|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: 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. Of course it is just one example of many possibilities. But you can only comment on the number of designers necessary if you specify the design possibility you are considering. They have specified their designer. And based on this specification only one designer is logically necessary.
ringo writes: The point that I've been making here is that their comments on the number required are inconsistent with their own logic. Their comments are entirely logically consistent with the designer they have specified.
ringo writes: You can't know it's one. Unless that which is doing the designing is specified you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. You certainly cannot say that it should be more than one without specifying who or what is doing the designing.
ringo writes: I haven't commented on how many are required. Yes you have. "more than one". "Plurality". "Multiplicity". Etc. 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" - Then we agree. There is no basis for any conclusion at all and the whole premise of the thread is misguided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: It's because they specify the designer they want that they get the designer they want. They specify the designer they want and get the singular designer they want and you make comparisons with zebras and elephants and get the multiplicity of designers you want. Both approaches are equally nonsensical.
Ringo writes: I have said that if "design" is taken as a given, then reality suggests that plural is more likely than singular. By "reality" do you mean examples of material entities that inhabit our universe? Or do you mean something else? If so what?
ringo writes: 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 (or assumed) you cannot say anything at all about numbers of designers. You cannot say it is one. And you cannot say that it should be more than one. You cannot say anything meaningful at all.
ringo 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. Without making some invalid assumption about the nature of the designer you cannot come to any conclusion about numbers of designers at all. The IDist conclusion of one designer is based on an assumption. Your conclusion of more than one is equally based on an assumption. It's assumptions all the way down. In either case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. So these real entities on which you are basing your evidenced conclusion regarding the multiplicity of designers - What are they? Humans? Elephants? Zebras? Chipmunks? How many of these real entities are required to design the universe?
ringo writes: I make comparisons with reality and get the logical conclusion. Based on the same comparison with reality the number of designers would be a whole number in quite a limited range. More than 1 but fewer than a 1000 for example. What is the optimum size of a design team of such real entities? As already discussed for humans it is reckoned by psychologists to be about 12.
ringo writes: 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. Based on zebra herd size the number of designers would be between 10 and 200.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: We've already agreed that that number can not be determined. In the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is necessarily based on additional assumptions.
ringo writes: Therefore, the number "one" is invalid and the proposition stands: 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".
ringo writes: Two hundred designers are as valid a conclusion as one. Indeed. Because in the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is just nonsense. This includes your supposedly evidenced "some".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: "Some" just means an undetermined number. "Some" as insisted upon by you throughout this thread means a number greater than one based on the assumption that some entirely unspecified designer is comparable to zebras or elephants or humans in some way.
ringo writes: If you know of a better English word to convey that concept, I'd be glad to consider switching to it. In the absence of any specifics or assumptions about the designer any comment on numbers at all is simply nonsensical. Even the intentional vaguety of "some" won't save you from that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You seem to have abandoned your insistence on evidenced multiplicity. Is this the case?
ringo writes: In reality, plurality is the rule and uniqueness is the exception. ringo writes: The variety of marine life suggests that there was one designer or group of designers who made fish and different group who made whales and dolphins. ringo writes: Multiplicity is evidenced. Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap? Are you still basing your insistence on "some" (meaning > 1) on the futile basis of comparing the designer of the universe to elephants/zebras/ice caps?
ringo writes: 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. If a designer is assumed then "At least one" is the best that can say. Although I should point out that even this assumes that designers only come in whole numbers.
ringo writes: I'd be quite happy if IDists would say, "one or more designer(s)," instead of, "the designer," or, "a designer." Then you have abandoned your arguments for multiplicity and come round to my way of thinking. Namely - That any comment on numbers at all is meaningless unless something about the designer is assumed. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: It is good to see that you have come to understand ringo's argument. On the contrary ringo has abandoned his insistence that multiplicity is evidenced and adopted "one or more" which is far more in line with what I have been saying.
Jon writes: So what's your objection? Even "one or more" assumes that designers can only exist in whole numbers. But this is probably more justified than the assumptions that result in the argument for plurality that ringo has now abandoned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: The argument, as I have explained before and as PaulK has explained and as I think even Straggler understands now, is that putting any number on it is an unparsimonious assumption. Straggler understands that without additional assumptions you cannot make any comment on numbers at all. If you assume that the designer is an omnipotent superbeing then you can conclude only one is necessary. If you assume that the designer of our universe is comparable to the entities that exist within our universe you can conclude a plurality of designers. As you have done throughout this thread. If you assume that a magic universe making machine designed our universe then you can conclude that only one is necessary. Etc. etc. But let's not pretend your argument for plurality is any less based on an assumption than any other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Straggler writes: If you assume that the designer of our universe is comparable to the entities that exist within our universe you can conclude a plurality of designers. As you have done throughout this thread. We are assuming that. You are assuming that. But why is this assumption any more valid than any other assumption about this hypothetical designer?
ringo writes: The whole conclusion of design depends on that assumption. No it doesn't. No IDist is claiming that the designer is comparable to humans or zebras or elephants or ice caps. You are. And if you insist on making such comparisons you are left trying to answer the ridiculous question as to how many humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps it would take to design the universe. You continue to make these flawed comparisons but won't face the inevitable question such comparisons inevitably lead to.
ringo writes: Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap? How many of these things are capable of designing universes? How many of these things are capable of existing outside our universe (whatever that even means) such that they could have designed and created it? So why do you consider such comparisons valid or meaningful?
ringo writes: My argument is based on assumptions that are inherent in the given premises. Then your conclusion of "some" is simply a circular restatement of the premise as you have decided to interpret it. It is a strawman version of ID that is just as flawed as theirs is. But what is the point in creating straw man version of ID? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Whatever arguments are going around it remains the case that commenting on the number of hyppthetical designers required to design our universe is utterly non-sensical unless some assumptions about who or what is doing the designing are made.
Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs. Ringo is apparently assuming that the designer of our universe is comparable to ice caps, clouds and mountains (having abandoned previous comparisons with zebras and elephants). What are you assuming Jon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: And so ID falls apart as a religious belief, one which cannot even be masked as science, when the jump is made from 'designed' to 'one designer only', as you already mentioned: You can come to the (flawed) conclusion of design without contemplating the number of designers. Once you start asking about the number of designers you cannot say anything meaningful without making additional assumptions. And making assumptions on the basis of zebras, elephants and ice caps are just as fuckwitted as any other.
ringo writes: Jon writes: Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs. I still cannot see why you are disagreeing with ringo on this point On that point I am not and never have. But the conclusion of design and the assumptions about who or what did the designing (and how many of them there are) are not necessarily based on the same things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: It's the logical conclusion drawn from the premises that IDists use to draw their conclusion. The ID premise as far as I am aware is that some aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen by accident and thus are requiring of intelligent intervention of some sort. Do you agree that (flawed as it is) this is the basis of the intelligent design premise in it's most generalised form?
ringo writes: They're claiming that the design is comparable to motors, codes, etc. They are claiming that the requirement for intelligence is exhibited in these objects and that these objects are thus comparable in that sense.
ringo writes: The comparison with known designers is inherent in that conclusion, so we have no choice but to accept the comparison as valid. No comparison of designers has been made at all beyond the possession of intelligence. If you want to extrapolate this to come up with a straw man version of ID I can't stop you. But this extrapolation is yours not theirs.
ringo writes: So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans. Unless you are suggesting that a team of humans could have designed the universe (or that IDists believe this to be the case) this direct comparison is quite evidently utter nonsense. You don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It is flawed enough already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: You're just repeating yourself. Pot. Kettle. Black.
ringo writes: The comparison to human designers is implicit in the use of examples such as motors and codes. The possession of intelligence is an explicit comparison. Any further comparison is of your own extrapolation.
ringo writes: They say that motors and codes can be made only by designers and human designers are the only example we have of designers that make motors and codes. So what other example of intelligent design would you suggest they cite even if they are not making the direct comparison you have falsely concluded?
ringo writes: Human designers are also the only example we have of intelligent designers. Then the question as posed in this thread inevitably boils down to asking - How many humans would it take to design our universe? Doesn't it?
ringo writes: The comparison is in no way a strawman of the IDists' position. If you asked a geneuine advocate of ID how many humans it would take to design our universe what would they say?
Jon (of all people) sums it up.
Your comparison is a false one. You are needlessly creating a straw man version of ID that does nothing but detract from it's genuine and numerous flaws. Why bother?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So Jon - Can we base our conclusion regarding the number of designers of our universe on how many humans it would take to design our universe?
Or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024