Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

  The above statement involves:

  1.) No necessary infinite regression of designers- It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life (and thus require their own designer, ad infinitum). For example there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the possibility of the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

  2.) No required self-refutation- It does not also require the existence of some life that has an origin from non-life without a designer, since it doesn't require the designer to even have an origin from non-life at all.

  If no one disagrees with the logicical status of this first simple ID statement, I will proceed to move on to list other logically consistent theories of ID.
• 

  parakeet

  "'An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.'
  The above statement involves: 1.) No necessary infinite regression of designers-"
  
  
  Why not?
  
  
  "It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life (and thus require their own designer, ad infinitum)."
  
  
  Why not? And don't tell me to read the danged book.
  
  
  "For example there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the possibility of the existence of an eternally existing designer"
  
  
  So, simply by asserting that an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life, then it's impossible that an intelligent designer does not exist. Wow! I didn't know proving an assertion was so easy. Let me try it: I assert that little pink mermaids live at the bottom of the ocean; therefore, it's impossible that little pink mermaids do not live at the bottom of the ocea. Cool.
  
  
  "If no one disagrees with the logicical status of this first simple ID statement, I will proceed to move on to list other logically consistent theories of ID."
  
  
  You haven't proved the logic of your first statement yet. But, please continue. I'm starting to enjoy this exercise in "logicical" thinking.
• 

  AuldSoul

  hooberus: It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life

  I agree that as stated it would not require life to arise from non-life. However, you must surely be aware that it would require life to exist from nothing, whether or not it originated from nothing.
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus: It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life

  I agree that as stated it would not require life to arise from non-life. However, you must surely be aware that it would require life to exist from nothing, whether or not it originated from nothing.

  In talking about the existence of an eternal designer it is probably more accurate to use the term self-existent rather than "exist from nothing".
• 

  under_believer

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist

  Maybe so (in fact, I can probably come up with some), but they haven't been detailed or even summarized in this thread. Quoting some random assertion from a book doesn't qualify.

  Please summarize this logically consistent theory, and we can talk. Though I have to point out that logical consistency doesn't necessarily imply merit.
• 

  Leolaia

  1.) No necessary infinite regression of designers- It does not also require the designer to themself [is that a word?] also have an origin from non-life (and thus require their own designer, ad infinitum). For example there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the possibility of the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

  Since we are talking only within the realm of logic, I have to wonder that if the Designer TM can be eternal tho having intelligence, organization, and what not, why cannot the universe and life itself (with all its wonderful "designs") be similarly eternal? After all, if we leave out the possibility of eternity, your posited Designer would just be the last in a potentially infinite series of Designers, as you put it. If the Designer need not be designed "themself" because of having eternal existence, why cannot the universe be similarly undesigned (tho having all the apperance of design that the Designer "themself" would have) if it eternally exists as well? As I recall, Aristotle or one of the other Greek philosophers pondered this question.
• 

  proplog2

  Yeah I believe in a God. And I believe that he takes sadistic delight in watching people suffer because he doesn't provide them sufficient information to REALLY KNOW.

  He dwells in numerous gaps in scientific knowledge. He used to lurk in the sun where he controlled stars and moon. Now he hangs out in cosmological constants and obscure DNA laboratories.
• 

  kid-A

  "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

  Do you consider the god you worship to be a "life-form" ? In what sense? Define your definitions of "life" versus "non-life" and perhaps we can debate the above point.

  As it stands, this statement would not preclude the necessity for an infinite regression of "designers" if you do indeed consider your deity a "life-form", regardless of whether that being is "biological" or not.

  Leolaia brings up an excellent point. Besides some inexplicable emotional "need" for the human mind to anthropomorphise some "father-like" creator figure into the cosmos in order to justify pitiful mortal insecurities, it is no less reasonable and no greater a leap of logic to assume that the natural universe, void of any "deity" has simply always existed. At the very least, we have sensory evidence for the existence of the phenomenal world. There is zero evidence, beyond the literary world of holy books, that some "supreme" god exists.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  Anything that exists can be measured. By what means does one measure the properties of the designer?

  He dwells in numerous gaps in scientific knowledge. He used to lurk in the sun where he controlled stars and moon. Now he hangs out in cosmological constants and obscure DNA laboratories.

  I like to put it this way:

  God exists in the cracks of science.

  Ever time science demonstrates a natural process to explain the previously unknown, a small piece of god dies.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Elsewhere: Ever time science demonstrates a natural process to explain the previously unknown, a small piece of god dies.

  I prefer to say that every time science labels something else that was previously unlabeled, a small piece of God is labeled.