Burden of Proof in Intelligent Design/Complexity Debates

[Dre89]

I decided to keep this separate from the God version because I know the atheists will probably attack this argument more than the God one, and I want good clear discussion on the God one.

My argument is that the burden of proof is on the atheist when it comes to design/complexity arguments. Note I am NOT saying that the universe's complexity necessitates an intelligent designer, I'm not making that argument. I am simply arguing that inductive logic suggests the BoP is on the atheist to suggest otherwise. This is because everything that is complex, and whose cause we unambiguously know of, has been designed by an intelligent mind. I've seen people say "well what about nature", but that's a moot point because that's exactly what's in question-we're using inductive logic to see whether nature needed an intelligent designer or not. Remember, I'm not making the argument that the universe's compelxity necessitates a designer, rather that the BoP is on the atheist to prove otherwise because it appears inductive logic is against them.

 

[ballin4life]

define "complex" please. because I don't agree that everything complex has been designed. either that or nature isn't complex.

 

[Dre89]

I think you've missed the point. The things whose cause we know of (man-made objects) we know were designed.

Nature is that in question, and everything other than nature has been designed, so inductive logic suggests it's designed too. This doesn't mean it is infact designed, just that the BoP on the atheist.

 

[blazedaces]

Using the conclusion as a premise to your argument is called circular reasoning. You're assuming that everything "complex" (I agree that you need to define this) has an originating intelligent cause... and you're using this argument to suggest that this should be the default conclusion to any question of a complex system's cause...

-blaze

 

[AltF4]

How is one to differentiate between "designed" and "not-designed" objects? Is there any intelligible way of doing so? The prevailing strategy seems to be a "I know it when I see it". But this is flagrantly inadequate I hope for obvious reasons.

Is it regular patterns in their composition? In which case any kind of crystal would fit. Indeed essentially any kind of complex chemistry. Dre even uses the terms "complexity" and "design" interchangeably. As if one implies the other. I hope this is clearly false to everyone reading.

You are playing fast and loose with definitions, as all proponents of "Intelligent Design" do. "Having been designed" is not an intelligible property of an object. You cannot point to an object and tell me whether is "has been designed" without having prior knowledge about the object itself.

If I were to find a watch lying on the beach, (the canonical example) I would reasonably assume that it had been "designed" by humans. Only because I am familiar with watches, and people who manufacture them. It's far more likely that the watch came from one of these factories than by some "natural" process.

But if I were presented with something for which I have NO prior information, a space alien for instance, my reaction would be different. My first reaction would be to assume that the space alien came about by a process of evolution by way of natural selection similar to ourselves.

(Actually, my first reaction would be that someone had drugged my breakfast, or there is otherwise some terrible prank being played on me, as these are both much more likely. But after having ruled those out...)


Not to mention the obvious plot holes in our supposedly "Intelligent" design. Like how humans both breathe and eat out of the same hole. (Your mouth) A design such as a whale is much better. Whales don't choke on their food. Humans do. Consider the BILLIONS of people who have needlessly choked to death all because of this stupid design. If there is a supreme being who designed humans, we have to conclude that it either fails basic engineering competence, or enjoys the needless suffering of humans.

The entire concept is absurd.

Nature is that in question, and everything other than nature has been designed, so inductive logic suggests it's designed too. This doesn't mean it is infact designed, just that the BoP on the atheist.

Imagine two fish swimming in the ocean. One fish might say:
"Everything we have ever seen is the color blue. By Inductive logic, the entire universe must be blue. The burden of proof is on you to prove to me that the entire universe is not blue."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...And now I understand why a recent candidate for the debate hall messaged me about the questionable nature of Dre's posts in this section.

My argument is that the burden of proof is on the atheist when it comes to design/complexity arguments. Note I am NOT saying that the universe's complexity necessitates an intelligent designer, I'm not making that argument. I am simply arguing that inductive logic suggests the BoP is on the atheist to suggest otherwise.

This is because everything that is complex, and whose cause we unambiguously know of, has been designed by an intelligent mind.

Define "complex". See, I'd consider an atom incredibly complex. I mean, look at all those parts that had to work together in perfect harmony! Whether or not something is complex is completely arbitrary. The old man of the mountain up in New Hampshire sure looks designed, but we know it was formed by natural forces.

I've seen people say "well what about nature", but that's a moot point because that's exactly what's in question-we're using inductive logic to see whether nature needed an intelligent designer or not.

In such a case, you cannot use inductive logic. It doesn't work. You're asking a metaphysics question and demanding we answer it inductively. The problem is, we don't have a control group. There is simply no way of inductively determining an outcome because we have no comparison. Inductive logic does not work that way. Even AltF4's example was dreadfully lacking, because the fish could potentially see something that wasn't blue and realize his error. It is completely impossible for us to see beyond nature. We simply cannot do it. And as such, any form of inductive reasoning simply fails completely on such a scale.


Also, there's an interesting thing to this argument I didn't quite mention... if intelligent design is true, then everything is by definition designed. That said, this still opens up absolutely no new information to us whatsoever and is therefore, like most metaphysical claims, completely worthless.

 

[Battlecow]

Dre is wrong.

 

[rvkevin]

Dre. would be right if he actually demonstrated that his claim was true or likely true. It would then be the atheist's responsibility (burden) to bring up counter evidence or spot the flaws in Dre.'s case. This needn't be done in this scenario since Dre. hasn't met his burden of proof. Saying something is inductive merely says that its conclusion isn't guaranteed. It doesn't tell you how strong or weak the case is. Dre.'s inductive argument could have a 5% of being accurate. Since he doesn't use a mathematical model to come to his conclusion, there is no way to evaluate the reliability of said conclusion. Its equivalent to just a hunch using probabilistic language that deserves no second thought since it is unsupported (and then dressing it up as an inductive argument). This is simply shifting the burden of proof. This is why the discussion quickly turned into "What do you mean by design? How do you know that complex things are indicative of a designer, etc." You have not met your burden of proof and until you do, this topic is futile. The next step would be for you to clarify your argument (clearly defining the terms) so that we can evaluate it, and then I'm sure either someone else or myself will gladly show you the errors you have made.

 

[ballin4life]

no use of the phrase "ad hoc"? You slippin rvkevin


Dre's induction doesn't make sense to me. I actually think it's reasonable for the fish to say everything is blue. But to divide everything into two classes of objects "natural" and "man-made" and argue that since "man-made" objects are designed, that "natural" objects are designed too just doesn't make sense.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin remember I never said my induction guarantees we're designed.

Rvkevin is right, the inductive inference I'm making could be incredibly weak, but nevertheless the induction favours design, which is all that I'm saying.

A fish thinking the world is blue is similar to what I'm saying. But don't think the BoP would be on his fish friend to prove it wasn't blue, since that proposition rejects what their experience is telling them?

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin is right, the inductive inference I'm making could be incredibly weak, but nevertheless the induction favours design, which is all that I'm saying.

So you say! But you have to actually demonstrate that your method is reliable in order for us to accept that conclusion that induction favors design. As I said before, “Its equivalent to just a hunch using probabilistic language that deserves no second thought since it is unsupported (and then dressing it up as an inductive argument).” In order for you to meet your initial burden, you need to present a case with your terms clearly defined and that conforms to a valid methodology. Here’s a hint, when you use a valid methodology, the reasons you provided are inadequate for you to come to your conclusion so you need to state your hidden premises. If you can’t then there is no point for an atheist to present a counterargument since there is no argument to attack in the first place.

no use of the phrase "ad hoc"? You slippin rvkevin

I don’t think it is ad hoc. He is not trying to save his hypothesis from some inconvenient fact. He is simply using flawed reasoning. Also, once his definitions become clear, it may be realized that he is ignoring those inconvenient facts via cherry-picking, but that would not make it ad hoc since he is not adding a layer onto his original hypothesis to form his hypothesis to the data. 

 

[Dre89]

I think it's the other way around though. Everything whose cause we know of (ie. man made things) was designed.

You say I need to prove that this is a reliable inductive inference, but I think that's a different debate. It's undoubtedly an inductive inference, but the question of whether this inference is reliable enough to conclude that the world is actually designed should be left to design debates not BoP.

I think the only thing you could challenge is whether the inference itself is wrong, but it isn't. It's true that all objects whose cause we know, essentially being man made, are designed. That inference isn't wrong. What you're challenging is the reliability of that inference in supporting the design position.

 

[Battlecow]

Screw faith! I'm going to empirically prove the existence of god through a series of increasingly unlikely and convoluted *******izations of logic!

Good luck with that bro.

 

[AltF4]

Dre been conveniently ignoring everyone in this thread crying out for a definition of the word "designed". What in the world does that mean? How can you distinguish between a "designed" object and a "non-designed" object.

I think the fact that you have to resort to inductive reasoning to tell the difference demonstrates that there is no empirical difference.

If there was some quality inherent to a "designed" object, then you could just go out searching for that. No inductive nonsense required.

 

[rvkevin]

I think the only thing you could challenge is whether the inference itself is wrong, but it isn't. It's true that all objects whose cause we know, essentially being man made, are designed. That inference isn't wrong. What you're challenging is the reliability of that inference in supporting the design position.

First of all, observing that people design things is not an inference. Second, the inference of everything whose cause we "know" to be designed is by humans, therefore nature is designed uses a selection bias that only allows confirming evidence and negates all dis-confirming evidence. We "know" whether a thing is designed or not based on whether we see other people making them (If you disagree here, explain the method you use to determine whether something is designed). If we haven't seen anyone make it or not, we will not "know" (If you disagree about the application of this term, define knowledge) whether or not it is designed. This means that you would never consider non-designed things as counter evidence to your claim. When you put the conditional of things we "know", you specifically limit the data to designed things since we cannot "know" the origin of un-designed things. This is simply an attempt to weasel around the null hypothesis, by only allowing confirming evidence. Needless to say, I don't think that this inference is valid.

 

[Dre89]

The inference is not that people design things, but that all man-made things were designed. it's slightly different.

You're both criticising my definition of design, but my definition of design is deliberately incomplete, as to avoid controversy.

My reasoning does not disallow the possibility of nature being undesigned. The point is it's disputed whether nature is designed, so that isn't encompassed in the inductive inference. I don't think anyone disputes that man-made objects are designed, which is why that is all that is encompassed in the inference.

 

[AltF4]

You're both criticising my definition of design, but my definition of design is deliberately incomplete, as to avoid controversy.

So let me get this straight. You're intentionally not defining the exact thing this whole debate thread is about, that YOU started....

...to avoid debate?

 

[Dre89]

I'm avoiding a lot of controvserial, contested issues, because the point of this is to establish where the BoP lies before those issues (such as whether nature is designed or not) are addressed.

That's why my inference is incredibly safe. The objects whose causes are unanimously agreed upon by IDers and anti-IDers alike are man-made, it is uncontested that man-made objects are complex (at least a lot of them) and are designed.

The reason why I don't go any further than that is because if I did, I'd be stepping into controversial territory, which would mean I'd be partaking in an ID debate, which is not the point of this thread.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm avoiding a lot of controvserial, contested issues, because the point of this is to establish where the BoP lies before those issues (such as whether nature is designed or not) are addressed.

That's why my inference is incredibly safe. The objects whose causes are unanimously agreed upon by IDers and anti-IDers alike are man-made, it is uncontested that man-made objects are complex (at least a lot of them) and are designed.

The reason why I don't go any further than that is because if I did, I'd be stepping into controversial territory, which would mean I'd be partaking in an ID debate, which is not the point of this thread.

In order to establish where the BoP lies it is necessary to define design. If your definition of design is controversial the BoP cannot be established in the first place.

Claiming complexity and design of objects is part of an argument and hasn't been proven. By simply ignoring the controversiality of the argument itself you are trying to determine where the BoP lies. That's not how it works.

 

[Dre89]

I'm only claiming the complexity and design of man-made objects, because that is non-controversial.

We know the cause of man-made objects, we know they're complex (most of them anyway), and we know they're designed. None of these premises are contested by athiests.

The cause of nature, and whether it's complexity necessitates design are the controversial issues which should be left to design debates, not BoP debates.

My definition of design is incomplete in the sense that it intentionally suspends judgement on whether nature is designed or not, that doesn't undermine its functionality for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[AltF4]

You now what? I think the whole universe is floozeflazzle. Everything I've seen is floozeflazzle, and therefore by inductive reasoning the whole universe must be. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe is not floozeflazzle.

What is floozeflazzle? It means to have been floozeflazzled. You can criticize my definition of floozeflazzle, but my definition of floozeflazzle is deliberately incomplete, as to avoid controversy.

 

[ballin4life]

lol@Altf4

also not all man made things are designed. For example, waste products. I'm sure you can think of some more.

 

[blazedaces]

lol@Altf4

also not all man made things are designed. For example, waste products. I'm sure you can think of some more.

I personally believe Dre would consider waste products "designed"... but since he never defined what "designed" means it doesn't matter either way.

I mean... why even is it one or the other? Designed or not designed? If a drawing is done using the path of an animal is this designed, or unnatural? Or whatever word that is undefinable we want to use next?

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

You now what? I think the whole universe is floozeflazzle. Everything I've seen is floozeflazzle, and therefore by inductive reasoning the whole universe must be. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe is not floozeflazzle.

What is floozeflazzle? It means to have been floozeflazzled. You can criticize my definition of floozeflazzle, but my definition of floozeflazzle is deliberately incomplete, as to avoid controversy.

So you're contesting the claim that man-made objects are complex and designed?

Because if you're not, your sarcastic analogy makes no sense. Your analogy doesn't give me an automatic BoP because floozeflazzle (you could have picked a shorter word) is a contested premise, so you would need to prove your floozeflazzle point first.

This is distinct from my argument in that my inductive inference has no contested premises, whereas yours does. It's just the reliablity of the premise with regards to design debates that's contested.

 

[blazedaces]

So you're contesting the claim that man-made objects are complex and designed?

Because if you're not, your sarcastic analogy makes no sense. Your analogy doesn't give me an automatic BoP because floozeflazzle (you could have picked a shorter word) is a contested premise, so you would need to prove your floozeflazzle point first.

This is distinct from my argument in that my inductive inference has no contested premises, whereas yours does. It's just the reliablity of the premise with regards to design debates that's contested.

Yes, I'm contesting that ALL "man-made" (also not entirely definable) are "complex" and "designed"... because as I mentioned somethings are mimicking nature... so I wouldn't entirely consider them designed... but because there is no definition of designed it's impossible to separate what is and isn't designed.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

No, Dre, I'm intentionally not telling you what floozeflazzle means. Because that's how we debate, apparently. By not defining the very thing the entire thread is about.

The word "complex" can have an intelligible and precise meaning to me. You can talk about complexity in terms of entropy, as in Information Theory. You can precisely define and measure it. "Design" as a property of an object is just gibberish, however. If you wish, you can think of "The set of all objects that have been designed". But:

1) That just punts the definition to what "design" (as a verb) is.

• If a human makes something, is it designed? What if they do a bad job? What if they weren't trying? What if they accidentally made it?
• If a beaver makes a dam, is the dam designed?
• If an ant makes an ant colony, is the colony designed?
• If bacteria makes a protective structure to protect it from the outside, is this structure designed?
• If single a virus makes a protein shell around itself, is the protein wall designed?
• If a tree drops leaves into a pile, is the pile designed?
• If a few rocks fall into an interesting pattern, is the pattern designed?

2) There are no similarities in any of the objects in this set.

Complexity and design surely have zero correlation. You can intentionally design things to be simple or complex. I think this is pretty obvious.

Humans could (with some well placed science and engineering) create a star. In terms of complexity (entropy) it's as high as the universe gets. Or you can create a near-vacuum chamber, the lowest entropy the universe gets. I just don't see any correlation here.

 

[Dre89]

Blazed- Something can be designed to mimmick nature.

Alt- You didn't answer the question, are you denying that man-made objects are designed?

Because it seems you're attacking the credibility of the inference with regards to ID theory, as opposed to denying that man-made objects are designed.

The inference doesn't even need to invoke complexity for it to stand. Design, like randomness, is a methodology invoked to cause an agent. The product that is generated, be it designed well or poorly, simple or complex, doesn't matter, it's the fact that the methodology was design, as opposed to randomness or some other methodology.

The point is, with man-made objects, it is uncontested that the methodology of design is invoked by man to create them. I don't say whether such methodology was used to create nature, because that's a controversial premise that should be saved for actual ID debates.

 

[AltF4]

I think it's pretty obvious that not every man made object is designed. Unless you try to redefine "man made" to be "man designed". People make waste products. They are neither "natural" (in this case meaning made by men) nor designed. Nobody has ever gone through a schematic and executed a plan for how to construct pollution, or nuclear waste, or even human excrement.

 

[Alien Vision]

No, Dre, I'm intentionally not telling you what floozeflazzle means. Because that's how we debate, apparently. By not defining the very thing the entire thread is about.

The word "complex" can have an intelligible and precise meaning to me. You can talk about complexity in terms of entropy, as in Information Theory. You can precisely define and measure it. "Design" as a property of an object is just gibberish, however. If you wish, you can think of "The set of all objects that have been designed". But:

1) That just punts the definition to what "design" (as a verb) is.

• If a human makes something, is it designed? What if they do a bad job? What if they weren't trying? What if they accidentally made it?
• If a beaver makes a dam, is the dam designed?
• If an ant makes an ant colony, is the colony designed?
• If bacteria makes a protective structure to protect it from the outside, is this structure designed?
• If single a virus makes a protein shell around itself, is the protein wall designed?
• If a tree drops leaves into a pile, is the pile designed?
• If a few rocks fall into an interesting pattern, is the pattern designed?

2) There are no similarities in any of the objects in this set.

Complexity and design surely have zero correlation. You can intentionally design things to be simple or complex. I think this is pretty obvious.

Humans could (with some well placed science and engineering) create a star. In terms of complexity (entropy) it's as high as the universe gets. Or you can create a near-vacuum chamber, the lowest entropy the universe gets. I just don't see any correlation here.

I have an interesting question referring to this post. Could it be quite possible that it's not our conscious mind that designs the rather intricate patterns in this world, but our very own subconscious? Wouldn't that be a design in some kind of form? Of course we cannot define it as a ''design'' because it never was planned by the conscious mind. It's just how things work in this vast world through instinct, factors, and other minute information that make you question how it's there in the first place if it wasn't a ''design''.

 

[Dre89]

I think it's pretty obvious that not every man made object is designed. Unless you try to redefine "man made" to be "man designed". People make waste products. They are neither "natural" (in this case meaning made by men) nor designed. Nobody has ever gone through a schematic and executed a plan for how to construct pollution, or nuclear waste, or even human excrement.

But waste is a product of man. The inference is that every object whose cause is undisputed has been caused by man, the significance of that being man=designer. So even if waste itself is not deisgned, it is still the product of design.

 

[Alien Vision]

But waste is a product of man. The inference is that every object whose cause is undisputed has been caused by man, the significance of that being man=designer. So even if waste itself is not deisgned, it is still the product of design.

What he is saying, is that we do not design it in all actuality. Designing derives from pre-meditation and the ability to control it as we go along. What if I drew an amazing picture? That would be a design because I planned it out. What if somebody copied it? That wouldn't be a design, would it? It was already created. The person who stole it would have no will to manifest it in anyway.

Spoiler

If I am not interpreting this right, please let me know. Atleast I try. Lol.

 

[blazedaces]

What he is saying, is that we do not design it in all actuality. Designing derives from pre-meditation and the ability to control it as we go along. What if I drew an amazing picture? That would be a design because I planned it out. What if somebody copied it? That wouldn't be a design, would it? It was already created. The person who stole it would have no will to manifest it in anyway.

Spoiler

If I am not interpreting this right, please let me know. Atleast I try. Lol.

You are... and I'm not trying to say that this is absolute truth... but we have no way at the moment to know how to distinguish designed or not.

Personally, I believe that NOT all man made objects are designed. If a baby with a brain that is less capable than a monkey's (for the sake of argument) mimics an action of another just like a monkey does... is this a designed action? If an object is created is this object designed? I do not believe it is... but we have no real way to know.

There's no way to actually argue that point. I'm sure Dre can come back with a reason why he thinks that is designed... but it will never really matter till we define the word.

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

OK, I think I've found a (yes, another) fatal flaw in Dre.'s reasoning: unless we assume the conclusion (that the universe is designed), almost everything is not designed and therefore the reasoning falls flat. In short, it's the debate fallacy known as "begging the question" (IIRC), and the entire main argument is flawed.

 

[Alien Vision]

Double post. 502 still lives to terrorize us.

 

[Alien Vision]

OK, I think I've found a (yes, another) fatal flaw in Dre.'s reasoning: unless we assume the conclusion (that the universe is designed), almost everything is not designed and therefore the reasoning falls flat. In short, it's the debate fallacy known as "begging the question" (IIRC), and the entire main argument is flawed.

Thats one way to put it, but you do know a certaint group of people are going to deem this a fallacy with their own fallacious reasoning in the end. This world will only end with questions. Every answer is just another question because this world lives off of endless interpretations.

 

[Dre89]

OK, I think I've found a (yes, another) fatal flaw in Dre.'s reasoning: unless we assume the conclusion (that the universe is designed), almost everything is not designed and therefore the reasoning falls flat. In short, it's the debate fallacy known as "begging the question" (IIRC), and the entire main argument is flawed.

The point is to establish a default position, not to conclude whether the world was designed or not.

Blazed and AA- whether something is directly designed, or the product of design is irrelevant, because in both cases design is still necessary.

The definition of design is deliberately incomplete, because if it was complete, it would include a criteria to determijbe whether nature was designed or not, which would be a cintroversial premise and would turn this into an ID debate. My definition includes only that which we know is designed, but withokds judgement on whether nature is designed or not as to avoid favouring a side.

 

[Alien Vision]

The point is to establish a default position, not to conclude whether the world was designed or not.

Blazed and AA- whether something is directly designed, or the product of design is irrelevant, because in both cases design is still necessary.

The definition of design is deliberately incomplete, because if it was complete, it would include a criteria to determijbe whether nature was designed or not, which would be a cintroversial premise and would turn this into an ID debate. My definition includes only that which we know is designed, but withokds judgement on whether nature is designed or not as to avoid favouring a side.

What is the point of giving it a default position, if we're trying to debate whether or not a design can exist?

Default /=/ Debatable

 

[Dre89]

To establish who has the BoP.

 

[AltF4]

Blazed and AA- whether something is directly designed, or the product of design is irrelevant, because in both cases design is still necessary.

No, it's extremely important. Even your incredibly flawed and pointless "induction argument" rests on the fact that all man made objects are designed.

Which they aren't.

There is a set of designed man made objects, there is a set of non-designed man made objects. These two sets are disjoint. Not everything man made is designed.

You can not make the argument that:

1) Everything man made (ie: not in nature) is designed
2) We don't know if nature is designed
3) Therefore it probably was.

Not only is the argument itself stupid, but the the first premise is wrong.

 

[Alien Vision]

No, it's extremely important. Even your incredibly flawed and pointless "induction argument" rests on the fact that all man made objects are designed.

Which they aren't.

There is a set of designed man made objects, there is a set of non-designed man made objects. These two sets are disjoint. Not everything man made is designed.

You can not make the argument that:

1) Everything man made (ie: not in nature) is designed
2) We don't know if nature is designed
3) Therefore it probably was.

Not only is the argument itself stupid, but the the first premise is wrong.

How can you form an argument, when he hasn't even stated what his interpretation for ''design'' is yet?