Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
76 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 37 of 377 (612249)
04-14-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
04-14-2011 10:47 AM


GOD
As one who believes in "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" do you not have some sympathy for the whole single first cause thing?

Isn't a "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" a single first by definition?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 10:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 377 (612253)
04-14-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
04-14-2011 11:51 AM


Parsimony?
Wouldn’t parsimony be the reason for citing a single first cause designer rather than 1655 (or whatever) of them?

Although if one is going to cite parsimony the whole idea of intelligent designers (single or multiple) is in trouble anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 11:51 AM frako has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 377 (612266)
04-14-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
04-14-2011 12:29 PM


Parsimony?
jar writes:

I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.

OK.

jar writes:

I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.

Surely parsimony comes into play here? If someone proposes a convuluted setup of designers - A committee of designers who design a designer that then designs a designer that then designs our universe - That is surely less parsimonious than a single designer.

A no designer at all is less parsimonious than one. No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 12:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 377 (612272)
04-14-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
04-14-2011 1:07 PM


Re: Parsimony?
jar writes:

Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.

You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 377 (612319)
04-14-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
04-14-2011 1:18 PM


Parsimony
jar writes:

Parsimony has nothing to do with reality

Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it?

Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:06 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 83 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 78 of 377 (612322)
04-14-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Parsimony
Ringo writes:

Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa?

Not as I understand parsimony.

Can you parsimonioulsy explain how this zebra came to be the only zebra in Africa?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:15 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 377 (612324)
04-14-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by subbie
04-14-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Parsimony
Sub writes:

I think you took a couple of shortcuts in your statement that open it to pot shots.

Fair point.

Sub writes:

The more parsimonious of two explanations of equal explanatory power is generally preferred.

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:15 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:24 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 377 (612329)
04-14-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Parsimony
My understanding is that parsimony stipulates the least number of assumptions.

On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer.

No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 377 (612330)
04-14-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
04-14-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
jar writes:

Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.

So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 377 (612332)
04-14-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by subbie
04-14-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Parsimony
Sub writes:

The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable.

Yep. That makes sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:24 PM subbie has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 377 (612337)
04-14-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Parsimony
ringo writes:

That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony.

OK. If we were discussing designers in isolation as opposed to first causes then what you say here would be very definitley true. But if we are talking about first causes then a single first cause must surely be more parsimonious than multiple first causes. Right?

ringo writes:

In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one.

On the pure designer front everything you say here is true. But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth.

Surely the less uncaused or self caused entities under consideration the less assumptions we require?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 8:02 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 8:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 377 (612339)
04-14-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
04-14-2011 7:50 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
As Subbie has pointed out - "The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable" So essentially the more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong.

Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?

jar writes:

I'm going to play with the adults

Don't be evasive. If you have legitimate reasons for disputing that parsimony is a valid method of eliminating the most likely to be wrong proposals then let's hear your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:50 PM jar has seen this message

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 93 of 377 (612343)
04-14-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
04-14-2011 8:02 PM


Re: Parsimony
ringo writes:

As far as I'm concerned, "first cause" is a complete non-issue. In itself, it's an extraneous assumption.

Maybe. But given our experience of the causal nature of reality and the rather fundamental role of cause and effect in our most reliable method of investigating reality (i.e science) sweeping aside the whole issue seems more like a debate tactic than a genuinely thought out position.

ringo writes:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we're looking backward from design to a designer. If the designer itself can't be susbstantiated, what point is there in speculating about its boss?

Which seems to be just another way of stating the parsimonious conclusion that the universe (which we know exists) is the first entity in the causal chain rather than unparsimonioulsy working back through layers of "bosses".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 8:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 8:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 377 (612344)
04-14-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by subbie
04-14-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Parsimony
Sub writes:

Certainly intelligence requires a long history of previously existing life forms

So doesn't this suggest that the most parsimonious hypothesis is that no intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe which we know to exist? That it was instead the result of mindless physical processes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 8:04 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 8:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 377 (612347)
04-14-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by subbie
04-14-2011 8:18 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:

So doesn't this suggest that the most parsimonious hypothesis is that no intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe which we know to exist? That it was instead the result of mindless physical processes?

Sub writes:

Yes, of course.

Well this seems obvious to me too. But jar seems to be disputing this. I am not sure on what basis he disputes this. But he does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 8:18 PM subbie has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022