Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 396 (141271)
09-09-2004 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
09-09-2004 3:13 PM


Re: already addressed ... yawn- again ...ditto
RAZD if you are not going to read the literature than you are only arguing from ignorance. Which is something I have known for some time. It is not whining, just an observation. You truly don't know what you are talking about.
YOU said to insert deism in place of ID. Deism is based on reason therefore ID is based on reason. No faith required. Faith, not who designed the designers, is the crux of this thread. You have refuted yourself. Thank you.
I take it OT stands for Obsolete Thinking.

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2004 3:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2004 3:59 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 09-09-2004 4:25 PM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 396 (141278)
09-09-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ID man
09-09-2004 3:37 PM


STLL no answer to the OT ...
OT stands for Originating Topic -- the first post on the topic that is the issue to be discussed in accordance with the forum rules and guidelines. If you ask Moose he will gladly direct you there.
It seems all you have left is insults.
I have read IDeist literature, but I do not need to read all of it to suit you.
It seems that in spite of reading all those books you cannot put an argument together to challenge the OT. If that is the case, why do I need to read them to defend it? Seems it doesn't need help, not yet anyway.
AND back to the strawman again as well. Do you feel like you are in a rut?
Deism is a religion based on understanding "life, the universe, and everything" through reason. It makes less assumptions about (who did what when and how} than IDeism does, therefore IDeism relies more on faith than Deism. It is not possible to do that without being at least as much of a religion as Deism is.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 3:37 PM ID man has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 396 (141282)
09-09-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ID man
09-09-2004 3:37 PM


Re: already addressed ... yawn- again ...ditto
quote:
Faith, not who designed the designers, is the crux of this thread.
Uhhh, you might want to take a look AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!!!
I will then ask you very bluntly, who designed the designers? Were they natural or supernatural beings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 3:37 PM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by KKawohl, posted 05-15-2005 10:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
KKawohl
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 396 (208506)
05-15-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Loudmouth
09-09-2004 4:25 PM


The Designer Is The Result Of Evolution
IMHO, The Intelligent Designer Proclaims:
I Am The Intelligent Designer.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self sufficient. I am spirit.
Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.
Live your life for the betterment of man.
Your spirit will soon be with me and then
Together we will see and traverse the universe.
There are many wonders to behold,
Your spirit will soar.
You will partake in all the wisdom
That has been gathered from the beginning of time.
The stars will be your playground.
You can play with the animals,
Be with your loved ones,
Listen to the greatest opera,
Stage or musical performances,
Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook
And enjoy the scenery.
You feel no pain, despair,
Heartache, or negative emotions.
You are now One with me.
You are with the SPIRITUAL UNITY my child.

"I Am A Transcendentalist"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 09-09-2004 4:25 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:43 AM KKawohl has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 396 (208536)
05-16-2005 3:32 AM


The philosophical implications of ID are strong. IMHO, they serve to counter-balance the philosophical implications of Darwinism.
Both should be addressed in a philosophical setting in schools.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:17 AM Limbo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 396 (208551)
05-16-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Limbo
05-16-2005 3:32 AM


What are "the philosophical implications of Darwinism" that need to be counterbalanced?
how are they counterbalanced by ID when the philosophical implications of ID are (see Message 1 for more detail), when the major question unresolved by this philosophy is who designed the designers:
(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes.
(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time.
(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), becomes (2) at the next level up.
(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the designers (regress to the question of who designed the designers of the designers).
If one of the answers to the question is natural evolution, then how can ID be at odds with natural evolution?
Alternatively if the only acceptable answer is that god {is or designed} the designers, then this is just introducing faith into the argument while pretending not to do so: what is the philosophical implications of such prevarications?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 3:32 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 10:58 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 11:51 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 396 (208556)
05-16-2005 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by KKawohl
05-15-2005 10:34 PM


Re: The Designer Is The Result Of Evolution
welcome to the fray,
I enjoyed you poetic list. The only (minor?) quibble is that I am not sure that best wishes should be limited to {mankind} versus {all life}

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by KKawohl, posted 05-15-2005 10:34 PM KKawohl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Philip, posted 05-16-2005 7:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 53 of 396 (208601)
05-16-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-28-2004 4:38 PM


Re: A form of faith
*cracks knuckles*
OK, the thread is almost a year old, but let's give this a crack, since ID Man used evasion, I'll try and be more direct. I'm going to explore your first option vis:
(1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. In this case ID defaults to natural laws and processes, including evolution, just as if we didn't assume a designer (so it would be irrelevant to pursue), and continued belief in ID is then based on faith, OR
We are going to have to define 'nature'
Nature: What is nature? Is nature just defined as the universe? Is universe just defined as the thing that has been expanded from since the big bang? What about the theory of multiple 'baby universes', ours being one of them. Perhaps these universes exist in a 'space' comprising of more, or different dimensions than we do.
Each of the baby universes in our hyperspace has its own 'laws of nature', but they all abide by the laws that govern hyperspace. To avoid confusion (or perhaps to increase confusion, we'll have to see), we'll call this superset of natural laws supernature.
OK, the stage is set. Within hyperspace we have baby universes. But that is not all! We also have sentient entities. These sentient entities arose through the laws of supernature (which govern everything). They then decided to act with the same laws of supernature to design universes and perhaps manipulate them to create effects such as life.
So we have a wonderful combination of the supernatural and perfectly rational definable laws. Who designed the designers? Nobody did! They arose according to the laws of supernature which (unlike our laws of nature) allows for the spontaneous creation of specified complexity.
Now - there is absolutely no evidence for any of this of course so it can easily be described as 'faith', but it is not 'faith' in the religious sense. I think I might have made a little headway in this, but I guess it raises more objections than it settles. Anyway, I enjoyed coming up with it, have fun with it

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2004 4:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
KKawohl
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 396 (208607)
05-16-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
05-16-2005 7:17 AM


Why do people shy away from the concept of connecting an Intelligent Designer with ev
Our, or alien spirit initially evolved into the ID.
Our spirit lives in a body that contains the mind that contains the spirit within the subconscious; it records our life experiences. The spirit grows & expands & upon physical death this spiritual energy is released & continues as individualized or united spiritual energy. It is this spiritual energy that initially created the ID.
See transcendentalists.org
Kurt

"I Am A Transcendentalist"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 6:58 PM KKawohl has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 396 (208625)
05-16-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
05-16-2005 7:17 AM


quote:
What are "the philosophical implications of Darwinism" that need to be counterbalanced?
Im glad you asked that. Lets discuss a few of the implications.
According to Darwinism, the universe as now known is an accident, life is an accident, and man is an accident.
Implication 1: By stressing the accidental nature of origins, Darwinism can find no basis for meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence, other than what man might, on the basis of chance, be able to find for himself.
Implication 2: If living organisms survived only on the basis of mindless natural selection, then it inescapably followed that human reason was also the product of natural selection. As such, the conclusions of human reason could never be known to be true, but only valuable in accord with their contribution to the survival of the human species. So truth could only be defined as what works, and not necessarily as what is true.
Implication 3: If Mankind is nothing more than the product of a natural universe consisting only of matter and energy, a universe in which all things are produced by chance, then human dignity, any meaningful concept of ethics, and free will die as well.
quote:
The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation ... from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. -Aldous Huxley. 1937. Ends and means. Chatto & Windus, London, pp. 272, 273.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 12:08 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:43 PM Limbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 396 (208630)
05-16-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Limbo
05-16-2005 11:51 AM


quote:
According to Darwinism, the universe as now known is an accident, life is an accident, and man is an accident.
Darwinism neither addresses the origins of the universe or life.
"Implication 1" falls on those factors alone.
"Implication 2" does not follow either. It is unlikely that natural selection would sleect for particular beleifs as suhc. However it is almost certain to select for an ability ot leverage our intelligence - and how can we reliably do that without the ability to form true beliefs ? And how could rejecting Dariwnism offer any greater guarantee that our beliefs are true ?
"Implication 3" is just silly. The quote from Aldous Huxley is irrelevant, since Huxley is talking of Nihilism, not Darwinism. And Libertarian Free Will is threatened moee by it's own lack of coherence, than by Darwinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 11:51 AM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 396 (208632)
05-16-2005 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
05-16-2005 12:08 PM


quote:
Darwinism neither addresses the origins of the universe or life.
Oh, ok. Then what does Darwinism address?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 12:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 12:37 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 60 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:42 PM Limbo has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 396 (208644)
05-16-2005 12:34 PM


I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism.
I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existance, but with destroying meaning.
I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 12:38 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 12:51 PM Limbo has not replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:55 PM Limbo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 396 (208647)
05-16-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Limbo
05-16-2005 12:12 PM


Essentially Dariwnism is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on Earth, as it is distributed through space and time. It can be - and is - extrapolated to apply to other forms of replicator. It may play a role in the origin of life but (as discussed on another thread) that requires that non-living replicators already exist (and requires that we do not consider them life, although they would seem to have a better claim than viruses).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:12 PM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 60 of 396 (208650)
05-16-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Limbo
05-16-2005 12:12 PM


Hold on a minute!
quote:
Oh, ok. Then what does Darwinism address?
Oh ok! ?????
How is it with such a massive misunderstanding of what the term means or any of the underlying concepts, that you can leap to:
quote:
I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism.
I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with meaning, but with destroying meaning.
I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it.
  —msg 58
Don't you see the problem with this? How can you submit ANYTHING, when you have just shown that you don't understand the terms you are using at the most basic level?
I submit that you get a grasp of the basics before you make anymore assumptions
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:12 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:46 PM CK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024