Was God designed?

quote:

---

Silly? Not at all.

---

Knowable but not knowable.... knowable but not knowable.... that is pretty silly. Sorry. It is meaningless. That you think you've made a point is just sad.

quote:

---

You see, He reveals Himself in three ways

---

1) The Bible-- a book like any other. This is hardly revelation. I suspect that you know almost nothing about it anyway. The faithful rarely do.2) "contact"-- a warm fuzzy feeling reported in every faith on the planet and by heroin junkies to boot. You need to dome up with something stronger than that.3) the creation-- well... this one doesn't mesh with your # 1 so what am I to make of that? The evidence God wrote into creation doesn't match the words God gave to the patriarchs.

quote:

---

Dismiss all you want. As for being able to elaborate, I can do that but, frankly, I am quite certain that it would be a waste of time (so I will not).

---

So you have nothing to say then? Maybe you just enjoy sticking out your tongue and saying "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't have to provide any reasons." LOL..... why are you here?

quote:

---

The reason why only the God of the Bible foots the bill requires a great deal of study

---

That's nice, but is there some reason you are just claiming to have reasons instead of actually presenting them?

quote:

---

I could recommend several hundred books on the matter and my first one would be the Bible.

---

Well you are halfway to that two hundred already!!! Fess up. You haven't studied anything outside your faith have you? Honesty demands that you do. Otherwise, you are just plain ignorant. You can't claim that only the Bible foots the bill if all you know is the Bible. And frankly, if you read outside your box you wouldn't be making this claim.

quote:

---

The bottom line is that this is not a purely intellectual exercise as you believe it to be.

---

Right. Believe it first, then it will make sense. Am I close? Why not apply the same logic to other books? Or other faiths? 'Cause you don't want to... ?

quote:

---

Often times when something exceeds a person's ability to understand it, that something is labelled as 'nonsense'. This is one of the defense mechanisms of pride.

---

Oftentimes nonsense is actually nonsense. And there you go again knowing the unknowable... quite entertaining.

quote:

---

Did you read Georg Cantor's work on transfinite numbers?

---

Long before I ever heard of you.

quote:

---

But then, you're not really interested in knowing Him, are you?

---

I'd say that in a strange way you are the one not interested in knowing 'Him'. You don't ask the really hard questions do you? You don't dig into the dirt to find the bits that don't quite fit, eh? What you believe now are the prejudices you were raised to believe? Am I right?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Would you mind expanding a bit on the following statement?

​

Joralex writes:

​

Total Reality is far more non-material than what matter is able to encompass.

​

It doesn't seem to make sense as written. Thanks." I'd be happy to expand.Materialistic naturalism operates under the assumption that everything is explainable in terms of space, time, matter and energy. People such as myself completely disagree with this metaphysic.Under the fundamentalist Christian worldview there are many things that will forever be completely unexplainable by the materialistic categories listed above. Our material/natural universe makes accessible to us only certain aspects of the 'Total Reality' that we hold to exist. We may 'perceive' it but we cannot probe it. For instance, materialism can provide for us the harmonic frequency distribution of a great composition by Mozart but it can't even begin to answer the question of why people are "touched" by music. Materialistic science is at an impasse on matters such as these.Solely through materialism ("matter") we are able to learn a great deal but we will never acquire 'Total Reality'.Of course, some people believe otherwise. This is a religious conviction since it cannot be proven. Naturalists (including Atheists, of course) are every bit as religious as are the 'Snake Worshippers of Bali'.That was part of my meaning.In Christ,
Jorge

"I'd say that in a strange way you are the one not interested in knowing 'Him'. You don't ask the really hard questions do you? You don't dig into the dirt to find the bits that don't quite fit, eh? What you believe now are the prejudices you were raised to believe? Am I right?"You are totally wrong! Besides, how would you know? It so happens that I was raised to 'believe' nothing. As a child no one in my house was Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, or anything else for that matter.It was by asking "really hard questions" - with a sincere desire for finding Truth - that God educated me in His ways. I dug deep and long but the fact is that God only cared about my heart's desire to know and follow Truth (which, of course, is His).Once that Truth is found then there are but two alternatives : submit to it or reject it - there is no third alternative. Some people submit - this requires changes. Many reject it - they don't want to give up their ways. It's that simple, end of story.That's why I'm here and you are... wherever it is that you are.Earnestly seek God. God rewards the humble and humbles the proud.In Christ,
Jorge

This thread is drifting off topic because no Creationists have as yet taken up the question Peter originally asked in Message 1 and later clarified in Message 5. I think Joralex is raising some interesting and important issues about the nature of God, but they really belong in a broader topic as this thread has a more narrow focus. I'd like to request that Joralex or anyone else who would like to be helpful open a new thread in the Faith and Belief forum to discuss the broader issues about the nature of God, and that this thread stay focused on the ID related issues. Please post a link here to the new thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I hate to say I told you so... Right off the bat two people argue for HIS existence outside of nature and so not relevant to ID theory.Unfortunately they have missed the fact that ID theory is NOT contingent on His existence within our material universe, or in any way conceivable to man.The point being made (quite well I might add)is that certain anti-materialist/naturalist arguments thought to prove His existence, actually call His being into question.Thus the argument against a Xtian God comes directly from the most anti-materialist/naturalist position imaginable, using its own set of criteria and not those of naturalists.To Repeat: it is not being argued that materialism cannot accept His existence based on its own set of rules, rather it is that ID theory itself (originally thought to disprove materialist claims) which disproves Him.Thus the only valid options are to either drop current ID theory (admitting that it's formula does not properly detect design), or drop Xtian conceptions of God (because ID would label Him as designed).This is an interesting (and ironic) attack on ID theory which requires a well thought out response.Those rushing to the defense of God must channel their anger away from the materialist/naturalist camp. In this case your enemy is ID theory, not materialism.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-13-2003]

I think it's been made quite clear that Peter's presumption about God as a specified complex entity is wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No, nobody has even attempted to show that God is not an example of Specified Complex Information as per Dembski's definition of the term.

Hi Joralex,Thanks for your response. In deference to the All-Powerful Great Numero Uno Admin, I'll pass on commenting here. If at some point you have the opportunity to open a new thread on the topic, I'll be pleased to join in. In the interim, thanks for the clarification.

"This thread is drifting off topic because no Creationists have as yet taken up the question Peter originally asked in Message 1 and later clarified in Message 5. I think Joralex is raising some interesting and important issues about the nature of God, but they really belong in a broader topic as this thread has a more narrow focus. I'd like to request that Joralex or anyone else who would like to be helpful open a new thread in the Faith and Belief forum to discuss the broader issues about the nature of God, and that this thread stay focused on the ID related issues. Please post a link here to the new thread."'Sort of' agree - it is starting to drift off course. However, observe my first post : I was responding directly to the question of ID being used "against itself" (so to speak).I'll end my posting on this thread by restating that these people have created a pseudo-paradox. By insisting that the logical/empirical reasoning of ID Theory be applied to God they have, in fact, created a problem where there is none.An example of this is "specify the flavor of ambition". Well, the attribute "flavor" is not applicable to the concept of 'ambition'. Likewise, attributing 'irreducible complexity' or 'specified complexity' to God is a misapplication of these concepts. This is the essence of their mistake and is why the original question (Was God designed?) is ill-conceived.In Christ,
Jorge

quote:

---

You are totally wrong!

---

That's encouraging.

quote:

---

It was by asking "really hard questions" - with a sincere desire for finding Truth...

---

Ok.Now the question, and the tie to the topic, is "What do you actually know?" You objected to the "Was God designed" question based upon the idea that the nature of God is not subject to such questions. To make such a claim, you must have some knowledge of said nature. What is that knowledge? And step two, how reliable is that knowledge?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

But again there's lots of things we don't know about human intelligence/creativity, or can't express in words, but it's still valid to deny that human creativity for instance is a specified complex entity, and so equally it is valid to deny God is a specified complex entity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So....We don't know enough about God to call it a specified complex entity. Therefore, we can't use arguments based on that specified complexity. I can accept that. It just leaves one, however, with a big "I don't know." It is another layer of uncertainty.I don't think this was Joralex's objection though.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

So because no-one else has written about God in
those terms you are unable to consider the implications
when phrased in that way?Or are you saying that you do not believe God to be a
specified complex entity?If God exists then:God is an entity -- don't think that can be denied no matter
how you look at it since 'entity' itself is somewhat vague.God is complex -- if the Bible is to be believed God expresses
human-like emotions (he is pleased by his creation, he is angered
by the debauchery of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.). He has created
a vastly complex universe, suggesting that he himself has
depths and complexity.God is specified complex -- Well, He has purpose, doesn't he?
Even if we don't see or understand that.

Personally I don't think we know anything about God
let alone 'enough'.That said, the way my thinking was running at the start
of this thread was to take the God of the Bible as the
intelligent designer of ID.With that background we can examine the Bible for clues as
to the general nature of this God.If a human can be described as a specified complex object,
then so must God -- we are made in His image after all.Many of the posts here have focussed on 'characteristics' which
cannot be considered to exhibit specified complexity, rather
than on whether the 'entity' which exhibits those characteristics
can be.To suggest that the question of whether or not God was designed
is inapproriate is evasive in the extreme. Best not ask -- we
might not like the answer.

Uhhhhhhhh... that means you reject ID theory. It's just that simple.No one is applying ID theory in any way that Dembski has not. Check out his books on the subject of complexity. He says that since life is complex (information wise) there needed to be something that passed that information on to life: this must have been God because he is the ultimate in complex information.This is Dembski's ID theory, not materialist science. Materialist science allows for the accumulation of information in biological systems (despite creationist references to the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Please stop making this an "us" and "them" thing. This is all about an objective assessment of ID theory. Both sides stand to gain from an objectve analysis of the problem.Even if ID theory ultimately ends up being rejected, that means some bad logic (which may lead to bad assessments like God must be created) has been done away with.This is not an irreducible complexity issue at all. It is a specified complexity issue.Besides stating "is not", please come up with an accurate reason for why specified complexity (of information) does not apply to God.And when you do, please mail that to Dembski as you will have undone ID theory from a totally different angle.ID theory, specifically Dembski's version, demands that God be an entity of vast specified complexity. The amount of complexity may never be known (merely suggested by the greatest complexity that we can find) but complex nonetheless."They" did not say this. Dembski did.Thus ID theory has created a very real paradox for both the "Us" and "Them" camps.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-14-2003]