|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
First, . Second, the video clearly shows two elephants riding bikes/trikes, which makes my point.
If that is your point this refutes it: Elephant Riding a Bike Straggler writes:
IDists are making the comparison. I'm only pointing out that multiplicity is implicit in their own comparison.
You are the one making the claim a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion if human design is taken as the point of comparison. Straggler writes:
That would be off-topic. There is no shortage of on-topic flaws to point out. If you want to point out the flaw in their position then point out that no designers at all are necessary. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Well, that nit couldn't be much smaller, could it? I'll rephrase:
Two elephants. A bike. Singular bike. Plural elephants.quote: Straggler writes:
That's irrelevant. They're pointing to a gigantic bike and concluding that it must be for an elephant. I'm pointing out that there could be more than one elephant capable of riding it. They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's another unevidenced assumption that they're making. I'm not required to account for every mistake just to point out one. 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 you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Only by circular logic.It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want.
They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary. Straggler writes:
If I specify that the design team is a herd of unicorns and then come to the conclusion that the design team is a herd of unicorns, that would also be circular logic.
Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified. Straggler writes:
You can't just preordain the number either by your specification. The only stipulation here is "design". You don't get to pick your favourite flavour of designer.
Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. Straggler writes:
I haven't commented on how many are required. ringo writes:
Yes you have. "more than one". "Plurality". "Multiplicity". Etc. I haven't commented on how many are required. I have said that if "design" is taken as a given, then reality suggests that plural is more likely than singular.
Straggler writes:
As I've said - about four times in this very message in the hope that you'll catch one of them - you can't pre-specify who or what is doing the designing and then logically conclude that that who or what is singular. If you now agree that without specifying who or what is doing the designing there is no more basis for saying "more than one" than there is for saying "less than a thousand".... Edited by ringo, : Math failure: "five" --> "four". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ringo writes:
I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. I don't have a vested interest in what that conclusion is.
... you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want. Straggler writes:
We can only reason from what we know and IDists pretend to be doing that. Unless you can connect immaterial un-universal entities to what we do know, you can't legitimately use them as new knowledge or as stepping stones to other immaterial un-universes.
By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe? Straggler writes:
Sure we can. If we find hoofprints by the water hole, we can conclude that they were more likely made by zebras than by unicorns. There's no invalid assumption involved because we know something about zebras. And one of the things that we know about zebras is that they travel in herds, so it's perfectly valid to conclude that several zebras is more likely than one. Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
"Can be", sure. But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious. In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
We've already agreed that that number can not be determined. Therefore, the number "one" is invalid and the proposition stands: Two hundred designers are as valid a conclusion as one. How many of these real entities are required to design the universe? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
You have the analogy wrong. Observing that things come in plurals has us believing that every book in the library wasn't written by the same author, every painting in the museum wasn't painted by the same painter, every movie ever made didn't star Johnny Depp and all of EvC wasn't created by one poster. For example, insisting that things come in plurals would have us believing that there is more than one writer of Moby-Dick, more than one painter of Mona Lisa, more than one actor portraying Jack Sparrow, and a committee of people posting under each EvC user name. Edited by ringo, : Spellinge. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
"Some" just means an undetermined number. If you know of a better English word to convey that concept, I'd be glad to consider switching to it. The fact that the number "one" is based on an invalid assumption does nothing to validate the assumption you are making regarding the relevance of herds of zebras (etc.) to arrive at the conclusion of "some". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
If you can think of a word to use in place of _______, which is a bit too vague, I'll be glad to consider switching. "Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
And yet we need something, some word, to express the idea if we're going to discuss it. Your notion that it can't be done isn't good enough. In fact any comment on numbers at all becomes completely nonsensical. I'd be quite happy if IDists would say, "one or more designer(s)," instead of, "the designer," or, "a designer." 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