Burden of Proof in Intelligent Design/Complexity Debates

[_Keno_]

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

Because, as usual, he refuses to include or even eventually add definitions so he can play word games with people. Its easier just to assume the actual definition of a word when he doesn't give his interpretation.

 

[Alien Vision]

Because, as usual, he refuses to include or even eventually add definitions so he can play word games with people. Its easier just to assume the actual definition of a word when he doesn't give his interpretation.

Won't that makes things even more labyrinthine?

 

[Dre89]

Alt- But everything man-made has necessitated design, either by being directly designed or by being a product of design.

And to those people who criticise my definition of design, I've explained multiple times why I deliberately left it incomplete. Instead of pointlessly bashing it, how about you actually read and critique my reasoning for doing so. That way you'll be contributing something to the thread as well as venting your frustrations.

 

[AltF4]

Alt- But everything man-made has necessitated design, either by being directly designed or by being a product of design.

Not even that is true. It's perfectly possible to create something non-designed. Otherwise your definition of designed becomes tantamount to "man-made" which begs the question.

Consider me flinging a bunch of mud on the ground at random with my eyes closed, and calling it art. Is the mud designed? What kind of absurd definition of design would allow for that? Surely not one we talk about when we say "Intelligent design". Was it even a product of design? No. It was not a waste by-product. It was a single and isolated event where I created a non-designed object.

 

[Dre89]

Hmm, but then I guess for debate's sake I could still say that man made objects, the only objects whose cause is undisputed, necessitate a mind, because even the randomness of the mud art is a particular methodology selected by a mind.

 

[AltF4]

It certainly had a mind create it. That much is obvious. But it surely didn't NEED a mind to create the mud art. The same mud art could be created by a thunderstorm. Indeed "natural" processes regularly create far more complex (and seemingly designed) structures than the mud art.

 

[Dre89]

You can't use a thunderstorm because whether that was create by a divine mind or not is still in question.

Although your premise that a mind wasn't necessary to create the mud art seems reasonable, that's venturing into ID debate territory, this is just to establish the default, if not easily refuted position for the issue.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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

But in order to clear up who has the burden of proof, you first have to establish what that default position is. And without already presuming that everything is designed, you cannot claim that most of what we experience (or even more than a miniscule portion of it) was designed by any form of intelligence. Therefore your argument fails due to the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. Case in point:

You can't use a thunderstorm because whether that was create by a divine mind or not is still in question.

The default position is to reject the claim of design due to lack of evidence. Your claim is that because everything we experience is designed, it is reasonable to induce that nature was designed as well. However, unless you assume that nature was designed as well, you cannot claim that the thunderstorm was created by a divine mind; the claim fails the burden of proof. Getting what I mean now?

 

[-Jumpman-]

But in order to clear up who has the burden of proof, you first have to establish what that default position is. And without already presuming that everything is designed, you cannot claim that most of what we experience (or even more than a miniscule portion of it) was designed by any form of intelligence. Therefore your argument fails due to the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. Case in point:



The default position is to reject the claim of design due to lack of evidence. Your claim is that because everything we experience is designed, it is reasonable to induce that nature was designed as well. However, unless you assume that nature was designed as well, you cannot claim that the thunderstorm was created by a divine mind; the claim fails the burden of proof. Getting what I mean now?

Dre. is right here. The uncertainty of ID debate makes using a thunderstorm as an example unviable, for the conclusion determines whether the thunderstorm is a result of design.

However, a simple example of creation without design is serendipity.

 

[AltF4]

You can't use a thunderstorm because whether that was create by a divine mind or not is still in question.

Although your premise that a mind wasn't necessary to create the mud art seems reasonable, that's venturing into ID debate territory, this is just to establish the default, if not easily refuted position for the issue.

So, you see, the argument has now become vacuous. What you're saying is this:

1) We split the universe into two mutually exclusive objects:
a) Man made objects
b) "Natural" objects (IE: non-man made)

2) All man made objects were created using mind or intelligence.

3) Therefore "natural" objects probably were, too. (I say "probably" since you're just trying to establish a default position)

But this just playing with definitions. Of course all of set a) has been created by an intelligence, that comes from its definition of being man made.

I could make the same argument:

1) We split the universe into two mutually exclusive objects:
a) Pink objects
b) Non-pink objects

2) All of set "a" is light red.

3) Therefore all non-pink objects probably are light red, too.


Well OF COURSE all pink objects are light red. They mean the same thing. Step 2 can be thrown out. All you've essentially done is make a definition and claimed the conclusion.

 

[Dre89]

But the key point is that the cause of man made objects is not contested. The distinction is between contested and uncontested objects.

The pink example doesn't work because it doesn't follow this distinction.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Man-made objects don't share the needed aspects for your argument. Before AltF4 posted his analysis I wasn't even capable of understanding your train of thought.

 

[Alien Vision]

This antecedanous, antemundane, plangent, innascible way to interpellate, is quite intersilient if you ask me.

The metaphysical notion that protects ''ipse dixit'', is nothing more but a transpicuous attempt to labify an already designed morphosis.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This antecedanous, antemundane, plangent, innascible way to interpellate, is quite intersilient if you ask me.

The metaphysical notion that protects ''ipse dixit'', is nothing more but a transpicuous attempt to labify an already designed morphosis.

...The **** is this?

 

[blazedaces]

...The **** is this?

I believe he's being satirical, taking the normally unused vocabulary, which in his opinion is unnecessary to explaining the argument and simply adds to confusion, and pushing this to the extreme.

That sentence doesn't say much if you look up the words... but unfortunately a few of them don't even exist or at least are spelled wrong as some of them don't even show up on google...

-blazed

 

[Alien Vision]

I believe he's being satirical, taking the normally unused vocabulary, which in his opinion is unnecessary to explaining the argument and simply adds to confusion, and pushing this to the extreme.

That sentence doesn't say much if you look up the words... but unfortunately a few of them don't even exist or at least are spelled wrong as some of them don't even show up on google...

-blazed

You are right about everything except that the words don't exist, or are spelled wrong.

Here: http://www.kokogiak.com/logolepsy/ow_p.html

 

[blazedaces]

You are right about everything except that the words don't exist, or are spelled wrong.

Here: http://www.kokogiak.com/logolepsy/ow_p.html

I take that part back then...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

You actually bothered to Google them?

Respect.

 

[ciaza]

So did I, I Google any word that I don't know when I come across it. The reason I say this is because it's probably the best piece of advice I would give to Alien Vision since he said he was having trouble with some terms in the debates. Google it, click on the Wikipedia link, then go on a mad hyperlink session where you click on any hyperlink within that page that looks interesting, then do the same for the new page, and so on. In the space of an hour, assuming you commit it to memory, you learn so much.

Also not that matters but even your own source disagrees on your spelling of 'labefy' AV =P

This thread is derailed.

 

[asianaussie]

I call that 'TVtropes syndrome'.

I'm new to this whole intelligent design thing, exactly how much (ie. everything we understand to exist, the universe and its constituents, what) is the theory purporting as 'designed'? I'm assuming that we're saying the universe is designed. Sorry if this has all been addressed.

Your argument is taking one convenient example (that everything man-designed is designed) that lies within our field of proof merely because it is the only thing we can prove. To me this looks like asking people to accept mass generalisation from one example.

Past that, I personally see no reason to push the BoP on somebody else if you can't show something concrete to disprove, because that's asking people to first assume as correct and then logically counter an argument that has an indistinct basis. Attacking said indistinct basis yields nothing because we have to 'assume' it. Attacking the argument itself does not disprove or render unviable the basis, and the argument stands forever. This basically renders it invulnerable from logical disproval.

The burden of proof should only be put on those attempting to disprove something if there is a solid argument to disprove and if there is a viable way to disprove it. I don't believe that the argument 'everything is designed' can be assumed from 'everything man-made is designed or a product of design' because I have no goddamn idea what design means. If we had a conclusive definition of 'design' the argument would probably fall one way or another.

/runs away

 

[Alien Vision]

I call that 'TVtropes syndrome'.

I'm new to this whole intelligent design thing, exactly how much (ie. everything we understand to exist, the universe and its constituents, what) is the theory purporting as 'designed'? I'm assuming that we're saying the universe is designed. Sorry if this has all been addressed.

Your argument is taking one convenient example (that everything man-designed is designed) that lies within our field of proof merely because it is the only thing we can prove. To me this looks like asking people to accept mass generalisation from one example.

Past that, I personally see no reason to push the BoP on somebody else if you can't show something concrete to disprove, because that's asking people to first assume as correct and then logically counter an argument that has an indistinct basis. Attacking said indistinct basis yields nothing because we have to 'assume' it. Attacking the argument itself does not disprove or render unviable the basis, and the argument stands forever. This basically renders it invulnerable from logical disproval.

The burden of proof should only be put on those attempting to disprove something if there is a solid argument to disprove and if there is a viable way to disprove it. I don't believe that the argument 'everything is designed' can be assumed from 'everything man-made is designed or a product of design' because I have no goddamn idea what design means. If we had a conclusive definition of 'design' the argument would probably fall one way or another.

/runs away

Not if the OP wants to make it neutral ^ _ -. Then it will stay exactly where it is.

@ Ciaza I typo'd it. I was too lazy to fix it. Sue me