|
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)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
RAZD if you are not going to read the literature than you are only arguing from ignorance. Which is something I have known for some time. It is not whining, just an observation. You truly don't know what you are talking about.
YOU said to insert deism in place of ID. Deism is based on reason therefore ID is based on reason. No faith required. Faith, not who designed the designers, is the crux of this thread. You have refuted yourself. Thank you. I take it OT stands for Obsolete Thinking. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
OT stands for Originating Topic -- the first post on the topic that is the issue to be discussed in accordance with the forum rules and guidelines. If you ask Moose he will gladly direct you there.
It seems all you have left is insults. I have read IDeist literature, but I do not need to read all of it to suit you. It seems that in spite of reading all those books you cannot put an argument together to challenge the OT. If that is the case, why do I need to read them to defend it? Seems it doesn't need help, not yet anyway. AND back to the strawman again as well. Do you feel like you are in a rut? Deism is a religion based on understanding "life, the universe, and everything" through reason. It makes less assumptions about (who did what when and how} than IDeism does, therefore IDeism relies more on faith than Deism. It is not possible to do that without being at least as much of a religion as Deism is. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Uhhh, you might want to take a look AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!!! I will then ask you very bluntly, who designed the designers? Were they natural or supernatural beings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KKawohl Inactive Member |
IMHO, The Intelligent Designer Proclaims:
I Am The Intelligent Designer.I did not come from nowhere. I play no magic tricks on man. I did not create the earth by casting spells. I had a humble beginning the same as man; My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality. My wisdom grows as more spirits unite After the cessation of life after much physical strife. Throughout time I have been named God, Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more. I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety To be the one who claims to please me the most. I am easy to please. I require very little. I only want you to do what is best for mankind. I will bless you and wish you well. I will inspire your mind and you will Accomplish the unfathomable. I require no worship. I need nothing from man. I am self sufficient. I am spirit. Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.Live your life for the betterment of man. Your spirit will soon be with me and then Together we will see and traverse the universe. There are many wonders to behold, Your spirit will soar. You will partake in all the wisdom That has been gathered from the beginning of time. The stars will be your playground. You can play with the animals, Be with your loved ones, Listen to the greatest opera, Stage or musical performances, Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook And enjoy the scenery. You feel no pain, despair, Heartache, or negative emotions. You are now One with me. You are with the SPIRITUAL UNITY my child. "I Am A Transcendentalist"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
The philosophical implications of ID are strong. IMHO, they serve to counter-balance the philosophical implications of Darwinism.
Both should be addressed in a philosophical setting in schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What are "the philosophical implications of Darwinism" that need to be counterbalanced?
how are they counterbalanced by ID when the philosophical implications of ID are (see Message 1 for more detail), when the major question unresolved by this philosophy is who designed the designers: (1) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they evolved naturally through totally natural processes. (2) Nobody\nothing designed the ID designer(s), it\they have always existed from the beginning of time. (3) A god or gods designed the ID designer(s), becomes (2) at the next level up. (4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the designers (regress to the question of who designed the designers of the designers). If one of the answers to the question is natural evolution, then how can ID be at odds with natural evolution? Alternatively if the only acceptable answer is that god {is or designed} the designers, then this is just introducing faith into the argument while pretending not to do so: what is the philosophical implications of such prevarications? Enjoy. 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: |
welcome to the fray,
I enjoyed you poetic list. The only (minor?) quibble is that I am not sure that best wishes should be limited to {mankind} versus {all life} 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: |
*cracks knuckles*
OK, the thread is almost a year old, but let's give this a crack, since ID Man used evasion, I'll try and be more direct. I'm going to explore your first option vis:
(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 We are going to have to define 'nature' Nature: What is nature? Is nature just defined as the universe? Is universe just defined as the thing that has been expanded from since the big bang? What about the theory of multiple 'baby universes', ours being one of them. Perhaps these universes exist in a 'space' comprising of more, or different dimensions than we do. Each of the baby universes in our hyperspace has its own 'laws of nature', but they all abide by the laws that govern hyperspace. To avoid confusion (or perhaps to increase confusion, we'll have to see), we'll call this superset of natural laws supernature. OK, the stage is set. Within hyperspace we have baby universes. But that is not all! We also have sentient entities. These sentient entities arose through the laws of supernature (which govern everything). They then decided to act with the same laws of supernature to design universes and perhaps manipulate them to create effects such as life. So we have a wonderful combination of the supernatural and perfectly rational definable laws. Who designed the designers? Nobody did! They arose according to the laws of supernature which (unlike our laws of nature) allows for the spontaneous creation of specified complexity. Now - there is absolutely no evidence for any of this of course so it can easily be described as 'faith', but it is not 'faith' in the religious sense. I think I might have made a little headway in this, but I guess it raises more objections than it settles. Anyway, I enjoyed coming up with it, have fun with it Eternity is in love with the productions of time. The busy bee has no time for sorrow. The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KKawohl Inactive Member |
Our, or alien spirit initially evolved into the ID.
Our spirit lives in a body that contains the mind that contains the spirit within the subconscious; it records our life experiences. The spirit grows & expands & upon physical death this spiritual energy is released & continues as individualized or united spiritual energy. It is this spiritual energy that initially created the ID. See transcendentalists.org Kurt "I Am A Transcendentalist"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Im glad you asked that. Lets discuss a few of the implications. According to Darwinism, the universe as now known is an accident, life is an accident, and man is an accident. Implication 1: By stressing the accidental nature of origins, Darwinism can find no basis for meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence, other than what man might, on the basis of chance, be able to find for himself. Implication 2: If living organisms survived only on the basis of mindless natural selection, then it inescapably followed that human reason was also the product of natural selection. As such, the conclusions of human reason could never be known to be true, but only valuable in accord with their contribution to the survival of the human species. So truth could only be defined as what works, and not necessarily as what is true. Implication 3: If Mankind is nothing more than the product of a natural universe consisting only of matter and energy, a universe in which all things are produced by chance, then human dignity, any meaningful concept of ethics, and free will die as well.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Darwinism neither addresses the origins of the universe or life. "Implication 1" falls on those factors alone. "Implication 2" does not follow either. It is unlikely that natural selection would sleect for particular beleifs as suhc. However it is almost certain to select for an ability ot leverage our intelligence - and how can we reliably do that without the ability to form true beliefs ? And how could rejecting Dariwnism offer any greater guarantee that our beliefs are true ? "Implication 3" is just silly. The quote from Aldous Huxley is irrelevant, since Huxley is talking of Nihilism, not Darwinism. And Libertarian Free Will is threatened moee by it's own lack of coherence, than by Darwinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
quote: Oh, ok. Then what does Darwinism address?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism.
I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existance, but with destroying meaning. I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 12:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Essentially Dariwnism is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on Earth, as it is distributed through space and time. It can be - and is - extrapolated to apply to other forms of replicator. It may play a role in the origin of life but (as discussed on another thread) that requires that non-living replicators already exist (and requires that we do not consider them life, although they would seem to have a better claim than viruses).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Hold on a minute!
quote: Oh ok! ????? How is it with such a massive misunderstanding of what the term means or any of the underlying concepts, that you can leap to:
quote: Don't you see the problem with this? How can you submit ANYTHING, when you have just shown that you don't understand the terms you are using at the most basic level? I submit that you get a grasp of the basics before you make anymore assumptions This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:43 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024