Objection to the "Who Designed the Designer?" Question

gevgala

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. However, I believe that this question is invalid, and that the concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point. Furthermore, my argument also states that if the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress. This further supports my claim that the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity.

Here is my argument:

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.

My argument challenges the assumption behind the "Who Designed the Designer?" question by emphasizing the necessary starting point that the concept of a designer implies. The designer must have been the starting point, the origin of all things, and not designed by another entity. Also, the question "Who designed the designer?" is invalid because it's like asking "Who taught Helio Gracie jiu-jitsu?" - the answer would be no one, as Helio Gracie was the start and inventor of BJJ. Similarly, the designer must have been the starting point, not designed by another entity.

Moliere

↪gevgala

"Who designed the designer?" is a question, not an argument -- so I'd say it is neither valid nor invalid.

I think your argument is a strong statement of Premise 1 which is attempting to refute a counter objection, but in argument form. It looks more like a dialectic.

In response to the conclusion, I'd say it's plausible that another starting point could account for the designer other than the designer. For instance, the guy who designed airplanes is accounted for by being human and where all that came from. So why is it that the designer must be the starting point? Some designers are not starting points after all.

Tom Storm

Also, the question "Who designed the designer?" is invalid because it's like asking "Who taught Helio Gracie jiu-jitsu?" - — gevgala

Not a great analogy given that prior or jiu-jitsu there were other marital arts that Helio knew of and unarmed combat had had a long, long tradition which had evolved over time. It's not like Helio created something from nothing, the way gods are supposed to. If there were no physical combat or fighting ever in the history of human beings then maybe this would be a better analogy.

Taking your analogy then we might say that the god or gods who made this world might have been influence by gods which made other worlds they had encountered. Just as Helio was influenced by other fighting techniques.

Maybe you believe that there are many gods who specialize in designing different parts of 'creation'? Some gods excel at skys perhaps? Some are brilliant at apes and other gods are good at landscape?

Well, in any case, if a designer doesn't need a cause, then we have established that some things do not require a cause. These things are often called brute facts. Could it be a paucity of human imagination to suggest that what we call the universe must have a cause? It might just be a brute fact.

How could we possibly know that everything must have a cause, based on the small amount humans know of the entire universe? From a philosophical position, we are not sure what causation even is. Personally I don't think we can build a robust view of the supposed 'ultimate nature of reality' based on how human perceptions and value judgements work.

T Clark

Here is the argument:

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

Welcome to the forum.

When you say "the designer" I assume you mean the one who planned our reality, the world we see around us. I don't see any evidence that reality was planned by anyone. It looks like it just sort of happened.

I guess we should just step back one step - who created reality? Does that make a difference? Without any specific justification, I've always assumed the universe has just always been here. No beginning and no end. I admit I don't have any evidence for that position, but I don't have any evidence against it either. Let's apply Occam's razor. As you know, that's the principle that, when looking at different but equally effective explanations for the same phenomena, we should accept the one that allows us to forget about the whole thing.

That's my solution. No designer, no creator. It just is the way it is.

180 Proof

↪gevgala

If "the designer" does not presuppose a designer, then why can't the universe not presuppose a designer (given that the universe, from within the universe, only appears designed to us based soley on very limited, human experience or imagination)?

Sam26

I would like to introduce an argument in response to the "Who Designed the Designer" argument. The "Who Designed the Designer" argument raises the question of who or what designed the designer, leading to an infinite regress. However, I believe that this question is invalid, and that the concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point. — gevgala

If we're asking if there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe, as far as I can tell the question of who designed the designer is not the point. The only question for me is, is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe? The mistake for many who make this argument is that they're usually trying to prove or give strong evidence for their particular religious God. Whether there is evidence of intelligent design may have nothing to do with whether any religious belief is true or false. In other words, one could ask this question without invoking some God or gods. It's quite possible that there might have evolved some sort of super beings in some other universe that have the power to create things we can't even imagine. In fact, this may be quite likely the case given the ions of time that have passed. We couldn't even imagine how advanced beings could get in billions and billions of years. The point I'm making is that the intelligent design argument is not necessarily a religious argument as so many assume. This brings us back to, "Is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe?"

180 Proof

This brings us back to, "Is there evidence of intelligent design in our universe?" — Sam26

There isn't a shred of evidence, and ID makes no unique, testable predictions either.

Sam26

↪180 Proof

So, what would count as evidence of intelligent design? In other words, what evidence would you require?

Sam26

↪180 Proof

The way we use the words intelligent design in our language gives us some guidelines as to what we mean by intelligent design. So, there are some family resemblances that are common among things that have been intelligently designed. For example, the precise fitting together of parts, the beauty of the design, parts fitting together to achieve a particular goal, the use of the laws of mechanics, mathematical precision, built in code, these are just some of the things that are part of what we mean by intelligent design. One could add or subtract from this depending on the context, and what we're referring too.

Wayfarer

↪gevgala

I'd like to agree with the sentiment but I don't know if the OP makes much of a case.

I suppose you could argue that the existence of order, itself, is not something that can be explained, because any explanation you might wish to offer itself depends on there being an order.

The 'appearance of there being a design' is an argument that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett make - that living things appear to be designed, but that each of the components of the overall organism arises without a designer, purely as a result of chance and necessity - that some things just happen on the molecular level that then give rise to necessary outcomes due to physical laws.

I think the problem with that argument is that it envisages 'the designer' as a kind of engineer or literal architect tinkering with matter in such a way as to generate living beings - a kind of super-engineer. Again the problem with that argument is that it's a rather anthropomorphic depiction of what this supposed 'higher intelligence' must be. Again the response might be that the existence of order is something that science itself presumes, but that science doesn't explain, nor need to explain, as it's by definition a metaphysical question.

Tom Storm

The 'appearance of there being a design' is an argument that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett make - that living things appear to be designed, but that each of the components of the overall organism arises without a designer, purely as a result of chance and necessity - that some things just happen on the molecular level that then give rise to necessary outcomes due to physical laws. — Wayfarer

Nicely summarized. I'd probably remove the 'just' from before 'happen.' An issue for me is it is humans deciding upon what is order and what is chaos. How do we know? It's not like we are not coming to this judgment from some Archimedean point.

It looks to me as if the universe is more about chaos and entropy than order - black holes being so bountiful and an entire creation on earth predicated on needless suffering in the wilderness, not to mention the cruelties of almost universal predation and the bountiful range of poorly designed features of what we know as corporeal life - innumerable diseases, cancer, MS, Parkinson's, leprosy, etc...

Wayfarer

↪Tom Storm

Aha! That is what I call ‘hotel manager theodicy’. ‘Hey, who’s in charge here! Can’t you see people are SUFFERING! There are earthquakes, and nasty diseases. I could do a lot better, myself.’

Sam26

It looks to me as if the universe is more about chaos and entropy than order - black holes being so bountiful and an entire creation on earth predicated on needless suffering in the wilderness, not to mention the cruelties of almost universal predation and the bountiful range of poorly designed features of what we know as corporeal life - innumerable diseases, cancer, MS, Parkinson's, leprosy, etc... — Tom Storm

Is this supposed to be reasons why intelligent design doesn't make sense? Doesn't it depend on the goals of the designer? The goals of a designer may not have anything to with creating something that fits your conception of intelligent design. Maybe the designer/s wanted these things as part of the design, i.e., to create a challenging place to experience.

Tom Storm

Maybe the designer/s wanted these things as part of the design, i.e., to create a challenging place to experience. — Sam26

If you are desperate to make intelligent design fit, then sure - chaos and misery might be part of the plan. But in debates with intelligent design proponents it is generally order and beauty they elevate, not the predation and disease component, which are usually glossed over. But the argument that if there is a god he is a cunt is workable, based on how the world seems.

Tom Storm

That is what I call ‘hotel manager theodicy’. ‘Hey, who’s in charge here! Can’t you see people are SUFFERING! There are earthquakes, and nasty diseases. I could do a lot better, myself.’ — Wayfarer

I think that should be Yahweh, the Hotel Manager theodicy.

Banno

Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress. — gevgala

There's of course nothing amiss with an infinite regress.

Hence there is no need to accept the conclusion.

Sam26

↪Tom Storm

It's not a matter of trying to make intelligent design fit, it's a matter of taking other possibilities into account and not limiting intelligent design to some preconceived idea. As if intelligent design is only this or that. I agree that usually people are arguing from a religious standpoint, but that's surely not the only perspective on this.

I'll ask you the same question I asked

↪180 Proof

, what would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe? What things are lacking?

180 Proof

180 Proof So, what would count as evidence of intelligent design? In other words, what evidence would you require? — Sam26

In short I would require that the following points made in the following article be refuted. They haven't been and stand as defeaters of the so-called "argument".

https://phys.org/news/2007-02-wrong-intelligent.html

Also, quite famously, it was determined in a US court of law that "ID" is not in any peer-reviewed sense a scientific theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Sam26

↪180 Proof

This is your answer to my question? The first link is a strawman because I wouldn't make that kind of argument. He's arguing against a particular brand of ID, there is some overlap with my argument, but it's not precisely the same.

Since when do I need some court to tell me what follows logically. I really don't care what a particular court says. The argument should logically stand on its own. Why is it that you don't make your own arguments, you seem to always point people to this or that link. Make your argument.

Every argument against intelligent design commits the fallacy of the self-sealing argument. Why? Because they are unable to say what would count as evidence of intelligent design. If you can't do this then your argument is sealed off from counter-evidence, which is exactly what many religious people do.

Andrew4Handel

People ask where is the evidence for design. Well it is all around us. Humans have designed/created/invented millions of artifacts including the computers we are now using.

Humans are proof that intelligent design is a possibility and it is weird that at this time in history of the greatest human ingenuity we are denying design.

The reason we can imagine intelligent, rational etc designers is because it is an ability we exhibit. And yes when we ask who invented the car we don't go on to ask who invented the person that invented the car.

So it is not just a causal question of what caused the thing that caused the thing it involves intelligence and volition and consciousness etc.

So I don't think looking for design and creation in reality is a stupid or defunct question.

There is also the question of why reality should be subject to human reason and why we should have the capacity to understand it.

180 Proof

↪Sam26

Sir, my initial comment on "ID" states what "counts as evidence"

... ID makes no unique, testable predictions either. — 180 Proof

and yet you asked anyway and I replied with two links to articles which corroborated my initial comment. Clearly, you've either not read what I've proffered or do not understand what you read or you're disingenously denying the facts stated therein. In any case, I'm not going waste any more time discussing "ID" unless, of course, you can demonstrate that "ID" is an explanatory model and thereby derive testable predictions from it (which none of it's proponents have done to date).

Sam26

There is also the question of why reality should be subject to human reason and why we should have the capacity to understand it. — Andrew4Handel

You had me up to this point. I don't understand. You seem to use reason, then you seem to want to dismiss it. Of course reason (logic) isn't the only way to justify a belief, there are other ways, but reason is probably one of the best ways to justify a conclusion.

Tom Storm

I'll ask you the same question I asked ↪180 Proof, what would count as evidence of intelligent design in the universe? What things are lacking? — Sam26

I'm not the one making the claim, so I can't provide an answer. Usually the reason we know something is designed in life is because we already know it is designed - it's manufactured and distributed by channels and makers we can go to and meet and we can understand (almost fully) how and why it was made.

But anything can appear to be designed if we cast a wide enough net. I think the quest to identify this is pretty fraught, if not pointless when it comes to the natural world.

I'm really only interested in Muslims and evangelical Christians who make this argument and nail it down with some specificity.

180 Proof

People ask where is the evidence for design. Well it is all around us. — Andrew4Handel

So you must believe we're alway being watched because "all around us" on sunny days we see 'faces in clouds'.

Sam26

↪180 Proof

Well, you can dismiss what I'm arguing, that's up to you, I really don't care. Your requirement that ID needs an explanatory model is just silly. If I say that that is a beautifully designed building, do I need some explanatory model or theory to justify such a statement? Of course not, and neither do I need some model to fit my use of ID in this argument. Most people understand the components of ID, which is why most people believe in ID, only committed atheists and materialists deny it.

180 Proof

↪Sam26

:rofl:

Sam26

Usually the reason we know something is designed in life is because we already know it is designed - it's manufactured and distributed by channels and makers we can go to and meet and we can understand (almost fully) how and why it was made. — Tom Storm

I generally agree, but there are things that we've found that defy this, and yet we know they've been intelligently designed. And we know just by looking at the thing/artifact.

Sam26

↪180 Proof

Man you have some good replies. I wish I could make such great arguments. :yikes:

Wayfarer

One of the odd consequences of the argument against design is that the only creatures that we know of that are capable of designing is h. sapiens. All the artifacts that we have designed are examples of 'real design', but none of what appears to be design in nature is, actually, designed. Which seems odd to me.

↪Sam26

He gets lots of practice ;-)

Tom Storm

I generally agree, but there are things that we've found that defy this, and yet we know they've been intelligently designed — Sam26

I'd be interested to here more what are a couple of examples?

Tom Storm

One of the odd consequences of the argument against design is that the only creatures that we know of that are capable of designing is h. sapiens. — Wayfarer

I would say a beaver dam, spider web or a bird's nest are designed too. Maybe not in the same manner as a car but certainly planned and contrived for a purpose.

Objection to the "Who Designed the Designer?" Question

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions