That's true but an exploration of that would be a parallel discussion of this one. Because otherwise we will start to get certain posters saying "Hah you cannot prove X so therefore Y must be true" and the usual nonsense.
It's an interesting question however - maybe you should propose it in the cosomological area (where all the big brains hang out!) because I suspect you will get a far fuller answer there (on this grey manchester day).
quote:
AbE: I agree that the most parsomonius solution is naturalism. At some point the IDers have to accept that there is either a timeless/eternal being with phenomenal universe creating powers (everyone else calls him God, but the IDers seem to go beserk at the suggestion) or that the universe is the result of a sequence of natural, albeit unexplainable, circumstances.
ABE: This is the crux of the matter, the IDers always shy away from this question by saying that it's only important to know that a designer exists not how he/she was designed. This is of course rot, the next level of evasion is that the Designer exists outside of our universe and therefore is not constraited by the same "laws" of ID as the rest of us (but doesn't everything complex require a designer...??). Of course this,again, is just a dodge. Both of those are to get around the infinite regression that ID otherwise suggests (I've never understood how Iders can claim it's NOT about God).
Now my problem has always been this - If at one level, the designer does not need to designed - why couldn't the universe just POOF itself in existance.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Jul-2005 08:19 AM