ID and infinite regression

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by aneeshm
To elaborate :

Assumptions : Let us assume that we are the lowest level of created - creator^0 , if you will . Let us also assume that reality has a certain finite complexity , and also a set of rules ( or arbitrary complexity ) governing its behaviour .

Proof and Deductions : If complexity requires a creator ( or intellgent agent - I use the words to mean the same , and creator is shorter ) , then of necessity that creator has to be equal in complexity to the complexity he creates ( as if this is not so , ID falls apart . Why that is so is explained in the first footnote , given at the end of the passage ) .

Therefore , the applying ID to the creator , there has to be a creator^2 of a complexity equal to or greater than the creator^1 . Applying ID to the creator^2 , we come to the creator^3 , and so on until creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable , therefore organically ( or otherwise ) derived , therefore impervious to the application of ID , and thus ID falls apart .


Footnote 1 : If a creator of an order of complexity can create entities of a higher complexity by the application of systems of rules which he may or may not understand, then ID falls apart as it is , as any level of complexity could be reached without a creator , by assuming that reality has an inherent level of complexity in its structure , and a set of rules ( complex conjugations of which lead to further , more complex sets of rules ) that governs its behaviour .

Hence 0wned .



Trollnote 1 : ID must be a rather ill-thought out theory if a science student in India , who has never studied philosophy formally ( or even informally ) , can disprove and dismiss it using one of the most rudementaty logical fallacies .

Not that I hope to convince anyone - the believers believe not to feel , but because they want to believe .

ID advocates are probably just going to reply that the "creator ^infinity , who is infinitely complex , therefore uncreatable" is in fact "God" and smugly insist you've "proven" that God doesn't require a creator.

[Agathon]

The common sidestep to this is to argue that the Designer is a necessarily existent being. Creation, including its design is contingent on his existence.

Most modern people would find the metaphysical notion of causality that underpins this line of argument to be odd. Having said that our current notion of causality is not particularly well-defined.

[Odin]

Originally posted by aneeshm

@ Odin

I just falsified it , didn't I ? It cannot be falsified by observation , but it can be falsified by deduction - as I have proceeded to do .

It is only scientific if it can be disproven EMPERICALY, that is, through experiment or observation. "pure reason" isn't good enough. Descartes's mind-matter dualism and his "proof" of the existance of God is an example of the nonsense you can "prove" with pure reason.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin

It is only scientific if it can be disproven EMPERICALY, that is, through experiment or observation. "pure reason" isn't good enough. Descartes's mind-matter dualism and his "proof" of the existance of God is an example of the nonsense you can "prove" with pure reason.

It's fairly naive to think that there is such a thing as pure observation. I wrote my Masters dissertation on this. To think that there is a "given" in experience is a myth.

[Dauphin]

Science doesn't prove anything and doesn't rely on 'pure observation' anyhow. It doesn't work on 'pure logic' either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Science doesn't prove anything and doesn't rely on 'pure observation' anyhow. It doesn't work on 'pure logic' either.

Because there is no such thing in either case.

[Winston]

The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself.

It's already taken, dimwits!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's fairly naive to think that there is such a thing as pure observation. I wrote my Masters dissertation on this. To think that there is a "given" in experience is a myth.

Of course, we inject our cultural and institutional biases into our thoeries all the time (look at the stubborness of geologists of accepting the K-T asteroid impact as that cause of that mass extinction out of an almost pathetic fear of Catastrophism). What I am saying is that, we cannot rely on pure reason either. I think the purpose of reason is to keep the biases to a minimum.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin


Of course, we inject our cultural and institutional biases into our thoeries all the time (look at the stubborness of geologists of accepting the K-T asteroid impact as that cause of that mass extinction out of an almost pathetic fear of Catastrophism). What I am saying is that, we cannot rely on pure reason either. I think the purpose of reason is to keep the biases to a minimum.

That has nothing to do with my argument. My position is that it is in principle impossible to identify an experiential given as the justificatory basis for our beliefs, because there is in fact no such thing.

[Odin]

Trying to understand Aggie's Philosopherese ------->

[Ecthy]

molly?

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Winston
The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself.

It's already taken, dimwits!

That's what I was thinking. What does freud have to do with infinite regression???

That said, I'll be honest and just admit that I can't make heads or tails of the argument which, it is said, disproves intelligent design. Personally, I believe in unintelligent design.

[Last Conformist]

ID isn't a theory or even an explanation, it's a ploy to try and get creationism back into American schoolrooms.

To any IDist reading this: You want to screw up a generation of American children. Don't talk to me about the evils of "atheist immorality".

[Wise Ass]

Originally posted by Winston
The most annoying thing about the concept of ID is the apparently widespread use of the abbreviation itself.

It's already taken, dimwits!

Yeah, I have to say that contributed to this being one of the most confusing threads I have ever read.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monolith94
That's what I was thinking. What does freud have to do with infinite regression???

Isn't that Carl Jung? Though that's id, not ID. ID (all caps) is either an acronym or an abbreviation.