- Share
-
-
arroba
Not much of a challenge. Sober’s argument is
1. If a system found in nature is irreducibly complex, then it was caused to exist by an intelligent designer.
2. Some of the minds found in nature are irreducibly complex.
3. Therefore some of the minds found in nature were caused to exist by an intelligent designer.
4. Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex.
5. If the universe is finitely old and if cause precedes effect, then at least one of the minds found in nature was not created by any mind found in nature.
6. The universe is finitely old.
7. Causes precede their effects.
8. Therefore, there exists a supernatural intelligent designer.
Sober makes assumptions that ID does not.
2. Some of the minds found in nature are irreducibly complex.
We only have one mind to examine in nature and we don’t know what causes it to exist. Therefore we cannot say that it is irreducibly complex. Given 2 is a false premise and is Sober’s first flaw.
3. Therefore some of the minds found in nature were caused to exist by an intelligent designer.
This conclusion is unsupported due to the false premise in given 2. Even if it were not fallacious it does not assert that all minds found in nature are of intelligent cause. This is Sober’s second flaw. He fails to demonstrate that all minds in nature depend on intelligent causation.
4. Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex.
We have no idea how many minds exist in nature much less whether they are all necessarily irreducibly complex. Another false premise given by Sober and his third flaw.
5. If the universe is finitely old and if cause precedes effect, then at least one of the minds found in nature was not created by any mind found in nature.
It does not follow from finite age and cause/effect that there must exist a mind in nature that was not created by another mind. We do not know how minds are created, even our own, to say nothing of minds never observed. Flaw number four.
6. The universe is finitely old.
No one knows if the universe is finitely old as physics has no means of describing what came before a singularity known as the big bang nor does physics have a means of describing what if anything existed outside the singularity. This is why we speak of an “observable” universe. The observable universe appears to have a finite age but there is no way of knowing what, if anything, is beyond the bounds of the observable. Sober lacks a basic understanding of the limits of physics in describing the universe. This is flaw number five.
7. Causes precede their effects.
This is also something physics does not unambiguously demonstrate. It is not demonstrated by any means that the observable universe is deterministic. There is a wide belief among quantum physicists that quantum uncertainty is real and not just an artifact of incomplete knowledge. If quantum uncertainty is real and quantum events influence macroscopic events then effects can exist without cause. This is Sober’s sixth flaw.
8. Therefore, there exists a supernatural intelligent designer.
As I have shown this conclusion is based on so many logical and scientific fallacies it is laughable. About the only thing that Sober got right was in the first assertion that irreducibly complex systems must be intelligently designed. And that itself is hotly debated too but we ID theorists accept it as a given.