Why only one Designer

frako writes: Using ID and creo logic . Acording to intelligent design complex stuff need a designer . If you see a watch in the forest you know its designed. Well yea you have a point tough that watch was not designed by 1 person some designed the parts some designed the shape and some people put it together. If you find a computer in the forrest you know it is designed well sure but there where tonesof people involved in the design of the computer Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......

For those IDists whose argument is simply "complex stuff needs a designer," I think you make a valid point. One could perhaps invoke Occam's razor to argue for a single designer, but this doesn't seem very persuasive based on the human analogies that you point out.

But I think many ID arguments go further than simply claiming "complex stuff needs a designer." E.g. William Lane Craig's "kalaam" argument goes back to a "first cause." Logically, there can only be one "first cause."

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

frako writes: But I think many ID arguments go further than simply claiming "complex stuff needs a designer." E.g. William Lane Craig's "kalaam" argument goes back to a "first cause." Logically, there can only be one "first cause." Yes logically there can be only one first cause but not only one first causer.

Can you please explain the distinction that you are trying to make between "first cause" and "first causer?" The concept of "first cause" includes both personal and impersonal causes, so wouldn't it include a "first causer," whatever that is?

Do you even understand the philosophical term "first cause"? If not, here are a couple of links:
Encyclopedia Britannica
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

jar writes: Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?

Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

jar writes: kbertsche writes: jar writes: Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer"). Why not? Why not multiple uncaused first causes,

I suppose this might be conceivable, so long as each "first cause" is independent, eternal, uncaused, and in no way contingent on the other "first causes."

jar writes: or a succession of first causes,

Not if "succession" implies a temporal or logical contingency, as I think it does.

jar writes: or turtles all teh way down?

But each turtle is contingent on the one beneath it, so cannot be a "first cause," except for the bottom one.

jar writes: Why does there even need to be a first cause?

A cause-effect chain is a causal sequence. I think the only alternative to a "first cause" would be an infinite sequence. As Craig and other philosophers have argued, one cannot have an infinite sequence of actual events.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

frako writes: kbertsche writes: jar writes: Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer"). Well the design proponents or at least religious ones believe that god does not need a cause to exist so he was there way beyond the universe then one day he magically poofed the universe in to being so his magical poofing is the first cause for our universe.

No, "poofing" cannot be a "first cause" since it is contingent on a "poofer." You don't seem to understand "first cause." Did you read the links that I gave you?

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

ringo writes: The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP.

Guilty. The OP presented a very deficient strawman view of ID, and I agreed with the OP that if this were the extent of ID arguments, they could't discern between one or many designers. I brought up the "first cause" to explain how some of them would argue for a single designer.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

Jon writes: But it should be recognised that any the argument you make on that basis have little bearing on designers which are also being posited as some sort of ultimate first cause creator. But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'.

Are you sure? Can you provide some "IDist" quotes to this effect?

William Lane Craig certainly posits the designer as a "first cause." Don't you consider him to be an IDist?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

subbie writes: If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Quite true. Now, here's the $64 dollar question: What's the difference between religion and science? Answer: Religion takes the unanswered question and uses it as evidence of a god. Science takes the unanswered question and looks for the answer.

This is called a "God of the gaps" argument, and is rejected by most Christian theologians and apologists. This is not the God they believe in. This is not the biblical God.

You will probably find some ID proponents who use such arguments, but the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations).

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

Jon writes: ... the main ID proponents (e.g. Dembski) try to argue for positive evidence of design rather than arguing for negative evidence (lack of scientific explanations). But those arguments are also arguments from ignorance/incredulity: we can't see a way this could arise naturally, thus it was designed.

No. As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do.

Jon writes: IC and SC (the basic support pillars of the entire ID position) are nothing more than arguments from ignorance/incredulity. So I disagree with you that an ID proponent has ever seriously attempted to present positive evidence for design; they do no such thing, because they need no such evidence—they already have all the Answerstm. Jon

You should know that Dembski's math PhD was related to signal processing, and to the way that SETI looks for signs of intelligence in signals from space. SETI is looking for positive evidence of intelligence. Dembski and others have been trying to apply similar arguments to ID.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

Jon writes: As I said, they are trying to make positive arguments for design. You are just re-stating a "negative evidence" argument. That's not what they are trying to do. Could you provide an instance or two of an IDist providing positive evidence of design? Jon

Like I said, this is what Dembski and others have been trying to do for many years. One of their approaches (related to Dembski's PhD thesis) is to apply information theory to biological and physical systems. You might look at Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by Dembski. His overview of The Intelligent Design Movement might also be useful.

Edited by kbertsche, : bad link

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger