Why only one Designer

slevesque writes:(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

slevesque writes:Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT

kbertsche 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").

Straggler writes:As one who believes in "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" do you not have some sympathy for the whole single first cause thing?Isn't a "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" a single first by definition?

slevesque writes:Hi Jar,You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.

Straggler writes:OK. Surely parsimony comes into play here? If someone proposes a convuluted setup of designers - A committee of designers who design a designer that then designs a designer that then designs our universe - That is surely less parsimonious than a single designer.A no designer at all is less parsimonious than one. No?

Straggler writes:You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?

slevesque writes:This is such an obvious red herring ...All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.

slevesque writes:And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.

slevesque writes:You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.Creationism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

arachnophilia writes:let me play devil's advocate here for a second.ID has already been ruled as "the same as creationism". why stick to the name "ID"?

slevesque writes:The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?

Straggler writes:So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available?