Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[Milton Platt]

The gospels were not written by eye witnesses. With the possible exception of the one attributed to Paul, they were written considerably after the supposed resurrection. You can easily verify this with a google. There is also no reason to think the names assigned to them are the names of the actual authors.

 

[1robin]

What source can we consult that tells us definitively that the apostles chose any of them? What source is there that lists texts Jesus chose? He was long dead when the New Testament stories were written. The most likely reason the ones that were chosen to bind into a collection is that they simply conflicted less with each other than the ones not included. For a book that has been for ages touted as inspired by god and infallible, the fact that such an undertaking had to happen strains credulity.

1. Jesus did not chose any lists or books. He chose apostles. IOW like in the upper room a special dispensation of the HOLY Spirit empowered the apostles to write what they did.
2. The standard was not perfect agreement. In fact the original bible had hundreds of surface contradictions when adopted and scholars have been harmonizing them one by one to where there are few left that are actual contradictions (if any).
3. However those that were contemporary with events wrote the stories. Plus the bible specifically says the HOLY Spirit would come upon these apostles for the specific purpose of reminding them of the events they should record.
4. I did not understand your last statement. The NT has the most accurate textual tradition of any book of any kind in ancient history. The bible's we read are not infallible. God never promised they would be. God promised his original revelation would be infallible. He is not going to strike dead every scribe that misspells a word. However even according to Ehrman the bible has only about 5% meaning errors, and core doctrine is virtually free of error. Not only that but the textual tradition was so rich concerning the bible just about every potential textual mistake is known and explained in the more expensive bibles.

 

[Milton Platt]

1. Jesus did not chose any lists or books. He chose apostles. IOW like in the upper room a special dispensation of the HOLY Spirit empowered the apostles to write what they did.
2. The standard was not perfect agreement. In fact the original bible had hundreds of surface contradictions when adopted and scholars have been harmonizing them one by one to where there are few left that are actual contradictions (if any).
3. However those that were contemporary with events wrote the stories. Plus the bible specifically says the HOLY Spirit would come upon these apostles for the specific purpose of reminding them of the events they should record.
4. I did not understand your last statement. The NT has the most accurate textual tradition of any book of any kind in ancient history. The bible's we read are not infallible. God never promised they would be. God promised his original revelation would be infallible. He is not going to strike dead every scribe that misspells a word. However even according to Ehrman the bible has only about 5% meaning errors, and core doctrine is virtually free of error. Not only that but the textual tradition was so rich concerning the bible just about every potential textual mistake is known and explained in the more expensive bibles.

What is "textual tradition"?

 

[outhouse]

2. The standard was not perfect agreement. In fact the original bible had hundreds of surface contradictions when adopted and scholars have been harmonizing them one by one to where there are few left that are actual contradictions (if any).

Factually false.

That is not supported outside biased non credible apologetics.


ITS WHY YOU HAVE NO SOURCES

The NT has the most accurate textual tradition of any book of any kind in ancient history

False again

However even according to Ehrman the bible has only about 5% meaning errors

Grammatical errors. NOT all the factual historical errors.

and core doctrine is virtually free of error.

Factually false. YOU cannot post apologetic rhetoric and try to pass it off as credible academia. It is not credible academia, you have to be educated in REAL history to know this.

 

[Milton Platt]

Factually false.

That is not supported outside biased non credible apologetics.


ITS WHY YOU HAVE NO SOURCES



False again



Grammatical errors. NOT all the factual historical errors.



Factually false. YOU cannot post apologetic rhetoric and try to pass it off as credible academia. It is not credible academia, you have to be educated in REAL history to know this.

Well, I was trying to a little kinder.....but yeah. Assertions made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.....

 

[outhouse]

Well, I was trying to a little kinder.....

Its been over a year ive been trying to get him to accept academia, and I get tired of showing sourced credible academia, and having him post rhetoric and no sources.

 

[Etritonakin]

I have been thinking about time from our perspective recently.

Because our universe proceeded from the big bang -and because we proceed from birth -we comprehend eternity forward in time.

Given the right circumstances, we might continue to exist and be aware forever.

Perhaps it is just as possible for one to have existed eternally backward in time -but not for us.

Then again -I have also been thinking about (If I remember correctly) Dawkins' statement about the possibility of human life having been designed -but that the designer of human life would have had to evolve.

Design is evolution -and evolution is design.

The mind and body are (composed of) the environment -and the environment is (designed by) the body and mind.

That is essentially God -and we are essentially subdivisions thereof.

God is the environment which is aware of itself.

God designed us -but what else would God have done? It was logical/inevitable -logically inevitable -that God -being aware -make more of himself -and make more selves of him -create more of which to be aware -and create others to be aware.

That which is has always existed -but not in the same configuration.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

That essentially says that God knowingly intended to self-evolve.

I AM became I AM MORE -and WE ARE

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

As God preceded and caused -and also is -the physical creation, any body of God seen by man in the physical creation is a representation for our sake -as everything is the body of God's mind.

The singularity we call the big bang became what it would -which means it was packaged complexity -the one it was becoming all it would inevitably be.

...... lost track -more later.......

 

[Milton Platt]

I have been thinking about time from our perspective recently.

Because our universe proceeded from the big bang -and because we proceed from birth -we comprehend eternity forward in time.

Given the right circumstances, we might continue to exist and be aware forever.

Perhaps it is just as possible for one to have existed eternally backward in time -but not for us.

Then again -I have also been thinking about (If I remember correctly) Dawkins' statement about the possibility of human life having been designed -but that the designer of human life would have had to evolve.

Design is evolution -and evolution is design.

The mind and body are (composed of) the environment -and the environment is (designed by) the body and mind.

That is essentially God -and we are essentially subdivisions thereof.

God is the environment which is aware of itself.

God designed us -but what else would God have done? It was logical/inevitable -logically inevitable -that God -being aware -make more of himself -and make more selves of him -create more of which to be aware -and create others to be aware.

That which is has always existed -but not in the same configuration.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

That essentially says that God knowingly intended to self-evolve.

I AM became I AM MORE -and WE ARE

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

As God preceded and caused -and also is -the physical creation, any body of God seen by man in the physical creation is a representation for our sake -as everything is the body of God's mind.

The singularity we call the big bang became what it would -which means it was packaged complexity -the one it was becoming all it would inevitably be.

...... lost track -more later.......

Let me know when you get to the part of the sermon that makes sense

 

[Etritonakin]

Let me know when you get to the part of the sermon that makes sense

That might require a change in our perspective.

Many false things have made sense to man over time -replaced by other false things over time.Sometimes they are replaced by things more correct, but still somewhat false.
Sometimes truth is lost and replaced by falsehood.


Both design and evolution exist -and are part of the same whole. It is just a matter of which is responsible for what at any time.
There is no sense in being afraid to consider either design or evolution.

I have no real understanding of the true nature of God.

I was just considering what was written in the bible. Many believers are actually afraid to do so -which is contrary to biblical instruction.

God essentially states he self-evolved, but that does not necessarily mean he had a beginning as we understand it or evolved as we understand it.

That which we call evolution is essentially itself an intelligence. It intelligently designs -but some assume it arose from a non-intelligence without the intent of an intelligence.

However, intelligence as we know it is initially aware of less -becomes aware of more -creates more of which to be aware -and became aware of itself at some point.

If God has always been aware of himself, that does not mean there was not less of himself of which to be aware -then more of himself of which to be aware.
Or... God has always been aware of everything and himself -the two being one in the same -but made everything different than it was -more of what it was -by subdividing and ordering all that has always been.

We know without doubt that we were created by that which preceded us -the only question -from our perspective -is whether or not that which preceded us is able to say "I AM"

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

That is essentially God saying that he is now us, also.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive information and retain it as knowledge for applying to itself or other instances of knowledge or information, thereby creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so." (from the wiki -emphasis mine)

ev·o·lu·tion
2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

de·sign
2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The gospels were not written by eye witnesses.

Probably not. One or more could have been (although I find this extremely unlikely). I do find likely, or at least quite plausible, the use of the first person plural in Luke/Acts (i.e., that the author was indeed familiar with eye-witnesses), and that the authors of John were indeed reliant on an eye-witness (the "beloved disciple" they say "We know that his testimony is true").

With the possible exception of the one attributed to Paul

No such exception exists, and Paul likely didn't know Jesus personally and certainly didn't write anything after the supposed resurrection.

There is also no reason to think the names assigned to them are the names of the actual authors.

No good reason (IMO). There are several reasons that have been proffered, from way back to Dodd and the like to more recent scholars like Bauckham.

 

[Milton Platt]

That might require a change in our perspective.

Many false things have made sense to man over time -replaced by other false things over time.Sometimes they are replaced by things more correct, but still somewhat false.
Sometimes truth is lost and replaced by falsehood.


Both design and evolution exist -and are part of the same whole. It is just a matter of which is responsible for what at any time.
There is no sense in being afraid to consider either design or evolution.

I have no real understanding of the true nature of God.

I was just considering what was written in the bible. Many believers are actually afraid to do so -which is contrary to biblical instruction.

God essentially states he self-evolved, but that does not necessarily mean he had a beginning as we understand it or evolved as we understand it.

That which we call evolution is essentially itself an intelligence. It intelligently designs -but some assume it arose from a non-intelligence without the intent of an intelligence.

However, intelligence as we know it is initially aware of less -becomes aware of more -creates more of which to be aware -and became aware of itself at some point.

If God has always been aware of himself, that does not mean there was not less of himself of which to be aware -then more of himself of which to be aware.
Or... God has always been aware of everything and himself -the two being one in the same -but made everything different than it was -more of what it was -by subdividing and ordering all that has always been.

We know without doubt that we were created by that which preceded us -the only question -from our perspective -is whether or not that which preceded us is able to say "I AM"

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

That is essentially God saying that he is now us, also.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive information and retain it as knowledge for applying to itself or other instances of knowledge or information, thereby creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so." (from the wiki -emphasis mine)

ev·o·lu·tion
2 the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

de·sign
2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The original Gallic Wars Commentaries was written by Julius Caesar

But we don't have the original. Nor do we have any idea that De Bello Gallico is commentary rather than mostly fiction, or even if it was written as a singular work (rather than a series of "press releases" written at various times for propaganda reasons). We do know it's filled with problems.

and this is confirmed by Aulus Hiritius

Only it isn't.

Other contemporaries, who weren't pro-Caesars, Cicero and Cato the Younger wrote about Caesar

Cicero writes “sed dum voluit alios habere parata, unde sumerent qui vellent scribere historiam…,” clearly differentiating Caesar’s commentaries from actual history. Later authors were less appreciative. Suetonius reports Asinius Pollio’s opinion that Caesar’s works are careless and inaccurate (parum diligenter parumque integra veritate). ). And no one among modern historians would deny that Caesar’s desires to paint himself and his efforts in a favorable light taint and distort the historical validity of commentaries. As Schanz puts it, “Caesar schreibt nicht als Historiker, sondern als Statthalter" (Schanz, M. (1966). Geschichte der Romischen Literatur: bis zum Gestzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian. (Erster Tiel: Die römische Literatur in der Zeit der Republik). München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.)

definitely confirmed his historical existence.

Absolutely true. Of course, one wonders why the comparisons between Jesus or the gospels inevitably involve the handful of persons for which there exist more evidence, rather than dealing with the fact that e.g., our historical evidence for so important a figure as Pontius Pilate is far less than that for Jesus, and much of it comes from the NT. In other words, our evidence for Jesus is practically unparalleled when it comes to antiquity.

There are far more evidences, not just historical literature that prove Caesar's existence than that of Jesus.

And this can be said of maybe a handful of other ancient figures. For virtually every figure from antiquity, our evidence for Jesus is vastly greator.

And there are too many contradictions in the gospels to actual Roman practices of crucifixion.

Wrong. The NT is one of the few sources that describes this practice rather than simply noting it was used as a punishment.

Normally, people being crucified were left there for days, after they are dead.

According to which sources?

And it was normal practice to strip them naked before tying or nailing them to the crossbeams.

According to which sources?

The gospels seemed to make Jesus an exception to all these practices, just show that none of the authors had witnessed Jesus' crucifixion or any crucifixion whatsoever.

This doesn't follow in more than on way. First, if the normal practice of crucifixion were so contrary to that described in the gospels, than the authors would have to be more ignorant of a common practice in their own time than we are some 2,000 years later. Second, it presumes that the authors couldn't have received information from witnesses. Third, it presumes illogically aspects of the nature and purpose of the passion narratives.

 

[Etritonakin]

...except that the following is true...


Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

 

[Milton Platt]

...except that the following is true...


Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Why is is true?

 

[viole]

Yes he was around for the writing of the allegory, the drowning of what was to the ANE the whole world, or the actual whole world. I imagine like God he regretted the necessity of it but as the trinity are three distinct wills in perfect harmony his take on the event would have mirrored the others.

Allegory? So, there was no global flood. Or was there one? I am confused.

BTW have you seen the movie NOAH. It was if they intentionally betrayed the biblical story but it is still well made and does portray the profoundness and solemnity of the events. But everything you going to hate about NOAH (Russell Crowe) in the movie is not from the bible. I hate when movies are made to represent events and go out of their way not to, but this one still is worth watching.

Yes, I saw it. I thought it was pretty boring. Not because of my atheism, I do not believe in E.T. either, but I enjoy well done UFO stories. I like some zombies movies too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

...except that the following is true...


Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

If that was true, why do you need missionaries at all? If the invisible things of him from the creation suffice to see His eternal power?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

If that was true, why do you need missionaries at all? If the invisible things of him from the creation suffice to see His eternal power?

Doesn't even matter.....quoting a line from an ancient book with an anonymous author supports nothing but the gullability of the one quoting it.
Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

...except that the following is true...


Rom_1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Except you have merely made the bold empty claim that it is true.

 

[1robin]

This story seems unlikely. If you find the time to get it I will look at it. However it sounds like an anecdote for evangelicalism.

I am sorry I just don't have the time. My lab's project must be done by Oct 30 and we are way behind. It is also hard to search because you get back a sea of info your not interested in no matter what you search for. However I did want to ask why you (having no idea what so ever of it's truth or not) presume it is not true.

1. Billions read the same book and convert to Christianity.
2. There are book by the hundreds of people starting out to disprove the bible and wind up believing, Heck that is what I did. I was not just an atheist I was an anti theist when I began studying the bible.
3. The very rare Roman official titles are very well known and have been scrutinized and found reliable.

Given all that what justifies the assumption it is propaganda.

This first response took over and hour I was interrupted so much.

I am afraid today is not going to allow for debate. Sorry, I will try and answer the rest soon but our time table is getting tighter everyday.

 

[Yorutenchi]

I am sorry I just don't have the time. My lab's project must be done by Oct 30 and we are way behind. It is also hard to search because you get back a sea of info your not interested in no matter what you search for. However I did want to ask why you (having no idea what so ever of it's truth or not) presume it is not true.

1. Billions read the same book and convert to Christianity.
2. There are book by the hundreds of people starting out to disprove the bible and wind up believing, Heck that is what I did. I was not just an atheist I was an anti theist when I began studying the bible.
3. The very rare Roman official titles are very well known and have been scrutinized and found reliable.

Given all that what justifies the assumption it is propaganda.

This first response took over and hour I was interrupted so much.

I am afraid today is not going to allow for debate. Sorry, I will try and answer the rest soon but our time table is getting tighter everyday.

It is understandable if you are busy. It is ok. I enjoy our debate. You are not rude even if we think different. I don't think you are a liar either. That is not why I do not believe the story.

I have grown up some in the United States and some time not. In my time where there is not an abundance of Christianity I find that people don't normally convert. If they convert it usually has nothing to do with research. Most time they are people who were told and taught Christianity as a child and then fall back on it. I have also heard of similar stories about Christianity like the story you said that I have found out to be false.

There was a famous TV Christian lady who used to talk about how she was a witch and a satanist before coming to the Christianity. But she said things that were not true of satanism or of witchcraft. People of that religion corrected her and told her that if what she explained was the Christian view of those religions and not those religions at all. So she lied about her involvement and it was later found out that she never was in those stories she told. It was just a lie to get people to buy her books and watch her programs. It sounded good and she said god told her to lie to convert more people.

I see this as far more common than people who try to disprove Christianity and then turn to god. Many time people that claim that get the facts they claimed to have researched wrong for example. That is why I don't believe it.