As well, there is still the constant in BB "expansion implies a singularity" and the question - whats before the singularity - will still be "begged".
True, but is this the same as the designer entity of ID? I am just wondering because the ideas of "specified complexity" and "design" are very specified concepts themselves, how can ID insist that these characteristics can be known but the entity they are attributed to be unknown?
Still though, BB isn't just thrown out and in the same way, ID shouldn't be thrown out for this reason alone (which I realize you haven't advocated...yet).
Even if I have thrown it (ID) out privately that does not affect my discussing the subject as objectively as possible.
Hrm... that's a little ambiguous. I wish you would've put italics somewhere in there to stress the point. And I'm not sure exactly what your refering to with "recognisable entity". But I'll give it a shot anyways
Yes, I know. Didn't mean it to have any great significance. I was just saying I find some incongruity in claiming characteristics for a designer that according to ID theory must remain unknown - and as you have pointed out, the argument has parallels with BB and I have no quarrel with that. Didn't mean my phrase to be taken too seriously tho!
But in the same way, it is applicable to every recognizable entity. That doesn't do much to answer questions that follow though, does it?
Not sure what you are saying.
I don't think the theory requires the entity to be 'recognized'. In fact, don't they purposefully NOT recognize the designer? If so, why does it matter that it be recognized?
Again, kinda the same point. Why must we put our finger on the entity? The theory just says that there must be some entity, and then stops there. It says nothing of the entity other than it must be intellegent.
I find this aspect of ID the hardest to swallow because it is clearly the most disengenious part of the theory. Everyone knows they are talking about the biblical God. I heard William Demski speak in a baptist church for crying out loud!
I really don't think that nothing at all is assumed. For one, it is assumed that the designer is intellegent. But also, there are some other minor things we can assume about it in the same way that some of the properties of the singularity are assumed even thought we can never really "get there".
Not just minor things major things. I don't want to start any other subject but - design of viruses, parasites etc?
But yeah, I don't really know what your point was exactly. What did you mean by being applicable to any recognizable entity?
Again, don't get hung up on the phrase. But don't you find the dicotomy between ID's insistence on not knowing the designer and creationisms insistence on knowing the designer very well is just slightly absurd?
Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
