Why only one Designer

As I understand it as eliminating that which is neither logically or evidentially necessary. Yes. If the universe is designed then a minimum of one designer is a necessity. A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary.So why posit such a scenario? You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief.But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring.

So how many designers of the universe would you put forward as the evidenced conclusion then Jon?

I thought you were positing multiple designers on the basis of evidence pertaining to the plurality of human designers? If that is the case then obviously quantifying it on this (misguided in my view) basis is the only evidentially consistent approach.So how many human designers would it take to design the universe? So as far as you are concerned 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 creator-designers is no more or less parsimonious than 1. Is that correct? If you want to create a straw man version of ID re the number of designers and then knock it down I cannot stop you.But that is what you are doing.

If we are talking about the sort of ultimate first-cause-creator-designers being posited by the religious then parsimoniously 1 such entity is preferable to a plurality of such entities.But apparently we aren't talking about ultimate creator-designers at all. We are apparently making comparisons with human designers. If you are making direct evidential comparisons with human designers then how many such designers are required to design the universe?Isn't this a legitimate question based on the premise of this thread as you have insisted it be considered? It is evidentially necessary if you point of comparison is human designers. Which is exactly why you shouldn't need to create false versions of it.

If that is your point this refutes it: Elephant Riding a BikeYou are the one making the claim a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion if human design is taken as the point of comparison.So asking you how many designers this evidence points to is a perfectly legitimate question to ask you to answer. If you want to point out the flaw in their position then point out that no designers at all are necessary. If you want to make the case that taking human design as the point of comparison leads to a multiplicity of designers then take that comparison all the way to answering how many human designers it would take to design the universe.Or would that make the comparison such an obvious straw man as to make it entirely worthless?

Well Jon you at least have the courage to follow your convictions to the point of absurdity. I'll say that for you.OK then. Our point of comparison is evidenced human design. So the first question is this - Is there any number of human designers who could have designed the universe?

Well done Jon. Exactly my point.So on what basis is it being argued that more than one designer is the evidenced conclusion here?

Had to be done. You said "My point, if you're still insisting on missing it, is that two elephants can ride a bicycle as easily as one". Two elephants. A bike. Singular bike. Plural elephants. I would like to see two of those beasts ride one of those bikes. It wouldn't be done "just as easily" even if it were possible would it?If you find a vid of two elephants riding a single bike I think will wet myself. They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity. Their (flawed) comparison involves the need for intelligence to be present in order for design to occur. It doesn't extend as far as comparing the designer of the universe to a human beyond that. The whole topic as you have interpreted it is flawed.

Not if you want your arguments or conclusions to have any relevance to anything they are advocating. Then you are not taking into account the fact that they are postulating a bike and an elephant that are unique and like no other that exist.

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. If you are going to actually look at physical evidence you will come to the conclusion of no designers at all. 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.

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.

Yes I do. The premise of it is flawed.

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? 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. If you pick and choose the flaws you will or won't include you will end up with a straw man version of ID. On that basis alone there is no argument for multiplicity of designers is there? 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......

Without specifying who or what is doing the designing - No you cannot comment at all. Some omnipotent beings........? There is no "default" unless you know what type of entity is being proposed. 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.

How many X does it take to design the universe? Quite obviously it depends what X is. 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. Me. You. My cat. Until you suggest a real thing that is capable of designing universes I dispute the validity of your question. 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? 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? They have specified the type of designer based on their beliefs. And as specified by them only one such entity is necessary. 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. 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?