Why only one Designer

You seem to have abandoned your insistence on evidenced multiplicity. Is this the case? Are you still basing your insistence on "some" (meaning > 1) on the futile basis of comparing the designer of the universe to elephants/zebras/ice caps? If a designer is assumed then "At least one" is the best that can say. Although I should point out that even this assumes that designers only come in whole numbers. Then you have abandoned your arguments for multiplicity and come round to my way of thinking. Namely - That any comment on numbers at all is meaningless unless something about the designer is assumed. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On the contrary ringo has abandoned his insistence that multiplicity is evidenced and adopted "one or more" which is far more in line with what I have been saying. Even "one or more" assumes that designers can only exist in whole numbers.But this is probably more justified than the assumptions that result in the argument for plurality that ringo has now abandoned.

Straggler understands that without additional assumptions you cannot make any comment on numbers at all.If you assume that the designer is an omnipotent superbeing then you can conclude only one is necessary.If you assume that the designer of our universe is comparable to the entities that exist within our universe you can conclude a plurality of designers. As you have done throughout this thread.If you assume that a magic universe making machine designed our universe then you can conclude that only one is necessary.Etc. etc.But let's not pretend your argument for plurality is any less based on an assumption than any other.

Of course not. In real things, multiplicity is the rule. Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap? Don't misrepresent me. I've explained that "some" means an indeterminate number. Feel free to suggest a better word. No. We're accepting, for the purpose of this discussion, that the universe is designed. A comparison to observed design is inherent in the reasoning which IDists use to reach that conclusion. We are justified in using their own premises to come to additional conclusions that are different from theirs.For example, suppose we accept the premises that, "All winged things can fly," and, "All dogs have wings." If IDists conclude, "Therefore, all dogs are brown," we can accept that conclusion for purposes of discussion. We can also draw our own conclusion from their premises that, "Therefore, all dogs can fly."

---

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

Then Straggler misunderstands the original assumptions. Reasoning from observed design to universal design carries hidden assumptions about the observed designers, including plurality. Any differences between the designers in the premise and the designers in the conclusion would be unparsimonious additional assumptions. We're not assuming that. That would be begging the question. We are assuming that. The whole conclusion of design depends on that assumption. We're not assuming that. Nobody's suggesting any such thing. My argument is based on assumptions that are inherent in the given premises.

---

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

There are currently several arguments being presented against the notion of a single designer. I think your treatment of all of these arguments as though they were a single argument is the likely cause of your confusion.Please try to separate out the arguments and reply to each one uniquely. This way, you won't make the mistake of thinking I'm ringo.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I said This before:Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date); The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other); The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etcThough it is to be noted that I'm not saying ID is not tied down to the one designer scenario, but merely our evidence suggests it is one designer....The whole argument for ID is simply that "life is here because it was probably created / designed", It never puts into this question / thesis the amount of designers.Edited by SavageD, : needed to clear something up

The purpose of this thread is to have the evidence presented by those who think the evidence points to a single designer.You say you think the evidence points to a single designer.Do you have any intention of presenting that evidence?JonEdited by Jon, : subtitle

---

Love your enemies!

Fair enough, though, you seem to think that I believe in the "one designer scenario"....I do not, I believe that life is here as a result of being created, the number of creators do not matter to me.The evidence for the one designer scenario are mainly these:1) Signatures (dna etc): all living organisms require dna & or rna to determine their distinguishing features, live and adapt....Including rna viruses. Imagine taking away dna from every living thing....what organisms will these kinds of viruses be left with to reproduce & survive?2) Noticed similarities (common design): Everything requires mechanisms to utilize water & or sunlight to live.3) The intricacy of the ecosystem: All Organisms depend upon each other to both regulate the environment in which they live and survive.Edited by SavageD, : sue me

Great! Thank you for replying. Let's take each of these points one at a time, starting with: I had asked you a question on this earlier, but I think it's gotten lost in the mix, so here is the string again:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 139:

​

Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?

​

In Message 142:

​

SavageD writes:

​

I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.

​

But not DNA itself?

---

Now, that last question is still awaiting a reply. As soon as it's addressed, then we can move on to your second point.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I'm having trouble seeing how any/all of these negate multiple designers.As for #1: if DNA is a signature, since we know there are at least three different structures for DNA does this evidence three designers?For #2: I fail to see how the fact that most cars have wheels, lights, windshields, engines, seats and radios equates to there only being one designer of cars. Isn't similarity of design rather than exact replication of design a hallmark of additional designers?#3: This seems to me to have PCC (Project Coordinating Committee) written all over it. How does the complexity and intricate interweaving of an ecosystem evidence one designer over a coordinated effort of many?Would you elaborate on these for me please?

1) Although there are 3 or more different types of dna structures, the principle that they follow are all the same; They serve as the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms (other than dna) in several living things.2) The point in all living organisms needing water and sunlight here is that they require one common source for sustenance. It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms for sustenance in several living things.3) You combine the first two points, then you look at this point. This should indicate that organisms share undeniable commonalities indicating a common idea. The complex and intricate interweaving of the ecosystem (i.e. Life sustains life.) serves as a another sign of "common thought" in relation to the first two points.You combine the three points and not only do the organisms share a common mechanism for life (dna), they also share a common source for sustenance (water), and an intricate system requiring themselves and other counter parts like them to stay alive (the ecosystem). The probability for such commonality being the idea of many would be small since the system exhibits an intricate relationship in regards to one purpose, life.It took different people to invent cars, toasters and radios wouldn't you agree? These inventions share almost nothing in common because they have different designers. They in no way require each other to function nor are they in any way related to each other or require each other in an intricate system. The probability of these being created by many designers are greater.

But the analogy with humans renders these arguments doubtful. Different authors write in the same alphabet and the same language. The diversity of their productions, however, means that we wouldn't think that they were all the same. Would someone considering the corpus of English literature deduce that Shakespeare and Stephen King were the same person? In the same way we might well ask if the same person was responsible for the lamb and the tiger; the butterfly and the tapeworm; magnolias and gangrene. And yet we have a zillion manufacturers all making products that run off electricity. This common feature shouldn't lead us to deduce a single manufacturer.Rather, again, we might ask if it was even plausible that the same inventor was responsible for (for example) the cathode-ray TV and the flatscreen; or vinyl records and CDs. In the same way, we might wonder whether the same hand dsigned both the wolf and the marsupial wolf; or the hummingbird and the hummingbird moth. But again reference to human activity renders this point doubtful. If we have an intricate machine the parts of which work well together, it is almost certain that the various components --- the nuts and bolts; the electrical wires; the diodes; the cogwheels ... and so forth ... were produced by different firms and bought in by the design team that actually designed the machine --- and it is completely certain that the original germ of the idea for each of these components came to different people who never collaborated or even met.

So the theme here is that common principles, common energy sources and common thoughts or ideas give evidence to there being only one designer.The problem is that our experiences with designs and designers negate this theme.One example among thousands. There are literally hundreds of disperate designs of internal combustion engines by hundreds of different designers all using the same principles, energy sources and common ideas for turning gasoline into motive power.I cannot see where any of your three points is exclusive to a one-designer hypothesis when our own experiences indicate otherwise.What am I missing? Is there more?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You're quote mining...your taking my quotations out of context without addressing my main argument (which you have conveniently left out). Simply nit picking at each of my points serves no purpose. Also, your examples are in disarray; they in no way exhibit any relationships as my points have....I said this at the end of my points:

quote:

---

You combine the three points and not only do the organisms share a common mechanism for life (dna), they also share a common source for sustenance (water), and an intricate system requiring themselves and other counter parts like them to stay alive (the ecosystem). The probability for such commonality being the idea of many would be small since the system exhibits an intricate relationship in regards to one purpose, life.

​

It took different people to invent cars, toasters and radios wouldn't you agree? These inventions share almost nothing in common because they have different designers. They in no way require each other to function nor are they in any way related to each other or require each other in an intricate system. The probability of these being created by many designers are greater.

---

In short these mechanisms (dna, water sustenance & the ecosystem) are not simply there as separate counterparts; they are required utilities to sustain life, they show relatedness and they are undeniable commonalities for every organism.Every Living organism requires dna. DNA, aside from being used for the development and functioning of all living organisms, play a key role in developing the different mechanisms for utilizing water.Water, inturn plays a key role for all organisms to stay to alive; Without water, all organisms die. To tie in these two points (dna, water sustenance), life is needed to sustain life (the ecosystem is required). Organisms depend on each other to regulate the environment in which they live, and in most cases they need each other for food / energy.It is not 'definitive' evidence of a single designer, but the odds / probabilities are in favor of these exhibited commonalities being the idea of solely one designer. The reason for this being that all organisms share these commonalities, which inturn suggests one common thought / idea. Just need to point out that this is a reply to AZPaul3 as well.Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.