Who designed the ID designer(s)?

sorry, typo. entropy. is the energy unavailable because it has been "spirited away" ?

please start an "anti-darwinist" thread for your continued pointless rants unfounded assertions.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}}}

using different meanings for the word create is to make the logical fallacy of equivocationcreating 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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

lolany beings capable of supernatural actionit is the supernatural action that makes them gods by definitionsmall 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}}}

It's not my definition 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}}}

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}}}

Ah, butwhen applying definitions to cases it should be in the form:

• only mammals are warm-blooded, have {fur\hair}, and bear live young⁽¹⁾
• humans have these characteristics, but birds do not
• therefore humans are mammals, birds are not

and

• only gods can act in supernatural ways
• the IDers act in supernatural ways
• therefore the IDers are gods

your turn⁽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}}}

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 and when it comes to supernatural: 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}}}

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}. 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: 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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

Hi Peter, and welcome to the fray. Curiously, that does not answer the question:

quote:

---

Message 1 Now, let us evaluate the alternatives to see the result:

​

(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

​

(2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. In which case they are god(s), being necessarily supernatural to have lived an immortal existence that must also have been non-material before particles coalesced from the cloud of plasma energy at the beginning of time. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and thus a form of faith, OR

​

(3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), and empowered them to do the designing. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing god(s)’s bidding, and, because god(s) is\are now firmly included, ID again ends up being a form of faith, OR

​

(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).

​

Ergo, ID is de facto a form of faith.

​

Q.E.D.

---

You will note that none of those scenarios required that the designer be particularly complex, per se, just that it have an origin of some form, either supernatural or natural. Indeed, just as we can design systems to design systems of such complexity that we cannot understand them. That still does not answer the question of the designer origins. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"? Unless the rules are put in place by the designer, who just has to know that simple rules are all that is needed. We do similar with evolutionary design programs that have designed things where we are not sure how they operate. The assumption that simple rules are not designed is begging the question. Indeed. Or the "world" that existed before the formation of the universe?Again we come back to the origin of the designer and the four possibilities in Message 1Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Straggler, ... for Peter to say. You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it. So you claim that IDologists conclude that the complexity of an intelligent designer would require an intelligent designer to design the complexity of the intelligent designer? If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers (aka case 4 in Message 1) or complexity does not matter.Which still doesn't answer the question of the IDer origin.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)