|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So on what basis is it being argued that more than one designer is the evidenced conclusion here? I already offered up one of the possible paths to that conclusion:
quote: And that's only part of it. As part of the ID/Creo argument relies on comparisons to things known to be designed, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from their argument is that other designed things (life and such as they would argue) were designed similarly to the things known to be designed. And how were those known designs designed? By a shit load of designers, that's how. So, these are two reasons why the ID/Creo argument from 'designed' to 'only one designer' breaks down; even though it only would take one to prove the argument invalid. Now, I'm sure there are many more ways to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument, but damnit, Straggler, are you really going to make ringo and me point out every single one of them? Jon Edited by Jon, : R → PG Edited by Jon, : clarity Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If a direct comparison with human designers is being insisted upon then you are left facing the ridiculous question as to how many human designers it would take to design the universe.
If on the other hand you accept the IDist notion that the designer in question is a superior (or even supreme) being of some sort then the argument for multiplicity vanishes.
Jon writes: [If] we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are). If you are going to actually look at physical evidence you will come to the conclusion of no designers at all.
Jon writes: Now, I'm sure there are many more ways to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument, but damnit, Straggler, are you really going to make ringo and me point out every single one of them? If you and Ringo want to pick and choose the different flaws in ID to build up a hybrid straw man version of ID where a plurality of designers is necessary then I can't stop you. But there are enough flaws in Intelligent Design as actually proposed by IDists. Creating straw man versions of their arguments is neither necessary nor helpful. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If a direct comparison with human designers is being insisted upon then you are left facing the ridiculous question as to how many human designers it would take to design the universe.
If on the other hand you accept the IDist notion that the designer in question is a superior (or even supreme) being of some sort then the argument for multiplicity vanishes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
It's the IDists who are making the comparison, even if they ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. If you think there's something to ID beyond the comparison with known (human) design, go ahead and point it out. If a direct comparison with human designers is being insisted upon then you are left facing the ridiculous question as to how many human designers it would take to design the universe. I don't need to explain the inconsistences in their position to point out the flaws in their position.
Straggler writes:
In this thread, we're accepting the proposition that "what looks like design is design." We are not accepting any other part of the design hypothesis. "Superior being" isn't even on the table. If on the other hand you accept the IDist notion that the designer in question is a superior (or even supreme) being of some sort then the argument for multiplicity vanishes. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay, Straggler; that's nice. Do you have any comments on the actual topic?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Looking at biological critters as designed (a really stupid idea in the first place) can only lead to the conclusion that it was not a designer or even designers but rather committees (not singular but plural) and that the designer or designers were the lowest, least important, least respected and least powerful of any of the committees. It appears that even when the designers came up with a good idea, the cost cutting committee went through the design and substituted whatever pieces parts were already in production regardless of whether or not the substituted part was optimal. If it could be made to work, use it again.
Then after the cost cutting committee did the numbers, the PR folk took charge and did the visuals. Likely they had focus groups for some (which eyes make you want to cuddle that bear? ) or in many cases simply had a contest among third graders and the best ten drawings went into production. Sure there might have been designers but it's obvious that it was the committees not the designers that were important. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Do you have any comments on the actual topic? Yes I do. The premise of it is flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: It's the IDists who are making the comparison, even if they ignore it when it becomes inconvenient. They are making the comparison on the basis that the only example of an intelligent designer we have is a human. What other comparison could they make?
Ringo writes: If you think there's something to ID beyond the comparison with known (human) design, go ahead and point it out. ID is based on the flawed (but to be fair - intuitive) premise that various aspects of nature seem too complex to be "random" and thus not designed.
ringo writes: I don't need to explain the inconsistences in their position to point out the flaws in their position. If you pick and choose the flaws you will or won't include you will end up with a straw man version of ID.
ringo writes: In this thread, we're accepting the proposition that "what looks like design is design." On that basis alone there is no argument for multiplicity of designers is there?
ringo writes: We are not accepting any other part of the design hypothesis. "Superior being" isn't even on the table. If you ignore the nature of the proposed designer how can you possibly comment on how many of them there might be? How many humans are required to design the universe?How many omnipotent beings are required to design the universe? I don't see how you can even begin to answer the question posed in this thread unless you consider who or what is doing the designing. But feel free to show me otherwise......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Do you have any comments on the actual topic? Yes I do. The premise of it is flawed. So that's a 'no', then. Good to know. No more need to waste time replying to Straggler. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
As I've said before, we can't comment on how many there are. That's why we pick the default value of some designers, some zebras, some elephants. If you ignore the nature of the proposed designer how can you possibly comment on how many of them there might be? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: As I've said before, we can't comment on how many there are. Without specifying who or what is doing the designing - No you cannot comment at all.
ringo writes: That's why we pick the default value of some designers..... Some omnipotent beings........? There is no "default" unless you know what type of entity is being proposed.
ringo writes: .....some zebras, some elephants. Where "some" in these cases is a very limited range because the entity under consideration has been specified. You wouldn't talk about 999999999999999999999999999999 elephants or zebras would you? Especially not cycling ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
We're not talking about "omnipotent beings". We're talking about designers.
Some omnipotent beings........? Straggler writes:
The default for all real things is more than one. I asked you for examples of real things that are singular. I'm still waiting.
There is no "default" unless you know what type of entity is being proposed. Straggler writes:
The entity under consideration - i.e. the design staff - has been specified incorrectly by IDists. They have made an invalid leap of logic to their personal God. Their error has no place in this discussion. Where "some" in these cases is a very limited range because the entity under consideration has been specified. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How many X does it take to design the universe? Quite obviously it depends what X is.
ringo writes: We're not talking about "omnipotent beings". We're talking about designers. We are talking about entities which are capable of designing and creating our universe. An omnipotent being is just one example of such an entity.
ringo writes: I asked you for examples of real things that are singular. Me. You. My cat. Until you suggest a real thing that is capable of designing universes I dispute the validity of your question.
ringo writes: The default for all real things is more than one. For real things such as humans/elephants/zebras - Yes the default is for more than one. But unless you are also asking how many humans/elephants/zebras it takes to design the universe why are such comparisons relevant to the number of designers?
ringo writes: I'm still waiting. Until you suggest a real thing that is capable of designing universes how can you possibly know how many of them are needed to design our universe?
ringo writes: The entity under consideration - i.e. the design staff - has been specified incorrectly by IDists. They have specified the type of designer based on their beliefs. And as specified by them only one such entity is necessary.
ringo writes: They have made an invalid leap of logic to their personal God. You can't answer the question being posed here without specifying who or what is doing the designing. You don't have to accept their choice. But you do need to specify who or what the designer is before you can comment on how many are required.
ringo writes: Their error has no place in this discussion. How many X does it take to design the universe? Quite obviously it depends what X is. Deriving the answer "some" because elephants don't exist as singular entities is quite of a leap of logic on your part isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
A cause-effect chain is a causal sequence. I think the only alternative to a "first cause" would be an infinite sequence. As Craig and other philosophers have argued, one cannot have an infinite sequence of actual events. Yes, and as I and others have repeatedly pointed out, they are completely and laughably wrong. This is what happens when a philosopher's (or "philosopher" in Craig's case) arrogance greatly exceeds his knowledge of the subject at hand - in this case the spatial-temporal nature of the Universe. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's exactly the point I've been making. It's just one example of many possibilities.
We are talking about entities which are capable of designing and creating our universe. An omnipotent being is just one example of such an entity. Straggler writes:
That's exactly the point I've been making. You can't know it's one.
Until you suggest a real thing that is capable of designing universes how can you possibly know how many of them are needed to design our universe? Straggler writes:
Their beliefs are inconsistent with their own logical basis for design.
They have specified the type of designer based on their beliefs. Straggler writes:
I haven't commented on how many are required. You've complained repeatedly that I haven't answered that question. The point that I've been making here is that their comments on the number required are inconsistent with their own logic. You don't have to accept their choice. But you do need to specify who or what the designer is before you can comment on how many are required. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024