THE DEBATE

> Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since I haven't been able to convince you using my previous methodology,
> > > > > > > > > > > though I think it was pretty convincing, [I'll] try something new:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Would you say that a thing created by a human for a certain task can be
> > > > > > > > > > > said to have been intelligently designed?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to
> > > > > > > > > > > conclude as much by looking at the thing and the task?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No and yes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let [me] offer an example.  Say you came upon several pillars holding up a
> > > > > > > > > roof.  Would it be safe to say that the pillars were designed to hold up
> > > > > > > > > the roof?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only if the roof were to actually fall if the pillars were removed.
> > > > > > > > Sometimes pillars have decorative purposes only; sometimes they have no
> > > > > > > > purpose at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's the trick: knowing what the intended task is to begin with.  That
> > > > > > > > is why I change my answer to "No and no".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You will note that I wrote, "Say you came upon several pillars holding
> > > > > > > up a roof."  Now, again I ask: would it be safe to say that the pillars
> > > > > > > were designed to hold up the roof?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only if they are actually holding up the roof.  Your statement contains
> > > > > > an implied foreknowledge of the purpose of the pillars.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't said anything about their purpose yet, only that they are in
> > > > > fact holding up the roof such that if any were removed, the roof would
> > > > > fall in.
> > > >
> > > > But was that their purpose?  Not necessarily, although it's a fair
> > > > assumption, at least when it's based on other examples of pillars holding
> > > > up roofs, and the knowledge that the use of pillars is a common
> > > > architectural feature.
> > > >
> > > > The universe is an entirely different matter.
> > >
> > > It's not necessary to know for sure their purpose, just that they hold
> > > up the roof.  I explain more below.
> > 
> > Really?  Let's just say that the values of universal constants "just" allow
> > life, without reference to some "purpose".
> 
> That is, of course, possible but the "reasonable assumption" is that
> they are designed to support life.

If it's possible, why isn't it a reasonable assumption, given that we have 
no idea what a God-designed universe would look like (since we haven't 
seen one before)?  
 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > > > Now, if the
> > > > > > pillars ARE holding up the roof, which can be determined by a detailed
> > > > > > enginieering analysis, then it's safe to say that those pillars were
> > > > > > designed to hold up the roof.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you are saying that by a study of the pillars, one could determine if
> > > > > they are designed.  So now we have a definition of design.  Not only
> > > > > that, we have a way to determine if something is designed - study the
> > > > > pillars.
> > > >
> > > > The only way to determine if the pillars were designed is to know the
> > > > intentions of the designer.  In the case of something simple, like a
> > > > pillar, it's a safe assumption that the pillar was placed for the
> > > > *specific* purpose of holding up the roof.  But what if that were not the
> > > > purpose at all?  If the pillars were designed for some other purpose, does
> > > > that entitle you to say that they were designed to hold up the roof?  The
> > > > answer is, of course, no.
> > >
> > > Actually, the answer is "yes."  Because of the nature of this suject,
> > > scientifically or philosophically you can only make a "safe
> > > assumption."  What I called, knowing "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> > 
> > You misunderstand me.  If the pillars were designed for another reason,
> > can you still say that they were designed to hold up the roof?  The fact
> > that they hold up the roof might be incidental.
> 
> Perhaps, but the "reasonable assumption" is that they were designed to
> support the roof.

Only if it's based on the nature of other pillars designed by humans.  
What you're struggling (and failing) to do is make "reasonable 
assumptions" based on a prejudicial desire to see design where none 
may exist.  Not very scientific of you, I might add...
 
> > 
> > > In
> > > other words it is reasonable to believe that the pillars were designed
> > > to hold up the roof, the more pillars, the more reasonable your
> > > assumption.
> > 
> > I don't think it has anything to do with the number of the pillars
> > involved.  We are getting away from my reason for making such an
> > assumption about the pillars.  I can make a reasonable guess about the
> > pillars' purpose by looking at how *other* pillars are used and who made
> > them.
> 
> True.  But one can also look at these pillars, even if he had never had
> seen such a thing, and determine that they hold up the roof.

But we cannot determine whether they were *designed* to hold up the 
roof.  Whether they actually hold up the roof or not is irrelevant.  
You see, your problem is you want to make the statements

"The pillars hold up the roof."

and

"The pillars were designed to hold up the roof."

logically equivalent, and your attempt to draw reasonable assumptions 
falls far short of this; the only way to make them logically equivalent 
is to *know* what the designers had in mind.

> > 
> > > >
> > > > > In my example, say each pillar represents one of the items mentioned by
> > > > > Dr. Hugh Ross that are seemingly fine-tuned for the existence of life.
> > > >
> > > > What are these "pillars" supporting?  They are only "supporting" your
> > > > preconceived notion that the universe exists to support life.  Besides,
> > > > any perceived "fine-tuning" of these values is irrelevant to the values
> > > > themselves.
> > >
> > > No.  They don't support a preconceived notion, they actually have
> > > certain values that if they were even a little different, life could not
> > > exist.
> > 
> > So?  If they *were* different, we would not be here.  Should we be surprised
> > to find a universe that allows our existence?  Define "even a little
> > different".
> 
> Maybe we should not be surprised (or maybe we should) but the above
> objection really has no bearing on what we are discussing now.  

Why?  You brought up the subject.

> To define "a little different," you'll have to read Ross' paper which I
> footnote in my paper (there is also a link).
> 
> > 
> > > This determination can be made regardless if one believes that
> > > the universe exists to support life.
> > 
> > Again, define "even a little different".  Some of those values allow more
> > "play" than others.
> 
> True.  See my link.  You can, of course, attack my argument on this
> basis.  Good luck.  BTW, Dr. Ross' organzation does answer questions.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.  No one in Ross' organization 
who has responded to me has ever given an adequate answer.

> > 
> > > >
> > > > > If any of those pillars were taken away, the roof would fall.
> > > >
> > > > You see?  You have a *preconceived idea* about the purpose of these
> > > > so-called pillars.  Their "purpose" might be entirely different.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter if their purpose is entirely different.  If one would
> > > fall, the roof would fall regardless of their "true" purpose.
> > 
> > So is it possible that they might have no purpose at all?
> 
> Of course.  But that is not the most "reasonable assumption."

But it is a reasonable assumption, is it not?

> > 
> > > >
> > > > Think about how many discoveries in history were made by accident, and
> > > > not by intention.
> > >
> > > Think of the discoveries that were made intensionally.
> > 
> > Hmm...you missed my point, which was that some discoveries were made when
> > another entirely different discovery was intended.  That is, they were
> > made by *accident*.  Maybe your "fine-tuned" universe was, too.
> 
> Could be, but that is not the "reasonable assumption."  

Why?  Because the idea of a non-created universe is repugnant to you?

> BTW, if we were to discuss a possible accidental universe, we would have
> to discuss many things like: something from nothing, the many universes
> theories, etc.

That might be fun.  Fire away.

> > 
> > > >
> > > > > Say the
> > > > > roof in my example is life.
> > > >
> > > > This is PRECISELY the conclusion you are trying to draw!  Your argument
> > > > is plainly circular.
> > >
> > > No, the conclusion I am trying to draw is that the pillars were designed
> > > for the roof.
> > 
> > You cannot draw that conclusion, because you don't *know* for sure.  You can
> > never know, unless the architect tells you what he had in mind.
> 
> So basically, what you are saying is that a person is wrong, even is he
> is making a "reasonable assumption" because he cannot know "for sure"? 

No.  I am saying he can never be completely right.  

> Are you sure you want propose such a thing?  For one, all scientific
> inquiry would go out the window, especially the study of origins - of
> life, of the universe, etc.  Might as well shut down talk.origins
> according to the above statement.  What can we really *know* for sure?

Nothing, at least in science.  No need to shut down anything; science 
is working precisely as designed.
 
> > 
> > > We know we have pillars.  We know we have the roof.  I
> > > have shown, as you have admitted, that by studying the pillars we can
> > > make a reasonable assumption about their purpose (to support the roof)
> > > which leads to the idea that they were probably designed for that
> > > purpose.
> > 
> > Yes, based on KNOWN attributes of PRE-EXISTING pillars made by HUMANS.
> 
> I never said the pillars were made by humans.  

Neither did I; I am drawing a reasonable assumption based on previous 
knowledge of pillars.  They may have been made by little green men, for 
all I know.

> Anyway, why can't we
> study other figurative pillars and not make a "reasonable assumption" of
> their design?  Do scienists ever rely on a "reasonable assumption" or do
> they always *know" for sure everything? 

They rely on theoretical consistency and experimental data.  They *never* 
know anything for sure, technically speaking.

> Do you say this because your faith does not allow you to believe that
> the universe may be designed?  You say that were can never know if the
> universe is designed.  Since when does scientific inquiry include the
> idea that we can NEVER know something?  

Since the discovery of the irrational numbers.  However, the idea really 
hit home with the advent of quantum theory.

> What do you base this supposed
> fact on?  

The known history of mathematics and quantum theory.  See for yourself.

> You can't because it is not a fact, it is a statement of faith
> and a declaration of bias.

I suggest you re-assess the validity of this accusation.

> > 
> > > >
> > > > > It follows, by your own admission, that if
> > > > > the pillars (items mentioned by Ross) are holding up the roof (life)
> > > > > then the pillars (items mentioned by Ross) are designed to support the
> > > > > roof (life).
> > > >
> > > > And as I said, even if the pillars are holding up the roof, it does not
> > > > necessarily mean that that was their purpose.  In order to know the
> > > > purpose of the pillars, one must know the intentions of the architect.
> > >
> > > True.  But were cannot talk in absolutes in this argument.
> > 
> > Indeed...yet you wish to conclude "absolutes", i.e., you wish to go from
> > "safe assumption" to "gospel truth" so gradually that no one will
> > notice.  This cannot be done.
> 
> I set out to show in my paper that one can determine beyond a reasonable
> that God exists and that the "reasonable assumption" that God exists is
> the best explanation around.

Hmm...

"We think it's a reasonable assumption that in the beginning, God created 
the heaven and the earth." --- Genesis 1:1, Mark's Version (MV)

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; it's a pretty reasonable 
assumption that no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." --- MV 
(Can't remember the chapter and verse)

"I think it's a reasonable assumption that I am the Alpha and the Omega, 
the beginning and the end, the first and the last." --- Revelation 22:13, MV


They just don't have the same impact, do they?

> > 
> > > You should
> > > have been aware of that going in.  Design here is indeed a "safe
> > > assumption."
> > 
> > Design *where* is a safe assumption?  With pillars, yes.  With the
> > universe, no.
> 
> I've got you hog-tied here, it's time to cry "uncle."  You are being
> "unreasonable" by your own definition.

And do you suppose God appreciates being demoted to a "reasonable 
assumption"?  Who's really being unreasonable here?

> > 
> > > >
> > > > The problem with your argument (and there are many) is that you want to
> > > > extrapolate from a *reasonable assumption* about HUMAN technology to
> > > > *factual assertions* about DIVINE "technology".  What gives you the right
> > > > to impose human qualities, intentions and restrictions on God?
> > >
> > > You misunderstand.  For the purpose of this debate, I am not concluding
> > > fact, just reasonable doubt or "reasonable assumption" as you now admit.
> > 
> > A "reasonable assumption" about HUMAN TECHNOLOGY.  Please explain how I
> > can extrapolate from mere human technology to God's intentions.
> 
> Again, I didn't say the pillars were designed by humans.

Again, neither did I.  My assumption is based on characteristics of 
pillars that *were*.

> Please explain why we cannot be reasonable in extrapolating what we know
> about design to things not designed by humans?  If you think about it,
> we cannot really *KNOW* FOR SURE if things supposedly designed by humans
> actually were.  We can only make "reasonable assumptions."

That's true; but a reasonable assumption isn't really what you want, 
now is it, Mark?

> > 
> > > Guess what?  Because you admit that one can make a "reasonable
> > > assumption" (your exact words) of design in this matter, you lose the
> > > debate on the point about design.  Such an assumption is the best one
> > > can do when talking about design in the context we talking about it.
> > 
> > And the point you are not willing to admit is that we have been talking
> > about HUMAN design all along!  Are you *seriously* telling me that we can
> > tell what divine design looks like based on what HUMAN design looks
> > like?
> 
> I am saying that a reasonable person can tell what design looks like
> whether it be human, animal, alien (if such exists), whatever.  

Really?  Could you positively identify a religious artifact of 
extraterrestrial origin, even if it looked in every respect exactly 
like a cow chip?  Could you even tell a synthetic diamond from a 
natural one?

> You
> limit our ability to inquire to things we can only know "for sure."  

Please demonstrate where I do that.

> The
> study of our origins doesn't fall into that category.  Evolution doesn't
> fall into that category.  Not much falls into that category.  Would you
> like to limit science to only repeatable experiments?  Then what are you
> doing on talk.origins?  What are you doing discussing philosophy?  Why
> do you fight so hard against one reasonable assumption over another?

Why do YOU?
 
> > 
> > > Therefore, we have a working definition of design.  The first point of
> > > my argument was that the universe is designed.  You must now accept that
> > > point using the definition of design we have come up with here.
> > 
> > I don't see why.  You have not shown that the universe was designed,
> > because (as you tentatively admit) the "true" purpose of a pillar (or
> > natural constant) is unimportant if it fulfills *some* function, even by
> > *accident*.  Is it not conceivable that these universal constants, despite
> > their allowance of the existence of life and their "fine-tuning"
> > (whatever THAT is), could have been set purely by accident, or by some
> > as-yet-undiscovered natural law?
> 
> I deal with what is reasonable.  It is "conceivable" that I dreamt up
> the Internet after eating Mexican food and am still dreaming.  Oh, and
> please give me supporting evidence for your assumption that some
> as-yet-undiscovered natural law exists.  

Please give me supporting evidence that I ever assumed one exists.

> That is a statement of faith. 
> Why do you not require of yourself the degree of evidence you require of
> me?

Because I require more of myself.

> > > If you are not happy with our definition, then you must withdraw your
> > > statements about "reasonable assumption" or you must be unreasonable and
> > > not make such a reasonable assumption.
> > 
> > Really?  So far the only "definition" of design we have is "something
> > made by humans".  Was the universe made by humans?
> > 
> > > If you want 100% certainty, you
> > > will never get it, not even in science.  To request it here is to be
> > > hypocritical, if your are a scientist.
> > 
> > I've never demanded it.  It is hypocritical to claim that a "reasonable
> > assumption" is all you're making when you are claiming, or trying to claim,
> > objective fact, i.e., that God designed the universe for human beings.
> 
> I am just showing that there is good reason to believe it beyond a
> reasonable doubt (a reasonable assumption that it is true).

Yeah...and you know, it didn't occur to me, until this email, just how 
disingenuous your "reasonable assumption" is.  Do you really think that 
the unsaved can be saved by a "reasonable assumption" that God exists?  
It seems to me that God requires much more than reasonable assumptions 
from those who would enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  You could, of course, 
claim that you are not trying to save any souls with your argument...but 
I have a strong feeling that would defeat your purpose in making it.

Faith is much more than a reasonable assumption, and I've never heard a 
priest, rabbi, minister, ayatollah or God demand anything less. 

Why do you?

--
Chris Lesley

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION BY CHRIS LESLEY

Some Final Thoughts On Design

Even though I have been convinced of the design argument's fallacy almost from the beginning, I felt that a debate between MarkH and myself would help me better understand why. I was right. The design argument is fallacious for essentially three reasons:

1) It is subjective. The design argument as offered by Mark is based on a subjective interpretation of what "design" actually is, whether that interpretation comes from some innate hard-wired preference in our brains to see patterns or from some personal preference. If any objective basis can be offered for interpreting design, it must be a human basis, that is, it must be based on what humans are known to have already designed; Mark has failed to demonstrate why divine design should resemble human design.

However, there is one other objective alternative: knowing the intentions of the designer, in which case the design argument is

2) Circular. Knowing the intentions of the designer implies that a designer having such intentions exists. It is the existence of this Designer that Mark wants to demonstrate. Therefore, Mark or anyone else who claims to know the Designer's intentions in making the universe is offering a circular argument.

However, I think the most crucial indictment that can be offered against the design argument is that it is

3) Disingenuous. In our debate, Mark repeatedly tried to make me concede that design was a "reasonable assumption" regarding the physical properties and natural constants of the universe. It finally occurred to me that Mark ultimately wanted more than that. I skimmed the Bible, looking for instances of God or Jesus asking only for "reasonable assumptions" from believers; I could find none. If God and Christ ask for more than "reasonable assumptions", why was Mark asking for less?

The answer is simple: his argument was a clumsy version of the classic bait-and-switch. The proponents of the design argument believe that if they can convince others that God's existence is a "reasonable assumption", then they will have an easier time convincing these would-be believers to offer their faith. They are wrong. Not only are they wrong because the argument is dishonest; they are wrong because their conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow that "perfect faith" can come from a "reasonable assumption". Perfect faith can only come from one place: the heart of a believer. If a "reasonable assumption" could not shake the faith of a believer, how could a "reasonable assumption" shake a non-believer into believing?

And that's all I have to say about that. I hope you enjoyed reading my little summary; as always, if any of you have questions, please don't hesistate to ask.

--
Chris Lesley

"[I]f I let myself believe anything on isufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous." --- W. K. Clifford

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION BY MARK HARPT

Though it is intuitively obvious from a study of the many constants in the universe that there is an incredible amount of fine-tuning for life, non-theists and atheists still feel the need to attack this premise. Without doing so, they cannot refute the design argument, since the rest of it falls readily into place. And if they cannot refute the design argument, they must accept its conclusion, which is totally unacceptable to them. Instead of being completely scientific and logical, as they claim, they clearly exhibit a system of faith that requires tightly closed eyes if the truth contradicts that faith. "Blind faith" is the term they like to use on others.

At the conclusion of this debate, Mr. Lesley has only one real objection left. He objects to my extrapolation from known design (human, animal, etc.) to design of the universe itself. I will discuss why I can so extrapolate at the end of this summary.

One thing the reader will notice is that near the end of the debate, Mr. Lesley attempts to change the parameters of the debate to salvage the wreckage of his failed arguments, which forces him to put forward the false notion that a Christian (I am one) cannot debate the existence of God (even as a starting point) beyond only a reasonable doubt. The problem with debating the question of God's existence to more than a reasonable doubt is the fact that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Mr. Lesley and many atheists to ever accept the existence of God to a higher degree of proof. For example, Mr. Lesley said that one cannot *know* anything for sure but requires that I must show that one can *know* and prove something for sure to prove my point to him. In other words, I can NEVER prove my point to him. He doesn't require such stringent proof from even empirical science and he requires much less of a degree of proof from such disciplines as evolutionary "science," the theory and study of the origin of life and the theory and study of origin of the universe. This is a double standard and a clear bias on his part. Perhaps this double standard of proof is why it's hard to find an atheist who admits to losing a debate to a Christian or creationist.

I set out in this debate to show that it is reasonable to conclude that the universe is designed for the existence of life. When discussing my main analogy, Mr. Lesley admitted that by studying the pillars, one can determine that they were designed to hold the roof. After admitting that, he attempted to backpeddle during the rest of the debate. The following is a quote from Mr. Lesley during the debate:

"Now, if the pillars ARE holding up the roof, which can be determined by a detailed enginieering analysis, then it's safe to say that those pillars were designed to hold up the roof."

And here's a quote from him backpeddling and directly contradicting himself during the debate:

"...You see, your problem is you want to make the statements 'The pillars hold up the roof.' and 'The pillars were designed to hold up the roof.' logically equivalent, and your attempt to draw reasonable assumptions falls far short of this; the only way to make them logically equivalent is to *know* what the designers had in mind."

I was actually a little surprised that Mr. Lesley conceded this point so early on in the debate. I was ready with refutations for other possible objections that came to, at least, my mind. It is intuitively obvious and quite reasonable to concede such a thing after all, I just wouldn't think he would give in to reason so quickly. It's very uncharacteristic of non-theists and atheists to do so.

At times in the debate, Mr. Lesley made some "maybe this or maybe that" statements (without any sort of evidence offered for such statements) which defy his own concession of what design is. Basically, what he was saying was, "maybe the pillars hold up the roof but maybe they weren't designed to do so." This directly contradicts his previous statement, "Now, if the pillars ARE holding up the roof, which can be determined by a detailed enginieering analysis, then it's safe to say that those pillars were designed to hold up the roof."

The only valid argument Mr. Lesley is left with is - Can one extrapolate from known human, animal, etc. design to the design of the universe itself? By analogy, the pillars are the finely tuned constants of the universe that "hold up" or support life. Many of the constants are such that if one is off by a small amount, life could not exist (see Dr. Hugh Ross' site at http://www.reasons.org for details and definitions of these constants).

Note that in my analogy, I did not mention where the pillars and roof were or who built them. They could have been on Mars created by aliens and Mr. Lesley still would have been able to recognize that the pillars were designed to hold up the roof. He actually did recognize them without my saying who or what designed them. This is something he also claimed could not be done without asking the designer. So, in a fit of reasonableness, Mr. Lesley did agree that this human to alien extrapolation is reasonable enough. What about animal design? Can we recognize such though we cannot ask the designer? Any sane person would agree that we can and do. What about archeological discoveries where the designers are long dead? It is reasonable to extrapolate design there. No reasonable person and/or person in the field of archeology would disagree with this.

So can we extrapolate this recognition of design to the universe itself? The answer is yes! Why should we assume that human design would be totally dissimilar from natural design? Don't most atheists and non-theists believe that humans are but a product of nature? Even creationists believe that humans have very natural physical bodies and many natural modes of thinking (to humans' detriment much of the time). So if humans are a product of nature, doesn't nature beget nature? How can humans do something unnatural?

One might say that we call tell by observation that some things designed by humans do not follow things seen in nature. But nature begets nature, right? And didn't those unnatural things start off following nature and over the millennia merely change such that some designs don't appear to totally follow natural designs anymore? Their root is still in nature.

Mr. Lesley said that we cannot recognize as designed anything that we don't have experience of (like the pillars and roof themselves). Since we cannot recognize if something new (something we have no experience of ) is designed, we certainly can NEVER design something new and still recognize it. So totally unique invention is out of the question according to Mr. Lesley. Backing this up, where did mankind take his first designs from since they could not have been new designs? Nature.

Thus it follows that we can extrapolate design in natural things like the universe from human design because, 1) humans are natural creatures and nature begets nature, and 2) since humans do not design anything unique, their designs must have come from nature and thus humans do not design anything totally unique to nature.

With all that said, the conclusion a non-biased reader must reach from this debate is that it is reasonable, even more reasonable than any other explanation, to assume that

THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN DESIGNED

The implications one must draw from this conclusion are devastating to atheists and non-theists. But don't hold your breath, you won't hear any of them conceding defeat in a debate with a Christian. Their blind faith and pride is too overpowering to allow them to be anything close to unbiased.

Mark Harpt
markh@wwcw.org
http://www.wwcw.org

Return to the Harpt - Lesley Debate