The problem of course is that proper and conclusive arguments do further knowledge, and are useful.

That is the dip stick by which the intelligently designed universe argument falls apart.

One step simpler is that the components of nature always [were] and needed no creator.

The teleological argument is flaccid and extends attributes of nature past where the evidence goes…

At the end of the day we can take a teleological argument and fill the role of creator with any imaginary being and it still works . . . that is a very telling weakness.

Essentially this is why anyone schooled in logic, with a cognitively honest and objective viewpoint will reserve the trite statements that design is obvious.

Its not obvious, in fact everything we learn about nature points away from purpose and design, to form and interaction.

Player Skyhook
+3 exp

Level up!
mysticism: +1: 6
unrelent +1: 9
hibidyjibidies: +3: 13
logic fallacies +2: 16

Class up! Junior Disciple of the Cloud Technomage

If a single person in a thread is the only source of rudeness, it will be apparent to everyone. I have been part of this thread, I am part of 'everyone' and I have not seen any 'single' source of rudeness - I have seen several and those who appear to be the most offended, by said rudness, have not been remiss in becoming a source of it themselves.

...The number of fallacious misinterpretations of what I wrote outnumbered my actual claims by something like 6 to 1...

One step further is that nature does not need a creator.

You should have been a politician, I am always amazed that you can say so much without really saying anything.

The only problem with that is that is throws away the complexity of cognition that make the standard definition meaningful.

The problem is who designed those designers or that sole designer...?

Exactly, begging the question or requiring a designer for the natural world is turtles all the way down.

If everything, all things are designed, then there is no nature.

At least according to my understanding of chaos theory, in Buddhism the concept of the individual and the soul do not exist; in fact they are refuted. Nor is there an inherent sense of me-ness that can be distinguished or segregated from the rest of the world. Everything, they say, is related and dependant. Nothing is independent.

The argument goes that each situation, each decision, each so-called “fact” was reached through a complex series of incidents, without which the uniqueness of its circumstances just wouldn’t exist. This applies to the argument against a notion of self as well.

What I consider to be “me” is in fact not one distinct unit. “Me” is comprised of hands, fingers, wrists, elbows and so-on; but even these are not distinct unto themselves either. Cells regularly die and are replaced by new ones. So literally speaking, the physical personal I call “me” right not is not going to be the same one getting on the bus tomorrow. Physcially the cells will be different.

Similarly, if a person is the sum of their experiences, this too is different from one moment to the next. Therefore I cannot say I am consistent and ever-present throughout my lifetime because of the circumstances and experiences I am a part of; because the aggregated pool of experience changes from one instance to the next.

Likewise is the concept of mind as distinct from brain. As with an inherent concept of “me”, what we consider the mind – at least in my understanding – is reliant on our comprehension of reality, information, and experience, both past and present. Given this changes constantly, the notion of one eternal mind cannot exist either.

The brain is comprised of distinctly distributed activities. As such it is not a single entity. Physically it’s also composed of cells too, which as I said die and change from one day to the next.

I wonder if this is what we’re talking about when we say chaos theory?

As I study Buddhism I discovered a doctrine called the "dependent origination" or "dependent co-arising." To scientists, it seems formally the same as Chaos Theory, but more inclusive. Where Chaos Theory only explains the interdependence of physical causality, dependent co-arising also includes mental factors in the web of mutual causal interaction.

In contrast to our simplistic notion of causation whereby A causes B, which causes C, which causes D, the Buddhist theory recognizes the true complexity of causation. Everything is involved causally with everything else. According to the Buddha, causality is a function of relationship, of mutual factors that cannot be isolated, including "feedback" interactions -- the mutual influence of dependent and independent variables.

No effect arises without cause, yet no effect is predetermined, for its causes are multiple and mutually affecting. Hence there can be novelty as well as order. Thus, Buddhist teachings presented a middle way between the positions of determinism and indeterminacy that had polarized the discussion of causality.

The middle way is something I have posted in the Buddhist thread for those interested in knowing what this is about. It could use some attention and also some work.

If A then B. B therefore A.

...children cry when they don't get candy. This child is crying. It couldn't possibly be a genuine medical condition and they must just be whining about candy.
...

Naw, I don't think it works.

Its a lot more complex the that sky. You have to admit that is merely a small aspect of this issue.

Wants are really trivial in the notion of governance. Resources are far more involved.

I would be curious to wonder what your opinion would be if you where raised in a small poor town in Dar fur, or in the congo, or in Rwanda. There I think Id rather loose privacy for security. Here with our comfortable lives and where security is common . . oh yea lets get upset about privacy, and prefer the bad guys who are hardly bad at all in contrast to the worlds REAL bad guys.

Although his purpose was to prove the existence of the 'God' of Abraham, and he failed miserably in doing so, Spinoza did hit the nail on the head and then dropped the ball as a result of his overwhelmingly restrictive belief system. Fortunately, Einstein picked up the ball and ran with it. What Spinoza realized was that from our frame of reference, we can only perceive empirical happenings, and those are skewed by our abilities. Ontological 'knowledge' is always assumed by thinking that the nature of the universe is somehow displayed by what we can observe. That is not a logical conclusion, it is a huge assumption.

In other words, we cannot know the nature of our existence simply by our observations, because those are limited to our perceptual capabilities as humans.

We frame our understanding based upon our life experience, and what we have previously accepted as true. Because of that and that alone, we have no choice but to be in that box. All we can hope to be able to is increase the dimensions of it, we cannot get outside of it. It is life.

Science knows that we do not know nearly enough to be able to draw a valid conclusion about the universe being a design. All of hard science agrees on that. The only way one can carry scientific fact into something ontological is to assume some things.

This holds true regarding placing the label of design upon the universe. Throughout our history, it has been reasonably shown that humans must be able to recognize patterns in order to successfully function as humans. We are physically weak in so many ways compared to most other animals that if it were based upon that alone(assuming we have always been that way), we would have surely perished long ago. Our reasoning capability is one of our most unique strengths, and it enables us to predict the liklihood of an outcome regarding familiar conditions by comparing those with past events. Because of the inherent consistency of things, we can recognize the potential of similar conditions to produce similar outcomes. We depend upon that, we are innately logical creatures, in that sense. We can recognize the cause and effect relationships around us and remember them. While this has proven to be quite helpful for our survival as a species, it can also fool us in remarkable ways.

I would like to show an example again. It has been alreay shown, but it is a great example which clearly demonstrates exactly how easy it is to become too entrenched in what we think we can safely assume based upon what we already know.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

That argument(logical demonstration) is irrefutably sound. The first premise is true. The second premise is true, and because the conclusion necessarily follows, it must be true as well. The form is valid. It is a logically sound argument, and that is as close to absolute truth as it gets. The next argument seems the same, although it is not. It is actually far from it, however most people would not see the fallacy in it because most people think this way... unfortunately so.

All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man.

Although the first and second premise along with the conclusion are true, the argument is invalid. It is an illogical argument, and therefore cannot be sound. This is easily shown to be the case by substituting the term 'cow' for 'Socrates'.

All men are mortal. A cow is mortal. A cow is a man.

The exact same form produces an obviously false conclusion. Why? The first premise is a true statement. The second premise is a true statement. In order for the conclusion to be true it must first be shown that only men are mortal. That is a critical step in the logical progression, which easily goes unnoticed when using 'Socrates' but is not passed off so easily with the change to 'cow'. This is because of the fact that all things mortal are not men, therefore although a cow is mortal, it cannot be considered a man, because lots of other things are mortal as well.

The mistake is called an undistributed middle. The term 'mortal' is the middle term upon which the second premise and the conclusion rest their validity.

This is the mistake in all Intelligent Design arguments.

All design has a designer.

Designer's have intent, reason, purpose, and sometimes produce an orderly design.

The universe seems to have order.

The universe is a design.

It does not follow.

Designs necessarily have a designer. A designer necessarily has intent, purpose, and/or reason. Designs are meant for something. Without knowing the designer we cannot possibly know the designer's reasons, therefore we cannot possibly conclude with any amount of certainty what those are.

Nothing is left to examine. In this thread, our recognition of scientific laws and repeatable observation has led to the idea that the universe possesses order. Although it is often the case, designs do not necessarily have order. Because this has been shown to be true, we also cannot reasonably conclude that just because we seem to recognize order, the universe must be a design. For that to be true, all order must be conclusive evidence of design. It clearly is not.

Based on some of the things I've seen suggested thus far I guess my suggestions would be quite meager. I'm pretty happy with the way things are in general. I like to see only minor improvement in comparison.

A body that remains healthy would be nice. Friendly animals, and humans would be nice. No biting insects and things like that. I have no problem with sharing the world with mosquitoes and such, as long as they don't fly in my face or land on me or my food.

In short, remove hostility, and health problems, and I'm pretty satified with things just as they are.

I guess I'm a low-maintenance human in God's eyes.

Well, I think it would also be cool if horses could talk and actually enjoy pulling farm equipment.

And of course, it would be cool to have horse drawn farm equipment.

That's all I want to do. Just live on a farm and grown my own food and be a vegetarian. I'd be happy. I'd work on mathematics and physics in my spare time. I wouldn't even want to know the answers, that would spoil the fun of discovery.

I guess there is one last thing I'd like to have that would really make it great. I'd like to have the ability to find a compatible mate. And by compatible I simply mean someone who would be just as happy and content as I would be to live on a small farm.

I guess that would be the most difficult miracle for God to pull off. It would be cool to have kids to teach and raise too. But they wouldn't need to be mine. Maybe just an opportunity to be a teacher without restraint (i.e. raise them like they are my own)

I think that would be a great life right there.

But having vistors on occassion would be great too! Ruth could beam over for a visit from time to time, and Sky could skydive down from the sun once in a while in his asbestos body.

Getting back to the original OP and the issue...

I originally framed the OP in terms of “with our current knowledge, can anyone present proof/evidence of an intelligent designer?” (my quotes)

This was not the same frame of reference which some others used, in fact most others seemed to be looking for A priori beginnings. But what I’ve discovered is that most of those references look for that A priori (designer) to have created/designed this specific solar system and possibly others that might function in exactly the same way.

This is also a limited frame of reference, in fact it is subject to many more errors and much more creative thought than the more confined frame of looking only within the range of our possible knowledge. If A priori beginning is what you think would explain our solar system then there can be no proof/evidence. That is my conclusion, please allow me to explain.

Depending on where you get the information it is estimated that in the observable universe there are 80 to 100 billion galaxies. A galaxy is commonly defined as a collection of stars, gas, and dust bound together by gravity. Our solar system is in the Milky Way galaxy and it is possible that billions of solar systems are in the Milky way alone. As Abra pointed out earlier the number of stars has been estimated to be about 10^22. Our solar system only has one star but some can have many.

The point of providing that information is to make clear the enormous number of possibilities that stretch out before us. We can not know what elements exist in other galaxies and to assume that they must all be exactly like our own would be foolish.

We often conclude that out of so many possibilities there will be intelligent life somewhere but beyond that we can conclude little else. Although the information I presented has existed for some time, it was not until the 1990’ s that the first planets were even detected orbiting a star in another galaxy, and the planets were not seen, they were detected by applying knowledge of how our own solar system functions. But just because we can apply some of the laws of gravity, motion, light and so on to distant solar systems, or galaxies does not mean those systems are comprised of other similar natures (as in elements or even other matter).

For example – we cannot assume that our solar system contains all possible elements, perhaps there are whole galaxies that share only a few with us, but they can follow many of the same general laws, while at the same time producing incomprehencible life forms.

So, as Shoku suggested, science is the act of pealing back layers upon layers only to get to a new layer. That is just our solar system (one) within our galaxy of which there are billions.

According to some, we have peeled back the layers far enough (the Big Bank)to determine three or four elements which have adapted, evolved,to emerge into what we see today.

We do not know where those few elements came from or why they became so active. Thinking that such knowledge can only lead to a prime source, the designer, is not logical because there are many billions of other solar systems and galaxies from which those elements may have come, the pathways themselves are incalculable.

So from my point of view there are a heck of a lot of onions to peel before the idea of an A priori can even be considered.

One other issue continues to plague the idea of a prime source and it is this: If it were possible to finally get to the core of the last onion to be peeled, we would have (relatively speaking) effectively deconstructed all of matter (in every solar system, galaxy, and beyond) – so what would exist?

This has long been a philosophical area of discussion, one that Rene Descartes attempted to settle once and for all. (oh well!) If the A priori (prime mover/creator, designer, god..) “exists” then we have not gotten back to original cause because something had be the cause of the designer.

Of course the philosophical argument goes that there is actually a creature of thought alone and that all matter is merely the dream of that impotent intelligence – this idea persists today in many circles –and in many larger circles it persists as creation myth.

And so those are my reasons why no conclusive evidence of a designer will be found, we simply cannot get through all the matter in all of possible space – why? Because we have no way to determine the beginning place – because all matter is ever in flux, ever emerging anew. From the big bank only a few elements have followed this pattern of flux and emergence and there is no indication it will stop.

Abra that is not QM noting is being purposefully hidden from our knowledge there is simply too much to be known and too many new things to be learned – to me that is “natural” and presents a logical reason to why science does not consider a designer - there are simply too many other options out there.

Assumimg you wrote this the way I read it, I agree. Unless you wrote it wrong but I'm still understanding what you meant even though you didn't write it.

It may have been phrased as a joke, but you've used that analogy to demonstrate a point already. It's irrelevant. Just because one thinks that order cannot come from chaos doesn't make it so. The entire Universe is counter-intuitive in its behavior.