Why only one Designer

If you are going to separate designers from first causes then - yeah - I guess so. For example multiple extra-dimensional but evolved aliens from another universe would seem more parsimonious as creators of our universe than a single such being based on what we know about evolved intelligence.But a single first cause is indisputably more parsimonious than multiple first causes isn't it?And with regard to ID and the matters of religion this thread seems to be aiming at it is really "first cause" rather than simply number of designers that is the issue here. No?But - Yeah if you separate first cause from design then I agree with what you are saying. I just don't think that is really what this thread was aiming at. Certainly in the context of IDism and it's religious roots the "first cause" rather than number of caused designers is the real issue.

As Occam himself put it: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it? In this very thread you make the case that ID and creationism are the same thing. Yet here you want to pretend that designers and first cause creators have nothing to do with each other in the context of this thread.You know as well as I do that the term "designer" in this context is absolutely one and the same thing as the notion of a first cause creator of some kind.

I have read your posts in this thread. I can't find any arguments against the validity of applying parsimony to the issue at hand. You have asserted that parsimony has "nothing to do with reality" but beyond that assertion you haven't said anything at all to counter the following:1) The more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong because the fewer assumptions it contains that are unsupported.2) The no designer proposition is the most parsimonious.Do you have any counter-arguments? Or just your already stated assertion?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree.Many in this thread are conflating the Intelligent Design movement with Intelligent Design as an explanatory proposition. They are conflating those who most commonly and publicly advocate the ID position with the ID proposition itself.The Intelligent Design movement is indisputably one and the same as the Christian fundamentalist creationist movement. They are the same people. And these creationists do themselves conflate ID and creationism for their own social purposes when it suits them. But that does not mean that ID and creationism are actually the same thing.ID as a position is not inherently Christian. Fundie Christians are currently very publicly advocating ID as a means to an end. But there are Moslem IDists. IDists of other godly beliefs. Even IDists of no specific godly belief at all. The illusion of design in nature is something that has fooled a lot of people over a vast amount of time. They have not all been Fundie Christians. Nor are they all now. There are some people who just think nature is all too "complex" to be "random" and that some sort of higher powered intelligence is therefore necessary. I would suggest that this view is far more prevalent in the world than Christian creationism. In fact I personally know people who would rather boil their feet than be labelled as Christian fundamentalists but whom could accurately be described as believing in Intelligent Design of some vague sort.Creationists advocating ID for social reasons just get most of the press. Hence the ongoing conflation.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But if you think that all scams involve selling you Brooklyn bridge you will fall for all manner of scams that having nothing to do with selling you Brooklyn bridge.Brooklyn bridge scams are a subset of scams.Biblical creationists are a subset of those who believe in Intelligent Design.

OK. But that doesn't mean that IDists are biblical creationists does it? Jar believes in a creator of "all that is seen and unseen". Is he a creationist? Is he an IDist?

I guess that says it all.

Where are you getting that from? Regardless - Zero designers remains the most parsimonious conclusion. All hail the precise wording of the topic. We are considering why many rather than one. Or indeed none. You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context. Exactly. So parsimoniously we conclude no designers. Which in a religious context is functionally the same as no creators.

Without parsimony you might just as well conclude that the universe was created by a herd of spotted celestial cows farting in perfect unison.Seriously - Unless you apply parsimony aren't all conceivable baseless and unfalsifiable creation conclusions equally valid? What else differentiates one from any other?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As well as "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) which you have for some reason interpreted in terms of types of entities Occams razor can also be expressed as "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (plurality should not be posited without necessity). By positing two creator-designer gods instead of one you are indisputably positing plurality unnecessarily. Obviously not if the Intelligent Design proponent in question is a Hindu (or indeed any other form of non-Christian IDist)

quote:

---

The phrase intelligent design gets a lot of currency these days, from both its champions and foes. Its proponents contend that the organized structure found within the universe indicates an intelligent cause whereas its opponents claim that undirected natural processes are enough. I have heard some people claim that the notion of intelligent design is merely an attempt to repackage Christian creationism in a respectable way. But, this is clearly false. It’s a Hindu notion as well.

​

People with an interest in Indian philosophical and religious traditions will find it noteworthy that many of classical Hinduism’s greatest thinkers subscribe to a notion of intelligent design. To my knowledge, one of the earliest instances of the term intelligent designer is found in Sanskrit philosophical literature.

---

Creation, Karma, and Intelligent Design in Nyaya and Vedanta

Given that the only known source of elephants is other elephants I would suggest the plurality of elephants is hardly being posited unnecessarily. It is exceptionally well evidentially founded. In fact I would question how you could parsimoniously assume anything other than plurality of elephants on that basis.But when you are talking about some sort of ultimate creator-designer of the universe as per that advocated by various religions how much bearing does the evidenced plurality of elephants have on the matter? Has anyone suggested that we should? Did you miss the use of the term "unnecessarily".....? Occam is a method of discarding the unevidenced. Not disputing the evidenced. Obviously. It seems ‘Ringo’s rule’ would directly contradict Occam’s razor by insisting on unnecessary plurality wherever possible.If we are going to base the number of unevidenced creator-designer beings on the size of a typical elephant herd then between 9 and 11 is apparently typical.

It was you claiming that Intelligent Design and creationism are one and the same thing. Now you want to separate the role of designers from that of creators in a way that makes the whole discussion have little relevance to any religious context at all. The idea of any creators at all is completely unevidenced. So what is your point? You can dispute Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' as invalid if you like. But let's both agree that this is indeed what you are doing.

Which is all fine. 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. And thus little relevance to any religious notions of designers. Yes I understand how comparing elephants or human designers leads to plurality. But I question the relevance of such evidence as applied to the sort of designers (i.e. ultimate first cause creator designers) posited by various religions. If you are not claiming that your conclusion have any bearing on such religious notions - Then fair enough. Well perhaps you would be good enough to explain:1) How multiple designers doesn't contradict 'unnecessary plurality'.
2) Where it is you are getting this interpretation of Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' from?

According Ringo ID and biblical creationism are one and the same thing so I don't see how he can be saying that. If we are talking about Intelligent Design in the context of religious belief then the role of designer and ultimate creator are almost invariably one and the same. OK. But if you are really going to base the number of designers of the universe on our evidenced experience of humans designing things then it is not true to say that there is no preferred number. The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12.So are you postulating that between 4 and 12 designers of the universe is the evidenced conclusion here?It seems ridiculous to me - But this is the logical consequence of your argument here.

I have provided you with Occam's statement in two different formats:

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).

"pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (plurality should not be posited without necessity)

​

Quite evidently a single designing entity is more parsimonious than a plurality of such entities. Let me explain to you where you are going wrong in your analysis with regard to the importance of necessity.

​

ringo writes:

​

The first assumption is that one or more designers exist.

​

No. The first assumption is that the universe is designed.

​

ringo writes:

​

The second assumption is that only one exists.

​

No. The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it. A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption.

​

ringo writes:

​

Two is more than one.

​

Indeed. Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality.

​

ringo 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.

​

If a direct comparison with human designers is to be made then between 4 and 12 designers would be postulated. This is the optimal number of a human design team. But given that in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same this doesn't seem like a very legitimate comparison.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.