Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 236 of 377 (613080)
04-21-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Straggler
04-21-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
Straggler writes:
If that is your point this refutes it: Elephant Riding a Bike
First, . Second, the video clearly shows two elephants riding bikes/trikes, which makes my point.
Straggler writes:
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.
IDists are making the comparison. I'm only pointing out that multiplicity is implicit in their own comparison.
Straggler writes:
If you want to point out the flaw in their position then point out that no designers at all are necessary.
That would be off-topic. There is no shortage of on-topic flaws to point out.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:27 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 238 of 377 (613089)
04-21-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Straggler
04-21-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
Straggler writes:
Two elephants. A bike. Singular bike. Plural elephants.
Well, that nit couldn't be much smaller, could it? I'll rephrase:
quote:
Two bike-riding elephants are no less likely than one.
Straggler writes:
They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity.
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 3:04 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 240 of 377 (613098)
04-21-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
04-21-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
Straggler writes:
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.
That's another unevidenced assumption that they're making. I'm not required to account for every mistake just to point out one.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 3:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2011 7:34 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 244 of 377 (613253)
04-23-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
04-23-2011 7:34 AM


Re: In Summary.....
Straggler writes:
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.
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.
I don't need to explain the inconsistences in their position to point out the flaws in their position.
Straggler writes:
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.
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 you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2011 7:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2011 10:38 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 250 of 377 (613390)
04-24-2011 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Straggler
04-24-2011 10:38 PM


Re: In Summary.....
Straggler writes:
If you ignore the nature of the proposed designer how can you possibly comment on how many of them there might be?
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 have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2011 10:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2011 11:24 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 252 of 377 (613401)
04-25-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Straggler
04-24-2011 11:24 PM


Re: "Some"
Straggler writes:
Some omnipotent beings........?
We're not talking about "omnipotent beings". We're talking about designers.
Straggler writes:
There is no "default" unless you know what type of entity is being proposed.
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.
Straggler writes:
Where "some" in these cases is a very limited range because the entity under consideration has been specified.
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2011 11:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 04-25-2011 5:00 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 255 of 377 (613434)
04-25-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Straggler
04-25-2011 5:00 AM


Re: How Many Elephants Does It Take To Design The Universe?
Straggler writes:
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.
That's exactly the point I've been making. It's just one example of many possibilities.
Straggler writes:
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?
That's exactly the point I've been making. You can't know it's one.
Straggler writes:
They have specified the type of designer based on their beliefs.
Their beliefs are inconsistent with their own logical basis for design.
Straggler writes:
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.
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Straggler, posted 04-25-2011 5:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:40 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 257 of 377 (613588)
04-26-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Straggler
04-26-2011 7:40 AM


Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary.
Only by circular logic.It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want.
Straggler writes:
Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified.
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.
Straggler writes:
Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers.
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.
Straggler writes:
ringo writes:
I haven't commented on how many are required.
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:
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"....
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.
Edited by ringo, : Math failure: "five" --> "four".

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 10:48 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 259 of 377 (613597)
04-26-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Straggler
04-26-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Going in Circles
ringo writes:
... you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want.
I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. I don't have a vested interest in what that conclusion is.
Straggler writes:
By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe?
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.
Straggler writes:
Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all.
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 10:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 11:28 AM ringo has replied
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 263 of 377 (613625)
04-26-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
In contrast to zebras and unicorns, a solitary designer can belong to a population and still be a solitary designer.
"Can be", sure. But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 1:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 264 of 377 (613626)
04-26-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Straggler
04-26-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
How many of these real entities are required to design the universe?
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 266 of 377 (613676)
04-26-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
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.
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.
Edited by ringo, : Spellinge.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 5:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 268 of 377 (613688)
04-26-2011 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
04-26-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
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".
"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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 270 of 377 (613693)
04-26-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
04-26-2011 6:59 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Straggler writes:
"Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one....
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.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:19 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 272 of 377 (613700)
04-26-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
04-26-2011 7:19 PM


Circling the Drain
Straggler writes:
In fact any comment on numbers at all becomes completely nonsensical.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 04-28-2011 4:39 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024