A proof against ID and Creationism

I think the deal is that god has always existed and was not created, unlike life, itself.(i mean always existed, not created)Therefore to say that life is so wonderful that it must have been created so god must have been created too is a false analogy becease god was not created and has always existed, unlike life.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-22-2005 12:32 AM

which variation does my response fall into?

No.Your proof is flawed because the Wonderful Theory suggests creation and if god is not created, but is eternal, then the Wonderful Theory is not applied to him. This is were you go wrong. The WT does not require a creation of god if god always existed...... That's what I was taught. It is not impossible for the universe to have always existed. Logical? Of course the belief in god is illogical. Oh well, I was just trying to respond to the question in the OP: Yes. see above.

Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things. Because logic and reason fail to provide all the answers I seek. I accept the ToE. I'm not a creationist, by definition. I do believe that people are special though. I believe in the soul. I'd fit in the Theistic Evolution group.Here's my story:
Message 13OP is the opening post where you asked a question that I tried to answer.

Not if god is eternal.Neither would humans require design if they were eternal.'Who designed the designer' is a great way to falsify ID when the designer is ambiguous, but when you start calling the designer god it loses its applicability.

it is OT(off topic) which is why I ignored itanyway, I didn't even say faith was good. I do think that it can be good, and i think it can't all be good.here's the message: In response to "how unsupported beliefs?" i said that faith was potent and can give you strength(not that it was good), enough to do something crazy (like blow yourself up) so simply having an unsupported belief shouldn't be that hard to believe. The same as it is now. Faith can be good and it can be bad. No. No.happy now?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:19 PM

I though ID was suppose to keep the designer ambiguous, maybe I'm mistaken. But if you start labeling the designer then it leads people to conclusions.For example, if the designer is an alien biological species, then I would immediately ask who designed them. However, if the designer is an eternal omipotent being, then I don't think we can ask who designed it.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:11 PM

I'm not trying to support ID. I'm trying to show how, in the OP, the Wonderful Theory shouldn't be applied to God.

That's because the OP defined the designer, it wasn't ambiguous enough, that's pretty much the problem I had with it. If you're gonna call the designer god then it screws up the 'who designed the designer' part. My conclusion was that if a complex entity has always existed then it can exist without being designed (and still not falsify ID's initial premise). ID's initial premise requires creation, IIRC, and if a complex being was not created then its complexity doesn't suggest design. No argument here.

If it isn't ambiguous then it quickly becomes religion but the problem is that the ambiguity is causing the self-refutation. Yes, the OP was pretty general about god when refering to him but specifically mentioned creationists. And then asked if it ommitted a possibility. An eternal god is this possibility.

But the OP is about the Wonderful Theory and its application to god.

You have misunderstood me and misquoted me and added false implications.
You definately are not certain of my position and I have been straighforward and honest and have not contradicted myself. I do believe in god but not because I was told to or because I was taught that way. My reasons are too long to type right now and it is off topic anyways. Of course the belief in god is illogical. Can you think of a logical reason to believe in god? You don't understand. I don't believe because someone told me and I never said anything about what is good. I've said that faith can be good but it can't all be good. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I never typed "religious faith is good". You seem to think I implied it but that was not my intention. Sure, faith in god can be good. You've shown that faith can be evil. This doesn't show that all faith is evil.Pointing out where evil is commited in faith is very easy to do. I think the philosophy is just ok, not my cup of tea, but it is ok. They are certainly putting in a lot of effort. I know it isn't scientific and I don't think it should be taught as science. Baically, its just another religion, except they purposfully keep the designer ambiguous so it doesn't look like a religion. This is the ID Movement part and I do NOT support this.

This is not the position I hold but I would like to say that I see nothing wrong with this position. People can believe whatever they want for whever reason they want. The problem arrises when those belief are imposed upon others. The core answer: Yes. A fine opinion but not a fact. What logic? That because people have done evil things in the name of faith then faith is evil. Do you not see a logical falacy here?A lot of people do evil things when they are drunk so all drunk people are evil by your logic.All squares are rectangles so all rectangles are squares, right? wrong.