|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I think I pointed out earlier in the thread that "intelligent design" has implications for religion that the religious don't anticipate and don't want to hear about. One of them is the likelihood of multiple designers. Another is the necessity of denying any specific God. As far as I'm concerned, when religious people hear about intelligent design, they should run screaming in the opposite direction.
If you are not claiming that your conclusion have any bearing on such religious notions - Then fair enough. Straggler writes:
I've answered that multiple times. The first assumption is that one or more designers exist. The second assumption is that only one exists. Two is more than one.
1) How multiple designers doesn't contradict 'unnecessary plurality'. Straggler writes:
Where are you getting your concept of plurality from? Design is one assumption. 2) Where it is you are getting this interpretation of Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' from? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But it should be recognised that any the argument you make on that basis have little bearing on designers which are also being posited as some sort of ultimate first cause creator. But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'. There is no reason why an ID designer could not have itself been caused by something else. The ID argument breaks down to simply be: life's too complicated to evolve; life must have been designed. Obviously, anything designed has at least one designer. The issue, however, is that many IDists assume there is only one designer. As frako pointed out, and as ringo has shown, there is good reason to suspect that if life was designed, it was designed by multiple designers. Everything we know about designing tells us that more than one designer is the norm. Everything we know about the Universe tells us that pluralities are the norm. Without some really good support, there's little reason to concluding only one designer, especially if we take other aspects of the ID argument itself into consideration, which pretty much makes multiple designers the only sensible conclusion. Jon Edited by Jon, : brevity Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon writes:
Are you sure? Can you provide some "IDist" quotes to this effect? But it should be recognised that any the argument you make on that basis have little bearing on designers which are also being posited as some sort of ultimate first cause creator. But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'. William Lane Craig certainly posits the designer as a "first cause." Don't you consider him to be an IDist? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
William Lane Craig certainly posits the designer as a "first cause." Don't you consider him to be an IDist?
I should have been more careful in my wording. IDist arguments for a designer do not require that the designer be a first cause or even singular. They simply require that at least one designer existed. There are many IDists who go for the stupid First Cause, Words of Christ designer crap; but they do so on purely religious grounds, and not based on any of their 'evidence' for a designed world. And that's the entire purpose of this thread: The 'evidence' IDists give for there being a designer tells us there should be multiple ones; yet they routinely conclude there is only one. The reason they do this is solely religious favoritism. Thus, ID ultimately fails in its mission of providing some pseudo-science cloak for introducing religious indoctrination into the school system. Even if you take the whole ID argument as solid, you still don't have the indoctrination; you still have to invoke religion to get to that final conclusion, and religion and public schools don't mix. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
There is no reason why an ID designer could not have itself been caused by something else. Well i kinda has to be from their perspective. Tehere is no such thing as evolution, god is not allowed in the schools, so the desighner is say some alien, well well did the alien come from, well you cant say evolution, cant say god, so it is a super alien, so where did the alien come from, cant say evolution cant say god, super duper alien, ..... But our universe had a "beginning" so at one point you rune out of supers to put in front of the alien so you are left with either evolution or god, evolution is wrong remember so it has to be god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Interesting, just as one would ask, if there is a god who created this god?
One could also ask: If there was a big bang where did the material come from? These materials couldn't simply have always been there....there had to be a process whereby these materials came about; also, What caused this 'bang' / explosion? If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer. water -> plants -> insects & animalsRemove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Quite true. Now, here's the $64 dollar question: What's the difference between religion and science? Answer: Religion takes the unanswered question and uses it as evidence of a god. Science takes the unanswered question and looks for the answer. We don't know what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Science doesn't assume there must have been something before that. Science doesn't assume there couldn't have been anything before that. Science doesn't assume anything, and the only conclusion science comes to from the lack of knowledge is that it's something that needs to be investigated. It's possible there was something before the Big Bang. One idea is called the Big Bounce. As I understand it, the evidence doesn't tend to support that idea, but it's not completely ruled out, either. But the lack of a definite answer certainly doesn't make god more or less likely either way. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
These materials couldn't simply have always been there....there had to be a process whereby these materials came about Nope, they weren't always there, and the processes by which they came about are generally understood and taught within even an introductory physics course. Take at look at the Wikipedia article on the Timeline of the Big Bang. It may have some technical inaccuracies and poor analogies, but it should help you understand some of the basics of the Big Bang.
What caused this 'bang' / explosion? Also a silly philosophical inquiry that has no real scientific significance. There's no evidence of anything 'before' the bang; as such, there's no evidence of anything that 'caused' it.
Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer. And this remains your personal delusion, one for which you've yet to offer any supporting evidence. Is there any reason at all that science should take your delusion seriously?
water -> plants -> insects & animals Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls. Fortunately: a) Evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life itself, andb) No sane scientist anywhere has suggested that life first evolved before Earth had water Interesting, just as one would ask, if there is a god who created this god? No, only a Creationist who assumes that everything needs a Magic Creating Fairy would ask that. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Edited by Jon, : conventions Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
subbie writes: If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Quite true. Now, here's the $64 dollar question: What's the difference between religion and science? Answer: Religion takes the unanswered question and uses it as evidence of a god. Science takes the unanswered question and looks for the answer. We don't know what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Science doesn't assume there must have been something before that. Science doesn't assume there couldn't have been anything before that. Science doesn't assume anything, and the only conclusion science comes to from the lack of knowledge is that it's something that needs to be investigated. It's possible there was something before the Big Bang. One idea is called the Big Bounce. As I understand it, the evidence doesn't tend to support that idea, but it's not completely ruled out, either. But the lack of a definite answer certainly doesn't make god more or less likely either way. lol, the first rational response I've received from this forum .I completely agree with you. Though, I would like to make it clear that, I'm not religious. I don't believe in any specific god or hold close to things written in a book. I simply believe that life is here as a result of a designer(s). None the less I agree with you 100%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
subbie writes:
This is called a "God of the gaps" argument, and is rejected by most Christian theologians and apologists. This is not the God they believe in. This is not the biblical God. If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Quite true. Now, here's the $64 dollar question: What's the difference between religion and science? Answer: Religion takes the unanswered question and uses it as evidence of a god. Science takes the unanswered question and looks for the answer. You will probably find some ID proponents who use such arguments, but the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations). "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I simply believe that life is here as a result of a designer(s). And I have no problem with that, as long as you understand that there is zero evidence and logical reason for the belief. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You will probably find some ID proponents who use such arguments, but the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations).
The key word there, of course, being try. You could also mention that they fail miserably. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
... the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations). But those arguments are also arguments from ignorance/incredulity: we can't see a way this could arise naturally, thus it was designed. IC and SC (the basic support pillars of the entire ID position) are nothing more than arguments from ignorance/incredulity. So I disagree with you that an ID proponent has ever seriously attempted to present positive evidence for design; they do no such thing, because they need no such evidencethey already have all the Answerstm. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon writes:
No. As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do.
... the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations). But those arguments are also arguments from ignorance/incredulity: we can't see a way this could arise naturally, thus it was designed. Jon writes:
You should know that Dembski's math PhD was related to signal processing, and to the way that SETI looks for signs of intelligence in signals from space. SETI is looking for positive evidence of intelligence. Dembski and others have been trying to apply similar arguments to ID. IC and SC (the basic support pillars of the entire ID position) are nothing more than arguments from ignorance/incredulity. So I disagree with you that an ID proponent has ever seriously attempted to present positive evidence for design; they do no such thing, because they need no such evidencethey already have all the Answerstm. Jon "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do. Could you provide an instance or two of an IDist providing positive evidence of design? Jon Edited by Jon, : grammar Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024