|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
As far as I'm concerned, "first cause" is a complete non-issue. In itself, it's an extraneous assumption. But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we're looking backward from design to a designer. If the designer itself can't be susbstantiated, what point is there in speculating about its boss? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
On the pure designer front everything you say here is true. But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth. This ignores the question of how many assumptions are needed for the very existence of the "first cause" creator. In our experience on earth (which I must admit is limited), we generally see "higher" or more "advanced" forms of life seeking community. Certainly intelligence requires a long history of previously existing life forms. Does it require more assumptions to support a single intelligence sufficient to create our universe than it does to support a community of intelligences? That answer is far from clear. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: As far as I'm concerned, "first cause" is a complete non-issue. In itself, it's an extraneous assumption. Maybe. But given our experience of the causal nature of reality and the rather fundamental role of cause and effect in our most reliable method of investigating reality (i.e science) sweeping aside the whole issue seems more like a debate tactic than a genuinely thought out position.
ringo writes: As I mentioned in an earlier post, we're looking backward from design to a designer. If the designer itself can't be susbstantiated, what point is there in speculating about its boss? Which seems to be just another way of stating the parsimonious conclusion that the universe (which we know exists) is the first entity in the causal chain rather than unparsimonioulsy working back through layers of "bosses".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sub writes: Certainly intelligence requires a long history of previously existing life forms So doesn't this suggest that the most parsimonious hypothesis is that no intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe which we know to exist? That it was instead the result of mindless physical processes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Yes, of course.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
It's a tactic for staying on topic. We were talking about the number of designers and you claimed that one is more parsimonious than many. You have since, I think, admitted that that claim was incorrect. ... sweeping aside the whole issue seems more like a debate tactic than a genuinely thought out position. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: So doesn't this suggest that the most parsimonious hypothesis is that no intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe which we know to exist? That it was instead the result of mindless physical processes? Sub writes: Yes, of course. Well this seems obvious to me too. But jar seems to be disputing this. I am not sure on what basis he disputes this. But he does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Parsimony has nothing to do with reality. Well, there is no evidence for unparsimonious explanations. Let me give you an example. Suppose I suggested that in the Andromada galaxy there's a race of superintelligent beings resembling beach umbrellas. Now, as I have no evidence for this, you would adopt the negative as the default position. But now I take this proposition about sentient beach umbrellas and combine it (let us say) with the theory of gravity. Now I have an eminently testable hypothesis which is rater well-evidenced. The problem is, of course, that the theory of gravity would explain the observations all by itself. We cannot, therefore, take them as giving any credence to the additional proposition about aliens in Andromeda. So while we can't necessarily expect the universe to be parsimonious, we often find ourselves in a position where we can say that there is no evidence that it isn't. Now we're in a different case if we have two hypotheses where one isn't a subset of the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: It's a tactic for staying on topic. We were talking about the number of designers and you claimed that one is more parsimonious than many. You have since, I think, admitted that that claim was incorrect. If you are going to separate designers from first causes then - yeah - I guess so. For example multiple extra-dimensional but evolved aliens from another universe would seem more parsimonious as creators of our universe than a single such being based on what we know about evolved intelligence. But a single first cause is indisputably more parsimonious than multiple first causes isn't it? And with regard to ID and the matters of religion this thread seems to be aiming at it is really "first cause" rather than simply number of designers that is the issue here. No? But - Yeah if you separate first cause from design then I agree with what you are saying. I just don't think that is really what this thread was aiming at. Certainly in the context of IDism and it's religious roots the "first cause" rather than number of caused designers is the real issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More utter nonsense, but maybe I can salvage something out of it.
quote: No, I'd simply laugh. Please read back through the thread and try to figure out what I have been saying. If you can't then fine. I can also live with that. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I don't see why. I'm sticking with the idea that putting a number on it requires an extraneous assumption.
But a single first cause is indisputably more parsimonious than multiple first causes isn't it? Straggler writes:
I've already said, "No." The one who brought up first causes was kbertsche, not the OP. And with regard to ID and the matters of religion this thread seems to be aiming at it is really "first cause" rather than simply number of designers that is the issue here. No? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
More utter nonsense ... Oh, well-argued.
No, I'd simply laugh. Would you not also suppose that I was wrong? If not, why the merriment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
I suppose this might be conceivable, so long as each "first cause" is independent, eternal, uncaused, and in no way contingent on the other "first causes."
kbertsche writes: jar writes:
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"). Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? Why not? Why not multiple uncaused first causes, jar writes:
Not if "succession" implies a temporal or logical contingency, as I think it does.
or a succession of first causes,jar writes:
But each turtle is contingent on the one beneath it, so cannot be a "first cause," except for the bottom one.
or turtles all teh way down?jar writes:
A cause-effect chain is a causal sequence. I think the only alternative to a "first cause" would be an infinite sequence. As Craig and other philosophers have argued, one cannot have an infinite sequence of actual events. Why does there even need to be a 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
frako writes:
No, "poofing" cannot be a "first cause" since it is contingent on a "poofer." You don't seem to understand "first cause." Did you read the links that I gave you? kbertsche writes:
jar writes:
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").
Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b? 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. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
A cause-effect chain is a causal sequence. I think the only alternative to a "first cause" would be an infinite sequence. As Craig and other philosophers have argued, one cannot have an infinite sequence of actual events. Of course you can as long as they are separate and unique. But it's all just silly anyway. Maybe fun to play with but in the end, irrelevant. Designer is pointless and utterly irrelevant even if true except as a historical footnote or in the case of product liability. Talking about one designer versus many designers is just mental masturbation and as pointless as some imagined first cause. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024