Is the Intelligent Designer Christian or Muslim?

[Saint_of_Me]

Is there a source for this claim.



Will you explain it to the 100's theist and the 0 deists I've debated with over ID. It get's tiresome how ID proponents seem not to be able to agree on this.



This doesn't explain why most Creationists and/or ID proponents either believe Evolution isn't real at all (implying God had to interact with the world), or that Evolution isn't random, but actually designed and guided (also contradictory to a Deist position). That being said, there are "creationists" who are more or less Deists and who believe in evolution. But there isn't much to debate about in this regard in an EvC thread.



I invite you debate with any other the creationists of this form, and find out how many believe God in no way has any effect on the physical world.

I have met very few Creationists who don't think God intervenes in our world. Most Creationists are Theists. Most Theists believe in a personal, Theist God. Most believers in a Theist God believe He listens to their prayers. Most people who pray do so asking God to somehow intervene or help them.

Or am I wrong on this?

LOL.

I guess at this point I would have to ask you to give me your personal definition of a Deist, and of a Theist. And the difference between a Deist and a Theist God. Yo sound a bit confused on this whole subject.

Your own words. Don't Google it. LOL. Thank you.

 

[dust1n]

I have met very few Creationists who don't think God intervenes in our world. Most Creationists are Theists. Most Theists believe in a personal, Theist God. Most believers in a Theist God believe He listens to their prayers. Most people who pray do so asking God to somehow intervene or help them.

I'm assuming you meant "I have met very few Creationists who do think God intervenes in our world."

In which case.

Or am I wrong on this?

Wrong about... the difference between theism and deism? No, not that I'm aware of. Wrong about all creationists/ID being deists? Yeah, very much so. Look at any of the 15 years worth of history of various debates about the subject matter, and you find that (at least here) there are hundreds upon hundreds of theists arguing for an ID, about a handful of deists doing so.

LOL.

I guess at this point I would have to ask you to give me your personal definition of a Deist, and of a Theist. And the difference between a Deist and a Theist God. Yo sound a bit confused on this whole subject.

Your own words. Don't Google it. LOL. Thank you.

Huh? I'm not sure what it matters, or what you are getting at here...

A deist is more or less someone who believes in a deity that created existence, but in no way interferes with said creation. A theist, is more or less someone who believes a deity who created existence existence, and for whatever time and reason, did interfere with his creationists. It's probably a bit more for nuanced than that, but that appears the distinguishing feature.

Either way, ID proponents are not mostly deists, or at least there is sorely lacking any evidence to suggest more Creationists or ID proponents are deists and not theists.

Either way, I could argue against a deistic ID, or a theistic ID. I personally don't care which route people take, as long as I know which one, as the arguments against creationism have to be altered to reflect the two different kinds of propositions.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have met very few Creationists who don't think God intervenes in our world. Most Creationists are Theists. Most Theists believe in a personal, Theist God. Most believers in a Theist God believe He listens to their prayers. Most people who pray do so asking God to somehow intervene or help them.

Or am I wrong on this?

LOL.

I guess at this point I would have to ask you to give me your personal definition of a Deist, and of a Theist. And the difference between a Deist and a Theist God. Yo sound a bit confused on this whole subject.

Your own words. Don't Google it. LOL. Thank you.

Sorry, my basic take is a theist god interferes with his creation and a deist god does not (after creating it, I mean).

Maybe the disconnect is that I was just trying to say that creationists (theists) hijacked the phrase "intelligent Design" to use when creationism was rejected by public schools.

And if I sorta got the concept of deism screwed up, I'm a big boy, I can take the hit. Would rather know I was wrong than to believe what is not true.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The two main groups I tend to notice that lean towards an intelligent designer are Christians and Muslims. So my question is quite simple. Is the Intelligent Designer Jehovah, or Allah? And what scientific basis do these "scientists" use when determining which is the actual Intelligent Designer?

At first I thought this a funny question but as I stopped to think about it, it is quite good. It is the first one I have heard for ages that has made me stop and think. From a layman's point of view, it would seem it could not be both, as there is only one universe......but that's where it gets immediately murky.

I think it is a tricky question to answer and no doubt most will find mine risible. But as God is reflective in his own Self, (grandfather, father, son, etc) then one is first in creation and then one second.
I am not giving this as the ultimate answer as I think that goes further back into the divine-consciousness. But within that same pattern, I would see El (which would correspond with Allah) and then Yhvh. That would reveal itself with El (Allah) being the first part of the big-bang before the universe stretched to the size we see now. It is Yhvh, you see, that is the God of this aeon, the God of flesh (has emotions etc) and thus is the one that released us from being constrained as energy in another form into the form we now see ourselves.

So Allah then Yhvh.

Now, this is only a part explanation, as my understanding of the definition of statues of God is that Yhvh is the 'only' God. Thus reflective through the Name. It is a bit like following someones family name and watching their offspring branch off and the complexity it would make in their genealogy. The gods, after all, are our own selves, our highers selves.

I suppose you would then put before all of that, the Jewish Yhvh, which takes me back to what I just said: Yhvh was first as it means Existent, or self-existence and is the only Existence that really is. Nothing else exists.

That will have happened many myriad of times over. It becomes more clear to me when I remind myself that everything (as far as we are concerned) is one-consciousness...... so God is developing his own Self. It is not different than you changing from a babe to a child, adolescent, adult etc.

Yes, it was a good question!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Mm, I don't understand why it's so difficult to find a ID advocate when you are actually looking for one.

Haha...that is so funny!

 

[Robert.Evans]

That would put a a whole new spin on male gay couples raising a child, wouldn't it?
Maybe that was the design reason, who can say?

Ciao

- viole

It is to do with the separation of the masculine feminine principle

 

[Milton Platt]

At first I thought this a funny question but as I stopped to think about it, it is quite good. It is the first one I have heard for ages that has made me stop and think. From a layman's point of view, it would seem it could not be both, as there is only one universe......but that's where it gets immediately murky.

I think it is a tricky question to answer and no doubt most will find mine risible. But as God is reflective in his own Self, (grandfather, father, son, etc) then one is first in creation and then one second.
I am not giving this as the ultimate answer as I think that goes further back into the divine-consciousness. But within that same pattern, I would see El (which would correspond with Allah) and then Yhvh. That would reveal itself with El (Allah) being the first part of the big-bang before the universe stretched to the size we see now. It is Yhvh, you see, that is the God of this aeon, the God of flesh (has emotions etc) and thus is the one that released us from being constrained as energy in another form into the form we now see ourselves.

So Allah then Yhvh.

Now, this is only a part explanation, as my understanding of the definition of statues of God is that Yhvh is the 'only' God. Thus reflective through the Name. It is a bit like following someones family name and watching their offspring branch off and the complexity it would make in their genealogy. The gods, after all, are our own selves, our highers selves.

I suppose you would then put before all of that, the Jewish Yhvh, which takes me back to what I just said: Yhvh was first as it means Existent, or self-existence and is the only Existence that really is. Nothing else exists.

That will have happened many myriad of times over. It becomes more clear to me when I remind myself that everything (as far as we are concerned) is one-consciousness...... so God is developing his own Self. It is not different than you changing from a babe to a child, adolescent, adult etc.

Yes, it was a good question!

There are myriad other gods and creation myths....those two groups are simply the most current and largest groups.

And what do you base all your suppositions upon?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is also revealed in the two mentions of creation if Genesis.

There are myriad other gods and creation myths....those two groups are simply the most current and largest groups.

And what do you base all your suppositions upon?

within their own reality they would be right/. Whether that relates to this universe is another thing.

Sacred Text, science, history, spiritual discernment.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Sorry, my basic take is a theist god interferes with his creation and a deist god does not (after creating it, I mean).

Maybe the disconnect is that I was just trying to say that creationists (theists) hijacked the phrase "intelligent Design" to use when creationism was rejected by public schools.

And if I sorta got the concept of deism screwed up, I'm a big boy, I can take the hit. Would rather know I was wrong than to believe what is not true.

OK...then from this last post you wrote I think we agree on most of this: the different aspects of Deism and Theism.

And yeah, you're exactly spot-on about the Theists trying to adapt Intelligent Design as a sort of Science, in order to get it into Educational curriculum. ID is theistic Creationism gussied-up in the garb of pseudo-science, masquerading as a REAL science. It's like a little girl playing dress-up with mommy's clothes, trying to pass herself off as an adult. LOL.

And I also agree: always better to stand corrected than to continue believing in a falsity. Too bad many other members here are not so willing to "man-up" as you did and "take a hit" when they're mistaken.. But it's no big deal; labels can be confusing, especially when dealing with stuff like Theology or Philosophy. Anything that, unlike hard science, often times has more than one plausible answer. And these are fields that allow opinion much more than do hard science.

 

[dust1n]

At first I thought this a funny question but as I stopped to think about it, it is quite good. It is the first one I have heard for ages that has made me stop and think. From a layman's point of view, it would seem it could not be both, as there is only one universe......but that's where it gets immediately murky.

Thanks! Finishing up work tonight and got some stuff to do, but I'll try to sign on tonight so I can at least give a full reply.

 

[dust1n]

At first I thought this a funny question but as I stopped to think about it, it is quite good. It is the first one I have heard for ages that has made me stop and think. From a layman's point of view, it would seem it could not be both, as there is only one universe......but that's where it gets immediately murky.

I think it is a tricky question to answer and no doubt most will find mine risible. But as God is reflective in his own Self, (grandfather, father, son, etc) then one is first in creation and then one second.
I am not giving this as the ultimate answer as I think that goes further back into the divine-consciousness. But within that same pattern, I would see El (which would correspond with Allah) and then Yhvh. That would reveal itself with El (Allah) being the first part of the big-bang before the universe stretched to the size we see now. It is Yhvh, you see, that is the God of this aeon, the God of flesh (has emotions etc) and thus is the one that released us from being constrained as energy in another form into the form we now see ourselves.

So Allah then Yhvh.

Now, this is only a part explanation, as my understanding of the definition of statues of God is that Yhvh is the 'only' God. Thus reflective through the Name. It is a bit like following someones family name and watching their offspring branch off and the complexity it would make in their genealogy. The gods, after all, are our own selves, our highers selves.

I suppose you would then put before all of that, the Jewish Yhvh, which takes me back to what I just said: Yhvh was first as it means Existent, or self-existence and is the only Existence that really is. Nothing else exists.

That will have happened many myriad of times over. It becomes more clear to me when I remind myself that everything (as far as we are concerned) is one-consciousness...... so God is developing his own Self. It is not different than you changing from a babe to a child, adolescent, adult etc.

Yes, it was a good question!

Thanks for your reply. A multi-leveled Godhead sort of figure is a possible means by which Christianity and Islam could have some sort of resolved theology on the intelligent design. However, in the is process, you would have, pretty much have seriously rewrite both the major tenants of both Christianity and Islam to accomplish this, which I imagine most would not be too happy about, well at least Christians and Muslims. For example, and "developing" god would be vary problematic for many claims in the Bible and the Quran. So while, it is a way to resolve those two religions considering the parameters of ID, those two religions are not willing necessarily to alter the interpretation of their texts to make this happen.

Your theology seems more hermetic than your average Christian or Muslim, but I realize this is not always the case.

 

[Milton Platt]

Thanks for your reply. A multi-leveled Godhead sort of figure is a possible means by which Christianity and Islam could have some sort of resolved theology on the intelligent design. However, in the is process, you would have, pretty much have seriously rewrite both the major tenants of both Christianity and Islam to accomplish this, which I imagine most would not be too happy about, well at least Christians and Muslims. For example, and "developing" god would be vary problematic for many claims in the Bible and the Quran. So while, it is a way to resolve those two religions considering the parameters of ID, those two religions are not willing necessarily to alter the interpretation of their texts to make this happen.

Your theology seems more hermetic than your average Christian or Muslim, but I realize this is not always the case.

You seem to have a knack......I just get people pissed off...I don't mean to, and am a little upset when I do because it sets up a hostile environment and stops communication.

 

[dust1n]

You seem to have a knack......I just get people pissed off...I don't mean to, and am a little upset when I do because it sets up a hostile environment and stops communication.

Dude, it's a lot of experience doing this.

Here's a tip:

The Socratic Method is your friend.

Figure out exactly what the other person's reasoning is. Try to get as much information. Then you can show why their reasoning doesn't work, or why their premises don't reach their conclusions, or how it can used to reach contradictory results, or how it's based on a confirmation basis, etc.