Existence of God

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashfrog

​

Before you can infer the presence of God from what you see as his design, you have to infer his existence. That can't be done from objects.

---

I'm glad to see you bring up this point, crashfrog. It does a good job of describing some things I've often contemplated.It has been said, for instance, that if one finds a radio in the wilderness, one must infer design. Why do we infer this? Compared to what? The surrounding flora and fauna from which we should, then, not infer design?If it is argued that God designed everything that is otherwise described as "natural", then we are not distinguishing design (in the radio) from non-design, but rather human design as distinguishable from God's design.Thus, we can distinguish human design from everything else. This "everything else" can be termed "other".How then do we compare the "other" to itself? We can't say that the "other" must be God designed because it looks like human designed things. If that were so we would not have been able to distinguish between the radio and the "other" in the first place.We also can't say that the "other" was designed by God because it looks different than "natural" things. If God designed all the "other", then there are no "natural" things to compare it with. Likewise, if all the "other" is simply "natural", we cannot attribute design to it because we have no examples of God designed things with which to make a comparison.You are right, crashfrog. One must first infer God in order to infer Godly design.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-20-2003]

Hi Peter,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter

​

. . . one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured
items.

---

Of course you are right and I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I was simply starting with the usually stated premise that we can distinguish the radio from its natural surroundings. I do agree that our ability to make this distinction is a result of prior knowledge and consequent recognition of human manufacturing techniques.Namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Joralex,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joralex

​

If you came across (a sequentially increasing) pattern scratched on the rock of another planet . . . you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern. . .

---

Again, this is my question. You give several examples of recognizable patterns. However, we only attribute "intelligent design" to those patterns that exhibit a remarkable similarity to patterns we know to be of human design.How then do we differentiate between these "intelligently designed" patterns and their "natural" surroundings.IOW, first you say that we can recognize human-like design patterns because they contrast completely with patterns found in nature.Then you turn around and say that nature must be intelligently designed because its patterns are so similar to human-like design.The contention is that we can distinguish intelligent human design from natural processes. What more then can be said of natural processes; other than that they do not exhibit the patterns of intelligent human design?Namaste'Amlodhi