Claiming that complexity indicates design is circular logic

[Justin108]

A common apologist argument for why the universe needs a god is to claim that complexity requires design. This argument is usually backed by using examples of complex objects (watches, computers, machinery) and then arguing that since they all had a designer, all such complex things need to have designers.

The first flaw in this argument, of course, is making the hasty generalization that since some complex things require design, all complex things must have design.

The problem is, whenever an atheist points out things that are complex without having been designed (DNA, molecules, neural structures), the apologist responds by insisting that those have a designer too (namely God). This, of course, is circular as they already assume there is a designer, so no matter what complex structure we present to the apologist, he would insist it must have a designer because of its complexity.

The atheist is left not being able to point to any example of an undesigned complexity as the apologist would just insist that this undesigned complexity is in fact a designed complexity.

Theist: all complex things have a designer
Atheist: how do you know?
Theist: name one thing that's complex that does not have a designer
Atheist: DNA
Theist: that has a designer as well
Atheist: how do you know?
Theist: because all complex things have a designer

Is the design from complexity argument inherently circular?

[Justin108]

A common apologist argument for why the universe needs a god is to claim that complexity requires design. This argument is usually backed by using examples of complex objects (watches, computers, machinery) and then arguing that since they all had a designer, all such complex things need to have designers.

The first flaw in this argument, of course, is making the hasty generalization that since some complex things require design, all complex things must have design.

The problem is, whenever an atheist points out things that are complex without having been designed (DNA, molecules, neural structures), the apologist responds by insisting that those have a designer too (namely God). This, of course, is circular as they already assume there is a designer, so no matter what complex structure we present to the apologist, he would insist it must have a designer because of its complexity.

The atheist is left not being able to point to any example of an undesigned complexity as the apologist would just insist that this undesigned complexity is in fact a designed complexity.

Theist: all complex things have a designer
Atheist: how do you know?
Theist: name one thing that's complex that does not have a designer
Atheist: DNA
Theist: that has a designer as well
Atheist: how do you know?
Theist: because all complex things have a designer

Is the design from complexity argument inherently circular?

I don't think it's a hasty generalization to infer a designer from complexity when the overwhelming experience is that when we observe something complex come into existence there is a designer.

It's as though my entire OP went over your head. The only times we actually see a designer is when it comes to humans. That's it. This is not enough to assume that all complex things have a designer.

What about all the complex things that don't appear to have a designer? DNA, molecular structures, etc. I can point to these things and say "look, these things are complex, even though they don't seem to have a designer". You would no doubt come back and say "yes, but they do have a designer". I'm just repeating my OP. Go back, read it, come back to me.

I mean, how many things as complex as DNA have you witnesses come into existence without a designer?

How many things as complex as DNA have you witnessed come into existence with a designer?

[Justin108]

Theist: all complex things have a designer

I’ve never heard a theist say that all complex things have a designer. Most give a list of things that are astoundingly complex, point out that they have a designer.

As a theist, name one complex thing that does not have a designer in your mind

They continue further with the conclusion that since most astoundingly complex things aren’t the product of random chance, but are instead the product of a designer

In your opinion, are most examples of complexity man-made, or are most examples of complexity found in nature?

Theist: name one thing that's complex that does not have a designer

Atheist: DNA

Theist: that has a designer as well.

There are actually two presuppositions made here - examples of "begging the question." The atheist has assumed that it has been proved that DNA has no designer. That’s just the atheist’s argument “There is no intelligent designer� snuck into the discussion under guise of something else. Yes, the theist has also participated in the fallacy.

Fair enough. But the thing is, an atheist can step back and say "we don't know if DNA has a designer, but since we have no proof, it would be unjustified to assume this." When a theist steps back and takes this approach, their whole argument falls flat. They can no longer claim that complexity indicates design. They, like the atheists, are forced to take a neutral stance

[Justin108]

The problem is, whenever an atheist points out things that are complex without having been designed (DNA, molecules, neural structures)...

How do you know they do not have a designer?

JW

Ok let me rephrase "whenever an atheist points out things that are complex without any clear indication of design (DNA, molecules, neural structures), the apologist responds by insisting that those have a designer too".

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Atheist: "All life came from a common ancestor."
Theist: "Why do you say so?"
Atheist: "Because all life has the same molecular ingredients - DNA."

Here you asked for an explanation for why we believe all life came from a common ancestor

Theist: "Why does all life have DNA?"
Atheist: "Because all life came from a common ancestor."

And here you asked for an explanation for why all life has DNA. This is not the same line of questioning in my OP. Editing your line of questioning to fit my OP, it would look like this:

Atheist: "All life came from a common ancestor."
Theist: "Why do you say so?"
Atheist: "Because all life has the same molecular ingredients - DNA."
Theists: "How do you know?"
Atheist: "Because we've empirically observed it"

Notice the lack of circularity? In this form, not only is there no circularity in our argument, this form also is more consistent with the structure presented in my OP.

We start off with the claim:

Theist: all complex things have a designer
Atheist: all life came from a common ancestor.

Followed by the question:

Atheist: how do you know?
Theist: why do you say so?

Followed by the explanation:

Theist: DNA has a designer as well
Atheist: because all life has the same molecular ingredients - DNA.

Followed by the challenge:

Atheist: how do you know?
Theists: how do you know?

Followed by the evidence:

Atheist: because we've empirically observed it
Theist: because all complex things have a designer


So when applying consistency to the argument, there is no circularity in our position. There is, however, circularity in yours.


With your line of questioning, everything becomes circular.

Atheist: All life came from a common ancestor.
Theist: Why do you say so?
Atheist: Because all life has the same molecular ingredients - DNA.
Theist: Why does all life have DNA?
Atheist: Because all life came from a common ancestor.

Jack: Cats have noses
Bill: Why do cats have noses?
Jack: To smell
Bill: What do cats smell with?
Jack: Their noses

Jack: I have a job
Bill: Why do you have a job?
Jack: To make money
Bill: Where do you get money from?
Jack: From my job

Don't blame others for circular logic when it's your repetitive line of questioning that's responsible

[JLB32168]

As a theist, name one complex thing that does not have a designer in your mind.

All complex things have designers, IMO. I won’t assert it as fact, but even Large Hadron Collider that is designed by humans is the product of the human mind, which for the Christian is designed by God. I’m not sure how that’s related to the discussion, though.

Fair enough. But the thing is, an atheist can step back and say "we don't know if DNA has a designer, but since we have no proof, it would be unjustified to assume this."

Okay.

Why should the theist say s/he doesn’t know – because you did? Perhaps s/he has spoken with God. An atheist might like to rule that out but the fact of the matter is that the atheist may only think that the theist is mistaken/lying. The atheist cannot know this. Let’s assume that the theist indeed is relying on faith and doesn’t know w/100% certainty. If s/he says that DNA has a designer then why should the atheist give two hoots? Someone who is a practitioner of Wicca or Norse Asatru believes in the divinity of the five elements or in Thor. I don’t. If s/he says that “Mother Earth� designed everything or Thor made the thunder sound then what’s the import of their beliefs in my life? I believe they’re wrong but I’m not going to get bent out of shape because they believe in what I regard as nonsense.

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Well, maybe we can simplify this for you.
Lets take a homogeneous mass of mostly hydrogen, but with heavier elements.
Because of magnetism, it begins to spin. Heavier things tend to clump where there momentum sends them, and they develop nuclei. It cools and masses tend to gather materials.
Planets form, the bulk of lighter hydrogen forms around the center, becoming the Sun.

A very complex system arising from gravity and electromagnetism.

Still not convinced?
Every day you may look into the sky and see fantastic creatures; dragons, men, trees, anything, bedecked in reds, blues, oranges and shades of gray.

And that is only the water vapor from clouds. Such amazing complexity, from only the movements of air and condensation of water.

[JLB32168]

Well, maybe we can simplify this for you.

Perhaps you can, but I won’t be spoken to as though I’m an ignorant peasant w/o a modicum of intelligence, and I read no further than the “you.�

[Justin108]

I’ve never heard a theist say that all complex things have a designer.

All complex things have designers, IMO.

Hey look, I found a theist that says all complex things have a designer.

I won’t assert it as fact, but even Large Hadron Collider that is designed by humans...

You can keep listing things designed by humans all you want, it would still only indicate that humans like designing complex things - not that all complex things are designed. Listing things that are both complex and designed is about as useful as someone listing all the things that have feathers and can fly, but it would still not be enough to form the conclusion that "all flying things must have feathers"

Why should the theist say s/he doesn’t know – because you did?

Theists should say they don't know... because they don't know. Or are you claiming to know for a fact that all complex things have a designer?

If s/he says that DNA has a designer then why should the atheist give two hoots?

Well, normally, theists who actually find the need to state openly that "DNA has a designer" normally does this in a debate. In said debate, the opposition is normally an atheist - in which case he gives two hoots because his opponent is making a baseless claim in a debate.

Someone who is a practitioner of Wicca or Norse Asatru believes in the divinity of the five elements or in Thor. I don’t. If s/he says that “Mother Earth� designed everything or Thor made the thunder sound then what’s the import of their beliefs in my life? I believe they’re wrong but I’m not going to get bent out of shape because they believe in what I regard as nonsense

Wait... so you're one of those people who believe we should just leave people to believe whatever they want? Then why are you an active participant in a religious debate forum?

[Goose]

It's as though my entire OP went over your head. The only times we actually see a designer is when it comes to humans. That's it. This is not enough to assume that all complex things have a designer.

The premise that when we observe complex things come into existence we also observe a designer behind them is extremely well supported with no known counter examples of which I’m aware. Someone earlier, I think, tried to use planetary formation as a counter example. However no one has actually observed a planet form.

Is this enough to argue that all complex things have a designer? No, not on a purely logical basis. Logically speaking, no inductive argument is ever strong enough to infer a universal law from a finite amount of data. An inductive argument is only as strong as the data supporting the premise. And I think the data supporting an inference of a designer from complexity is generally very well supported.

The main point I’m making here, is the argument is certainly not a circular as you’ve tried to erroneously argue. It’s a valid inductive argument. It may not be a sound argument. But inductive arguments can rarely be proven sound. But it certainly isn’t circular. And certainly is well supported. It's so well supported that even a few counter examples wouldn't really be enough to overturn the weight of the data supporting the premise.

What about all the complex things that don't appear to have a designer? DNA, molecular structures, etc. I can point to these things and say "look, these things are complex, even though they don't seem to have a designer". You would no doubt come back and say "yes, but they do have a designer". I'm just repeating my OP. Go back, read it, come back to me.

Your assumption that DNA, for example, doesn't appear to have a designer is, ironically, bordering on circularity itself. Unless of course you can provide some kind of valid justification. The theist infers design from the well supported premise of complexity. Where, for instance, have you ever observed something as complex as DNA come into existence without a designer?

How many things as complex as DNA have you witnessed come into existence with a designer?

There are plenty of examples. The computer I’m using right now to communicate with you for instance. Or how about the cell phone sitting on the desk beside my computer?

[Willum]

[Replying to JLB32168]

Well, I apologize, that tone wasn't the one I was going for.

"Make it intuitive for you."
?
"Make it so that it is obvious to the casual observer."
?

Lets take a homogeneous mass of mostly hydrogen, but with heavier elements.
Because of magnetism, it begins to spin. Heavier things tend to clump where there momentum sends them, and they develop nuclei. It cools and masses tend to gather materials.
Planets form, the bulk of lighter hydrogen forms around the center, becoming the Sun.

A very complex system arising from gravity and electromagnetism.

Still not convinced?
Every day you may look into the sky and see fantastic creatures; dragons, men, trees, anything, bedecked in reds, blues, oranges and shades of gray.

And that is only the water vapor from clouds. Such amazing complexity, from only the movements of air and condensation of water.

Complexity from randomness.