Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
614 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tangle (6 members, 608 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,035 Year: 5,147/6,534 Month: 567/794 Week: 58/135 Day: 4/6 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 1 of 377 (612039)
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


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 .......

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 12:55 AM frako has replied
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 4:50 AM frako has replied
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 10:21 AM frako has taken no action
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2011 1:45 PM frako has replied
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 3:27 PM frako has taken no action
 Message 221 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:18 AM frako has taken no action
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM frako has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 377 (612089)
04-13-2011 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
04-13-2011 12:55 AM


Still i was hoping for an ID-ist or Creo to tell me why there is only one designer. Hm i guess since none of them will bite that the hindus and their 1000 and more god theory is right

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 12:55 AM subbie has seen this message

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 6 of 377 (612092)
04-13-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
04-13-2011 4:50 AM


I'll give the short answer:

There is nothing in ID that compells someone to posit only one designer, and IDer could very well believe there are many designers.

Many IDers posit a single designer simply because most are monotheists.

It's as simple as that.

Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers.

"Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"
OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 4:50 AM slevesque has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 18 of 377 (612156)
04-13-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.

Because rarely do you show anything other then simple gross misunderstanding about it ...

Ok i admit that i never read any ID books though i always thoguht that the Core of ID is

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy

Can you give a few other arguments just a footnote of them would do fine

Humans design complex things, simple things, random things, weird things, and they do all those either alone or with in collaboration with others.

If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers. Which would be quite an astonishing feat, considering all the counter-examples of things built by a single designer that I can think of ...

Well yes humans can design simple things on their own, but the more complex the designed thing is the more humans are involved, im not saying that there absolutely has to be multiple designers by ID logic though im asking the question why do you presume there is only one designer.

But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!

No again im only asking why IDists automatically assume there is only one designer, and not multiple designers or the possibility of multiple designers being the same as a single designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 19 of 377 (612158)
04-13-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by kbertsche
04-13-2011 1:45 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2011 1:45 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:03 AM frako has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 38 of 377 (612250)
04-14-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


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").
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.

So it could be equally true that 1655 gods/intelligent designers came together made a plan on how the universe should look like then they all together magically poof the universe in to exsistance.

this kind of thinking gets around the whole how can something come out of nothing out of nowhere and no when.

Though it still faces the same problem as the universe being eternal logicly better option then god being eternal cause you skip an uknown step though still facing the problem why did it take an infinite number of time to pass for the universe to get to the point it is now, the god option also hasto acount for why it took an infinite amount of time for them to make the universe at that specific time.

the whole problem being infinite having no beginning it always takes you an infinitively long (read for ever, or when pigs fly,or when hell freezes over) to reach a specific point on the timescale.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 12:12 PM frako has taken no action
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:12 PM frako has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 120 of 377 (612512)
04-16-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by SavageD
04-16-2011 2:20 PM


Re: common design
I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter.

amino acids are made by combining a few basic "chemichals2 and some electricity. You get whole oceans full of these amino acids

the amino acids combine to build a very simple self replicating molecule

when these molecules replicate sometimes they dont copy themselves 100% accurately

lets say the first molecule is

actt it can survive long enough to copy itself but that is about it
acct worse combination it dies
acttc better combination makes more copies of itself before it dies continuation of this trend this molecule eventually makes a shell around itself to protect itself allowing the molecule to copy itself many times more before it dies then the basic actt molecule some might call this molecule alive cause it looks like a verry basic cell some call the molecule itself alive cause it looks like a verry basic virus the process contiues for 3.5 billion years and some of these one celled lifeforms become multicelluar life forms the plants went on to dry land first cause it was easier for them they got1 new space and no "predators" to eat them so they spread realy fast, after that the others came on land ........

And all of this by mutation of the dna molecule that is observed measurable and testable and natural selection just turn on animal planet and you can see natural selection

Whats your "theory"? magic man dun it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 2:20 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 122 of 377 (612514)
04-16-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by SavageD
04-16-2011 2:20 PM


Re: common design
as to why the signature is different on every critter, my point is not the dna molecule on a whole but the mechanism for which it is used.

So the fact if you look at your Genome and your mothers and fathers genome and you find that at around 4 gens are completely different then either of your parents is because magic man dun it? or could it just be a "bad" copy ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 2:20 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 185 of 377 (612929)
04-20-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Jon
04-19-2011 8:57 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
There is no reason why an ID designer could not have itself been caused by something else.

Well i kinda has to be from their perspective. Tehere is no such thing as evolution, god is not allowed in the schools, so the desighner is say some alien, well well did the alien come from, well you cant say evolution, cant say god, so it is a super alien, so where did the alien come from, cant say evolution cant say god, super duper alien, ..... But our universe had a "beginning" so at one point you rune out of supers to put in front of the alien so you are left with either evolution or god, evolution is wrong remember so it has to be god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Jon, posted 04-19-2011 8:57 PM Jon 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