|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
yeah, lets wait for the philosophy thread i started for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
please start an "anti-darwinist" thread for your continued
here we are supposed to be discussing the ID designer designer: either they evolved or they are gods. thus ID does not reject evolution, so your views on evolution are not relevant. you need to look at the {is ID properly pursued thread} not this one. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
I did, its in the proposed new topic area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
using different meanings for the word create is to make the logical fallacy of equivocation
creating a work of art is not the same as creating a universe, it is just the application of creativity to the pursuit of {decoration\statement} anyone who confuses ID or conflates it with another religion has not considered the consequences of the inherent contradictions. very simply ID is the faith that designers exist and that they have taken a personal interest in life on this planet. by whatever definition of religion you use, that fits. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cool, I'll look for it's release.
thanks we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm comfortable using the standard definitions, particularly these ones: Oh I appreciate that you are comfortable with them...however I postulated that our natural laws maybe one of many subsets of supernatural laws. And I believe I managed to convey a feasable supernatural environment which does not require a god or gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And I believe I managed to convey a feasable supernatural environment which does not require a god or gods. just supernaturally acting beings living in the suburb of New Mount Olympus (just NW outside of Seattle). and which are, by definition, gods. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Are you suggesting that all supernatural beings are gods? Everything from demons, angels, nephilim, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, Uri Gellar, wizards, leprechauns...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
lol
any beings capable of supernatural action it is the supernatural action that makes them gods by definition small g and range from lesser or demi- to full omnipotent. this is also the problem for any ID designer that accomplishes his design task by no observable natural means. it is one thing to design something, but design alone is insufficient: it needs physical realization, usually accomplished by normal physical interactions with normal physical objects. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
it is the supernatural action that makes them gods by definition If that is how you define divinity then that is the conclusion you will reach. However, I don't think that your definition is the commonly accepted definition. I'd say you've loaded your definition to make your logic impossible to refute. I put it to you that any hypothesis regarding the origins of the big bang (eg M-Theory) are by definition supernatural. Anyhoo - I'm going to write to James Randi to tell him to stop tempting god
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's not my definition
god n. 1. God ...a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. ...b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. It is one inherent in the concept of supernatural. and I also put to you: what is the difference between saying that {unknown\undefined} dark 'stuffs' {mysteriously} act to make the cosmos spin, and saying "god does it" eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think you are defining it backwards. By definition all gods are supernatural, but not all supernatural things are gods. For example, who would be worsipping these IDers? Nobody, therefore they are not gods, by your definitions:- "believed in and worshiped by a people".
Supernatural means:-" not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws" It can be used to describe a god, but a supernatural entity does not have to be a deity. For example, a vampire, which is also not worshiped, neither are ghosts or fairies, or of course, Uri Gellar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hmm, though I had answered this earlier.
it seems to me that many people confuse the definition of gods with the omnipotent omnietcetera kind, and tend to ignore the many numbers of lesser dieties that have been parts of most religions. look at the lesser {gods\esses} of the {roman\greek\egyptian\native\norse\etcetera} and ask yourself how supernatural they had to be. there were also many examples of people becoming gods or transfomed into gods. look at {loki\pan\crow} the mischief maker. there are also religions that do not worship, and ones of many gods where not all are worshiped, and yet no one would deny their belief in those gods. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Let me try and explain this again, using a simple example. I believe it is a syllogistic error your are committing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ah, but
when applying definitions to cases it should be in the form:
(1) - I think I have sufficient defining characteristics of mammals. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024