What is the I in ID?

The contradiction is exactly my point. I'm not saying it's logical - but is it logical to hold an entity outside of existence to any sort of rules we can conceive of? Why not define a god as one who can create and manipulate without cause and effect?So I'll ask again:Why would an omnipotent god be bound by material laws?Is a god itself material? Is a god biological? Is a god made up of atoms, or strings?

Hopefully you realize that I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent here - I think jar's last message stating "we can't test it" perhaps summed things up more simply.God seems to be that which cannot test, or understand. I feel like this is a statement based on our material framework. If we can't test or understand God, how do we know that he is incapable of creating a system he isn't bound by?

Hence, "faith".I think this is an underlying (negative) issue with most discussions around here: some arguing "the testable" with an opposition that is arguing "that which is untestable".I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of testing for something that interacts with the universe on solely supernatural terms.As a side-note, I'm perusing a book on Kabbalistic stories and OT interpretations - in that the interpretation of the act of creation is "fanning an ember", with that ember symbolizing humankind's unique "awareness". A different take on 'let there be light'...I've enjoyed the discussion, too...

Ifen, you asked in response to one of posts: Hopefully you'll understand my post in the context of this thread, where some are seeking a cause-effect mechanism testable by natural science to explain a supernatural or spiritual event. The questions I asked in my original post are similar in intent, I think, to your questions I quote above - to point out the problems of defining/confining the spiritual with simple natural concepts.I agree with much of your post - I just wanted to clarify my intent.Peace back at ya-

dandon writes: Dandon,I claim that Darwin's Origin of Speciesis correct. In order to prove me wrong, please "write like 1/10 of it."If you cannot, we can assume the theory of evolution is proven (by your odd logic...)

For me it is Peter Matthiessen who I envy for linguistic skills - have you read his The Snow Leopard? Based on your posts I think you would enjoy it and its Buddhist undertones. A slightly more scientific version of the koan? This kind of thinking is important to science though few seem to practice it regularly - lateral thinking opens up new hypotheses and experiments. This might have brought us back on topic if the topic was "What is the D in ID?" - for one could argue "it's designers all the way back!"

In a sense to show one is to show the other, as you describe well in your comment that the phrase "intelligent design" is redundant.

Okay, then:I assert that The Origin of Specieswas written by God, using Darwin as a messenger, in order to reveal to humankind the nature of God's creation.In order to prove to me that The Origin of Speciesis simply a work of man, please write "like 1/10 of it".If you cannot, then God wrote The Origin of Species, by your (still) faulty logic...

Dandon - this actually suggests that the Quran was written by humans who did not know that most species on the planet reproduce asexually (without male/female). Since those species are microscopic, a human writer would not take them into account, but a God would surely know of them. The implication of the passage you give is that the only life that is mentioned is that which can be seen by humans.Imagine if the Quran had said something like, "most types of life cannot be seen with the naked eye, these reproduce without male and female and vastly outnumber those kinds of life that can be seen."Now that would be some evidence for your side - something humans didn't know at the time of the Quran's writing, and specific enough to not be discounted as poetic or symbolic writing that is falsely being interpreted as scientific in nature.

Interesting, but I don't see that you've actually cited a verse that mentions male and female non-living things. You cite a verse that uses the word "everything", but state that it is in the midst of all of the verses regarding life. (My interpretation in that context would be that everything refers to all life.)In any case, since most life on the planet is not "male and female" the verse contradicts modern science.I'm assuming you've heard of Taoism? Taoism predates Islam by about a thousand years, and the bulk of the teachings of Taoism are much better suited to describing the "duality" of matter than your interpretation of a single phrase in the Quran.The Yin Yang symbol is not as old as Taoism, but was adopted as a symbol of its philosophy, (and it predates Islam): This symbol ultimately describes the balance of opposing forces in nature, but also can function as a calendar and celestial chart.How did Taoists know that the entire substance of the universe was a balance of opposites, a century before Allah passed this wisdom to humankind through the Quran?