Why only one Designer

Are you suggesting that if there were two designers, one of them would have designed his version of life without water?What's the difference between several designers all using water for their lifeforms and several designers all using metal for their automobiles? It just seems like the sensible thing to do and doesn't in any way suggest a lone designer.

---

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

Try not to be offensive and stupid simultaneously.People can read your last two paragraphs. I have not hidden them. The context is there for all to see. I omitted them because they seemed to be more of the same.Now, do you have anything to say in response to what I wrote, or do you merely wish to whine that I didn't C&P everything that you wrote? And yet clearly lots of designers could have worked within the paradigm of water as a solvent and DNA as a means of information storage; just as lots of designers could work within the paradigm of electricity and silicon chips.Here's a question. Can you suggest what a second designer could have used other than water? Is there any other liquid sloshing around this planet that would have done just as well? The economy exhibits a similar interdependence, yet we do not conclude that one person designed it. But the existence of commonalities does not suggest "one common thought / idea" when we turn to look at cases where we know design to be present and know the details of the design process --- or if it did suggest that, it would suggest wrong.

Is this your opinion or are these odds/probabilities demonstrable in some manner?Sorry to keep dragging this out, SavageD, but your answers seem to be no more than suppositions without any separation of what would be 0ne- or multiple-designer evidence. Again, taking the human design/designer experience as our guide there doesn't seem to be anything in your points that in any way negates a multi-designer scenario.Unless there is something compelling in the odds/probability analysis you mentioned then I'm afraid your evidence for a one-designer hypothesis is not sufficient.Do you have a probability analysis you could share? Though not stellar in all areas, my math is more than sufficient to comprehend probability theory. Feel free to get as detailed as you think is necessary.

Your being a smart ass, you left out those two points because your argument would break apart. I've already told you why your response was invalid. Your examples were in no way related to each other as mine were, your were nit picking. If I were to do the same (nit pick), I would be going away from my own argument. Here again your analogy is wrong because you are nit picking. I pointed out that it isn't simply DNA & water which is the commonality. It is dna, water, their importance & commonality in the system of things (the ecosystem i.e. life is needed to sustain life.) which exhibit the common idea. lol, I would like to see your point for asserting this statement.Why couldn't it be some other planet with some other abundant form of liquid? Point is we are in the here and now, we believe that life is here because it was designed. Your making the same mistake as before (nit picking). It isn't simply the system as a whole you are to look at; you are to also look at the commonalities on the smaller levels, as well relatedness on the physically observable characteristics (dna, water), & their intertwining in a system. No, it isn't simply commonalities which suggest common thought. It is commonalities, along with their relatedness & physically observable traits which would suggest whether a design could have been the idea of one designer.

You are lying to me, about me.How do you think that's going to work out? If you really wish to offer no rebuttal to my criticisms, we can move on. The words "nit-picking" do not in fact have magical powers to make an argument go away. In tomorrow's lesson, we'll be learning the difference between an assertion and a question.Tonight I'd like you to read up on what a "question-mark" is. I am sure that something must have been going through your mind when you wrote that. But it was probably not the thought: "What would be an actual answer to Dr Adequate's question?"Let's try again. If a designer wanted to design life suitable for this planet, what other than water would have made a suitable liquid medium? "Nit picking" are still not magic words. Perhaps you could expand on that, maybe even put it into coherent English.I have two objects. Both are powered by electricity; both have identical plugs and can (not simultaneously of course) plug into the same socket; both take the same voltage; both are capable of displaying numbers; both do so in the same font ... ... which is red in both cases, this being the result of both of them using red LEDs; both are capable of displaying the time; both of them are capable of making beeping noises; both contain copper wires; both contain printed circuit boards; in both cases the circuit boards are green; both contain silicon chips; both contain screws; in both cases the screws tighten when turned clockwise and loosen when turned anticlockwise; both have buttons on them; both have plastic casings; both casings are black; both are products of the same global economy; neither of them works underwater; and both function in the atmosphere and range of temperatures and pressures found on this planet. I could go on, but you get the picture.These are "commonalities". These are "physically observable traits". How would you rate the likelihood that they were designed by the same person?I don't even have to tell you that one is an alarm clock and the other is a microwave for you to think that this is unlikely. It would in fact be quite unlikely even if they were both alarm clocks.

You are assuming that. But why is this assumption any more valid than any other assumption about this hypothetical designer? No it doesn't. No IDist is claiming that the designer is comparable to humans or zebras or elephants or ice caps. You are. And if you insist on making such comparisons you are left trying to answer the ridiculous question as to how many humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps it would take to design the universe.You continue to make these flawed comparisons but won't face the inevitable question such comparisons inevitably lead to. How many of these things are capable of designing universes? How many of these things are capable of existing outside our universe (whatever that even means) such that they could have designed and created it?So why do you consider such comparisons valid or meaningful? Then your conclusion of "some" is simply a circular restatement of the premise as you have decided to interpret it.It is a strawman version of ID that is just as flawed as theirs is. But what is the point in creating straw man version of ID?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whatever arguments are going around it remains the case that commenting on the number of hyppthetical designers required to design our universe is utterly non-sensical unless some assumptions about who or what is doing the designing are made.Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs.Ringo is apparently assuming that the designer of our universe is comparable to ice caps, clouds and mountains (having abandoned previous comparisons with zebras and elephants).What are you assuming Jon?

We are accepting, for the purpose of this thread, the conclusion that the universe was designed. The comparison with known designers is inherent in that conclusion, so we have no choice but to accept the comparison as valid. We are not required to accept any other assumptions that don't lead directly to that conclusion. They're claiming that the design is comparable to motors, codes, etc. So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans. It isn't "my" conclusion. It's the logical conclusion drawn from the premises that IDists use to draw their conclusion.It's like concluding that there would have been a lot of manure on Noah's ark. Creationists may not like the conclusion, they may hide from the conclusion and make up a lot of nonsense to explain it away but it is in no way a strawman of their position. It's an inevitable consequence of their own premises.

---

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

Precisely the point. And so ID falls apart as a religious belief, one which cannot even be masked as science, when the jump is made from 'designed' to 'one designer only', as you already mentioned: I still cannot see why you are disagreeing with ringo on this point.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

You can come to the (flawed) conclusion of design without contemplating the number of designers. Once you start asking about the number of designers you cannot say anything meaningful without making additional assumptions. And making assumptions on the basis of zebras, elephants and ice caps are just as fuckwitted as any other. On that point I am not and never have.But the conclusion of design and the assumptions about who or what did the designing (and how many of them there are) are not necessarily based on the same things.

The ID premise as far as I am aware is that some aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen by accident and thus are requiring of intelligent intervention of some sort. Do you agree that (flawed as it is) this is the basis of the intelligent design premise in it's most generalised form? They are claiming that the requirement for intelligence is exhibited in these objects and that these objects are thus comparable in that sense. No comparison of designers has been made at all beyond the possession of intelligence. If you want to extrapolate this to come up with a straw man version of ID I can't stop you. But this extrapolation is yours not theirs. Unless you are suggesting that a team of humans could have designed the universe (or that IDists believe this to be the case) this direct comparison is quite evidently utter nonsense.You don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It is flawed enough already.

You're just repeating yourself.The comparison to human designers is implicit in the use of examples such as motors and codes. They say that motors and codes can be made only by designers and human designers are the only example we have of designers that make motors and codes. Human designers are also the only example we have of intelligent designers.The comparison is in no way a strawman of the IDists' position.

---

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

Pot. Kettle. Black. The possession of intelligence is an explicit comparison. Any further comparison is of your own extrapolation. So what other example of intelligent design would you suggest they cite even if they are not making the direct comparison you have falsely concluded? Then the question as posed in this thread inevitably boils down to asking - How many humans would it take to design our universe? Doesn't it? If you asked a geneuine advocate of ID how many humans it would take to design our universe what would they say? Jon (of all people) sums it up. Your comparison is a false one. You are needlessly creating a straw man version of ID that does nothing but detract from it's genuine and numerous flaws. Why bother?

Please, don't quote my statements out of context.

---

Love your enemies!

So Jon - Can we base our conclusion regarding the number of designers of our universe on how many humans it would take to design our universe?Or not?