Replies

Are you saying that it is hypothetically possible to observe an event of order coming from non-order and determine that no intelligence is involved, and if so, how would this determination be made?

No, I'm not stating that, you are. You're the one who keeps stating that order can arise from non-order with no apparent intelligent design. Since that's your position, it's up to you to tell me how the determination that no intelligence is involved is made.

No, I'm not stating that, you are.

Then you acknowledge that your claim is non-falsifiable, meaning that it is not scientific. You have stated that absolutely no possible observation cannot conform to your standard of evidence. If this is the case, then there is no means by which your claim can be evaluated.

You're the one who keeps stating that order can arise from non-order with no apparent intelligent design. Since that's your position, it's up to you to tell me how the determination that no intelligence is involved is made.

You have made a claim that the existence of determinable intelligence bringing order to non-order is evidence that all cases of order to non-order involve intelligence, even when such intelligence is not detectable. That is not a logical position; in order to make that claim, you must be able to define a hypothetical criteria for determining that no intelligence is involved in a order to non-order event. If you cannot do that, then your claim is without any means of evaluation.

You are attempting to claim that because the conditions of some events of order to non-order involve intelligence, all events of order to non-order involve intelligence. You have provided no reason to believe that intelligence must be required in all cases. That intelligence is involved in some cases is not evidence that intelligence is involved in all cases. Your argument is a variant of the hasty generalization fallacy and also the biased sample fallacy. You are claiming that the condition of intelligence behind some events of order from non-order is evidence that all events of order from non-order involve intelligence, even though you acknowledge that it is impossible to determine if no intelligence is involved in such an event. As such, the only samples you accept are samples where intelligence is known. Even if an event occurs where no intelligence is involved, you dismiss it because you have no means of verifying that no intelligence is actually involved. In so doing, it is impossible to determine whether the number of observed events where order arises from non-order without intelligence is zero or non-zero. You are deriving your sample size with a method that rules out any events that do not conform to what you have already concluded. Your argument is not logically valid.