Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:01 PM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Taq (8 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
26Next
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 271 of 377 (613696)
04-26-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ringo
04-26-2011 7:10 PM


Re: Going in Circles
If you are going to make direct comparisons with real known entities there is no need for vagueness is there?

In any practical sense there is a very limited range of numbers that could be applied to (for example) human designers. A team of a billion humans would be unwieldly wouldn't it? And as discussed zebras work best in groups of 10 to 200.

Of course if you are not assuming that the designer of the universe is comparable to humans or zebras (etc.) then there is no basis for coming to any conclusion regarding the number of designers at all. Including no basis for thinking "some" is superior to "lots" or "a few" or "one" or "200".

In fact any comment on numbers at all becomes completely nonsensical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 7:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 7:43 PM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(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 responded

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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 377 (613701)
04-26-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
04-26-2011 6:12 PM


Re: Going in Circles
In the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is necessarily based on additional assumptions.

It is good to see that you have come to understand ringo's argument. So what's your objection?

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2011 6:12 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 04-28-2011 4:49 AM Jon has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 274 of 377 (613707)
04-26-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Blue Jay
04-26-2011 12:14 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:

All that need be considered is the number of designers requisite to explain the evidence of design.

Without the consideration of population sizes, to the best of my ability, here are the types of evidence that are required to support the hypotheses of different numbers of designers:

  1. For "at least 1 designer": evidence of design
  2. For "at least 2 designers": (i) evidence of design, plus (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer B
  3. For "at least 3 designers": (i) evidence of design, (ii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A form the work of Designer B; plus (iii) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer B from the work of Designer C; plus (iv) evidence distinguishing the work of Designer A from the work of Designer C

(This is, of course, ruling out the possibility of directly observing the designers at work.)

Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers.

Bluejay is on the right track here. If you want to establish unity or multiplicity of source with regards to the making of a particular thing, you look for patterns in the product and for identifiable differences in style. Texual analysis can determine that there was more than one author of Genesis, more than one author of the Illiad, and can pretty accurately determine which plays of Shakespeare's were written by him and which are spurious. So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2011 12:14 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 8:35 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 275 of 377 (613710)
04-26-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ZenMonkey
04-26-2011 8:23 PM


Re: Going in Circles
ZenMonkey writes:

So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation?


It looks like the Mammal Committee put a lot of effort into terrestrial, aquatic and aerial designs. The Fish Committee concentrated almost all of their efforts on aquatic designs and they used a completely different approach at that. The Dinosaur Committee did a dramatic about-face and scrapped all of their early designs, going in a different, mostly aerial direction.

Then there were the disputes in the Arthropod Section about the number of legs....


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-26-2011 8:23 PM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-26-2011 11:07 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 276 of 377 (613716)
04-26-2011 9:08 PM


This thread is point less....I have already pointed out that ID advocates (such as myself) believe that life originated because it was designed / created....The number of designers are irrelevant.

Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference.

I for one do not care if it was one or many designers, fact is, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that life is here because of a designer.

Edited by SavageD, : made a mistake so sue me

Edited by SavageD, : sue me again


Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 10:41 PM SavageD has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 377 (613728)
04-26-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by SavageD
04-26-2011 9:08 PM


Knowledge and Belief
Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference.

Sorry, but evidenced conclusions are not a matter of personal preference, unless one is to throw out the entire scientific method. If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.

The number of designers are irrelevant.

This is not the stance of the typical IDist. Most insist on the singularity of the designer. Few would admit that such an insistence is based on 'personal preference' or a priori conclusions about the nature of the designer. This thread is for those who insist that the evidence for design points to a single designer to support that stance. Interestingly, no creationists holding to this position (there are many on these forums) have come forward to attempt to support such a position.

I wonder what that should tell us...

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by SavageD, posted 04-26-2011 9:08 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by SavageD, posted 04-26-2011 11:25 PM Jon has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 278 of 377 (613731)
04-26-2011 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ringo
04-26-2011 8:35 PM


Re: Going in Circles
I would say that the arthropod committee got their budget request in early and still haven't seen any real reduction in funding yet.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 8:35 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 279 of 377 (613734)
04-26-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Jon
04-26-2011 10:41 PM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
Jon writes:

Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference.

Sorry, but evidenced conclusions are not a matter of personal preference, unless one is to throw out the entire scientific method. If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.

Honestly why the hell are you arguing over this. The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state any specific number of designers?

also you comment is filled with tautologies, for example -->

Jon writes:


If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence.

You also say that:


The number of designers are irrelevant.

This is not the stance of the typical IDist. Most insist on the singularity of the designer. Few would admit that such an insistence is based on 'personal preference' or a priori conclusions about the nature of the designer. This thread is for those who insist that the evidence for design points to a single designer to support that stance. Interestingly, no creationists holding to this position (there are many on these forums) have come forward to attempt to support such a position.

I wonder what that should tell us...

Nothing....Clearly I'm different

Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date). The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other). The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etc seriously I can go on and on about this.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Edited by SavageD, : sue me


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 10:41 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 11:36 PM SavageD has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 377 (613735)
04-26-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by SavageD
04-26-2011 11:25 PM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state a number of designers?

For most IDists, the singularity of the designer is an integral part of the 'theory'.

Clearly I'm different

Clearly.

Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date). The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other). The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etc seriously I can go on and on about this.

As I already said:

quote:
Jon in Message 277:

If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.


When it comes to science, evidenced conclusions are not a matter of 'personal preference'. The evidence either supports the notion of a single designer or it does not. Which is it?

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by SavageD, posted 04-26-2011 11:25 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by SavageD, posted 04-26-2011 11:52 PM Jon has responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 281 of 377 (613737)
04-26-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Jon
04-26-2011 11:36 PM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
Jon writes:

The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state a number of designers?

For most IDists, the singularity of the designer is an integral part of the 'theory'.

Yes, "most" but not all.


As I already said:

quote:
Jon in Message 277:

If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.


When it comes to science, evidenced conclusions are not a matter of 'personal preference'. The evidence either supports the notion of a single designer or it does not. Which is it?

Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer...

Though it is to be noted that I'm not saying it is tied down to only one designer, but merely that our evidence suggests so...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 04-26-2011 11:36 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 12:09 AM SavageD has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 377 (613739)
04-27-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by SavageD
04-26-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer...

Excellent! Now present that evidence.

Edited by Jon, : quoting error


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by SavageD, posted 04-26-2011 11:52 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by SavageD, posted 04-27-2011 12:38 AM Jon has responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 283 of 377 (613747)
04-27-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Jon
04-27-2011 12:09 AM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
Jon writes:

Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer..

Excellent! Now present that evidence.

You do realize that the argument for ID isn't the amount of designers, but rather that "life originated because it was created."

Presenting the evidence for a single designer would only cause more pointless arguments as you could also argue that there were many designers; as stated before, the number of designers does not matter...

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 12:09 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 12:47 AM SavageD has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 377 (613750)
04-27-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by SavageD
04-27-2011 12:38 AM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
SavageD writes:

I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer...

SavageD writes:

... you could also argue that there were many designers; ...

Which is it? Does the evidence point to a single designer or not?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : goofy quote problem


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by SavageD, posted 04-27-2011 12:38 AM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 6:07 PM Jon has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 285 of 377 (613757)
04-27-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by ringo
04-26-2011 12:40 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Ringo.

Ringo writes:

But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious.

Okay, so the point of my post obviously isn't getting through.

The basic point is that you're simply wrong: parsimony actually does also apply to the number of entities proposed, and not just to categories of entities.

What you started with in this discussion was the thing designed (i.e. the universe), and the question that needs to be answered is, "How many entities are required to explain the design?"

The absolute minimum number of designers is one (assuming that zero is off the table, of course), so we first ask the question of whether or not one designer is capable of designing the universe independently.

Without making any assumptions about the designer (e.g. lifespan or creative capacity), is there any reason to think that a single designer could not have written every book in the library?

If not, then you have your answer: one designer could, in principle, have created the universe alone.

It's only when you begin adding assumptions about constraints that the designer might be under (e.g. timeframe, economics, etc.) that you begin to suggest that a single designer could not have done it. But, until these constraints are considered, there's really no need for more than one designer, is there?

This should be enough to establish, at least in principle, that one designer is more parsimonious than two.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 12:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 1:51 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 2:09 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019