The argument fails because it contains at least one important hidden assumption, and perhaps more.

The argument fails because it contains at least one important hidden assumption, and perhaps more.

I think I see one other than what you are referring to.

Actually, you just exposed my "hidden assumption."

Guess what it is?

I'm going to move your post around in order of priority.

"So how can we discern "design" from "undesign" in the sense argued by the Total Creator idea? (As Johnny said, it worketh both ways--hence my previous admission of 50% probability despite some doubts as to Creationism--but it still can be used for the Total Creator, so that doesn't help it.)"

There are two important challenges to this statement.  The first is, to what extent should we think that your first question is really a meaningful question?  If it seems perplexing to discern 'design' from 'undesign' it naturally is perplexing to discern 'undesign' from 'design.'   If it really works both ways, what value is it at all?  If it can be used 'for the Total Creator' it can be used for 'the total non-creator.'

The second response builds off the first.  Since the argument is reversible- it can run both ways- it follows that to address the matter at all we will have to exit the argument altogether for a resolution.  This is where the hidden assumptions come to play.  No atheists here yet to defend their notion that 'design' cannot speak to any particular designer but 'undesign' can effectively establish 'undesign.'    Maybe I'll have to do it myself.

"But Johnny, how can we tell what level of complexity"

What you're trying to do here is operate on some assumptions about what ID is all about.  Myself, I only have a superficial knowledge about ID, but what I have learned about them I learned right from their own mouths.  'Complexity' is only one part of it.  I am learning more about the IDers, and as I do I'm glad to see that many of the things I've come up with myself are reflected in them.  What I typically see in debates like this are nothing more than caricatures.

"And if any complexity at all is to be taken as a sign of design,"

This is a good example of what I mean.  Who exactly is saying that any complexity at all is to be taken as a sign of design?  I haven't found that in my perusals of ID.  It is not consistent with Christian theology, either.  Basically its just a false charge that leaves folks like me scratching our heads.  Its just not the sort of thing we'd say.

"I don't think it's impossible to detect design, guys,"

Right.  So if it is possible, that means that design and undesign actually are in fact distinguishable.  The argument above may look valid, but it can't be.

"ID can't be used as a strong argument for a Total Creator"

As Flew said, it is at least certainly a strong confirming argument if you already have other other reasons to think there is a 'Total Creator.'

However, in order for ID to be employed in an argument for theism as an independant strand, the questions have to be asked much differently.  Like I said, I might have to produce the 'hidden assumption' if no one else does.

"It has a sort of cripple-effect on questions of design that encompass the entire frame of reference."

DT, I applaud you.  I am amazed.  I really am.  For as much as I have to fight for things on this board you are like a breath of fresh air.  Wow.  The difference.

Yes, it does.   It does cripple it.  As such it violates my golden rule on epistemology which, restated here, "Any argument that cripples our very methods of knowing must be rejected on sight."  If a method undermines our very ability to know something, the conclusion, whatever it is, cannot be accepted, because we undermined our ability to know it en route.  Its like sawwing off the limb you're standing on.

The problem is that a great many 'entire frame of reference questions' risk the same sort of thing.   There is a way out, but it is anathema to some.

"Hence my 50% probability, like I said."

I think I was thrown off, because given the above, actually no probability number could be assigned.

"Then enlighten me."

Well, I just said I only have a superficial knowledge!  My point, I think, is that unless you've gone to the trouble of reading them in their own words, you ought to be careful.   On the same principle, this is why I've only ever attacked evolution via a study of the matter in the words of evolutionists.

"What, other than complexity, constitutes a sign of design? It's always the bloody complexity people invoke when I talk to them, anyways."

'Specification' is, I believe, an important modifier.  'Order' would be a 'sign' of design.  In the case of 'order' and 'complexity,' it is already completely understood among the IDers that these things can be mimiced in nature.  Further, IDers don't simply say 'such and such' is a 'sign of design.'  They say 'on account of such and such and such and such,' the best explanation and interpretation is that it was designed.'

"Maybe so, but that don't help folks like me, do it?"

Just like you're trying to point out that design can be distinguished 'at a certain level' its helpful to also make distinctions about 'levels' in types of rationality.  For example, you are well aware of the fact that IDers and Creationists and even Christians in general are all different categories.  Naturally, Christians and Creationists find ID compatible with their views.  But Christians are not Christians simply because life appears to be designed, or because anything appears to be designed.  Ultimately, Christianity rests on whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead.

Can you arrive at Christian theism from design alone?  The educated Christians I know would never make the attempt.  On that 'level,' to use your word, the argument is just simply too limited.  However, on the 'level' of one seeking confirmation and corroboration, the argument is not only fine, but completely rational.   This is why I cited Flew.  Atheists refuse to allow the argument to have force at any level.

In my 'cumulative argument' thread I have reached a point where I have discussed the ramifications of an 'all encompassing frame of reference.'  You should take a look.  Bdean and Maj echoe my conclusion in their own way in Cogito's POE thread.  Its not as though we Christians don't know about these limitations.  In fact, quite the opposite, our worldview is relying on the reality of these problems and presenting one of the few points of view that take this problem seriously and don't violate my golden rule of epistemology.

"If there really is a hidden assumption here, methinks it's best exposed as soon as possible."

The hidden assumption is that 'by default' every matter of inquiry should proceed along 'methodological naturalism,' which they usually mean for practical purposes 'philosophical naturalism.'

In other words, they think its perfectly reasonable to start with the default position that everything is undesigned.  It requires no defense as a 'positive' point of departure, because, in their view, it is not a positive claim, but merely a default claim.

Thus, even though 'design' and 'undesign' are mutually contradictory mirrored concepts, in their mind 'design' is a positive statement and requires defense but 'undesign' is a default statement.

This is a massive assumption.

It is especially fallacious when one is coming onto the question completely fresh.  Its better to take a more common example, 'miracles.'  Let's say the question is, "Did miracles ever happen?"  That's what you are trying to find out.  You only have two options, 'yes' and 'no.'   The skeptic insists that 'yes' is a positive claim and thus requires they say 'the burden of proof' (Christians scoff at the standard of 'proof').  But then they turn around and insist that 'no' is not a positive claim, its the default claim.

So, the upshot is that they begin their inquiry as to whether or not miracles happen by assuming in advance that miracles do not happen.  Clearly, if one were going to be rational, one would start with a position of agnostic nuetrality, and then try to determine what the best method of inquiry would be to address the particular type of question being raised, apply that method, and stand by the results.

So, when they turn to the argument above, they 'escape' it by presuming in advance that the rational methodology is to start with 'undesigned.'  Guilty until proven guilty, if you will.

"No one argues that either design OR nondesign is the default position. What is being argued is that "design" (and non-design, as well) has no meaning in a world in which nothing can possibly be distinguished as "designed."

Or undesigned.

"You've misunderstood the entire argument which is what I suspected from the beginning."

Yes, that explains how I managed to put the argument together in a way that you thought was valid and essentially made the same point.  Take your double-talk elsewhere.

As for prologue, let's keep in mind that I managed to get in 8 posts what you have not been able to get to in 4 pages.  Now, that's a 'prologue.'

Also, you can peruse this own forum's "Science and Religion" section for plenty of instances where a default position of undesign, or naturalism, is argued for.

Its really quite common.  You can find it anywhere on the net.  Its pretty hard not to understand your argument.  Sorry, but its really easy and straight-forward.  And not new.

If you want to say that you can't argue anything is designed because you have nothing to compare it to in order to say anything at all about the alleged designer, the same argument, flipped around, means that you also can't argue anything is undesigned because you have nothing to compare it to in order to say there is no designer.

In otherwords, your argument, at best, reduces all sides to strong agnosticism.

Or, to put another way, the best you could hope to achieve by way of your argument is weak atheism or weak theism.

You could not possibly justify positive atheism based on the laws and patterns of the world because you could not possibly be sure are really undesigned if you have no system to compare it to that is designed.  

How do you know the laws of nature are unguided unless you've seen guided laws to contrast them with?

Same thing.

By "prologue," I refer to the buildup that you gave your "hidden assumption" in both this thread and the other. You wrote several times that if no one else would reveal this so-called "hidden assumption" in my argument that you just might have to take it upon yourself to do so.

Well, now that you've revealed it, we find that it's laughable. All that blather and all we get is some nonsense that says non-design is not the default position of the universe.

It's laughable, again, because no one in either thread has claimed that non-design is the default position. What's been claimed is that "non-design" and "design" both are meaningless terms in a world in which "non-design" or "design" are impossible to identify.

I think it's really cool that you spun this thread off mine just to make such an irrelevant point.

Tilt away, Don Quixote, tilt away. :)

Actually, the "hidden assumption" is pretty good... but not an intrinsic part of the argument. Maybe Cog did assume such (a mind reader I ain't, fellas), or maybe he didn't. It's not a part of the argument itself. I didn't think of it myself because of that, and also because I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

At any rate, it's not "laughable." It's quite correct. I've seen that mindset in a lot of atheists (and the reverse of that mindset in some theists, too... innocent 'til proven guilty, the epitome of gullibility...), and the argument could easily be used with that mindset backing it, which would be bad.

Now:

Yes, it does. It does cripple it. As such it violates my golden rule on epistemology which, restated here, "Any argument that cripples our very methods of knowing must be rejected on sight." If a method undermines our very ability to know something, the conclusion, whatever it is, cannot be accepted, because we undermined our ability to know it en route. Its like sawwing off the limb you're standing on.

I wouldn't reject such things on sight. I would, however, view them with a wary eye. There are some atheists who'd jump on an argument like this and call it refutal of ID, for example--but I'm a little more cautious. There's a double-edged sword here, as you've accurately demonstrated--cuts both ways.

Now does this argument subtract from a rational Christian's already-determined faith? Not at all. I'll get to that in a minute.

"Hence my 50% probability, like I said."

I think I was thrown off, because given the above, actually no probability number could be assigned.

If there's no supporting evidence for either that I can see, and no middle answer, it's obviously got to be one or the other--and as farfetched as the design thing seems, I'm intellectually obligated to give the thing an even shot. To do less would be to commit the very crime you've just decried.

'Specification' is, I believe, an important modifier. 'Order' would be a 'sign' of design. In the case of 'order' and 'complexity,' it is already completely understood among the IDers that these things can be mimiced in nature. Further, IDers don't simply say 'such and such' is a 'sign of design.' They say 'on account of such and such and such and such,' the best explanation and interpretation is that it was designed.'

Right, I have that much. ("Order" and "complexity" are very close cousins, if not the same thing, but let's not get into that...)

Just like you're trying to point out that design can be distinguished 'at a certain level' its helpful to also make distinctions about 'levels' in types of rationality. For example, you are well aware of the fact that IDers and Creationists and even Christians in general are all different categories. Naturally, Christians and Creationists find ID compatible with their views. But Christians are not Christians simply because life appears to be designed, or because anything appears to be designed. Ultimately, Christianity rests on whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead.

Can you arrive at Christian theism from design alone? The educated Christians I know would never make the attempt. On that 'level,' to use your word, the argument is just simply too limited. However, on the 'level' of one seeking confirmation and corroboration, the argument is not only fine, but completely rational. This is why I cited Flew. Atheists refuse to allow the argument to have force at any level.

Back to the fact that this argument does nothing to a rational Christian's already-determined faith. (Might put a rather large one in the uninformed Christian's faith, but if they are uninformed and have to opportunity to be informed, they probably deserve that dent...) I never said it would, and I don't know what Cog had in mind on that one, but I think I didn't make my statement as clear as it should have been.

When I said the two (ID and Total Creator ideas) were incompatible, I meant that from my own perspective, the objective observer: they don't work well together because they're just kinda there. They don't do a thing for each other. Now, to a Christian, ID theory is an affirmation of what they see, and how they'd expect to see it--it's confirmation that things are as they should be, in other words, according to their faith. To the atheist or agnostic? Things are what they are, there is no real "expected." Only a non-atheist comes up with "expected" things for an atheist world, as only a non-theist comes up with such extraneous "expected" things for a theist world as "men wouldn't have nipples." (Do you hear me laughing at that one?  Yet I have heard that said. It's a citation of "poor design," I think...) Theist worlds do have certain "expecteds" that atheist ones don't (or have no right to) have, and ID theory can be used as confirmation that said "expecteds"--or certain among them, anyway--are indeed present. Doesn't confirm the Christian religion in my eyes, but it has every right to in yours.

Atheists should be able to acknowledge that, but I don't think many do. Human beings have a tendency to want to be proven right on every level, not just two or three, and neither theist nor atheist is any exception to the rule.

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1573&start=0

I was looking for an old thread and found that one, which affirms the view by evolutionists that 'philosophical naturalism' should be the 'default.'  Obviously there is a lot in that thread.

Can you defend this rather self-conflicted remark?

In what way is the so-called "hidden assumption" not just "not an intrinsic part of the argument," as you point out, but how is it relevant to the argument itself in any way? If it is not relevant to the argument then how can it be said with a straight face that bringing it up at all is "pretty good"? Do you mean that it is a "pretty good" distraction? . . . a "pretty good" attempt to derail the argument by committing an ad hominem fallacy? What?

It's a good thing to point out, but I thought Johnny might have been mistaking its location. It's not a part of the argument (which was the more important part of that sentence, friend--please don't focus just on what ya don't like, 'kay?), so the argument itself isn't hurt.

On the other hand, I don't think you yourself personally demonstrated at any point prior to this that you weren't making that assumption while you were building and refining the argument (matter of fact, there were a few things to suggest you might have been, like the original conclusion that life is "most likely" undesigned, which I never really saw reason for).

Why? What does the "mindset" of the person who makes an argument have to do with the soundness of the argument that the person makes?

Because they aren't thinking clearly and run the risk of coming to one or two incorrect or unwarrented conclusions.

Please don't tell me you actually, really had to ask that... -_-'

An argument is evaluated for soundness (or ought to be) based on its validity and on the truth value of its premises. Whether the person making the argument is a naturalist or a supernaturalist, a wife-beater or a non-wife-beater has nothing to do with the soundness of the argument that he makes. An argument should be evaluated based solely on its merits as an argument and not on the beliefs of the person who makes the argument.

Did I ever express any doubt of that?