So, this is tricky. It isn't a valid example, precisely because 'uneducated' is not possible in the sense necessary to make your example valid. A person who can make an assessment about an object would necessarily have to be educated about things, natural and man-made to even begin to have rational thoughts of the kind you are saying about an object.
I should have clarified. I meant someone who did not know the moon landing happened.
That which is natural is not recognized as being made by an agent from our experience.
That assumption does not seem to follow the patterns we observe today when we observe new complexity being introduced into a system. If a system can automatically introduce complexity it is a form of artificial intelligence. We give credit to a creator or programmer for all new systems of artificial intelligence we observe coming into existence today. Nature is a group of systems that operate like man-made artificial intelligence, with some amazing systems of real intelligence mixed in (human minds for instance).
There is less order in Stonehenge than in the structure of a crystal.
There is less order in a pile of sand than in than in an atom of silicone dioxide.
Which one of these would take more intelligence to create?
If there is only one way that a crystal can be constructed, why assume nobody made the choice to construct it that one and only way?
There is only one way do do a lot of things. Especially, determining the structure of things that are very complex, like ecosystems, biological reproduction, crystals, large molecules, and atoms, etc...
Do you have to witness somebody choosing that one way for it to be a valid assumption someone more than likely chose that one way?
You must demonstrate that non-man made things were created by an intelligence. There is no law that i am aware of that says that things must be created by agents and that's it.
I can't. Nobody can because that type of complexity requires a creator with these characteristics:
1. It existed before the thing that was created so it could be there to create it.
2. It has intelligence and physical capabilities far beyond any of man's current capabilities, otherwise we could replicate it.
I can only demonstrate things that men are currently capable of demonstrating. Maybe long ago we could create life from organic molecules. Today I can't, but it appears that long ago somebody could.
You must demonstrate complex non-man made things coming into existence without a creator or a preexisting AI system. Especially when we observe natural AI systems operating very similarly to man made AI systems that men created during recorded history and 100% of those have a creator.
Just because Natural AI systems are to old to identify their creator, does not mean there is a law that says really old things that reveal order and complexity must come into existence by random introduction of new information rather than a creator.
I don't know the answers to these things, but i do know, logically, linguistically, 'Hume'ely', you cannot make those statements as neccessarily true. They simply cannot be known.
What can be known, is "what was the most likely way it happened". We have the ability to imagine different scenarios, even if we can't physically replicate those scenarios. We can develop those scenarios from patterns we are currently observing in everyday life and in the archaeological record.
We can use the, "if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it is probably a type of duck even though we never saw a duck like that before"- method of deductive reasoning.
Either it was designed or it wasn't. How are you going to plug variables into the sides? Where are you going to get your information about no-design? Or design, what numbers are going to represent your division? There are none.
If there are no variables to plug in which demonstrates complexity appearing from purely random input of information to develop an AI type information management system, then maybe we should assume that it did not happen.
There is no way to quantify the odds of 'no-design'. To say that it is unlikely or whatever is just begging the question. A philosophical no-no.
It is not a no-no. The only way to reach the correct conclusion is to ask the right question, and accept the most likely hypothesis to develop a correct answer.
Also, coming up with anything like this would require you to have a gods eye view of the universe: you would have to know all properties of all things in order to definitively make the statement that it couldn't have occurred without design. This knowledge is not forthcoming.
Could it be because only a god with capabilities greater than ours did it? Can you imagine a scenario like that by using Objective Idealism as your type of philosophy?
Is there any other way to get a god's eye view?
Is that the only truly objective philosophical point of view?