|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
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? 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
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"). Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes: jar writes:
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"). Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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:
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").
Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024