Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 364 of 396 (623698)
07-12-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Straggler
07-12-2011 4:34 PM


Re: Still a form of faith & restatement of topic
But they honestly beieve that they do have the requisite evidence. So how is this different to Piltdown man (for example) in terms of being a faith based conclusion?
Because of the nature of the Intelligent Designer, itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 4:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 396 (623701)
07-12-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Straggler
07-12-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Still a form of faith & restatement of topic
What "nature"...?
As proposed by IDists...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 4:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 368 of 396 (623704)
07-12-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Straggler
07-12-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Still a form of faith & restatement of topic
But not by my hypothetical IDist.
Why is he tarred with the "faith" brush....?
For clarity's sake:
Well let's consider a hypothetical IDist. An IDist who has genuinely concluded ID on the basis of what he genuinely (albeit wrongly) considers to be objective empirical scientific evidence. He is asked - "Who designed the designer?"
After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly".
Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be).
Do you think this is faith?
Looks like he's on his way to being a #4 to me:
quote:
(4) Other previous ID designer(s) designed the ID designer(s) to replace\assist them. Now move up to that level and repeat the sequence again (computer programmers will recognize this as a DO LOOP). If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural (see #2 above) cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, all the designers are gods by default, and ID again ends up being a form of faith. (This is the "turtles all the way down" version).
But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 6:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 396 (623775)
07-13-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Straggler
07-12-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Still a form of faith & restatement of topic
His tentative position is taken on the basis of the objective empirical scientific evidence that he genuinely believes to exist plus parsimony.
It can certainly be wrong. But How can that be faith?
I dunno, man, but you're crazy!
my response would be the same as it was:
quote:
But I suppose if he's in limbo and hasn't actually taken a position on who designed the designer, then he might not actually be in a position of faith... I dunno.
But the idea that you can prove that a particular belief must be faith based rather than derived from poor reasoning or poor evidence or whatever is just silly.
That's what I said...
But its not really about the "motivation for a belief" but "this entity has these properties that prevent it from having true evidence for it therefore we'd have to rely on faith to accept it".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 6:29 PM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 396 (648983)
01-19-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Larni
01-19-2012 2:39 PM


Re: What happened before that?
Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not.
Well I thought they did. That's what I remember from school.
Steam is still H2O...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 2:39 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024