|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context. Ringo has done absolutely no such thing. At all.
So parsimoniously we conclude no designers. Which in a religious context is functionally the same as no creators. This isn't the topic. The assumption of there being a creator/designer is laid out in the OP:
quote: It is very clear that we aren't here to debate whether or not there is a designer, even though some have dragged the thread off in that direction. The topic is: Assuming life was created, why should we conclude that it was created by only one creator? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. That's not natural selection. Natural selection can easily be defined using only one word from that sentence: Environment. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes:
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition? Natural Selection is only the filter. It is the environment critters live in. If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is: Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. No, I just meant that it didn't "come from something", that doesn't mean there are no means through which it originated. For that explanation, you cut off the most important part:
quote: The environment is already competitive because of variety and variability, right? Once you have imperfect replication in there, then you're inevitably going to have natural selection. Do you get what I mean in that it didn't "come from something" but instead is a consequence of other things existing?
From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. Not really. The competitive nature of the enivornment offers the non-random component.
This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical. Why?
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise. That's false, but we have to get past the above parts first. I need to know why you think this kind of thinking is irrational and illogical, and I want to make sure you not interested in only pushing back before I invest too much time into you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Creationist scams are a subset of scams. Design scams are more closely related to creationist scams and Brooklyn Bridge scams than they are to anything else. Brooklyn bridge scams are a subset of scams. Biblical creationists are a subset of those who believe in Intelligent Design. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I'm saying that to Occam, one god requires one assumption and two gods still only require one assumption.
ringo writes:
Where are you getting that from? As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind. Straggler writes:
It's an answer to a question that wasn't asked.
Regardless - Zero designers remains the most parsimonious conclusion. Straggler writes:
I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm saying that the "designer" that the "design proponents" are so coy about is one-and-the same, absolutely identical with the God that creationists are so fond of. His name is Yahweh. You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Which is my point any way, if you can't consciously make decisions to learn or do such things, how then are we able to do it? Well, how are you able to grow hair if you never learned how?
Having eliminated those other possibilities you are then left with only one alternative, they were possibly created. I'm not required to eliminate anything simply because you, in your ignorance, find it "preposterous." Like every other feature of organisms, the way that organisms utilize DNA came about as a result of random mutation and natural selection. These are mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed to produce intricate complexity in the natural world. Divine intervention has never been observed to produce anything at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Assuming life was created, why should we conclude that it was created by only one creator? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: I'm saying that to Occam, one god requires one assumption and two gods still only require one assumption. 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.
ringo writes: I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm saying that the "designer" that the "design proponents" are so coy about is one-and-the same, absolutely identical with the God that creationists are so fond of. His name is Yahweh. Obviously not if the Intelligent Design proponent in question is a Hindu (or indeed any other form of non-Christian IDist)
quote: Creation, Karma, and Intelligent Design in Nyaya and Vedanta
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
In reality, plurality is the rule and uniqueness is the exception. When I see an elephant, I don't think it's an assumption that there are more than one; it's more of an inductive conclusion. By positing two creator-designer gods instead of one you are indisputably positing plurality unnecessarily. It probably isn't wise to use Occam to reverse reality. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: By positing two creator-designer gods instead of one you are indisputably positing plurality unnecessarily. ringo writes: When I see an elephant, I don't think it's an assumption that there are more than one; it's more of an inductive conclusion. 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?
ringo writes: It probably isn't wise to use Occam to reverse reality. 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.
ringo writes: In reality, plurality is the rule and uniqueness is the exception. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
First, we're not talking about the "ultimate" creator-designer of the universe. We're talking about what the supposed "evidence of design" points to. If you dust your new car for fingerprints, you might find some from the guy who installed the radio but you're not going to find Henry Ford's. It's the cdesign proponentsists who make an unnecessary assumption that the two are related. 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? Second, the unnecessary assumption is that any entity can be singular. Multiplicity is evidenced. Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap? The idea that the creator is singular, as advocated by some religions, is completely unevidenced. It is purely an unnecessary assumption. It has no more validity than multiple creators. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: First, we're not talking about the "ultimate" creator-designer of the universe 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.
ringo writes: The idea that the creator is singular, as advocated by some religions, is completely unevidenced. The idea of any creators at all is completely unevidenced. So what is your point?
ringo writes: It has no more validity than multiple creators. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I think I said early on that I have no interest in discussing "first causes". Nothing I have said has been in reference to anything but the last cause of a design. I'm talking about what the "evidence for design" points to directly. Nothing I have said should be misconstrued otherwise.
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. Straggler writes:
The assumption of one or more designers is a given in this thread. The question is about how many. I'm saying that "only one" is an additional assumption.
The idea of any creators at all is completely unevidenced. So what is your point? Straggler writes:
I'm not disputing Occam's "unnecessary plurality". I'm saying you misunderstand it. You can dispute Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' as invalid if you like. Edited by ringo, : Added preposition "in" --> "in discussing". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: I think I said early on that I have no interest discussing "first causes". Nothing I have said has been in reference to anything but the last cause of a design. I'm talking about what the "evidence for design" points to directly. Nothing I have said should be misconstrued otherwise. 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.
ringo writes: The assumption of one or more designers is a given in this thread. The question is about how many. I'm saying that "only one" is an additional assumption. 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.
ringo writes: I'm not disputing Occam's "unnecessary plurality". I'm saying you misunderstand it 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024