Who designed the ID designer(s)?

alas Straggler, you just cannot help yourself. Amusingly, this is you once again misrepresenting me. There are many forums within EvC, and you blythly go from thread to thread posting your blather about my positions. It doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but everything to do with your inability to debate honestly, so that I feel inclined to warn others about you.It amuses me when you talk about logic, yet have been shown many times to rely on logical fallacies in your arguments, and have yet to acknowledge it.No need to reply, btw, because all you will do is turn another thread into a stream of misrepresentational nonsense.Enjoy.

---

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)

If participants could focus their attention on the topic instead of on each other's foibles it would be greatly appreciated.

The new Intelligent Design had predicted that the Intelligent Designer is God of the Bible. So, by definition of God as infinite, He is not created.

Hello intellen and welcome to the fray. So you too claim that it is case 2:

quote:

---

(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, ...

---

So you too agree that it is faith.Enjoy.

---

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)

No I did not say that it is by faith. I said that the new Intelligent Design had predicted that the Designer is God of the Bible. To prove my case, I think, it would be better to see first my video explaining this and come back for more refutation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqEhW_JPwgk

I do not watch crap on youtube. Either present your case here or acknowledge you have nothing. We do not debate links here.You might want to acquaint yourself with the forum rulesLook at rule 5

quote:

---

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

---

In other words if you can't make the argument in your own words it ain't shit and doesn't belong here.Oh yeah
Welcome to EVC

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

OK, I'll got get. If you have time, see them in private.Science is fair to all religions. Although I donft want to include the following predictions since they may look like pseudoscience in naturalistic science, but since Ifve discovered the boundary line between natural and intelligent, I believe that many of you will surely ask me, gWho is the intelligent Designer?h Scientifically speaking, I donft really know but if we are going to use the principle of intelligence, we can predict it.8. In my experiment, we knew that both egg and tissue paper exist and real. So, by analogy, if gexistence of matterh is real, then, the gnon-existence of matterh is also must be real, if the principle of opposites of the intelligence must be followed. That means PI predicts an existing real world without matter. Can we call it spiritual world?9. PI predicts that the Intelligent Designer is a Person. A person because that Agent knows the important of things by reinforcing the product like human engineers do. And who value life by reinforcing life like immune defense system, sensory systems and thinking minds. In addition that Agent has also a physical form since that Agent created physical universe, and who has also a non-physical form since intelligent predicts the existence of non-physical world.Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add some blank lines.

The intellectual force of your argument is equaled only by its lucidity of expression.

No, you don't know what you are saying. If you can see all of my videos in YOUTUBE explaining the new Intelligent Design, then, maybe you will know what I'm saying. But for now, I will call you lazy.

Yes I do. I have an unequaled capacity for understanding myself. It's downright uncanny. It's almost as though myself and I are the same person, so great is the instinctive bond of sympathy between us. If you do not wish the people on these forums to know what you have to say, then not posting it on these forums is a good step in this direction. But you could have achieved the same result more economically by not posting anything at all.

Hi Intellen, welcome to EvC!It would help a great deal if you would make your arguments from scratch here in messages and just use links to webpages and videos as supporting references. You definitely do not want to leave the key parts of your arguments out of your messages.I at first thought your message made no sense because you began your arguments at item 8 and left out what came before, causing the two items by themselves to read like nonsense. But after viewing your video I see that all you did was copy the text of slide 8 and slide 9 into your message.Some comments about your video:

1. It isn't a video, it's a slide presentation.
   ​
2. It should only be used as a supporting reference.
   ​
3. Playing a schmaltzy version of Go Tell It on the Mountain in the background is distracting and inconsistent with a science presentation. The Intelligent Design forum is for discussion of ID as a science, not a religion.
   ​
4. One of the first slides says to first watch Video 6. You should have mentioned you want people to watch two videos, not one.
   ​
5. You may want to wordsmith the slide where you say, "predicts the most intriguing predictions".
   ​
6. You never describe the "boundary line between natural and intelligent".
   ​
7. You never define the "principle of intelligence."
   ​
8. You might want to wordsmith the slide where you say, "the 'non-existence of matter' is also must be real".
   ​
9. You might want to wordsmith the slide where you say "the important of things".

About Video 6 which you say should be watched first, it appears to be a collection of unrelated and unsupported assertions that do not make much sense. For example, you say that your experiment with the egg and tissue paper (which is described in neither slide presentation) shows that the one object destroys and the other object supports, and that this means a natural process has no opposing sides, just one side. You need to explain yourself a bit more, because what you say in the slide presentation makes no sense.--Percy

Hi intellen, Yes you did. You may not realize it, but if you disagree then refute the logic, don't just make claims. You are saying the the IDer is a god, therefore a belief in your IDer is a faith in a god.You realize that a prediction is not a fact, nor is it necessarily a logical deduction. I watched your linked video, sad to say, and I found it to be a curious confusion of concepts that revolve in a circular argument. You can't redefine the words to mean what you want them to mean in order for you to reach the conclusions you reach.Now I realize that english is not your first language, but you need to put your argument into good english to be understood.Enjoy.

---

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)

Assuming he did have a valid deduction for a god, it simply being a god wouldn't necessitate faith. Especially if he has that evidence via the deduction.

As I said I don't watch youtube crap.So far this is what we have found out about you. You can give links to youtube and you can cut and paste. How about giving us the source for this cut and paste so we can see it in all its context. This little snippet is extremely incoherent and is nothing but unevidenced assertions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Catholic Scientist, Point 1: he doesn't. I looked at the video, and it defines what is seen to be intelligent and then concludes that because it is intelligent that it must be due to a designer. There was nothing there about a prediction.Point 2: getting from discovering intelligence in the world to a designer is a big leap of faith, getting from that designer to the god of the bible is another big leap of faith.Point 3: logic is not fact\evidence, and logic alone is not enough to be a scientifically valid conclusion (no matter how much some would like it to be). Especially bad logic.Enjoy.

---

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)