What Would a Fake Religion, Or Undesigned Universe look like?

[sadhatter]

So one topic i find that is very important in the subject of woo of all kinds ( you may have noticed my other similar threads.) is how one can decide if someone is fake or not.


So i have two questions to two different ( but possibly overlapping groups) of people.

1) If you are an id'er, what would a universe that is not intelligently designed look like?

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[Ladewig]

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

I'm not saying Scientology was designed to control people or accumulate money, but if I were going to design a religion for those goals, I would copy every last element of Scientology.

just sign me "Commodore Ladewig"

 

[SOdhner]

2) If not, what would a fake religion look like? By this i mean a religion that was made by humans for the purpose of control or money.

Okay, so I'm understanding the question to be about a religion that is created as a deliberate fraud, where the founder does not believe what he (or she) is saying to be true. Certainly you're going to get some replies (and may have already by the time I finish writing this) that insist that's what they all are. I would disagree with that but while disagreeing I would have to also include many cults as real religions because some of the founders (even if greedy and doing it partly for control) really did believe that they were divine. Anyway, onwards:

Short answer? Scientology.

Long answer? Hmm. Well, clearly it would have to grant the religious leader either control or boatloads of money. That leader would want to maintain that position of power and so I would suspect that they would insist that only they can recieve or interpret the Truth in most cases. I would expect that apart from those traits they could vary greatly - some people are happy to have a small cult while others want something big and super-profitable. I could maybe make more specific predictions if I wanted to break it down by motivation. Control and money can go hand in hand, but the approach will be different.

If I am understanding your question correctly, a "fake" one could turn into a "real" one at some point and we might not ever be able to say. The founder dies, or buys into his own story, or is replaced, and the entire organization could be real believers. So... yeah. I don't think we can have a clear way to differentiate real from fake in this case.

If, instead, you are asking about actual Truth... that would depend on the predictions made my the religion. If it makes testable claims you can test it, otherwise you can't. I would say that failing those tests would make the religion as a whole wrong, although it would not prove that it isn't partially right in some part of its philosophy and teachings.

 

[sadhatter]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

Not a good analogy an automobile has been proven not to show up in nature, the universe is nature it is the most in nature thing one can get. Essentially your asking me to answer your question for you in this case by asking me to give a definition of an un designed object so you can reply with " it is like that". Without having to put your own thought into the issue. I assumed your doctor analogy was being made for a legitimate need to clarify my premise ( in the other thread). But now your simply trying to get me to deliver a response so you can piggyback onto it and not have to give your definition.

One knows it is hot out because one has experienced cooler temperatures, one knows someone is lying by comparing them with those that have told the truth. I am not asking myself what an un designed universe looks like, i am asking you.

No cheating avalon, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question.

( or avoid it , it is your choice. )

 

[Third Eye Open]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not a good analogy an automobile has been proven not to show up in nature, the universe is nature it is the most in nature thing one can get.

And here's the problem: we have exactly one universe.
If, as you yourself have said, we know differences by comparing, how can we be expected to hypothesize on something for which, by definition, there is no comparison?
You can't define an undesigned automobile because all automobiles are designed. How, then, can you expect an ID component to define an undesigned universe?

 

[Piscivore]

What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

 

[sadhatter]

Okay, so I'm understanding the question to be about a religion that is created as a deliberate fraud, where the founder does not believe what he (or she) is saying to be true. Certainly you're going to get some replies (and may have already by the time I finish writing this) that insist that's what they all are. I would disagree with that but while disagreeing I would have to also include many cults as real religions because some of the founders (even if greedy and doing it partly for control) really did believe that they were divine. Anyway, onwards:

Short answer? Scientology.

Long answer? Hmm. Well, clearly it would have to grant the religious leader either control or boatloads of money. That leader would want to maintain that position of power and so I would suspect that they would insist that only they can recieve or interpret the Truth in most cases. I would expect that apart from those traits they could vary greatly - some people are happy to have a small cult while others want something big and super-profitable. I could maybe make more specific predictions if I wanted to break it down by motivation. Control and money can go hand in hand, but the approach will be different.

If I am understanding your question correctly, a "fake" one could turn into a "real" one at some point and we might not ever be able to say. The founder dies, or buys into his own story, or is replaced, and the entire organization could be real believers. So... yeah. I don't think we can have a clear way to differentiate real from fake in this case.

If, instead, you are asking about actual Truth... that would depend on the predictions made my the religion. If it makes testable claims you can test it, otherwise you can't. I would say that failing those tests would make the religion as a whole wrong, although it would not prove that it isn't partially right in some part of its philosophy and teachings.

In this sense fake would be one which is not made by a supernatural being, it can include those who are deluded but does not nessecarily have to. Con men and loons all would be in the fake catagory.

So in reference to the truth argument then, could one not just make a religion that does not make testable claims? I could make all sorts of outrageous claims and then say " my god makes sure these cannot function if tested." And by your definition of being able to tell if they are fake, you couldn't. It seems a rather big flaw in your ability to judge truth from lies in regard to religion, no?

As for the con men or the deluded, i am not asking for what "we" use, i am asking you. Surely you have ways of telling if someone is a con man or not, and use them, or else you would be a member of any number of dozens of religions. So how do you decide this?

And furthermore, what religion do you support? That is kind of important for the purpose of the discussion. Without it one cannot see if you apply the same principals of detection to your religion as others.

 

[IMST]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_240214c2cd6fd665cc.jpg[/qimg]

aw...beat me to it.

 

[excaza]

The whole problem with ID is that the entire foundation of the 'theory' is that people can't accept that complicated processes could come from nothing but base elements. It is fascinating to me that, over the course of time, you can go from a bunch of elements to a complex cell that can take energy from the sun and convert it into life-sustaining nutrients. Some people can't accept that it can just happen and that it had to be 'designed' by some higher power. But unless you can prove that higher power, you've got no basis other than your incredulity but you also can't be proven wrong.

As for Avalon's question, I don't think he's trying to piggyback on anything, it's a very smart question. You can't have an automobile that wasn't intelligently designed. An automobile is, by definition, a design. I can see what he's getting at though. I think the analogy serves to illustrate the difficulty of the intelligent/non-intelligent design issue.

A 'non-intelligently designed' universe for someone who doesn't believe in a higher power would be this one. I don't know what a 'non-intelligently designed' universe would be like for someone who believes a higher power created this one. But if you believe that this universe is created by a higher power, I don't think you could have a universe that wasn't created by said higher power without having to ditch the higher power.

That last sentence made my brain hurt...

 

[AvalonXQ]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

 

[excaza]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

If ID is your (in general, not you specifically) thing, would there even be a universe without a designer?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If ID is your (in general, not you specifically) thing, would there even be a universe without a designer?

Generally ID is directed to showing evidence of design in life on Earth. Although it can be broader and extend to showing evidence of design in the universe at large, many ID proponents are satisfied to confine their arguments to the Earth biosphere. Many even acknowledge that the intelligence involved may be other than divine.

 

[sadhatter]

And here's the problem: we have exactly one universe.
If, as you yourself have said, we know differences by comparing, how can we be expected to hypothesize on something for which, by definition, there is no comparison?
You can't define an undesigned automobile because all automobiles are designed. How, then, can you expect an ID component to define an undesigned universe?

See i can though, i can tell exactly what an un designed car would look like. My issue is that whatever i say your going to say " see it would be like that" so i want to see that you have your own idea before i give you an answer to copy.

We are talking about a hypothetical here, i might not be able to compare two universes side by side, but i can compare our universe and a fictional universe ( lets say the marvel comics universe.).

If someone asked me, what would a universe populated by superheros look like. I could answer the question, and not only because i have examples a plenty in fiction, but i can look at our universe now and say " this is what would be different if superhero's were here." I don't have to have seen a universe with superhero's in it i just have to think of what differences there would be between this one and another one.

So again, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question. Unless your answer is that you cannot and have not fathomed an un designed universe.

 

[tsig]

Again, I'll ask an analogous question so as to understand how to answer yours:
What would an automobile that is not intelligently designed look like?

It could reproduce itself.

 

[excaza]

Generally ID is directed to showing evidence of design in life on Earth. Although it can be broader and extend to showing evidence of design in the universe at large, many ID proponents are satisfied to confine their arguments to the Earth biosphere. Many even acknowledge that the intelligence involved may be other than divine.

Then you get right back into the standard, yet to be answered arguments against ID. If you're confining it to Earth, what made the rest of the universe? If you're saying it was something other than divine, who designed that designer? You start getting into a ton of mental/verbal gymnastics in order to shoehorn everything into the ID concept so it makes some sense.

ID would be a nice, easy answer to a lot of questions, but so far it doesn't stand up at all.

 

[excaza]

My issue is that whatever i say your going to say " see it would be like that" so i want to see that you have your own idea before i give you an answer to copy.

While I may not agree with a lot of the stuff he says, I have yet to see Avalon behave in the fashion you're accusing him of. Personally, I'm quite curious to know what you think a non-intelligently design car would look like.

So again, eyes on your own paper, and answer the question. Unless your answer is that you cannot and have not fathomed an un designed universe.

Settle down, he already answered you.

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

 

[SOdhner]

In this sense fake would be one which is not made by a supernatural being, it can include those who are deluded but does not nessecarily have to. Con men and loons all would be in the fake catagory.

Ah! Okay, excellent. Thanks for the clarification.

So in reference to the truth argument then, could one not just make a religion that does not make testable claims? I could make all sorts of outrageous claims and then say " my god makes sure these cannot function if tested." And by your definition of being able to tell if they are fake, you couldn't. It seems a rather big flaw in your ability to judge truth from lies in regard to religion, no?

Yes and no. It means that I can't prove that it is fake, yes. I can still form an opinion.

Surely you have ways of telling if someone is a con man or not, and use them, or else you would be a member of any number of dozens of religions. So how do you decide this?

There's a number of factors. First, I have ruled out the idea that God likes to run around performing miracles because I can't find any proof of it and so, in the absence of proof, I default to the status quo of "Things Aren't Magic". After that, I look at the philosophy. Many religions have a rule that tells you to not be a jerk, which I approve of for several reasons and seems to serve a purpose in society as a whole.

Where they disagree, I ask myself if I can find justification for those beliefs. Homosexuality is evil? Hmm. Well, how would that manifest in society? What evidence might we point to? If there's none at all and the answer from the religion is "No impact here, it's only bad in an unobservable way and you'll be judged for it when you die" then I have to decide if they seem to be a credible source.

That brings me to the question of whether or not I think people can commune directly with a divine source. Again, I've seen no proof of this and the status quo says people don't chat with god so I say they're almost certainly making it up (or confused, or insane, or whatever).

And furthermore, what religion do you support? That is kind of important for the purpose of the discussion. Without it one cannot see if you apply the same principals of detection to your religion as others.

The church I support is a lovely little United Methodist community. I don't agree with them on all things but that would be the case with any church I went to. The reason I attend is that I agree with them on the underlying philosophical points whether or not their religious reasoning is true, and they are good at making me stop and think about important issues in society. Left to my own, I might not self-examine as much and I think there is benefit to that. Furthermore, in the church I attend they openly encourage people to doubt and question as a means to spiritual growth. They don't insist that they are always right and don't think the bible was divinely guided or anything. That means I can attend for the examination of moral responsibility and social awareness without worrying about religious claims.

 

[sadhatter]

Since the ID movement is based on the idea that life is intelligently designed and could not have arisen spontaneously, then a universe without a designer would be one without life in it.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

If one states a universe that was un designed would have no life, what are you using to base this statement on?

To make the statement that a universe would need life to be designed, one is making the inference that they know about all possible methods and reasons of design. So i would like you to now explain how a lack of life necessarily implies a lack of design. What evidence have you observed that shows a correlation between lack of life and lack of design?

 

[excaza]

So i would like you to now explain how a lack of life necessarily implies a lack of design. What evidence have you observed that shows a correlation between lack of life and lack of design?

If you have nothing in the universe, there really isn't much design going on.

 

[Third Eye Open]

If you have nothing in the universe, there really isn't much design going on.

Umm... life is hardly the only thing in this universe.

 

[sadhatter]

Ah! Okay, excellent. Thanks for the clarification.



Yes and no. It means that I can't prove that it is fake, yes. I can still form an opinion.



There's a number of factors. First, I have ruled out the idea that God likes to run around performing miracles because I can't find any proof of it and so, in the absence of proof, I default to the status quo of "Things Aren't Magic". After that, I look at the philosophy. Many religions have a rule that tells you to not be a jerk, which I approve of for several reasons and seems to serve a purpose in society as a whole.

Where they disagree, I ask myself if I can find justification for those beliefs. Homosexuality is evil? Hmm. Well, how would that manifest in society? What evidence might we point to? If there's none at all and the answer from the religion is "No impact here, it's only bad in an unobservable way and you'll be judged for it when you die" then I have to decide if they seem to be a credible source.

That brings me to the question of whether or not I think people can commune directly with a divine source. Again, I've seen no proof of this and the status quo says people don't chat with god so I say they're almost certainly making it up (or confused, or insane, or whatever).



The church I support is a lovely little United Methodist community. I don't agree with them on all things but that would be the case with any church I went to. The reason I attend is that I agree with them on the underlying philosophical points whether or not their religious reasoning is true, and they are good at making me stop and think about important issues in society. Left to my own, I might not self-examine as much and I think there is benefit to that. Furthermore, in the church I attend they openly encourage people to doubt and question as a means to spiritual growth. They don't insist that they are always right and don't think the bible was divinely guided or anything. That means I can attend for the examination of moral responsibility and social awareness without worrying about religious claims.

thank you for your responses , if i miss anything important feel free to let me know.

So in regards to how you decide if someone is a con man, if one sticks with the rule " things are not magic" when did this change? The concept of a person rising from the dead, by any definition of the word other than " magic is anything that is not important to my religion." would be magic.

So if someone says don't be a jerk this is evidence they are not a con man? I really don't get this. I cannot think of many con men ( besides maybe freemen on the land) who go around saying " be a jerk." especially in religious circles, " don't be a jerk" is a very very common thing. And i am sure we can agree there are many known frauds ( popoff and the like) who said " don't be a jerk" quite frequently.

So as far as the disagreements, how do you decide if they are a credible source? All religions give the same basic reasons for belief, so what criteria do you use to differentiate?

now when it comes to communing with god, you mention that status quo. But that brings up the question again of " when did this change?" people spoke to god quite a bit in the bible, and i have trouble believing that you think they were insane. As well, who's status quo are we talking about? Society in general, the church, scientists?

As far as your excellently honest answer to my question of what you support. Wouldn't it be easier for you to use the skills you have now to examine these issues without the religious wrapping? And furthermore, seeing as you are one of the more honest, and intelligent religious folk i have spoken with , do you not think this shows a pattern of the less seriously one takes religion, the less of a jerk they are?

 

[excaza]

Umm... life is hardly the only thing in this universe.

Yes, I'm aware.

I'm not sure how an IDer can let themselves get away with saying life is intelligently designed but the rest of the universe came about on its own. Seems contradictory, so I'm going to have to assume ID addresses the entire universe.

 

[sadhatter]

If you have nothing in the universe, there really isn't much design going on.

So my lifeless computer has no design to it?

My collection of totally lifeless daggers and swords have no design?

Hp and Defender have a lot of explaining to do then.

He did not say nothing in the universe, he said no life. Which is a strange at best condition for design.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then you get right back into the standard, yet to be answered arguments against ID. If you're confining it to Earth, what made the rest of the universe?

If ID as a theory is confined to tackling evidence showing special design of Earth life, your arguments don't make sense. Evidence demonstrating that life can (and, historically, did) arise without any requirement of guiding intelligence is a head-on challenge to ID. Anything broader than that is talking about the potential implications of ID, but not ID itself.

 

[excaza]

So my lifeless computer has no design to it?

My collection of totally lifeless daggers and swords have no design?

Hp and Defender have a lot of explaining to do then.

He did not say nothing in the universe, he said no life. Which is a strange at best condition for design.

see my above edit

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not sure how an IDer can let themselves get away with saying life is intelligently designed but the rest of the universe came about on its own.

It's not a matter of contradiction; it's a matter of scope.

 

[excaza]

If ID as a theory is confined to tackling evidence showing special design of Earth life, your arguments don't make sense. Evidence demonstrating that life can (and, historically, did) arise without any requirement of guiding intelligence is a head-on challenge to ID. Anything broader than that is talking about the potential implications of ID, but not ID itself.

The origin of said designer (the part you left out of my quote) is a perfectly reasonable question about ID, regardless of the scope. And you're still getting back to the argument from incredulity, no matter what scope you go with. If you're limiting the scope to Earth, then life on Earth supposedly is too complicated to have just happened, but the rest universe isn't too complicated?

 

[AvalonXQ]

To make the statement that a universe would need life to be designed, one is making the inference that they know about all possible methods and reasons of design. So i would like you to now explain how a lack of life necessarily implies a lack of design. What evidence have you observed that shows a correlation between lack of life and lack of design?

You've made a logical fallacy. I've claimed A implies B and not-B implies not-A. Now you're acting like I claimed not-A implies not-B.
Designer is necessary for life, meaning life --> designer and (contrapositive) no designer --> no life. The inverse and converse are not necessarily true.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The origin of said designer (the part you left out of my quote) is a perfectly reasonable question about ID, regardless of the scope.

I don't agree. The discussion in ID (and also in common ancestry through evolution) should be about the evidence for the process being both plausible and historical, not about its origins or consequences.

 

[excaza]

I don't agree. The discussion in ID (and also in common ancestry through evolution) should be about the evidence for the process being both plausible and historical, not about its origins or consequences.

Intelligent design requires a designer. Just like if you don't have a human, you don't have an automobile. For ID to be tenable, there needs to be evidence of this designer. For that purpose, yes, the origin of the designer is not relevant, just like the origin of the universe is not relevant to evolution. But so far, the only 'evidence' in favor if ID is the belief that life is too complex to have come about on its own. Sure, ID is possible, but there is no evidence. Incredulity is not evidence. There's about as much evidence for The Matrix.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So far, the only 'evidence' in favor if ID is the belief that life is too complex to have come about on its own.

That's the correct discussion. It hinges on the ability to tell whether a phenomenon has intelligence behind it or not. This is something that archeologists and field anthropoligists claim to be pretty good at, but applying those principles to living systems is difficult.

 

[kuroyume0161]

If ID as a theory is confined to tackling evidence showing special design of Earth life, your arguments don't make sense. Evidence demonstrating that life can (and, historically, did) arise without any requirement of guiding intelligence is a head-on challenge to ID. Anything broader than that is talking about the potential implications of ID, but not ID itself.

Therein lies the problem. ID, with a veil so thin that you can see the mustache on the belly dancer's face, posits this notion of 'life designed by some, oh, we don't know, really special powerful being (God, cough, cough) or aliens'. How disingenuous! In reality, they mean, well, God - a supernatural, extra-universal being (that they worship and proselytize endlessly about without EVIDENCE!).

So. The universe popped into existence all by itself (all of it except life on Earth) while God wasn't paying attention. Then God decided to create life in it but only in one small nothing, nowhere, and no-time in it (Earth). The exceptional case is so insignificant and ridiculous that any quick consideration would lead one directly to remove the exceptional case and accept that the universe and the life within it popped into existence and God is unnecessary.

This is no different than certain sects of Christianity accepting that the universe did not need a creator nor did life but that humans, with their so-far unconfirmed immortal souls, do need a creator. I say it: Special Pleading. That is what the supreme, supernatural, extra-universal ruler of everything boils down to - hand waving and wishful thinking.

*Poof*

 

[sadhatter]

You've made a logical fallacy. I've claimed A implies B and not-B implies not-A. Now you're acting like I claimed not-A implies not-B.
Designer is necessary for life, meaning life --> designer and (contrapositive) no designer --> no life. The inverse and converse are not necessarily true.

But that is a huge contradiction, if i say a fist sized hole in someone is indicative that they have been shot with a certain model of gun ( assuming this fact is correct). Then obviously someone without a fist sized hole has not been shot by this gun. You cannot say that if they don't have a fist sized hole they could still have been shot by the gun without contradicting your first statement.


You cannot set up life as evidence for design and then simply ignore the fact that many, many things that are not living were designed. This is a statement of faith not a piece of evidence. And additionally, it implies you have knowledge of all methods and reasons of creation. And when you cannot provide evidence to prove the claim other than the claim itself ( one cannot say the universe was created because it is as it is, then use the universe as an example. That is circular reasoning in the extreme. ) i have trouble believing you know all methods and reasons for creation.

 

[excaza]

This is no different than certain sects of Christianity accepting that the universe did not need a creator nor did life but that humans, with their so-far unconfirmed immortal soul, do need a creator. I say it: Special Pleading. That is what the supreme, supernatural, extra-universal ruler of everything boils down to - hand waving and wishful thinking.

*Poof*

I would think it boils down more to an more comforting explanation of the unbelievable/unexplainable than "I don't know" or "it just happened"

 

[AvalonXQ]

But that is a huge contradiction, if i say a fist sized hole in someone is indicative that they have been shot with a certain model of gun ( assuming this fact is correct). Then obviously someone without a fist sized hole has not been shot by this gun. You cannot say that if they don't have a fist sized hole they could still have been shot by the gun without contradicting your first statement.

You fail basic logic. Consider the following statement:
"He says he ate a pear. Therefore we know that he ate a fruit."
Now consider the next statement:
"He says he did not eat a pear. Therefore we know that he did not eat a fruit."

See the problem yet?

I claim that life implies a designer. This doesn't mean that no life implies no designer; it's possible that a universe might have robots, or just a big sign that says "Mike was here", and still have a designer without having any life.

 

[sadhatter]

You fail basic logic. Consider the following statement:
"He says he ate a pear. Therefore we know that he ate a fruit."
Now consider the next statement:
"He says he did not eat a pear. Therefore we know that he did not eat a fruit."

See the problem yet?

I claim that life implies a designer. This doesn't mean that no life implies no designer; it's possible that a universe might have robots, or just a big sign that says "Mike was here", and still have a designer without having any life.

But your simply setting up a situation in which you cannot loose. No life means designer possibly and life means designer for sure. Does this seem intellectually honest to you?

Your example is valid but flawed, in this situation we cannot make the decision as to what he ate, one would have to ask him for evidence of what he ate. And when you get asked for evidence you say " well we cannot say it wasn't a fruit, so it must be a fruit he ate. " and that is just absurd.

You are using an example in which there are many more than two variables, this is not hot or cold, designed or not designed, it has answers ranging from jolly rancher to feces.

One that would be appropriate to the discussion is.

John says it is hot out.
John has only experienced 38 degree weather.
Can john make this statement logically and be correct?

Assuming we remove mild from the choices of what it is like out. John has no basis to say it is one or the other without knowing what the evidence for both would be. So john would have to look for evidence to determine if it was cold or hot. He would have to find examples of weather and use them. John cannot just say it is hot out and be right because he does not know it is not hot out. Or for that matter he has no concept of what not hot out is.

You are not arguing this from an unbiased perspective, you set up the situation as " the universe is designed sadhatter, show me it is not" well when your opening statement is it is designed, you are essentially asking me to prove something that is incorrect (to you.) You are not using any evidence, you are simply saying " i am right, now prove me wrong."

 

[excaza]

Your example is valid but flawed, in this situation we cannot make the decision as to what he ate, one would have to ask him for evidence of what he ate. And when you get asked for evidence you say " well we cannot say it wasn't a fruit, so it must be a fruit he ate. " and that is just absurd.

Yes it is absurd, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying ID is possible. Other than that, he has yet to present his personal belief as fact.

You are not arguing this from an unbiased perspective, you set up the situation as " the universe is designed sadhatter, show me it is not" well when your opening statement is it is designed, you are essentially asking me to prove something that is incorrect (to you.) You are not using any evidence, you are simply saying " i am right, now prove me wrong."

Maybe you're confusing him with some other IDer. He hasn't said that at all. He's just saying intelligent design is possible, and it is, so is a planet popping out of my bellybutton. That doesn't mean that's what happened.

 

[Third Eye Open]

You fail basic logic. Consider the following statement:
"He says he ate a pear. Therefore we know that he ate a fruit."
Now consider the next statement:
"He says he did not eat a pear. Therefore we know that he did not eat a fruit."

See the problem yet?

I claim that life implies a designer. This doesn't mean that no life implies no designer; it's possible that a universe might have robots, or just a big sign that says "Mike was here", and still have a designer without having any life.

I think there may have been some confusion regarding the fact that you don't count the designer as being 'life'.

If the universe is designed, it would have to have a designer in it, which would be alive.

Unless the designer is not alive, and is just some kind of process or law, but in that case you couldn't really call it intelligent.