Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 31 of 377 (612226)
04-14-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by frako
04-13-2011 2:38 PM


frako writes:
But I think many ID arguments go further than simply claiming "complex stuff needs a designer." E.g. William Lane Craig's "kalaam" argument goes back to a "first cause." Logically, there can only be one "first cause."
Yes logically there can be only one first cause but not only one first causer.
Can you please explain the distinction that you are trying to make between "first cause" and "first causer?" The concept of "first cause" includes both personal and impersonal causes, so wouldn't it include a "first causer," whatever that is?
Do you even understand the philosophical term "first cause"? If not, here are a couple of links:
Encyclopedia Britannica
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 2:38 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 9:10 AM kbertsche has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 377 (612227)
04-14-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 9:03 AM


Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM jar has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 377 (612237)
04-14-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
04-14-2011 9:10 AM


jar writes:
Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?
Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 9:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 10:47 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 11:28 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 38 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 11:51 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 41 by Jon, posted 04-14-2011 12:36 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 377 (612241)
04-14-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


kbertsche writes:
jar writes:
Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?
Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").
Why not?
Why not multiple uncaused first causes, or a succession of first causes, or turtles all teh way down?
Why does there even need to be a first cause?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 11:43 AM jar has replied
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:02 PM jar has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 35 of 377 (612242)
04-14-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'.
Given Dembski's complete failure of applying specified complexity to actual DNA sequences it would appear that SC has nothing to do with biology, either. Recently, there was a thread where the Uncommon Descent community was challenged to calculate the SC of some simple biological examples. No one was able to do it.
But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life.
It comes from the same place that all ID conclusions come from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 36 of 377 (612248)
04-14-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


I don't think a "first cause" has any relevance to the design hypothesis. The designer(s) that we're talking about are essentially the last cause, not the first. IDists are reasoning back from the designed to the designer. They're not taking into account the designer's supervisor or the chief engineer or the CEO of the company.
ID is as bad an idea from a (monotheist) religious viewpoint as it is from a scientific viewpoint.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 37 of 377 (612249)
04-14-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
04-14-2011 10:47 AM


GOD
As one who believes in "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" do you not have some sympathy for the whole single first cause thing?
Isn't a "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" a single first by definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 10:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 38 of 377 (612250)
04-14-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").
jar writes:
Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?
Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").
Well the design proponents or at least religious ones believe that god does not need a cause to exist so he was there way beyond the universe then one day he magically poofed the universe in to being so his magical poofing is the first cause for our universe.
So it could be equally true that 1655 gods/intelligent designers came together made a plan on how the universe should look like then they all together magically poof the universe in to exsistance.
this kind of thinking gets around the whole how can something come out of nothing out of nowhere and no when.
Though it still faces the same problem as the universe being eternal logicly better option then god being eternal cause you skip an uknown step though still facing the problem why did it take an infinite number of time to pass for the universe to get to the point it is now, the god option also hasto acount for why it took an infinite amount of time for them to make the universe at that specific time.
the whole problem being infinite having no beginning it always takes you an infinitively long (read for ever, or when pigs fly,or when hell freezes over) to reach a specific point on the timescale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 12:12 PM frako has not replied
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:12 PM frako has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 377 (612253)
04-14-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
04-14-2011 11:51 AM


Parsimony?
Wouldn’t parsimony be the reason for citing a single first cause designer rather than 1655 (or whatever) of them?
Although if one is going to cite parsimony the whole idea of intelligent designers (single or multiple) is in trouble anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 11:51 AM frako has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 377 (612261)
04-14-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
04-14-2011 11:43 AM


Re: GOD
Straggler writes:
As one who believes in "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" do you not have some sympathy for the whole single first cause thing?
Isn't a "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" a single first by definition?
No, not really. I find trying to argue that God must exist or Gods or no God pretty silly. I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.
I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:04 PM jar has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 377 (612263)
04-14-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused..
Even if a 'first cause' can only be singular by some definition, how does that exempt ID/Creationism from having to address whether there was a 'first cause' proper or a set of causes, since either scenario could just as well explain a created world.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 377 (612265)
04-14-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
04-13-2011 8:50 PM


Hi Jar,
You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.
The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 8:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:06 PM slevesque has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 377 (612266)
04-14-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
04-14-2011 12:29 PM


Parsimony?
jar writes:
I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.
OK.
jar writes:
I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.
Surely parsimony comes into play here? If someone proposes a convuluted setup of designers - A committee of designers who design a designer that then designs a designer that then designs our universe - That is surely less parsimonious than a single designer.
A no designer at all is less parsimonious than one. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 12:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 377 (612267)
04-14-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:01 PM


slevesque writes:
Hi Jar,
You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.
The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.
Nonsense.
Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.
The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 377 (612268)
04-14-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
04-14-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Parsimony?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.
OK.
jar writes:
I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.
Surely parsimony comes into play here? If someone proposes a convuluted setup of designers - A committee of designers who design a designer that then designs a designer that then designs our universe - That is surely less parsimonious than a single designer.
A no designer at all is less parsimonious than one. No?
Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 8:31 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024