|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ZenMonkey writes:
It looks like the Mammal Committee put a lot of effort into terrestrial, aquatic and aerial designs. The Fish Committee concentrated almost all of their efforts on aquatic designs and they used a completely different approach at that. The Dinosaur Committee did a dramatic about-face and scrapped all of their early designs, going in a different, mostly aerial direction. So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation? Then there were the disputes in the Arthropod Section about the number of legs.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
The argument has never been about how many designers are required nor do I recall putting any constraints on the designer. I will gladly stipulate that one designer could hypothetically have done it. It's only when you begin adding assumptions about constraints that the designer might be under (e.g. timeframe, economics, etc.) that you begin to suggest that a single designer could not have done it. The argument, as I have explained before and as PaulK has explained and as I think even Straggler understands now, is that putting any number on it is an unparsimonious assumption. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
Sure we can. In this case, you can't answer the question---"How many designers designed the universe?"---unless you incorporate an additional assumption. Given the premise that the IDists themselves use to infer design - i.e. known examples of design - we already have an implied number of more than one designer. Looking at the known examples of design - e.g. whales and sharks - we already have evidence of different design styles suggesting different designers. No additional assumptions are required to stop there. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
An example that springs to mind is a coroner's verdict of, "death caused by person or persons unknown." It's a tentative conclusion on the way to a more specific conclusion. It's a conclusion that invites further investigation while a more specific conclusion does not. The conclusion of 'unknown number' is as much of a conclusion as any other number that might be offered up as a conclusion. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
Additional to what? Design is the starting point for this discussion.
But, the premise that IDists use to infer design is an additional assumption. Bluejay writes:
In order to accept the conclusion that the universe was designed, we're accepting whatever premises were used as valid and we're accepting the reasoning as valid. Why shouldn't we extend that same reasoning to its logical conclusion? But, if you've already assumed design, it doesn't seem right to me to also incorporate an assumption based on how design is inferred. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Of course not. In real things, multiplicity is the rule. Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap?
You seem to have abandoned your insistence on evidenced multiplicity. Is this the case? Straggler writes:
Don't misrepresent me. I've explained that "some" means an indeterminate number. Feel free to suggest a better word.
... "some" (meaning > 1).... Straggler writes:
No. We're accepting, for the purpose of this discussion, that the universe is designed. A comparison to observed design is inherent in the reasoning which IDists use to reach that conclusion. We are justified in using their own premises to come to additional conclusions that are different from theirs. Then you have abandoned your arguments for multiplicity and come round to my way of thinking. Namely - That any comment on numbers at all is meaningless unless something about the designer is assumed. For example, suppose we accept the premises that, "All winged things can fly," and, "All dogs have wings." If IDists conclude, "Therefore, all dogs are brown," we can accept that conclusion for purposes of discussion. We can also draw our own conclusion from their premises that, "Therefore, all dogs can fly." If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Then Straggler misunderstands the original assumptions. Reasoning from observed design to universal design carries hidden assumptions about the observed designers, including plurality. Any differences between the designers in the premise and the designers in the conclusion would be unparsimonious additional assumptions.
Straggler understands that without additional assumptions you cannot make any comment on numbers at all. Straggler writes:
We're not assuming that. That would be begging the question.
If you assume that the designer is an omnipotent superbeing then you can conclude only one is necessary. Straggler writes:
We are assuming that. The whole conclusion of design depends on that assumption.
If you assume that the designer of our universe is comparable to the entities that exist within our universe you can conclude a plurality of designers. As you have done throughout this thread. Straggler writes:
We're not assuming that.
If you assume that a magic universe making machine designed our universe then you can conclude that only one is necessary. Straggler writes:
Nobody's suggesting any such thing. My argument is based on assumptions that are inherent in the given premises. But let's not pretend your argument for plurality is any less based on an assumption than any other. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
Are you suggesting that if there were two designers, one of them would have designed his version of life without water? Water, inturn plays a key role for all organisms to stay to alive; Without water, all organisms die. What's the difference between several designers all using water for their lifeforms and several designers all using metal for their automobiles? It just seems like the sensible thing to do and doesn't in any way suggest a lone designer. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
We are accepting, for the purpose of this thread, the conclusion that the universe was designed. The comparison with known designers is inherent in that conclusion, so we have no choice but to accept the comparison as valid. We are not required to accept any other assumptions that don't lead directly to that conclusion.
But why is this assumption any more valid than any other assumption about this hypothetical designer? Straggler writes:
They're claiming that the design is comparable to motors, codes, etc. So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans.
No IDist is claiming that the designer is comparable to humans or zebras or elephants or ice caps. Straggler writes:
It isn't "my" conclusion. It's the logical conclusion drawn from the premises that IDists use to draw their conclusion. Then your conclusion of "some" is simply a circular restatement of the premise as you have decided to interpret it. It's like concluding that there would have been a lot of manure on Noah's ark. Creationists may not like the conclusion, they may hide from the conclusion and make up a lot of nonsense to explain it away but it is in no way a strawman of their position. It's an inevitable consequence of their own premises. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
You're just repeating yourself. No comparison of designers has been made at all beyond the possession of intelligence. The comparison to human designers is implicit in the use of examples such as motors and codes. They say that motors and codes can be made only by designers and human designers are the only example we have of designers that make motors and codes. Human designers are also the only example we have of intelligent designers. The comparison is in no way a strawman of the IDists' position. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Nonsense. The application of intelligence to design is the essence of the ID argument. Comparison of biological "designs" to mechanical designs is an inextricable part of their argument. It's their (albeit lame) attempt to connect their mumbo-jumbo to reality. Without that comparison, they have nothing but woo-woo.
The possession of intelligence is an explicit comparison. Any further comparison is of your own extrapolation. Straggler writes:
Of course not. The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design". At that point, IDists make a quantum leap to "God did it". That's where the comparison ends. We're not accepting that conclusion and we're not accepting your quantum leap to "man did it" either. Then the question as posed in this thread inevitably boils down to asking - How many humans would it take to design our universe? Doesn't it? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Read the OP:
Comparable in what sense exactly?quote:That's the argument that the thread is accepting, that if you see something as complex as a watch, you know it's designed. Straggler writes:
Are you really that obtuse or are you trolling? So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
"Reguirement" is irrelevant.
So how many designers are required to design a watch? Straggler writes:
For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me. For the purposes of this thread, we're being asked to accept that comparison, to the point and only to the point that we conclude that the universe is designed. Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Tell it to the OP. The watch example assumes that the comparison is being made by IDists. ringo writes:
For the umpteenth time - No they are not. Not beyond the possession of intelligence. For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Then you can stop wasting everybody's time with your flawed interpretation of it. My much stated position throughout this thread is that the entire premise of the OP (which you have so embraced) is deeply flawed. 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