|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sorry, typo. entropy. is the energy unavailable because it has been "spirited away" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
please start an "anti-darwinist" thread for your continued
here we are supposed to be discussing the ID designer designer: either they evolved or they are gods. thus ID does not reject evolution, so your views on evolution are not relevant. you need to look at the {is ID properly pursued thread} not this one. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
using different meanings for the word create is to make the logical fallacy of equivocation
creating a work of art is not the same as creating a universe, it is just the application of creativity to the pursuit of {decoration\statement} anyone who confuses ID or conflates it with another religion has not considered the consequences of the inherent contradictions. very simply ID is the faith that designers exist and that they have taken a personal interest in life on this planet. by whatever definition of religion you use, that fits. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cool, I'll look for it's release.
thanks 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And I believe I managed to convey a feasable supernatural environment which does not require a god or gods. just supernaturally acting beings living in the suburb of New Mount Olympus (just NW outside of Seattle). and which are, by definition, gods. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
lol
any beings capable of supernatural action it is the supernatural action that makes them gods by definition small g and range from lesser or demi- to full omnipotent. this is also the problem for any ID designer that accomplishes his design task by no observable natural means. it is one thing to design something, but design alone is insufficient: it needs physical realization, usually accomplished by normal physical interactions with normal physical objects. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's not my definition
god n. 1. God ...a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. ...b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. It is one inherent in the concept of supernatural. and I also put to you: what is the difference between saying that {unknown\undefined} dark 'stuffs' {mysteriously} act to make the cosmos spin, and saying "god does it" eh? 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hmm, though I had answered this earlier.
it seems to me that many people confuse the definition of gods with the omnipotent omnietcetera kind, and tend to ignore the many numbers of lesser dieties that have been parts of most religions. look at the lesser {gods\esses} of the {roman\greek\egyptian\native\norse\etcetera} and ask yourself how supernatural they had to be. there were also many examples of people becoming gods or transfomed into gods. look at {loki\pan\crow} the mischief maker. there are also religions that do not worship, and ones of many gods where not all are worshiped, and yet no one would deny their belief in those gods. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ah, but
when applying definitions to cases it should be in the form:
(1) - I think I have sufficient defining characteristics of mammals. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
again this comes down to what is the minimum defining requirement for a god, and based on past definitions it is very little.
if you draw a line between {X} as a {god} and {Y} as a not{god} when the {supernatural behavior\supernatural ability} of {Y} > {X} then you need to explain why. I see no problem with ghosts being (=lesser) gods in many religions, for when you get to ancestor worship you find:Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions ancestor worship, ritualized propitiation and invocation of dead kin. Ancestor worship is based on the belief that the spirits of the dead continue to dwell in the natural world and have the power to influence the fortune and fate of the living. Ancestor worship has been found in various parts of the world and in diverse cultures. It was a minor cult among the Romans (see manes). The practice reached its highest elaboration in W Africa and in the ancient Chinese veneration of ancestors. It is also well developed in the Japanese Shinto cult and among the peoples of Melanesia. See apotheosis; totem. and when it comes to supernatural:
supernatural adj. 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. definitions 3 & 4 definitely attribute it to god-behavior, and say "only a god" is justified. 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but you have not demonstrated that posession of supernatural abilities makes one a god - lesser or otherwise. Personally I think it dilutes the meaning of god to assign everything with supernatural powers as some kind of deity. I thought that the two definitions of supernatural were pretty specific in being directly connected to a {god\divine being} my point on ancient lesser gods is that some of them had very little {ability} to qualify. I think you are trying to match a modern concept with an ancient one, when the modern one has been embellished by later conceptual developments not available to the ancient one. this is part of the evolution of faith, from {ancestor spirit\personal god} to {only one megamart (do all your shopping here) GOD}.
Since we are arguing from opinion, I don't think it is going to be fruitful to debate whether or not werewolves are lesser deities any further. many demons etc were derived from previous religions gods and made evil in the process (demonize the old religion). loki was a shape changer (and one specific story involves his changing into a wolf) and native american beliefs had gods that were shape changers. and no, I don't think Uri Gellar was a god so much as charletan:
He sued Johnny Carson for making him look like a fool when Johnny brought out different spoons for Uri to bend. He would not let Uri touch them and had skeptic, Amazing Randi, there to make sure there were no shenanigans. (An embarrassed and sweating Uri feigned that it just wasn't working that day.) That is to say, is it possible to have faith in a non-specific undefined entity which may or may not be divine depending on whose defining what at the time? ah back to the topic. that is the ID faith isn't it? 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
faith in another, yes, but it also twists the definition of faith (connotations, equivocation on meaning)
I do think that when you have believers in "an undefined entity" that accomplishes tasks by {supernatural process\action} in the absence of any evidence for {existence OR action} that it is definitely a form of faith. {{fix typo}} This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*19*2005 08:53 PM 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Compare it to Deism. It involves more faith in the supernatural than Deism does (which only needs a supernatural beginning).
Of course they also don't factor in what kind of entity they are supposing ... and to hear all the YECs talk, it seems that the greatest probability is not a good one. Perhaps it is an {Intelligent Demon}? LOL. That would certainly fit with all the bad design that is observed. {{changed subtitle}} This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*20*2005 08:27 PM 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 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peter, and welcome to the fray.
Or the designer(s) was/were sufficiently simple as to not need to be designed Curiously, that does not answer the question:
quote: You will note that none of those scenarios required that the designer be particularly complex, per se, just that it have an origin of some form, either supernatural or natural.
Message 155 However, a designer can use tools to manage greater complexity, so we can imagine a bootstrapping process whereby more and more complex designs become possible. Indeed, just as we can design systems to design systems of such complexity that we cannot understand them. That still does not answer the question of the designer origins.
Message 158 Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"?
If one allows design by simple rules (which may have come about via purely natural process) one eliminates the 'intelligence'. Unless the rules are put in place by the designer, who just has to know that simple rules are all that is needed. We do similar with evolutionary design programs that have designed things where we are not sure how they operate. The assumption that simple rules are not designed is begging the question.
Message 159 So is it perhaps the case that the designer does not HAVE to be more complex than the systems it designs, but that often in 'intelligent' designs one is striving for the simplest way of accomplishing something? One could, therefore, argue the development of a simple set of rules that generates the diversity of life we see is far more complex a design task than designing a mamalian eye. Indeed.
That thinking would (based upon prior experience) simply push the 'designer' question back out of the biological world and into the chemistry or physics of the universe. Or the "world" that existed before the formation of the universe? Again we come back to the origin of the designer and the four possibilities in Message 1 Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
The reasoning behind Peter's statement is ... ... for Peter to say. You will forgive me if I don't take your interpretation of someone else's position as a valid representation of it.
RAZD writes: Peter writes: Fundamentally, if the 'ultimate designer' IS complex ID is purely religious in nature. I don't follow: why does complexity necessarily result in "religious in nature"? {Straggler interpretation of Peter's position}... - IDists conclude that complexity requires intelligent design. So you claim that IDologists conclude that the complexity of an intelligent designer would require an intelligent designer to design the complexity of the intelligent designer? If the designer cannot design itself then you either end up with an endless string of designers (aka case 4 in Message 1) or complexity does not matter. Which still doesn't answer the question of the IDer origin. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024