Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
61 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (4 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,178 Year: 4,290/6,534 Month: 504/900 Week: 28/182 Day: 16/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 226 of 377 (613055)
04-21-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jon
04-21-2011 12:09 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
So how many designers of the universe would you put forward as the evidenced conclusion then Jon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 12:09 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 1:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 227 of 377 (613058)
04-21-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ringo
04-21-2011 11:53 AM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 12:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19524
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 228 of 377 (613059)
04-21-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Straggler
04-21-2011 12:28 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:13 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 229 of 377 (613064)
04-21-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
04-21-2011 12:43 PM


Evidenced Pluraility
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 12:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 377 (613065)
04-21-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Straggler
04-21-2011 12:14 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:44 PM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19524
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 231 of 377 (613066)
04-21-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Straggler
04-21-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Evidenced Pluraility
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:40 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 232 of 377 (613069)
04-21-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
04-21-2011 1:26 PM


Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 1:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 2:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 233 of 377 (613072)
04-21-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jon
04-21-2011 1:25 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 1:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 377 (613074)
04-21-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Straggler
04-21-2011 1:44 PM


The Designer was not Human
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:03 PM Jon has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 235 of 377 (613078)
04-21-2011 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Jon
04-21-2011 1:48 PM


Re: The Designer was not Human
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 1:48 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Jon, posted 04-21-2011 11:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19524
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 236 of 377 (613080)
04-21-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Straggler
04-21-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:27 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 237 of 377 (613086)
04-21-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by ringo
04-21-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 2:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 2:39 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19524
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 238 of 377 (613089)
04-21-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Straggler
04-21-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 3:04 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 239 of 377 (613094)
04-21-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ringo
04-21-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 2:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 3:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19524
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 240 of 377 (613098)
04-21-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
04-21-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Bike Riding Elephant!!!!!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 3:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2011 7:34 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022