can't convince myself of that, because it's metaphysically evident that we're in a life because of predisposition, such as want, need, inclination. .

I think this life is meant to be very difficult, it's not meant to be a good time

I hope that not all lives are in a world like this one. Eastern philosophers suggest that, over many lifetimes, as we perfect our lifestyle, our next incarnations will be in better worlds. I agree, and of course I hope that's so.

Here's one possible way by which our own character could affect our next incarnation-world:

Say you've lived a life of selfishness and violence. Now you've died, and have become unconscious (but haven't reached deep-sleep). You've forgotten about your just-ended life, but your emotions, feelings, inclinations are still there. There's a life-experience possibility-story that has you as protagonist. What kind of a world would it be in? What kind of a world is consistent with you? How about a world with the kind of people who would beget someone like you?

, although we can experience good times.

I like to suggest that it averages-out, over the lives.

Most come here, it's my contention, to experience the struggle. You can compare it to someone who wants to scale a mountain, and the struggles that ensue, or an athlete who struggles to attain perfection.

Oh I don't know about that.

Sure, there's a good analogy with video-games. We want a video-game to be challenging, because otherwise it wouldn't show how good we are. And if you insist that your father let you play video games, he wouldn't limit them to games that you always win.

I used to regard it that way.

But might not the badness of this world we were born in be the result of our own character (previous, at least), rather than our wish or intention?

One thing that demolishes the argument that we're in a bad world because we need it, to show how good we are, and what we can accomplish, is the fact that this world is entirely hopeless and irreparably unfixable.

I think the struggle here generally makes our character stronger, but there are probably many other reasons too.

Well, the badness around us it teaches us, by bad example, to be a better person. I suggest that the reason why we're here is because of the person we were. ...not for educational purposes, not for the purpose of improving us, but merely because this world is what was implied by, consistent with, who we were, and was what we qualified for.

But learning to be a better person, eventually perfecting our lifestyle--They say (in the East) that that's inevitable, over sufficiently-many, finitely-many, lifetimes, and that everyone eventually will achieve that life-completion that brings us to the end-of-lives.

Michael Ossipoff

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form: — Sam26

As @Pseudonym says, this is not an inductive argument - this is no argument at all.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone. — Sam26

You really don't see how unhelpful this circular explanation is?


The theory of Intelligent Design comes down to this:



OK, so this was a bit of silly fun, and yet this is essentially correct. The Intelligent Design "explanation" is that an agent with unknown motives and unconstrained abilities conceived and brought about by unknown means... whatever it is that cries out for an explanation, just the way it actually happens to be.

In other words: Magic man dunnit.

The problem with this "theory" has already been unwittingly identified by one of its proponents in this thread:

On the other hand, if those who don't believe in intelligent design aren't committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument, answer the following: What would count as evidence of intelligent design? — Sam26

The answer is, of course - nothing. And that's not a "fallacy of the self-sealing argument" - that is a fatal defect of a theory, which is in-principle untestable. It can account for anything and its opposite. Hell, it could even counterfactually account for nothing! If there were no physical universe, that would just mean that the Designer did not get around to design it. If the universe was not life-supporting - well, apparently that's just what the Designer wanted. If it was completely chaotic - that must have been the plan all along. Good design counts; bad design counts as well! Anything goes - and therefore nothing can serve as evidence.

Evidence is contrastive: for there to be evidence for, there must be potential evidence against. Bayesian model of inductive inference shows this quantitatively, but in truth every more-or-less sensible empirical epistemology says the same thing.

You've then simply declared that the two subsets must share all properties - if one subset is designed then so must the other subset be, but you haven't provided any logic as to why that should be the case. — Pseudonym

The logic (the inference) is very simple, straight forward, and compelling, which is why most people believe it's true. The point is that when we look at human productions that exhibit the features named in premise one, they are the result of intelligent design. In fact, even if you had never seen a watch before (Paley's argument), and stumbled upon one, you surely wouldn't conclude it happened by chance. Why? Because we are very familiar with the evidence of intelligent design. Again, the evidence that is spelled out in premise one. Moreover, it's not just how complex the item is, it can be very simple or very complex, but all, or nearly all manmade productions have this property (as stated in premise one).

Now the argument is analogical, that is, we make an inference based on a likeness or analogy between objects or groups of objects to infer the existence of a further likeness. This kind of reasoning is done all the time in logic, so to say that there is no logic to the argument, is to not understand logic.

All we know about these two subsets, is that they must share at least and only the one property that makes them both part of the same set i.e that the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone. There's no reason, inductive or otherwise, to presume that they will share any other properties, such as being designed. — Pseudonym

We will concentrate on the last sentence of this paragraph, which misses the point of the argument. The property as put forth in premise one, is the evidence of intelligent design. Thus, if it is the evidence of intelligent design, then it follows with certainty, that is, with a high degree of probability that other artifacts exhibiting these same features are also intelligently designed.

The logic is there, and only those who are committed to a dogmatic world view refuse to see the evidence. This is why I say these kinds of naturalistic world views, are just as bad as religious dogmatism.

Again, the argument is inductive, and clearly inductive. Anyone who has had even a basic course in logic can see this.

Let's analyze the strength of the argument:

1) Number of items used as evidence, and the number of items used as evidence are human artifacts and objects of nature; they are innumerable.
2) The number of analogies (similarities) shared by the objects compared. Virtually all of the objects are complex consisting of many parts, some are more complex than others. Moreover, the parts fits with some degree of precision.
3) Number of disanalogies (dissimilarities) between human artifacts and natural artifacts. "I do not know of any disanalogies between all human productions, on the one hand, and all objects of nature, on the other. Some objects of nature are alive, but not all are. Some have a mental life, but not all. Similarly, some human productions are also alive, as in the case of genetically engineered plants and animals."
4) Variety of items used as evidence, namely human productions. The variety is endless.
5) The issue of relevance of the features or structures compared, namely the parts are so arranged that the whole can perform higher functions than any part alone, to the activity of design. Does design cause such structure? The relevance, of course, is perfect, for what is the activity of design but the arrangement of parts so the whole can perform a higher function than any part alone?
6) Scope of the conclusion - the conclusion is the narrowest and most conservative possible, namely, that there are one or more designers of natural objects.
7) Truth and cogency of the premises, i.e., knowledge of the truth of the premises. Nearly every human adult knows the premises are true.
8) Cogency of the argument structure. Can the argument be followed? The argument is very simple and easy to follow.
9) Psychological impact or compellingness of the argument. My experience is that most find it compelling; only committed agnostics and atheists do not, and they are few and far between. They just refuse to draw the proper conclusion

The result of the analysis is that the argument is a very strong argument. It is hard to imagine a stronger argument than this. It is probably one of the reasons why so many people believe the argument. The only way to get around the strength of this argument is to keep repeating "There is no evidence." You say it enough times, then others will repeat it and believe it. Reminds of politics, the politicians know if they keep repeating a narrative, a certain segment of the population will believe it. And the narrative that atheists and agnostics (by the way I'm an agnostic) keep repeating, is, "There is no evidence.," among other insulting remarks.

I will set forth the challenge once again. If their rejection of the argument (mostly atheists and agnostics) isn't based on a prejudice apart from the evidence, then they should be able to stipulate what additional evidence would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe. In other words, what evidence is lacking that would warrant believing in an intelligent designer/s?

If they cannot stipulate what is lacking, then their belief is an irrational prejudice sealed off from the evidence. They would be committing the fallacy of the self-sealing argument.

And if nothing would count as evidence of intelligent design, then their argument is unfalsifiable.

It's not that difficult to argue intelligent design. In fact, it's very easy to defeat the counter-arguments, and there is no need to argue against evolution. The problem is that many people are afraid to argue these points, especially in a university setting, because they get laughed at by those who have swallowed hook, line, and sinker a particular world view. Let them laugh, they're the ones being irrational.

. The property as put forth in premise one, is the evidence of intelligent design. Thus, if it is the evidence of intelligent design, then it follows with certainty, that is, with a high degree of probability that other artifacts exhibiting these same features are also intelligently designed. — Sam26

'With certainty' herp drep.

(1) The Sun is round.
(2) My cousin Timmy is round.
(3) Therefore it follows with certainty that my cousin Timmy is the sun.
(4) Let them laugh, they're the ones being irrational.

Now the argument is analogical, that is, we make an inference based on a likeness or analogy between objects or groups of objects to infer the existence of a further likeness. This kind of reasoning is done all the time in logic, so to say that there is no logic to the argument, is to not understand logic. — Sam26

Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum.

As others have already pointed out the many other flaws in this argument - the fact that the 'designers' would fall into the same set as all the things they deigned and therefore create a Russelian paradox, We have no example of a thing that has not been designed in the universe so the argument is unfalsifiable - I will simply try to explain the set theory argument in clearer terms.

To start, there must be two sets A{all things where the whole exhibits a higher order function than the parts} and B{all things where the whole does not exhibit a higher order function than the parts}.

Many human creations are in set A, a pile of rocks is in set B, all animals are in set A, many human creations are in set B (humans could pile rocks without any design or purpose). So at the moment we have the observation that some of the things in set A are designed (by humans), some of the things in set B might also be designed (it is possible that a human deliberately piled rocks with the intention that they should serve no purpose other than to look like a natural pile of rocks).

No matter how many human devices there are on the planet, they will be outnumbered by the weight of animals - bacteria, beetles etc. So as things stand, all we can infer so far is that a small proportion of the things in set A have been designed, as have some of the things in set B.

Your argument then goes on to say that because a small proportion of the things in set A have been designed, it is logically compelling to presume that all things in set A have been designed. Of course, a small proportion of things in set B have been designed too, so the argument must be applied there also. Thus the argument dissolves to - because some things have been designed, all things must have been designed (seeing as set A and set B together comprise all things). This is obviously nonsense.

This is the problem with inferring (without cause) that all members of a set share all the same properties as all other members of a set. This is simply not how logic works. The only things members of a set can be logically demonstrated to share is the one characteristic that makes them members of that set. We could, using Bayesian inference, say with increasing certainty that all members of a set share a non-necessary property as the number of members that share that property exceed half the set. If more than half of all people called John turn out to be clever, we can begin to infer with increasing certainty that all people called John are clever.

But human creations do not come anywhere close to half of set A, the number of bacteria alone outnumber human creations by whole orders of magnitude, not to mention the fact that once we know a mobile phone is the creation of a designer, a further mobile phone does not become further evidence of this theory.

So all we have in terms of data is still that a very small proportion of all things in set A are designed. By what logic do we then presume that it is even likely, let alone inevitable, that all things in set A must share this same property? We know it is not a necessary property (as has famously been referenced, if you assemble all the parts of a watch randomly, with no design, in a different order over and over you will eventually assemble a working watch). We also know that a small proportion of things in set B are designed, which together comprise the set {all things}. So we are left with no reason to presume that all the things in the set share the same property as some small proportion of the things in the set.

Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum. — Harry Hindu

There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this universe, that answers the question about the creation of this universe. For example when we answer the question, who created this watch, do I then say you can't answer that question because we don't know who created you, of course not.

Where in the world did you get that reasoning from? To know that this is incorrect all you have to do is apply it to any analogical argument that we know are valid, and we can see this doesn't work at all. If this had merit how would any analogical argument hold water? It would mean that I couldn't infer properties in one group to another group. The only nonsense is that you think that this actually works.

Analogous arguments are not automatically valid, they are measured by the strength of their inference. as I outlined;

1. The relevance of the similarity is weak because things which do not belong in set A can also be shown to have been designed (a person could by design place a pile of rocks specifically to look as if they had occurred naturally). the property 'having been designed' is not unique to set A objects, so its relevance is weak.

2. The degree of similarity is weak. Human manufactured objects are similar to natural objects only in that they are made of parts that together perform a higher order function. They are dissimilar in many other important aspects.
Human manufactured objects have a clear history of manufacture and can all be traced back to a human to whom we can ask "did you design that?". It is from this data that we get our knowledge that all human-made object in set A are designed. Natural objects have no history of manufacture and cannot be traced back to a manufacturer whom we can question.
Natural objects are all significantly more complex than human manufactured objects.
Natural objects (that perform higher order functions) can all replicate themselves in a process which causes random variation to the make up of the object and one in which objects whose parts do not perform a useful higher order function will cease to exist. A process which we can logically see could feasibly result in only those objects whose parts do combine to perform a higher order function existing at any one time. We can deduce pretty accurately from our knowledge of evolution that there must have existed billions of natural objects whose parts did not come together to perform a higher order function.

3. The amount of instances that form the basis is extremely weak, so much so as to be completely damning to the analogy. Human artefacts represent a tiny proportion of all things in set A. There is an estimated 300 trillion tonnes of human artefacts in the world. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria. Even if we average human artefacts at just 1g, bacteria alone outnumber human artefacts by five trillion trillion times. All the failed organisms from the process of evolution outnumber human artefacts. by several trillion times more than this. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything about human artefacts tells us something about natural objects by strength of analogy. It would be like claiming you knew something with great certainty about all architecture because you studied one brick.

There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this universe, that answers the question about the creation of this universe. For example when we answer the question, who created this watch, do I then say you can't answer that question because we don't know who created you, of course not. — Sam26

These are the kinds of arguments that show the inconsistencies of theists and why I propose that religion is a delusion.

You keep using human beings and the things they have designed as examples of intelligent designers who were also designed themselves by some other designer. If humans are intelligent designers AND were designed themselves, then why aren't all intelligent designers designed themselves? Saying that you don't have to apply the same reasoning just shows that you are being inconsistent.

You keep using human beings and the things they have designed as examples of intelligent designers who were also designed themselves by some other designer. If humans are intelligent designers AND were designed themselves, then why aren't all intelligent designers designed themselves? Saying that you don't have to apply the same reasoning just shows that you are being inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. You're assuming that if we discover the designers, then they must have been designed, how does that follow?

And why does it follow that because another group of designers was designed themselves, that this necessarily leads to an infinite regress of designers. There isn't any way to know that. We don't know enough about the designers. Maybe they've always existed, or some of them have always existed.

So I'm not being inconsistent at all.

Analogous arguments are not automatically valid, they are measured by the strength of their inference. as I outlined; — Pseudonym

Well, first we shouldn't be using the term valid in reference to inductive arguments. When I first used it in my remarks I was using it very loosely. Validity is a property of deductive arguments, not inductive arguments. To be precise, when talking about inductive arguments, they are either strong or weak, that is, the evidence that supports the conclusion is either strong or weak. I'm making the claim that the evidence for intelligent design is extremely strong, so strong that it's irrational to believe otherwise.

1. The relevance of the similarity is weak because things which do not belong in set A can also be shown to have been designed (a person could by design place a pile of rocks specifically to look as if they had occurred naturally). the property 'having been designed' is not unique to set A objects, so its relevance is weak. — Pseudonym

How do random rocks show evidence of design, even if placed there by a person? It's a strange use of the term "by design" in reference to something placed randomly. They might have been placed there purposely, but that in itself doesn't mean that they show intelligent design.

2. The degree of similarity is weak. Human manufactured objects are similar to natural objects only in that they are made of parts that together perform a higher order function. They are dissimilar in many other important aspects.
Human manufactured objects have a clear history of manufacture and can all be traced back to a human to whom we can ask "did you design that?". It is from this data that we get our knowledge that all human-made object in set A are designed. Natural objects have no history of manufacture and cannot be traced back to a manufacturer whom we can question. — Pseudonym

So let's see if I have this correct. Your saying that there is an important dissimilarity that I'm leaving out that makes the argument weak, that is, products of humans have a history of manufacture. I presume this is meant to imply that we know it's designed because of this history, whereas, artifacts in nature do not have such a history. I say this has nothing to do with knowing that something is designed. I don't need to know the history of the manufacturing of watches to infer design, this is just silly. You mean if you traveled to another planet and found something that looked like a vehicle, having wheels, what appeared to be an engine, what appeared to be fuel, etc, that we couldn't conclude intelligent design because we know nothing about it's manufacturing history? You expect me to take this criticism seriously.

Natural objects are all significantly more complex than human manufactured objects.
Natural objects (that perform higher order functions) can all replicate themselves in a process which causes random variation to the make up of the object and one in which objects whose parts do not perform a useful higher order function will cease to exist. A process which we can logically see could feasibly result in only those objects whose parts do combine to perform a higher order function existing at any one time. We can deduce pretty accurately from our knowledge of evolution that there must have existed billions of natural objects whose parts did not come together to perform a higher order function. — Pseudonym

All this shows is that a higher intelligence was involved in the design, it doesn't necessarily mean that there was no designer. Moreover, humans are beginning to design things which can't be distinguished from objects of nature. One can also imagine a time, maybe in a 1000 or more years, where the things we create will be even more like the artifacts of nature. This criticism fails too.

As far as the last sentence in this paragraph is concerned, I don't see how this takes away from the argument either. So what if there are many artifacts that nature has discarded, especially since nature decides that the artifact doesn't work, or it has no use for it. The same things happen in design, we often do this when creating things.

3. The amount of instances that form the basis is extremely weak, so much so as to be completely damning to the analogy. Human artefacts represent a tiny proportion of all things in set A. There is an estimated 300 trillion tonnes of human artefacts in the world. There are an estimated five million trillion trillion bacteria. Even if we average human artefacts at just 1g, bacteria alone outnumber human artefacts by five trillion trillion times. All the failed organisms from the process of evolution outnumber human artefacts. by several trillion times more than this. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything about human artefacts tells us something about natural objects by strength of analogy. It would be like claiming you knew something with great certainty about all architecture because you studied one brick. — Pseudonym

I don't follow how this point is even relevant. So because there are more artifacts in nature, as opposed to human artifacts, this demonstrates that there isn't a large enough sampling of human artifacts, what?! You can't expect me to respond to this.

This is what I mean by the arguments against intelligent design being ludicrous. I have been arguing with people about intelligent design for over 40 years, and these are the kinds of arguments they put forward. Even Richard Dawkins arguments are poor, in terms of intelligent design. He may know something about biology, but he knows very little about forming good arguments.

How do random rocks show evidence of design, even if placed there by a person? — Sam26

If the person intended that they should look random then they have "designed" a rock pile to look random. It's quite a normal use of the word.

I don't need to know the history of the manufacturing of watches to infer design, this is just silly. You mean if you traveled to another planet and found something that looked like a vehicle, having wheels, what appeared to be an engine, what appeared to be fuel, etc, that we couldn't conclude intelligent design because we know nothing about it's manufacturing history? — Sam26

You've literally just said that "humans are beginning to design things which can't be distinguished from objects of nature". So it is obvious by your own admission that one could come across an alien artefact and have no idea whether it had been designed or not simply by its features. You would have to know its history. Your argument keeps just coming back to nothing more than just fanatically stating "it's obvious". If I were to come across an alien artefact that, like many of the human-made artefacts, looked very 'natural' how exactly am I supposed to just know that it has been designed without begging the question (by presuming that all complex things must have been designed)?

All this shows is that a higher intelligence was involved in the design, — Sam26

No, it only shows this if you're already committed to the idea that such thing must be designed. Objectively, all it shows is that natural objects currently seem to be of a different class to human-made ones, which weakens the analogy.

As far as the last sentence in this paragraph is concerned, I don't see how this takes away from the argument either. So what if there are many artifacts that nature has discarded, especially since nature decides that the artifact doesn't work, or it has no use for it. The same things happen in design, we often do this when creating things. — Sam26

No, we do not. No human designer I've ever heard of makes a series of completely random mistakes in the hope that one of them turns out to be useful. But this is exactly how natural things become functional. Again, a meaningful difference which weakens the analogy.

So because there are more artifacts in nature, as opposed to human artifacts, this demonstrates that there isn't a large enough sampling of human artifacts, — Sam26

Yes, that's exactly the point! Have you no idea how sampling works? Bayesian inference is practically based on sample size, the whole of probability is based on sample size, the very concept of saying something is likely is about picking a specific group/event out of the population of all possible things.

All you have is that a tiny proportion of all things that are in set A have been designed. That's it. There is no logic at all by which you can strongly infer from that that all things in that set must have been designed.

Yes, that's exactly the point! Have you no idea how sampling works? — Pseudonym

I'm going to make one more remark, then I'm moving on. Most reasonable people would understand that the sampling size I'm using is huge. It doesn't need to be equal to the number of objects I'm comparing it too. So to say that I don't know how sampling works, is, well, how shall I say, CRAZY!! But I digress, and moreover, I rest my case. The argument stands, and it's a good argument in spite of these criticisms.