Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 377 (613750)
04-27-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by SavageD
04-27-2011 12:38 AM


Re: Knowledge and Belief
SavageD writes:
I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer...
SavageD writes:
... you could also argue that there were many designers; ...
Which is it? Does the evidence point to a single designer or not?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : goofy quote problem

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by SavageD, posted 04-27-2011 12:38 AM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 6:07 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 377 (613798)
04-27-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 3:16 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hello, Bluejay.
Ringo's done a pretty fine job of countering some of the points you made against one of my earlier posts, but I do want to add a couple of things in my own words:
Parsimony is supposed to be used to provide a temporary answer where the evidence doesn't give you one; but, the way you use it, it will always fall in favor of non-answers, because you view a non-answer with zero assumptions as preferable to a useful answer with one assumption.
And we do end up with a temporary answer, even if it is a vague one. The application of parsimony does not completely undo any other work we've done, it simply filters out the arguments and ranks them according to their strength. One way arguments become strong is by resting on evidenced premises that needn't be taken for granted in order to derive the conclusion. Arguments that have fewer unevidenced assumptions will thus get a higher ranking.
And, of course, while arguments that argue nothing on the premise of nothing are very strong, they are irrelevant; just like an argument that argued cost-efficiency of light bulbs would also be irrelevant. We are dealing with a specific theme of arguments: arguments in support of various numbers of designers. The conclusion of 'unknown number' is as much of a conclusion as any other number that might be offered up as a conclusion.
The issue, then, is organizing all of these arguments and evaluating their strength; it is the M.O. of reasonable people to accept the strongest argument, and showing which argument has the most strength (by following the methodology outlined above) is crucial to showing which argument is most acceptable and should thus be the current prevailing theory.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : capitaliZation

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 3:16 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 1:55 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 377 (613847)
04-27-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Also, I was under the impression that you and Straggler had agreed that design was being assumed. But, if you've already assumed design, it doesn't seem right to me to also incorporate an assumption based on how design is inferred.
All the arguments on the number of designers start with the assumption of design, so they're a wash in that regard. This is why we haven't actually had to prove design to discuss whether 'one', or 'more than one', or 'unknown number of' designers is a more likely conclusion.
Yes, we can certainly look within the particular premises that IDists present in support of the notion of design, but that is not really necessary when discussing which of a set of conclusions regarding the number of designers is more parsimonious; so long as we include 'it was designed' in all of our arguments, then this won't do anything to affect the parsimony of the various 'number of designers' arguments relative to one another.
This, of course, being the case only if we are to rely solely on parsimony to determine argument strength.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 10:35 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 377 (613873)
04-28-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Straggler
04-28-2011 4:49 AM


Re: Going in Circles
There are currently several arguments being presented against the notion of a single designer. I think your treatment of all of these arguments as though they were a single argument is the likely cause of your confusion.
Please try to separate out the arguments and reply to each one uniquely. This way, you won't make the mistake of thinking I'm ringo.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 04-28-2011 4:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2011 9:57 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 377 (613902)
04-28-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by SavageD
04-28-2011 6:07 PM


Evidence for an Only Designer
Though it is to be noted that I'm not saying ID is not tied down to the one designer scenario, but merely our evidence suggests it is one designer....
The purpose of this thread is to have the evidence presented by those who think the evidence points to a single designer.
You say you think the evidence points to a single designer.
Do you have any intention of presenting that evidence?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : subtitle

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 6:07 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 10:03 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 377 (613909)
04-28-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by SavageD
04-28-2011 10:03 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
Great! Thank you for replying. Let's take each of these points one at a time, starting with:
1) Signatures (dna etc): all living organisms require dna & or rna to determine their distinguishing features, live and adapt....Including rna viruses. Imagine taking away dna from every living thing....what organisms will these kinds of viruses be left with to reproduce & survive?
I had asked you a question on this earlier, but I think it's gotten lost in the mix, so here is the string again:
quote:
Jon in Message 139:
Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?
In Message 142:
SavageD writes:
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.
But not DNA itself?
Now, that last question is still awaiting a reply. As soon as it's addressed, then we can move on to your second point.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 10:03 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 377 (614333)
05-03-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Straggler
05-03-2011 9:57 AM


Re: Going in Circles
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.
Precisely the point. 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:
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.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2011 9:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 12:15 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 377 (614510)
05-04-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Straggler
05-04-2011 5:27 PM


Re: How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
Jon writes:
But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer. Message 234
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?
Please, don't quote my statements out of context.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 5:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 5:56 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 377 (614605)
05-05-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Straggler
05-05-2011 10:20 AM


Re: How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
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.
You are right: no IDist claims that any of those entities could design the Universe. But, IDists do make comparisons between known designers and (what they believe to be) known designs.
Yes, it is a strawman to claim that ID leads to the conclusion that humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps designed the Universe; 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, namely the conclusion that the number of the Universe designer(s) should also be comparable to human designers.
You've yet to show how this is faulty.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2011 10:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2011 1:45 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 377 (614667)
05-05-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Straggler
05-05-2011 1:45 PM


Re: How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
I'm not sure further explanations are going to help you understand. Sorry.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2011 1:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Straggler, posted 05-06-2011 10:27 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024