Intelligent Design (page 8)

ellderwho

I'm simply noting that the premise is clearly not universally true.

Very well, yet all of God is not known. "universally true" cannot be known. Since all the facts are not in.

funkyderek

Very well, yet all of God is not known. "universally true" cannot be known. Since all the facts are not in.

You're right. "Universally true" cannot be known. But "not universally true" can be. All that is needed is one counter-example. As has been repeatedly pointed out, ID includes its own counter-example, a complex entity that had no designer. Therefore the belief that all complex entities have a designer cannot be universally true.

seeitallclearlynow

In fact, a man is so unlike a watch that no conclusions can be drawn about men based on what we know about watches.

That's just plain funny.

Deputy Dog

ew

Thanks

Your putting God in a box that God has created.

You are exactly right.

Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm saying that ID uses a premise that has certain implications. If I base my argument on a premise such as "All cats are orange," then the implication is that I should not be able to find a cat this is not orange. ID proposes a premise. I'm simply noting that the premise is clearly not universally true.

Sng

Using your analogy, you are making the jump to say, if God created orange cats He Himself must be an orange cat. You are in effect saying that in order to create something finite, you have to be finite. You used the term "universally true". It is completely logical to say that everything in the universe is designed by God. That would by definition make it "universally true".

Creationists (at least this one) are saying, that God (who is eternal and infinite) created, and caused everything in this creation. The ID premise, only pertains to every thing in the design, not the Designer.

Pole, Nark

You make some good points.

Basically, one can only speak or conceive of time in terms of spacial/physical metaphors. This has little to do with the nature of the Universe. This is an inherent cognitive feature of all humans. And it gets manifested in language.

Should we assume time does not exist, just because we speak of it with "spacial/physical metaphors"?

I would argue that we have a similar problem with God, we always seem to anthropomorphize Him.

D Dog

Deputy Dog

Funk

100 years ago Newton's opinion on the subject would have carried some weight.

That is why I'm probably with Einstein on this one.

D Dog

LittleToe

Derek:

Therefore the belief that all complex entities have a designer cannot be universally true.

Good point.
Has anyone challenged the premise that the "Creator/guider of evolution" needs to be more complex, yet?
Given that "He"'s supposed to be an entirely different form of life, why need that be the case?

funkyderek

Creationists (at least this one) are saying, that God (who is eternal and infinite) created, and caused everything in this creation. The ID premise, only pertains to every thing in the design, not the Designer.

But why are they saying that? From what I can see they - or you - are declaring (without evidence) that everything in the universe must have an intelligent designer. For no apparent reason other than to avoid the obvious paradox, you then declare that this intelligent designer is somehow immune to this requirement.

Why not simply declare that nothing in the universe requires an intelligent designer? That would better satisfy the principle of parsimony.

funkyderek

Has anyone challenged the premise that the "Creator/guider of evolution" needs to be more complex, yet?
Given that "He"'s supposed to be an entirely different form of life, why need that be the case?

Of course. Once you're accepting that there is something that always existed, and is not subject to the laws of our universe there is absolutely no reason to assume that that thing is intelligent. As our universe seems to be governed by laws, we can just declare these to have always existed, rather than having to postulate a lawmaker.

Deputy Dog

derek

We would probably argue all day about what constitutes good evidence.

I'm simply responding to those who say ID is illogical.

D Dog

funkyderek

We would probably argue all day about what constitutes good evidence.

Oh, is that what you've been trying to do?

I'm simply responding to those who say ID is illogical.

But it is illogical, or at least non-logical. You've declared that the logic you use to determine the origins of our universe doesn't apply to God's universe.

Intelligent Design

Share this