Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 396 (209303)
05-18-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
05-18-2005 7:43 AM


Re: A form of faith
  • only gods can act in supernatural ways
  • the IDers act in supernatural ways
  • therefore the IDers are gods
I agree that when defining things, we have to use full definitions, that was my point. My contention is that not only gods act in supernatural ways. Lets use your logic again:
  • only gods can act in supernatural ways
  • Ghosts act in supernatural ways
  • therefore ghosts are gods
Whilst many old civilizations engaged in ancestor worship, I don't they ever equated the departed souls of their family as being gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2005 7:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 05-18-2005 1:21 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2005 7:30 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 396 (209370)
05-18-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
05-18-2005 7:55 AM


Ghosts=GODs?
I think the flaw in all of this is the assumption that only Gods can act in supernatural ways. There has long been the assumption that many things can act in supernatural ways, things that are not Gods.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2005 7:55 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 108 of 396 (209480)
05-18-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
05-18-2005 7:55 AM


Re: A form of faith
again this comes down to what is the minimum defining requirement for a god, and based on past definitions it is very little.
if you draw a line between {X} as a {god} and {Y} as a not{god} when the {supernatural behavior\supernatural ability} of {Y} > {X}
then you need to explain why.
I see no problem with ghosts being (=lesser) gods in many religions, for when you get to ancestor worship you find:
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
ancestor worship, ritualized propitiation and invocation of dead kin. Ancestor worship is based on the belief that the spirits of the dead continue to dwell in the natural world and have the power to influence the fortune and fate of the living. Ancestor worship has been found in various parts of the world and in diverse cultures. It was a minor cult among the Romans (see manes). The practice reached its highest elaboration in W Africa and in the ancient Chinese veneration of ancestors. It is also well developed in the Japanese Shinto cult and among the peoples of Melanesia. See apotheosis; totem.
and when it comes to supernatural:
supernatural adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
definitions 3 & 4 definitely attribute it to god-behavior, and say "only a god" is justified.
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 106 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2005 7:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 4:45 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 109 of 396 (209581)
05-19-2005 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
05-18-2005 7:30 PM


Faith in ghouls
Once again, you have demonstrated that all gods have supernatural abilities, but you have not demonstrated that posession of supernatural abilities makes one a god - lesser or otherwise. Personally I think it dilutes the meaning of god to assign everything with supernatural powers as some kind of deity. It is also confusion bound - most people would disagree with you. Basically it comes down to opinion. You think that demons,vampires, telekinetics and seers are gods whereas I say most people would strongly disagree.
Since we are arguing from opinion, I don't think it is going to be fruitful to debate whether or not werewolves are lesser deities any further.
Whilst you might define ghosts and unicorns and Uri Gellars as 'lesser gods', does it necessitate 'faith' when one postulates their possible existance? That is to say, is it possible to have faith in a non-specific undefined entity which may or may not be divine depending on whose defining what at the time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2005 7:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2005 7:33 AM Modulous has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 396 (209586)
05-19-2005 5:05 AM


There are many supernatural beings and their powers vary, just as the powers of natural beings vary.
Supernatural beings can a) can manifest in the natural and/or supernatural worlds to a degree, and b) exercize some measure of control over one or both realms.
There are three types of supernatural beings other than God. There are angels, fallen angels, and human/fallen-angel hybrids.
The hybrids varied a lot, and they probably account for many monster myths. Their powers varied alot as well. Most got wiped out in the flood I think.
Fallen angels are still around, disguised as UFO's and aliens and such, but thats another thread
Since God is outside of physical reality as we know it, he is not subject to laws such as cause-and-effect, so he doesn't need a creator.

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:38 PM Limbo has not replied

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


Message 111 of 396 (209615)
05-19-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Modulous
05-19-2005 4:45 AM


Re: Faith in ghouls
but you have not demonstrated that posession of supernatural abilities makes one a god - lesser or otherwise. Personally I think it dilutes the meaning of god to assign everything with supernatural powers as some kind of deity.
I thought that the two definitions of supernatural were pretty specific in being directly connected to a {god\divine being}
my point on ancient lesser gods is that some of them had very little {ability} to qualify.
I think you are trying to match a modern concept with an ancient one, when the modern one has been embellished by later conceptual developments not available to the ancient one. this is part of the evolution of faith, from {ancestor spirit\personal god} to {only one megamart (do all your shopping here) GOD}.
Since we are arguing from opinion, I don't think it is going to be fruitful to debate whether or not werewolves are lesser deities any further.
many demons etc were derived from previous religions gods and made evil in the process (demonize the old religion). loki was a shape changer (and one specific story involves his changing into a wolf) and native american beliefs had gods that were shape changers.
and no, I don't think Uri Gellar was a god so much as charletan:
He sued Johnny Carson for making him look like a fool when Johnny brought out different spoons for Uri to bend.
He would not let Uri touch them and had skeptic, Amazing Randi, there to make sure there were no shenanigans.
(An embarrassed and sweating Uri feigned that it just wasn't working that day.)
That is to say, is it possible to have faith in a non-specific undefined entity which may or may not be divine depending on whose defining what at the time?
ah back to the topic. that is the ID faith isn't it?

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 109 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 4:45 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 7:45 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 112 of 396 (209616)
05-19-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
05-19-2005 7:33 AM


Re: Faith in ghouls
re: definitions. Yes some definitions of supernatural involve deities. Not all of them, including the way I was using the term.
ah back to the topic. that is the ID faith isn't it?
That's not an answer to the question though. The question is 'Can someone have faith in an undefined entity which the someone in question does not think is divine?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2005 7:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2005 8:52 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 113 of 396 (209789)
05-19-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Modulous
05-19-2005 7:45 AM


Re: Faith in ghouls
faith in another, yes, but it also twists the definition of faith (connotations, equivocation on meaning)
I do think that when you have believers in "an undefined entity" that accomplishes tasks by {supernatural process\action} in the absence of any evidence for {existence OR action} that it is definitely a form of faith.
{{fix typo}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*19*2005 08:53 PM

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 112 by Modulous, posted 05-19-2005 7:45 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2005 7:51 AM RAZD has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 396 (209820)
05-19-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Limbo
05-19-2005 5:05 AM


Supernatural beings can a) can manifest in the natural and/or supernatural worlds to a degree, and b) exercize some measure of control over one or both realms.
I'm 100% manifested in the natural world, and I have some degree of control over my immediate surroundings. (I can impart velocity to objects that I grasp. I can catalyze certain chemical reactions within my body at will. You know, that sort of thing.)
Am I supernatural?
Fallen angels are still around, disguised as UFO's and aliens and such, but thats another thread
You have it quite backwards - aliens and UFO's and such have always been around; until lately they've been disguised as fallen angels.
Since God is outside of physical reality as we know it, he is not subject to laws such as cause-and-effect
I'm not that impressed. Plenty of things within our physical reality are not subject to "cause-and-effect", either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 5:05 AM Limbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 05-19-2005 9:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 115 of 396 (209821)
05-19-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
05-19-2005 9:38 PM


What things within are not subject to cause and effect?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-19-2005 09:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 396 (209822)
05-19-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Brad McFall
05-19-2005 9:45 PM


The specific decay of one single radioactive atom has no cause. It happens statistically at given rates for given isotopes, but there's no known reason why this atom here should decay and that one there should not when the laws of physics say "ok, time for another decay."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 05-19-2005 9:45 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Brad McFall, posted 05-19-2005 9:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 117 of 396 (209824)
05-19-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
05-19-2005 9:50 PM


How do I know that any given atom is within me?
On that reasoning I can not know, yet you permit the parts of said material some effect.
So, I guess you mean't to foil a 20th century concept of "cause and effect"?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-19-2005 10:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 118 of 396 (209938)
05-20-2005 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
05-19-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Faith in ghouls
I do think that when you have believers...that it is definitely a form of faith.
Naturally, if someone believes something then its a form of faith...but is it a religious faith? I believe that sun will rise tommorow morning, I have faith that it will happen. What if they postulate that a supernatural entity is a possibility, and that there might be evidences of their existence in the natural world? Is that religious faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2005 8:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 05-20-2005 8:25 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 119 of 396 (210096)
05-20-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
05-20-2005 7:51 AM


Intelligent Demons?
Compare it to Deism. It involves more faith in the supernatural than Deism does (which only needs a supernatural beginning).
Of course they also don't factor in what kind of entity they are supposing ... and to hear all the YECs talk, it seems that the greatest probability is not a good one.
Perhaps it is an {Intelligent Demon}? LOL. That would certainly fit with all the bad design that is observed.
{{changed subtitle}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*20*2005 08:27 PM

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 118 by Modulous, posted 05-20-2005 7:51 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 120 of 396 (499610)
02-19-2009 12:12 PM


Observable Laws do not point to Design
This post was moved here because it was off-topic from the following thread:
Message 133
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
Name one thing, just ONE thing that points to design.
Your kidding correct? How about anything and everything that follows observable laws or what appear to be laws.
I do not think you understood the context of Huntard's request. Huntard wasn't asking for something that "points to" design in the sense that it simply doesn't contradict design as a possible conclusion.
Huntard is asking for something that "points to" design in the sense that it doesn't point to the other possible conclusions as well.
Example:
Fossils that are 65 million years old "point to" the possible conclusion that the earth is 4 billion years old, because it most certainly does not "point to" the possible conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old.
The following possibilites are not logically impossible:
-the universe is designed and has observable laws
-the universe is not designed and has observable laws
(nothing we know of contradicts either of these as possibilities)
So, if "observable laws" are not restricted to a designed universe.. how can you say that such information would "point to" a designed universe? It doesn't make sense.
It is not the ability of observable laws to come from non-design that leads people to believe God doesn't exist. People are led to believe that God doesn't exist because He doesn't do anything, ever, that can be verifiably identified from a universe where He does not exist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 12:49 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-20-2009 8:23 AM Stile 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