|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design". Comparable in what sense exactly? Be explicit.
ringo writes: We're not accepting that conclusion and we're not accepting your quantum leap to "man did it" either. So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned. I think you will find this is called "cherry picking". Why you need to cherry pick to produce a straw man version of Intelligent Design remains a mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: That's the argument that the thread is accepting, that if you see something as complex as a watch, you know it's designed. OK. So how many designers are required to design a watch?
ringo writes: Straggler writes: So you have concluded that a multiplicity of non-humans who are comparable to humans only as far as multiplicity is concerned. Are you really that obtuse or are you trolling? Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not? If you are making that comparison then in what ways are you saying these designers are comparable to humans aside from multiplicity? If you are not making a direct comparison with humans on what basis are you concluding a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Are you comparing the designer(s) of our universe to humans or are you not? ringo writes: For the umpteenth time, it's the IDists who are making that comparison, not me. For the umpteenth time - No they are not. Not beyond the possession of intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.
ringo writes: For the purposes of this thread, we're being asked to accept that comparison, to the point and only to the point that we conclude that the universe is designed. If you asked a geneuine advocate of ID how many humans it would take to design our universe and how relevant this comparison is to their IDist conclusions what do you think they would say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Tell it to the OP. The watch example assumes that the comparison is being made by IDists. Then by the terms of the OP the question "How many humans does it take to design a watch?" is entirely relevant isn't it? As is the question "How many humans does it take to design our universe?" The trouble is that such questions, inevitable as they are if we take the premise of the OP as you have described it, highlight the fuckwitted straw man nature of the question being posed. We don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It has enough real flaws without you (or the OP) inventing them.
ringo writes: Tell it to the OP. My much stated position throughout this thread is that the entire premise of the OP (which you have so embraced) is deeply flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Then you can stop wasting everybody's time with your flawed interpretation of it. My flawed interpretation.....?
ringo writes: The thread accepts the ID argument to the point that "the universe is designed by a process comparable to human design". Comparable in what sense exactly? Be explicit.
ringo writes: So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans. If that direct comparison really is being made then the question "How many humans would it take to design our universe" is both entirely legitimate and wholly inevitable isn't it? You just don't like the question because it highlights the flaws in your own silly straw man version of ID. But we don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It has enough real flaws without you (or the OP) inventing them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Show me the strawman. Your strawman is to directly compare the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe with humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps when no genuine IDist is claiming that any of these entities (least of all ice caps) could design the universe no matter how many of them team up to do it.
ringo writes: So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans. How many humans would it take to design our universe? If you don't think this question is relevant to this thread can you explain why it isn't relevant? Bearing in mind that it is you who is insisting that a direct comparison with humans as designers is inherent in the premise of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: But, IDists do make comparisons between known designers and (what they believe to be) known designs. No comparison is made with humans beyond the possession of intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.
Jon writes: but it is not a strawman to take the comparisons between human designers and known designs made by ID and follow those comparisons out to their logical ends... Logical ends being that this hypothetical designer possess intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.
Jon writes: namely the conclusion that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers. So How many humans would it take to design our universe? If you don't think this question is relevant to this thread can you explain why it isn't relevant? Bearing in mind that it is you who is insisting that a direct comparison with humans as designers is inherent in the premise of this thread.
Jon writes: You've yet to show how this is faulty. Yes I have. You are making unwarranted extrapolations and coming up with a straw man version of ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Jon has answered your strawman accusation pretty well. You think so huh? Because Jon has concluded - "that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers" So if you agree with Jon so much answer me this - How many humans would it take to design our universe?
ringo writes: IDists are making that comparison. No comparison is made with humans by IDists beyond the possession of intelligence. Any further extrapolation is yours and not theirs.
ringo writes: If there's anything else to their claims beyond that comparison, go ahead and present it. The core premise of ID (flawed as it is) is that some aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen without the aid of intelligent intervention. How you go from that to concluding that "that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers" remains a mystery. But as I have said previously if that is your premise then apparently psychologists have concluded that between 4 and 12 is the optimum number for a human design team.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
JOn writes: It appears to be a mystery only to you. Well that is one way of avoiding the question. Do you agree with Jon's conclusion that "the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers". or not? If you do agree with Jon then tell me - How many humans would it take to design our universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If you and Ringo want to create straw man versions of ID I can't stop you. But I can point out where you are adding in your own assumptions and extrapolations when doing so.
We don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It has enough real flaws without you (or the OP) inventing them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Straggler writes: Do you agree with Jon's conclusion that "the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers". or not? As far as I know, that was my conclusion and Jon agreed with it. So how many humans do you think it would it take to design our universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Nobody has suggested that humans could design the universe. Exactly. So if humans are not comparable to the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe in terms of design capability why do you think they would be comparable in terms of numbers? Surely a rather key factor in determining the number of designers is the capability of the designers to design. In short you cannot comment on the number of designer(s) without making assumptions about the capabilities of the designers. IDists advocating a single designer are assuming that their designer is supremely capable. This assumption is flawed and unjustified but is at least internally logically consistent. You on the other hand are advocating a comparison with beings that aren't even capable of designing the universe and coming to a conclusion about how many designers of the universe are required on that basis. This isn't even internally logically consistent. When you find yourself arguing a position that is inferior to IDist arguments in terms of logical consistency it is frankly time to give up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: Straggler writes: So if humans are not comparable to the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe in terms of design capability why do you think they would be comparable in terms of numbers? Asked and answered. In the name of clarity could you explicitly restate your answer to this exact question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: So if humans are not comparable to the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe in terms of design capability why do you think they would be comparable in terms of numbers? Straggler writes: In the name of clarity could you explicitly restate your answer to this exact question? ringo writes: Nobody else seems to be suffering from your lack of clarity. If you want repetition, reread the thread. The entire thread is 350 odd posts long. Why can't you just succinctly and explicitly restate your answer to that specific question if you have answered it already If anybody else can explicitly state the answer to this question I would be delighted to hear from them too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Stragler writes: So if humans are not comparable to the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe in terms of design capability why do you think they would be comparable in terms of numbers? Straggler writes: If anybody else can explicitly state the answer to this question I would be delighted to hear from them too. ringo writes: Jon has done that. I am delighted that you and Jon are thinking as one. I look forward to being invited to the civil partnership ceremony. But in the meantime, in the name of clarity, could you just quote Jon's explicit answer to that specific question?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024