Who designed the ID designer(s)?

Hi Catholic Scientist, The issue is not whether person {Y} has faith or came to believe, the issue is whether ID is a form of faith or not.As soon as the IDer is identified as a god, then IDism is by definition a faith.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Unless, of course, the person places evidence of the existence of the god comparable at least to what we have for the existence of Galaxies and also presents the method/model that explains how that god intervenes and designs critters.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Huh?Do you want to discuss this or not?Or do you run from everyone who disagrees with you?

From Message 187

quote:

---

8. In my experiment, we knew that both egg and tissue paper exist and real. So, by analogy, if gexistence of matterh is real, then, the gnon-existence of matterh is also must be real, if the principle of opposites of the intelligence must be followed. That means PI predicts an existing real world without matter. Can we call it spiritual world?

---

What do you mean by "ID"? Are you talking about some thing independent of a person's belief?I'm talking about "the belief that an Intelligent Designer created the world". And if someone came to believe that from some kind of evidence, then it would not be a form of faith. I disagreeing with that specifically. If the person came to believe from evidence that a god intelligently designed the world, then they could hold that belief without faith.For example, an old man in a white beard floats down from the clouds and identifies himself as a god and explains that he designed the world. Accepting that would not necessarily have to be a form a faith.BTW, do you mean something different by "IDism" than just "ID"?

I think the premise of your thread is flawed. You cannot define or determine the reasons people believe the things that they do by a process of step by step deductive logic. Certainly all the indications are that those who most keenly advocate Intelligent Design as a position do so from a religiously induced faith based foundation. But to setup some sort of logical proof that this is necessarily the case is taking things too far.It is perfectly possible to come to a conclusion of intelligent design by virtue of slack thinking rather than faith. Just looking around the world and naively coming to the conclusion that such complexity cannot have come about randomly I suspect is not entirely uncommon. If the question of origin of the designer is then even considered a simple shrug followed by something like Well I suppose something had to exist first might well follow. As evidentially bankrupt and poorly thought out as this position may be I don’t think it can accurately be described as ‘faith’. The sort of fanatical faith based IDists we get here at EvC may well deploy poor reasoning to justify their faith based IDistic conclusions but it is perfectly possible to deploy that same poor reasoning in the absence of such faith. You insist on translating tentative evidence based arguments into statements of deductive logical certitude and then inevitably come to the erroneous conclusion that all around you others are committing all sorts of logical fallacies. But this misapprehension remains your failing rather than anybody else's. Hah! - No doubt you have a little step by step deductive logic exercise up your sleeve to definitively and objectively determine what it is that does or does not constitute misrepresentational nonsense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

hi again intellen, No, this is how you define intelligence. Just like my example with the flipped coin - the actual result is rather arbitrary. Different eggs, different tissue, different results. Is 9 {intelligent} but 8 isn't when, in another test the egg has a "safe" landing at 8 tissues?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Once again Straggler, And amusingly, the premise does not attempt to do that -- it is looking at ID, not the people, and whether or not it is faith. If it's a reply from you about what I have said, then the probability is high that there is a misrepresentation involved (or two or three). Here we see that you have misrepresented the premise of the thread.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Jar, (And Catholic Scientist), Hypotheticals are fun, but they aren't evidence. The reality remains, that as yet there is no such objective empirical evidence that I am aware of.This is, of course, the pursuit of Intelligent Design (and deism) - to find such evidence, but believing that such evidence exists before finding any is faith.This is no different that people looking for aliens, bigfoots, yeti, lake monsters, etc -- if they believe these exist without having objective empirical evidence that this is so, then they are basing their belief on faith in their existence.Properly pursued, (see Is ID properly pursued?) ID becomes Deism, using science to understand the creation and how it works. Deism is faith, IDism is a crippled form of deism in that it carries creationist baggage.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Catholic Scientist, Yes, in the same way that christianity is faith independent of any particular christian person. If someone has objective empirical evidence then they need to provide it. I am not aware of any, are you?Absent the objective empirical evidence, the conclusions that an Intelligent Designer is involved would be based on faith. To recycle your phrase: the belief that one or more Intelligent Designer/s created some aspect of the world: IDism is the belief that ID is involved.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

It has been pointed out to you that you cannot logically prove that the basis of a belief is faith. As a result you have started equivocating on the meaning of the term ‘faith’. You now seem to be asserting that the little logic exercise in your opening post deductively proves that Intelligent Design is faith in the same sort of way that Christianity is a faith or Judaism is a faith. Do you really think that Intelligent Design is a specific system of religious beliefs (to use the common definition of he term ‘faith’ in this context) in the same way that Christianity, Judaism or Islam are faiths? Is this what you think your little exercise in logic has proven? Given that belief in an intelligent designer isn’t limited to any specific religion (or even necessarily any religion at all) your argument that ID is a a faith would seem to be somewhat flawed. What you call misrepresentation others may legitimately recognise as equivocation on your part. But to avoid any further confusion why don’t you just explicitly tell us how you are using the term ‘faith’.

Well, I would also argue that a person could come to belief in christianity without employing faith. Not everybody relies on objective empirical evidence to come to a belief, even with an absence of faith. Like I said before, it could even be just a logical deduction. Not necessarily.If Jesus floated down from the sky and appeard solely to you one time and let you put your fingers in his side and explained to you about him being the son of god, etc., and then vanished... if you believed him and became a christian, you could hold that belief without faith. You could do the same with ID.Or, somebody could come up with a logical deduction that convinces them that ID is factual without having to use faith.Or, somebody could have a dream and then accept ID as a conclusion without needing to use faith.So, there are ways that ID can be believed without faith. On the other hand, ID really is based on faith. Its just that its not an absolute or de-facto things like you're making it out to be.

"Who designed the ID designer(s)?"I do not think this is a good question. It'd be better to ask:
Who designed the designer(s)?Today we can observe, that all designs are less complex than their designers. In just about every case, the design/invention is unaware of whom it was created by, or through what means it arose from.If this invention happens to have enough intelligence (like humans), some investigation is required before they find out the means through which they came about (eg child asking mother, where did I come from?)....Or they may be simply told the means through which they arose, by some other intelligent agent (eg mother tells child how he was born).So to answer your question, we simply do not know who designed the designer(s), or even if the designer(s) themselves needed to be designed in the first place. The designer(s) would exist in a higher form than we know of today simply because, designers are always more complex than their creation.Perhaps they (or it) did not require any point of creation. It's like this, no one claims that nothing existed before time. Creationists say a god existed before time (he required no creation), while atheists say that matter existed before time (as well as the existence of infinite universes)...It all comes down to whose correct.Both concepts are hard to swallow but when you realize that life & this universe are here either by chance, or through creation (no alternative choice) you are forced to choose between the two views only. PLZ Note: I do not believe in any specific God, but because I believe that life here is a product of a designer, I also believe that there is a higher form than us.

You would, then, accept the possibility of complexity without design? I've never heard an atheist say that matter existed before time; and the question of how many universes there are would not receive a uniform answer from all atheists; certainly I've never known an atheist with the temerity to assert that the number is necessarily infinite. (It could be, who can say?) Yes there is: necessity. For example, when I note that bricks always fall down and not up, I attribute this neither to coincidence nor to the unseen hand of an intelligent being.

Yes I would accept the possibility of complexity without design, but only when it comes down to 'the first cause' of the universe, as pointed out earlier. The universe required a starting point, whether this starting point was already complex or simple (when it comes down to the 'first cause') is irrelevant. They do not have to say so out rightly but, atheist do believe that matter existed before time.If the universe began with a bang, your going to have to assume that something banged. Like wise if you assume that there was a universe before this one, your also going to have to assume that matter was already present to create that universe.After all, nothing could only produce nothing, therefore there had to be something to produce a first cause.Also, if I'm not mistaken, there is a new theory which suggests that two membranes of other universes made contact with one another to form this universe. If this is the case then two other universes would have had to exist before these two to create other universes, thus making the number of universes infinite. I take it that this is your stance as to why you believe that the universe is here by chance...though your own argument works against you.If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, then what is your stance? Why couldn't bricks fall up and not down?When I observe an order universe such as galaxies, planetary seasons, the various laws of physics (gravity for instance) etc which holds together everything we know as the universe, I am forced to believe in a creator. Edited by 1SavageD1, : No reason given.