Why only one Designer

So how many designers of the universe would you put forward as the evidenced conclusion then Jon?

ringo writes: Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.

I thought you were positing multiple designers on the basis of evidence pertaining to the plurality of human designers? If that is the case then obviously quantifying it on this (misguided in my view) basis is the only evidentially consistent approach.

So how many human designers would it take to design the universe?

ringo writes: Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.

So as far as you are concerned 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 creator-designers is no more or less parsimonious than 1. Is that correct?

ringo writes: Second, my whole premise in this thread is that IDists don't understand the implications of their own assumptions. I don't see why I should have to accept all of their assumptions just to point out the ones that are wrong.

If you want to create a straw man version of ID re the number of designers and then knock it down I cannot stop you.

But that is what you are doing.

Straggler writes: I thought you were positing multiple designers on the basis of evidence pertaining to the plurality of human designers?

I'm positing that putting any number on the "design presence" has no logical basis.

Straggler writes: So as far as you are concerned 999...999 creator-designers is no more or less parsimonious than 1. Is that correct?

Yes. A herd of unicorns is no more or less parsimonious than one.

Straggler writes: If you want to create a straw man version of ID re the number of designers and then knock it down I cannot stop you.

I'm not creating a strawman of ID. ID is inherently made of straw.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: I'm positing that putting any number on the "design presence" has no logical basis.

If we are talking about the sort of ultimate first-cause-creator-designers being posited by the religious then parsimoniously 1 such entity is preferable to a plurality of such entities.

But apparently we aren't talking about ultimate creator-designers at all. We are apparently making comparisons with human designers.

ringo writes: I'm positing that putting any number on the "design presence" has no logical basis.

If you are making direct evidential comparisons with human designers then how many such designers are required to design the universe?

Isn't this a legitimate question based on the premise of this thread as you have insisted it be considered?

ringo writes: Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.

It is evidentially necessary if you point of comparison is human designers.

ringo writes: I'm not creating a strawman of ID. ID is inherently made of straw.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't need to create false versions of it.

So how many designers of the universe would you put forward as the evidenced conclusion then Jon?

Don't know. Like I said, though, well over 12. Not that it matters, of course, since any amount of designers more than one is enough to make the ID/Creo argument untenable to the religious monotheist wishing to use the ID/Creo argument as evidence of their god.

But, if we are interested in determining a more precise figure for the number of designers, I did propose a method that might help us do that earlier in the thread:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 9:

[If] we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).

---

Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Straggler writes: If you are making direct evidential comparisons with human designers then how many such designers are required to design the universe?

That's a bit like asking how many elephants are required to ride a bicycle. I'm not the one who's making the claim, so I don't feel obligated to have an answer. My point, if you're still insisting on missing it, is that two elephants can ride a bicycle as easily as one.

Straggler writes: ringo writes: Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary. It is evidentially necessary if you point of comparison is human designers.

But I'm not the one who's making that comparison. The IDists are. They're "seeing" design that looks like human design and assuming that their God is responsible for it. Pointing out the flaw in their position is in no way making a strawman of their position.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: My point, if you're still insisting on missing it, is that two elephants can ride a bicycle as easily as one.

If that is your point this refutes it: Elephant Riding a Bike

ringo writes: I'm not the one who's making the claim, so I don't feel obligated to have an answer.

You are the one making the claim a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion if human design is taken as the point of comparison.

So asking you how many designers this evidence points to is a perfectly legitimate question to ask you to answer.

ringo writes: But I'm not the one who's making that comparison. The IDists are. They're "seeing" design that looks like human design and assuming that their God is responsible for it. Pointing out the flaw in their position is in no way making a strawman of their position.

If you want to point out the flaw in their position then point out that no designers at all are necessary. If you want to make the case that taking human design as the point of comparison leads to a multiplicity of designers then take that comparison all the way to answering how many human designers it would take to design the universe.

Or would that make the comparison such an obvious straw man as to make it entirely worthless?

Well Jon you at least have the courage to follow your convictions to the point of absurdity. I'll say that for you.

OK then. Our point of comparison is evidenced human design. So the first question is this - Is there any number of human designers who could have designed the universe?

Is there any number of human designers who could have designed the universe?

Likely, not sure though. But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer.

Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Jon writes: But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer.

Well done Jon. Exactly my point.

So on what basis is it being argued that more than one designer is the evidenced conclusion here?

Straggler writes: If that is your point this refutes it: Elephant Riding a Bike

First, . Second, the video clearly shows two elephants riding bikes/trikes, which makes my point.

Straggler writes: You are the one making the claim a multiplicity of designers is the evidenced conclusion if human design is taken as the point of comparison.

IDists are making the comparison. I'm only pointing out that multiplicity is implicit in their own comparison.

Straggler writes: If you want to point out the flaw in their position then point out that no designers at all are necessary.

That would be off-topic. There is no shortage of on-topic flaws to point out.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: First,

Had to be done.

ringo writes: Second, the video clearly shows two elephants riding bikes/trikes, which makes my point.

You said "My point, if you're still insisting on missing it, is that two elephants can ride a bicycle as easily as one". Two elephants. A bike. Singular bike. Plural elephants. I would like to see two of those beasts ride one of those bikes. It wouldn't be done "just as easily" even if it were possible would it?

If you find a vid of two elephants riding a single bike I think will wet myself.

ringo writes: IDists are making the comparison.

They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity.

ringo writes: I'm only pointing out that multiplicity is implicit in their own comparison.

Their (flawed) comparison involves the need for intelligence to be present in order for design to occur. It doesn't extend as far as comparing the designer of the universe to a human beyond that.

ringo writes: There is no shortage of on-topic flaws to point out.

The whole topic as you have interpreted it is flawed.

Straggler writes: Two elephants. A bike. Singular bike. Plural elephants.

Well, that nit couldn't be much smaller, could it? I'll rephrase:

quote:

---

Two bike-riding elephants are no less likely than one.

---

Straggler writes: They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity.

That's irrelevant. They're pointing to a gigantic bike and concluding that it must be for an elephant. I'm pointing out that there could be more than one elephant capable of riding it.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

ringo writes: Straggler writes: They are not making the same comparison you are making to arrive at the conclusion of multiplicity. That's irrelevant.

Not if you want your arguments or conclusions to have any relevance to anything they are advocating.

ringo writes: They're pointing to a gigantic bike and concluding that it must be for an elephant. I'm pointing out that there could be more than one elephant capable of riding it.

Then you are not taking into account the fact that they are postulating a bike and an elephant that are unique and like no other that exist.

Straggler writes: Then you are not taking into account the fact that they are postulating a bike and an elephant that are unique and like no other that exist.

That's another unevidenced assumption that they're making. I'm not required to account for every mistake just to point out one.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate