Who designed the ID designer(s)?

They are all laid out in the OT
EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?None of the following posts have challenged the OT, hence the appearance of later assertions restating the final conclusion of the OT.This is a logical construction and not a matter of opinion. As such it can only be invalidated on the basis of a logical review of the elements of the OT.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-31-2004 12:09 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So, again we are waiting for ID man ...http://EvC Forum: Who designed the ID designer(s)?6OThanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

all of the positions in this post are addressed in other posts that have not been adequately answered by ID man, except possibly by the innuendo of insults that seem to be the only ammunition he has left.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As you so eloquently demonstrate post after post. NO refutation to the OT of {ID is a Religion} post topic, NO refutation to the OT of THIS topic, NO refutation of the {ID and contradictions to other faiths} topic OT amd NO refutation of any of the points on the {is ID properly pursued?} topic OT.All I have read is asserton after assertion after assertion, many of them repetitions of the same points on other topics, and whining about people not reading according to your book lists.and INABILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE OTI guess the OT conclusion is still valid ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

I like to think of spirit in opposition to entrophy, a conservation of physical and spiritual energy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so you admit to posting essentially a bare link with no personal commentary, right? and you don't care what it says?interesting.

Nope. For starters both the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on this planet are outside the scope of evolution. This means that what you are using as a definition of "darwinism" -- is this used to mean "all science that I personally disagree with" -- is wrong. The basis of your argument is false.According to the dictionary "darwinism" means evolution: However in common usage it seems to mean something else. Let's use evolution to mean evolution, okay?For man to be an accident would also mean that no selection mechanism was involved, and this too is false.This also blatantly assumes that man is a desired goal of evolution when the process could just be selecting for intelligent life. Any process that selects for more intelligent life to survive compared to less intelligent life will accomplish that goal regardless of what species is involved. Darwinism Evolution does not stress the "accidental nature of origins" but the natural selection of changes that enhance survival.and SCIENCE makes no claim to find "meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence" so blaming one science for this and not any of the others is a logical fallacy of the first order.tell me how math gives meaning to the cosmos or man's existence. Why? What blocks conclusions from being true? True is what is. Truth is discovered through reason regardless of the species doing the reasoning.Again, you a priori assume something which you assert to be true but for which you have absolutely no substantiation. If this is the basis for a philosophical discussion, then we might as well be arguing about shadows in a cave. False. Again, you a priori assume a special status for human beings. There is no reason to assume this, nor that the end of evolution has been reached. Human dignity is the same dignity as that of any individual of any species. Ethics is based on reason in it's more evolved state, on emotion in it's more primitive. This does not change based on what species is involved (although some of the conclusions may).This is the same false argument as that atheists have no morality, a demonstrated falsehood.Free will is a meaningless concept from the beginning. It's loss could actually result in some improvements.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm comfortable using the standard definitions, particularly these ones: and letting anything outside that purview be regarded as supernatural: which includes everything outside the 'sphere' of our {whatever} universe.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I submit that ID leads to navel gazing.I submit that IDists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existence.I submit that SCIENCE serves to increase knowledge of how {life the universe and everything} works, that searching for meaning of life that is not based on a real perception of reality is nonsense.Enjoy.but you are getting off topic here: perhaps another thread?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

there is no "darwinist philosophy"evolution is scienceand this is off topic

what does it add that the original post does not have?

I would say that the indian experiment would not be ignored if it can be reproduced ... the repeatability test of the observations to validate them that is one of the fundamental tenets of science.there are lots of "metaphysical" implications in any area of science where the answers are not known -- gravity as you note (and the metaphysical dark stuffs).the question is whether you make assumptions based on those concepts, or just say "we don't know enough at this point to know"enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}