No ID = A Paradox

I am here typing on my computer. I am thinking, so therefore I must be created by an intelligent designer. Otherwise my conscience wouldn't be here at this moment in time...too long to explain but I am sure some of you 140+ IQ people out there can explain this in layman terms.------------------
"The practice of homosexuality...is now considered not only acceptable but even desirable by most evolutionists." Back to Genesis, No. 140, August, 2000Only one word.."Unbelievable"[This message has been edited by Matt, 09-07-2002]

Let me guess. On the internet, bored, and so you come up with the idea of trolling on a message board. I must compliment you on your insightful parody of creationist thinking, complete with a conclusion unsupported by the initial premise or (absent) evidence.And the signature message is a fitting touch. But, be warned, those back to genesis people are likely to be crazies and unlikely to take kindly to your exposure of their stupidity.Unbelievable, yes.

Whatever it is it just doesn't seem to make sense.Do suppose we'll have a repeat performance or was it a one-time spree?

Nope...no signs of intelligence from your post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
I am here typing on my computer. I am thinking, so therefore I must be created by an intelligent designer. Otherwise my conscience wouldn't be here at this moment in time.

​

..too long to explain but I am sure some of you 140+ IQ people out there can explain this in layman terms.

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
"The practice of homosexuality...is now considered not only acceptable but even desirable by most evolutionists." Back to Genesis, No. 140, August, 2000

​

Only one word.."Unbelievable

---

Yes, it is unbelieveable, as is most of what one reads on those biblical literalist propaganda sites.

This reminds me of something I read somewhere, perhaps in one of the two big biographies of him: Carl Sagan had once lectured his son Dorion on how homosexuality is no way to propagate a species.

Let's talk about your computer. It was intelligently designed by some intelligent humans working at Intel/Apple/etc. It does not think; you do the thinking.My conclusion: intelligently designed objects do not think. Only evolved beings think.Oh, and i am not keen on homosexuality. On another thread someone announced that the human body is intelligently designed for sexuality. Polygamic heterosexuality, that is...

Mat writes:

quote:

---

I am here typing on my computer. I am thinking, so therefore I must be created by an intelligent designer. Otherwise my conscience wouldn't be here at this moment in time.

---

And that intelligent desinger was thinking when he created you, therefore he had to have had an intelligent designer. His intelligent designer in turn was thinking when he designed god and therefore also needed an intelligent designer and so forth and so on.So who designed god? And who designed that uber god. And who designed that ultra uber god?

quote:

---

..too long to explain but I am sure some of you 140+ IQ people out there can explain this in layman terms.

---

I have explained it to you, now can you see why this isn't sound reasoning?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

So who designed god? And who designed that uber god. And who designed that ultra uber god?

---

Asking those questions in a temporal context implies that God exists within a timeframe. If time has no meaning to God, then referring to actions past-tense would be meaningless to the creator, but meaningful to the creation in the universe where he laid out that principle.According to theology, God exists outside of time, therefore it's not a matter of God coming into existence, but that he has always existed. Omnipresent throughout time, so-to-speak.And no, I'm not going to prove it to you.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

Matt:
"I am here typing on my computer. I am thinking, so therefore I must be created by an intelligent designer."jeff:
Logic was never a strong suit for poor Matty. I don't dare ask him to explain the LEAP in logic missing in his post. He just sort of...glibbly passed over naturalistic explanations as if they didnt exist - nor had ever existed. Such 'fairy-logic' goes a long way in mythology, but falls flat on its fat-face in science."Frog hair is fine; so, therefore... Peach trees have insomnia.Matt:
" Otherwise my conscience wouldn't be here at this moment in time"jeff:
We could also debate this point on another thread.regards,jeff------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

Satcomm writes:

quote:

---

Asking those questions in a temporal context implies that God exists within a timeframe. If time has no meaning to God, then referring to actions past-tense would be meaningless to the creator, but meaningful to the creation in the universe where he laid out that principle.

---

Surely you have evidence that god exists and exists "outside of time"?

quote:

---

According to theology, God exists outside of time, therefore it's not a matter of God coming into existence, but that he has always existed. Omnipresent throughout time, so-to-speak.

---

How is god always existing and the universe always existing any different? Well we have evidence that the universe actually exists, unlike god. I wonder what Occam would have to say about that?

quote:

---

And no, I'm not going to prove it to you.

---

Translation: I can make up any story I want but I don't want to have to defend it.If you aren't willing to defend your beliefs why bother posting?------------------
compmage

This doesn't make sense.-If time is a property of the universe alone and not something which applies to God, then the universe must have been created as an object outside of time, i.e time exists within the universe, but if you are God you can see the universe from the outside, from a vantage point of outside time
-which means that objects which exist outside of time can be created
- which begs the question what need is there to posit a God?
-alternatively, it opens up the suggestions that God himself could have been designed.This "outside of time" argument doesn't have any legs as far as I can see - just an ill-thought version of the "ineffability" argument (aka argument from infinite malleability )PE

quote:

---

Surely you have evidence that god exists and exists "outside of time"?

---

Implying that you have evidence that he exists "within a timeline"? Or that he doesn't exist at all?My statment was merely a thought on the matter, making sense from nonsense. I didn't say it was the end-all be-all fact of the situation.

quote:

---

How is god always existing and the universe always existing any different? Well we have evidence that the universe actually exists, unlike god.

---

My thought was that time has no meaning to God, therefore he does not exist within our limited understanding of time. Indicating that someone created Him implies that there was a past tense action. If God has always existed, then this is not the case.You don't have evidence as to whether God exists or not. The bible declares that the universe itself and all it's attributes should be proof enough.

quote:

---

I wonder what Occam would have to say about that?

---

I don't know, nor do I care.

quote:

---

Translation: I can make up any story I want but I don't want to have to defend it.

---

Wrong. I find it fascinating, however, that you think your senses have evolved to the point of telepathy. Nice character debate.

quote:

---

If you aren't willing to defend your beliefs why bother posting?

---

1) Because I can, and...
2) Because I enjoy critical thinking.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

[quote] Satcomm
According to theology, God exists outside of time, therefore it's not a matter of God coming into existence, but that he has always existed. Omnipresent throughout time, so-to-speak.And no, I'm not going to prove it to you. [quote] yes, according to theology. but why the hell should i trust theology?
You're not going to prove it to me! Then there's absolutely no reason why i should believe you. It's like faith, why bother?

quote:

---

This doesn't make sense.

---

Sure it does. You're making a simple thought into a complicated one. Typical human behavior. I guess I'm subjected to that, as well.

quote:

---

-If time is a property of the universe alone and not something which applies to God, then the universe must have been created as an object outside of time, i.e time exists within the universe, but if you are God you can see the universe from the outside, from a vantage point of outside time

---

My statement implied that the past-tense creation of the universe is from our perspective, but not God's.

quote:

---

-which means that objects which exist outside of time can be created

---

Confusing, isn't it? That is putting objects as we know them in the universe outside the context of the universe, because the universe exists within the principles of time.

quote:

---

- which begs the question what need is there to posit a God?

---

So we can better understand ourselves, our position, and our purpose.

quote:

---

-alternatively, it opens up the suggestions that God himself could have been designed.

---

No it doesn't, if he's always existed simultaneously.

quote:

---

This "outside of time" argument doesn't have any legs as far as I can see - just an ill-thought version of the "ineffability" argument (aka argument from infinite malleability )

---

Not intellectual and complicated enough for you, I see. It was just an "If, then" statement, not a position on fact.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?