Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

Comments
Barry
we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.
I don’t know about others but that is not exactly my point.  I would argue 1) If you are going to conclude something is designed you need to have a design hypothesis which includes some kind of description of the designer and its motives or you have no way of assigning a probability to that hypothesis – an alien is such a hypothesis but very, very implausible. 2) The argument “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed” could equally well be expressed “all things with characteristic X that we know the provenance were designed by humans, life has characteristic X therefore we can infer it was designed by humansMark Frank
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Keith S
UDers are still struggling to refute my “Bomb” argument (provided at Barry’s request) after 5 1/2 weeks and more than a dozen threads.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Are you serious? Blowing smoke up your own orifice is not recommended. You have been refuted, numerous times and yet here you are making another stupendous claim about your supposed assumptions being some type of fact, worse still..... You already admitted that you can't really believe yourself so why should we Keith S? So Barry deleted a post big deal! This is his site and he may do as he damn well pleases! You're just being petty, as silly as it is I should not be surprised because the belief in your head that unguided processes can create guided processes should be a clear indication for any rational person out there that Keith S is short of a few sandwiches to make a picnic basket.Andre
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Barry, Your silence in response to my question speaks volumes.keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel, you seem to be saying that a design inference is invalid unless someone actually observes the designer designing. Is that your position?Barry Arrington
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien. If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human. In other words, an alien who looked like a human, dressed like a human, acted like a human, drank ale like a human, told jokes that humans thought funny*, and wrote poetry consistent with the culture of the time and period. In any case, we would have evidence of the causation linking the artisan, art, and artifact. * Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.Zachriel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
keith s as to: "Says Axel, who couldn’t refute my argument if his life depended on it." Now, now, keith s, for someone who himself believes that his own brain, (which is, by far, more complex than the entire internet combined), came about by purely unguided, indeed accidental, processes, I would not be commenting on the supposed lack of intelligence of another human if I were you. (whoever 'you' is in your scheme of things) :) ---- Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Jerad:
But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth. And there’s sufficient evidence for a man named William Shakespeare who lived at the time who was capable of writing Hamlet. The alien creation hypothesis is clearly not the best hypothesis.
Actually, there is a ton of historical, archaeological and logical evidence all over the world that aliens have been here on earth in recent history. The evidence is overwhelming. Materialists have seen to it that the evidence is swept under the rug with the label "religious myth" attached to it. Nothing is allowed to compete with the one true religion. But soon there will be a new sheriff in town. Wait for it. Latest evidence at Baalbek, LebanonMapou
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Here’s the question: Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?
Wonderful news, now CSI ('design interface' seems to impart something more to ID than what ID is right now) can detect if the designer is alien or not. Why would anyone object to that, if it turns out to be true? Of course 'design interface' would be valid if 'turns out to be true' is literal and not another UPB argument.Me_Think
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Says Axel, who couldn't refute my argument if his life depended on it.keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Well, I can't imagine a more devastating put-down to describe habitual aberrancy in logic, proclaimed with a superbly extravagant bombast. Congratulations on coming up with it. I think it was you, wasn't it?Axel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
LOL Axel,,, perfect moment for that!bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
The Black Knight has spoken....!Axel
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
BA77, Sure, Barry can ban me if he wants to, but doing so would come at a high price. It would further cement his reputation as a censor of critical viewpoints, given that a) I just caught him red-handed deleting an entire thread, and b) UDers are still struggling to refute my "Bomb" argument (provided at Barry's request) after 5 1/2 weeks and more than a dozen threads. If he bans me now, he's admitting defeat. If he doesn't ban me, then my criticisms continue. He has a tough choice to make.keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
You may have a point, Barry "taH pagh taHbe',!" "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."Seversky
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
keith s, you ask me after I asked you directly about the empirical falsification of neo-Darwinism: "BA77, Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that?" keith s, I think you are trying to avoid honestly dealing with the empirical science I presented that falsifies your materialistic/atheistic position by focusing on what you think is a trivial moral transgression on Mr. Arrington's part,,, (although, ironically, morals are illusory in your worldview anyway). Moreover, I think you are trying to, like a bothersome insect, antagonize Mr. Arrington on a site that he can damn well do what he pleases on since he is owner of the blog.,,, Including banning you for being a pest!bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
semi related,,, In the following video, C.S. Lewis, in comparison to Shakespeare perhaps playing a role in one of his own plays, comments on God 'playing the role of a person': Finding Shakespeare by C.S. Lewis Doodle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw +++++++++++ As a footnote; Kurt Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the 'Theory of Everything', also had this to say: The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Hebrews 2:14-15 “Since we, God’s children, are human beings – made of flesh and blood – He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread.” ====== “I commend my soul into the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ my Savior, to be made partaker of life everlasting; and my body to the earth, whereof it was made.” William Shakespeare - Last will and testament http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/shakwill.html "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamletbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman:
I think Barry had a thought he wanted to share on a blog he moderates and for some reason shortly later changed his mind
"For some reason"? :-) I have a pretty good idea what the reason was, but I'm hoping to hear Barry's side of the story. How about it, Barry? ETA: Particularly in light of this statement on Barry's website (H/T timothya at AtBC):
Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.
keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Jerad @ 1. You don't seem to understand what the phrase "assume for the sake of argument" means. Let me help you with that. It means roughly, set aside issues of evidentiary warrant and assume a fact to be true for purposes of an argument. Responding to "assume X is true for the sake of argument" with reasons why X should not be assumed misses the point. Which means, most of your response misses the point of the OP.
I don’t have a problem accepting that some member of another intelligent species wrote Hamlet.
It seems that it would follow that you reject your fellow materialists who insist that we cannot make a design inference unless we know the putative designer was human. Barry Arrington
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Keiths said, Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that? I say, I think Barry had a thought he wanted to share on a blog he moderates and for some reason shortly later changed his mind You say, What if a “Darwinist” had done so? I say, pretty much the same thing. Why do you ask? peacefifthmonarchyman
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Jerad says, But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth. I say, There is tons of evidence. 1)There are literally billions of possible planets for life to arise and billions of years for it to do so. 2)we "know" that evolution is certain once life arises. 3) We "know" that human level intelligence is entirely due to evolution 4) We "know" that the desire to explore the universe is the result of those same evolutionary forces It seems that the probability of Shakespeare being an alien is a least .5 If it actually happened the probability is one Only a IDiot would even talk about probabilities of things after they already happened. peacefifthmonarchyman
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
What if one of the Mars explorers found a clearly manufactured structure on Mars. Something that could not possibly be explained by natural processes. What then? Would the non-ID community then accept the inference of design without having any knowledge of the designer(s)?
Of course they would. As long as they can somehow hold any kind of non-supernatural beings responsible for the design ("aliens") they're more than happy to invoke ID. It doesn't even have to be a whole structure. A small item like an old, rotten metal disc would most certainly be considered as proof for the influence of intelligent beings. But if they can't attribute their findings to non-supernatural influences, they'll resort to the idea that the item must have come into existence by a natural cause, no matter how retarded that explanation is. SebestyenSebestyen
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
BA77, Barry deleted an entire thread. What do you think about that? What if a "Darwinist" had done so?keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
keith s, so you don't think the empirical falsification of your neo-Darwinian position to be of any importance to you personally?,,, Why does that not surprise me? The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwYbornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
BA77, What does that any of that have to do with Barry's deletion of an entire thread?keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
keith s, did you read this empirical falsification of your position? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/orgel-and-500-coins/#comment-533416bornagain77
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Barry, Before you leave for your trip, will you explain why you deleted an entire thread, along with the comments?keith s
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
It's like some goofy Dr Who episode. I don't have a problem accepting that some member of another intelligent species wrote Hamlet. But there is no evidence for it. No evidence that aliens exist or have visited the earth. And there's sufficient evidence for a man named William Shakespeare who lived at the time who was capable of writing Hamlet. The alien creation hypothesis is clearly not the best hypothesis. You're grasping at straws. You can't magic a designer out of nothing so don't try and get people to accept a proposition that hasn't been established. The kind of scenario you SHOULD be exploring is something more like the following (taking off from a conversation I had with Joe G (I always credit my sources)): What if one of the Mars explorers found a clearly manufactured structure on Mars. Something that could not possibly be explained by natural processes. What then? Would the non-ID community then accept the inference of design without having any knowledge of the designer(s)?Jerad
November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply