|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: 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! I'll admit that I like discussing ID, and that the primary entertainment in doing so is exposing the inevitable flaws in logic required to defend ID as science. For me the fun ends when the proponent elects instead to defend ID on religious grounds. My personal opinion is that there was little point to this thread, because we all know why IDers assume a single designer. I'll note that Frako's question was answered about one or two posts into the thread. But despite the logic blunders, Frako does get to what little point there is. The controversy is not that ID proponents insist on a single designer, but that some of those proponents pretend that there is nothing religious about ID when it is only religious belief that mandates a single designer. Frako's logic errors are, IMO irrelevant as is his entire OP. Dembski's and Behe's logic errors are both relevant and entertaining. If we get to discuss those things here, I'm all for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
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. 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 ....... 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 Member (Idle past 328 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 328 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims). Really? What else have you got?
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 ... It remains a fair question.
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! The title of the OP is actually "Why Only One Designer", not "If There Was a Designer There Must Have Been More Than One". It's a fair question. And you have in effect given the answer, which is that creationism is a branch of religious apologetics rather than a sincere attempt to discover the truth. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Really? What else have you got? Dembski's claim that specified complexity is an indication of design has nothing to do with the 'human design things analogy'. He claims that it would be efficient to apply it to microwaves coming from space, for example.
The title of the OP is actually "Why Only One Designer", not "If There Was a Designer There Must Have Been More Than One". It's a fair question. And you have in effect given the answer, which is that creationism is a branch of religious apologetics rather than a sincere attempt to discover the truth. But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life. An IDer isn't strictly and IDer, he's a lot of other things too. A guy like Berlinski, who thinks that ID makes lots of valid points, would have no problem saying that multiple designers is a possibility. As I said, nothing about ID compells anyone to think there was only one designer (and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing) PS Exam tomorrow, then I'll be able to get back to our GD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: (and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)
Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
slevesque writes: But the 'single designer' hypothesis does not come intrisincally from ID, it comes from other areas of the IDers life. yes, generally, (christian) church. a polytheist would have little trouble accepting multiple designers.
(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing) you might want to ask a creationist about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing. Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Taq writes: IMHO, assuming that ID is true for the moment, the nested hierarchy screams multiple designers. What we would see as the evolutionary arms race would also be very strong evidence for a minimum of two designers. The attack and defense mechanisms are often highly complex, and only designers in competition would go to such lengths.
Taq writes: Either that, or a single designer that slightly modifies pre-existing species and then suffers amnesia after designing the new species. Your "amnesia" hypothesis could cover the evidence, I suppose. The designer keeps forgetting which side of the arms race he's on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4662 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
you might want to ask a creationist about that. I'm a creationist, and the difference seems pretty clear. It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same. It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing. Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT The only difference between the two MIGHT be that the Creationists are slightly more honest. Intelligent Design is simply another attempt to get Creationism past the Supreme Court, into the schools and to redefine science. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
slevesque writes: It's a matter of all creationists are IDer, but not all IDers are creationist. This simple fact should be enough to show that the two aren't the same. It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol) okay. please define your terms. what is a "creationist" and what is an "IDer"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes:
It's just like a square is a Rhomb, bu a Rhomb isn't necessarily a square (what a strange word. Rhomb, just looked it up lol) Most people call that shape a rhombus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4285 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined:
|
slevesque writes:
(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing) Cdesign proponentists disagree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024