Given evolution or design, we have more repeated instances of design over evolution.

We have no reason to believe aliens could even exist philosophically, yet we have reasons to believe that an eternal, powerful being exists philosophically speaking.

In either case, design and God are more easily defended.

“Which is the ad hoc principle? The theory of evolution, which says that complex lifeforms evolved from less complex lifeforms? Parsimony, which says that we shouldn’t bring in completely dissimilar ontologies as explanations when others are available? Dawkins very clearly derives his claim from these. And they are not ad hoc.”

His limitations as to what could count for evidence of God are what is ad hoc. I never said that his reasons for entertaining aliens as a possibility when faced with design were ad hoc. Look back at my posts – I haven’t objected to Dawkins simply suggesting that aliens could be a possible consideration in an instance of design. It’s that he will not concede the possibility of God in instances of design, such as the OOL. When you’re resorting to ‘Well, he said the aliens may be viewed as gods’ as a defense of this, you’re shooting blanks.

Further, evolution? All evolution demonstrates is one route to the development of complex life. Whether said route was/is guided is an open question, and a metaphysical one. If the OOL is taken to be an instance of design, the suspicion that evolution was in turn designed/guided gains credence. Appealing to evolution to rule out God is like appealing to causal chains to rule out an origin to the universe – a nice try, but it falls flat.

“And nowhere have I seen him assert that God is not possible, or that evidence for God is not possible. In fact, I think he has offered conditions in which he could believe in God, and kinds of evidences necessary.”

Dawkins tries to have it both ways by at once saying he’s not arguing that he’s certain God does not exist, merely that he thinks God’s existence is improbable. He then goes on to argue that it’s so improbable, you have to be insane or stupid to entertain it as a live possibility, much less prefer it. Part of his rationale? Anything that looks like design is in fact an illusion, and should any design be demonstrated that even he can’t deny, it could be attributed to aliens. If you don’t see the problem with that sort of reasoning – particularly when he’s raised the stakes from not merely disbelieving, not merely arguing that disbelief is rationale or more justifiable by his view, but that those who disagree with him are mentally deficient (And not ‘Brights’) – then the problem is yours.

“Your claim is a psychological one, where you are claiming knowledge of Dawkins’ personal intent. There isn’t much room to stoop lower.”

I have this funny belief that you can many times discern a person’s intent based on what they say, how they act, and how they write. I stand by what I’ve said – and I think the strength of the accusation is considerable, based on Dawkins’ own words, not unwarranted speculation of his psychology.

Incidentally – the fact that you’re testily accusing me of psychoanalyzing Dawkins, a man who routinely writes off those who disagree with him as stupid, poisonous, or worse (in other words, he’s not at all shy about not merely speculating about the psychology of his opponents, but loudly proclaiming the actual state of them) is nothing short of hilarious. We’re all grown ups here, indeed.

“It’s not clear what the problem is with Dawkins not “conceding” that God is in the “range of possibilities.” First of all, he has not said that God is not in the range of possibilities. He has said that if we do find out we were designed, then our designer or designers must have been very evolved to have done so, and furthermore the kinds of things we invoke for natural objects are natural causes, so they must be extraterrestrial (or, presumably ancient and extinct or invisible, although Dawkins doesn’t say this, probably for good reason). On his basic scientific principles and factual beliefs (parsimony, evolution, etc.), there’s nothing obviously ridiculous about this.”

As I asked – if you insist that Dawkins believes God is in the range of possibilities, such that evidence of design of this nature would qualify as evidence for God, show me him saying as much. I would love to see it, even with him stipulating that he does not believe in God, or design, or even aliens for that matter. It would amount to a concession, a change from his past remarks.

Further, ‘very evolved’ indicates straightaway where Dawkins is fixing his standard. Back to the start: There is no design, and even if there is, it’s not God. Not even ‘Dawkins does not believe it’s God’ but ‘Dawkins believes if you’re open to this as a serious possibility, you’re beyond rational discourse’. Because clearly a hallmark of rationality is to recognize the supreme utility of aliens when faced with design.

The point is that a first cause that is independent of the universe is a logical necessity given the fact of existence. There are five good ways to prove it. I was offering one of them to everyone on this blog who denies this being which is a first cause.

Here iit is again:

1. Some limited, changing beings(s) exist(s).

2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.

3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.

4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.

5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable, and one.

Either you concede it, or you have an intellectual objection to it.

BUT ID does not claim to be able to explain the fundamental aspects of the Universe. All it does is say that design can be determined via objective methods and when these methods are applied to the life/the universe they register a positive. And these methods are openly incapable of saying who the designer is, why the object was designed or how the object was designed.

Further, the methodology behind ID is not beyond question. It is falsifiable although rebuttals should be based on issues relating to the methodology rather than to any metaphysics which it does not claim.

I don’t think I can explain the “fundamental aspects,” as I don’t know what those are supposed to be. And in any case asking about the “purpose” of things is transparently loaded.

Remember, what I took issue with way back in post 16 was the claim that somehow aliens are a more reasonable explanation for the existence of life on earth rather than something not natural (there, no metaphor)

My point is that known natural laws cannot (as in impossible for them to) explain life hence it is less reasonable to credit aliens rather than God (and we are talking metaphysics here rather than ID or any other science).

If you credit aliens citing known laws you then have to explain the aliens citing known laws.

You may as well cut to the chase, and assume the creator is something that transcends natural laws.

http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

This (anti-ID) distinction is required for the arguments to be intuitively compelling.

In this case, why you would bring this argument into discussion as a response to anything I said is beyond me.

“Sorry, but yes – he has an ad hoc principle in play”
Which is the ad hoc principle? The theory of evolution, which says that complex lifeforms evolved from less complex lifeforms? Parsimony, which says that we shouldn’t bring in completely dissimilar ontologies as explanations when others are available? Dawkins very clearly derives his claim from these. And they are not ad hoc. Anyway, there is a sense in which God is ruled out as the explanation for life – Dawkins thinks that our current knowledge and working theories rules it out. And nowhere have I seen him assert that God is not possible, or that evidence for God is not possible. In fact, I think he has offered conditions in which he could believe in God, and kinds of evidences necessary.

Your claim is a psychological one, where you are claiming knowledge of Dawkins’ personal intent. There isn’t much room to stoop lower.

It’s not clear what the problem is with Dawkins not “conceding” that God is in the “range of possibilities.” First of all, he has not said that God is not in the range of possibilities. He has said that if we do find out we were designed, then our designer or designers must have been very evolved to have done so, and furthermore the kinds of things we invoke for natural objects are natural causes, so they must be extraterrestrial (or, presumably ancient and extinct or invisible, although Dawkins doesn’t say this, probably for good reason). On his basic scientific principles and factual beliefs (parsimony, evolution, etc.), there’s nothing obviously ridiculous about this.

Still, try to realize that you are reading things into what I write and it is causing you a great deal of confusion. I suspect that part of it may be a carry over from other arguments from other bloggers.

Here is an overview: There are several arguments that prove the existence of an uncaused cause. One proceeds from cause and effect, another moves from contingency to necessity, yet another moves from design to desiger, yet another moves from movement to prime mover, yet another moves from gradation of being.

At the moment, I am arguing from contingency to necessity. So, the problem of design is not relevant for the moment. So, I will once again submit the abbreviated version of it at #35. As a bonus, I will curb the sarcasm. How does that sound?