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

[Twilight Hue]

Could one ever possibly calculate the odds of the Universe having come into existence via blind chance vs. an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal being coming into existence by blind chance? How would you even begin to know which odds were more likely?

There would need to be previous and secondary occurrences other by which to gauge or predict any odds. That's why odds calculations are so ludicrous and worthless in light of any initial results like the universe upon human appearance.

Anyone can throw incalculable odds the first time around, every single time. A winner at every first crack.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

The common answer I hear from them is that the creator always was, ie, no beginning.
This is a special case. Only material things had a beginning.

Can you prove hat material things had a begining?

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

I believe we live in a universe with multiple planes/dimensions beyond our senses. Beings of these higher planes fostered the development of life on our plane. I call this Intelligent Design (different than the Christian Intelligent Design proponents). But above all that is the ultimate designer, God/Brahman, who is the uncreated eternal consciousness for which the universe is His play/drama.

The presence o mutiple universes does not make the idea of Creactionism any more or less ludicrous.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

There are no creationists who posit a complex being as designer. About all creationists refer to God the holy spirit.

I did not say that you beileve that the being is complex rather that it is impossible for an omnipotent and omnipresent being not to be.

 

[dust1n]

It makes sense to me that there is an ultimate Source or Creator of all things. As Revelation 4:11 puts it; “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” The scientific evidence points to this conclusion, IMO.

What scientific evidence suggests that Jehovah is the god in question, and that such a God is worthy to glory, honor, or power?

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

As I've noted elsewhere ...

The First Cause argument does not (or, at least, should not) claim that everything requires a cause. Rather, it posits that all natural phenomenon are caused. If this is accepted as true, either (a) there is no first cause, or (b) the first cause must be preternatural.​

I find the idea that the universe itself has no cause to make more sense than the idea that the universe had a designer that has no cause. If something cannot come from nothing then where did the something come from that made the something? Is there a designer of designers?

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

Hello Freedom! Good question

The apparent first cause paradox applies to any explanation; ID or naturalistic mechanism does it not?- where did that come from? So it's a wash- not only that, it's a moot point because here we are, there is obviously a solution one way or the other..

What's not even, I'd argue, is the capacity for creative intelligence v blind chance to create everything we see around us- including gravity and life.

To your analogy- abiogenesis is just one problem with Darwinism, like most creationists, I think the theory of evolution is woefully incomplete even if granted that generous head start

You are not very knowledgeable, Darwin did not come up with the concept of abiogenesis......

And what I am saying is that Creactionism answers the question of where everything came from with itch a designer and I ask them the question of where did the designer come from? And they till me it has always existed, then why could the universe not have always existed.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

It makes sense to me that there is an ultimate Source or Creator of all things. As Revelation 4:11 puts it; “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” The scientific evidence points to this conclusion, IMO.
The designer of all things has existed forever and will exist forever.(Psalms 90:2) As to there being any other god, "There is no other God but me;... there is none besides me...For I am God, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:21,22)

Until such point that you can prove that the document known as The Bible is infallible I will not take it as evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Until such point that you can prove that the document known as The Bible is infallible I will not take it as evidence.

I don't even need it to be infallible but simply credible. It has failed even this.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

Is it not true that someone looking at the evidence that has not been exposed to any relgions or philosophies or to evelotion for that matter would have not come to the conclusion of Creactionism as accounted in judeo-christian relgions?

If the above statement is true then that means that if you do beileive in that form of Creactionism you are working from a bias and are therefore not being rationale.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

I don't even need it to be infallible but simply credible. It has failed even this.

You are correct in respect to its credibility, but I have trouble using infallible historical documents as fact.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are not very knowledgeable, Darwin did not come up with the concept of abiogenesis......

And what I am saying is that Creactionism answers the question of where everything came from with itch a designer and I ask them the question of where did the designer come from? And they till me it has always existed, then why could the universe not have always existed.

That was certainly the prediction of most atheists like Hoyle at the time- (no creation hence no creator) They mocked and rejected the Priest Lemaitre's concept of a beginning of time and space itself as 'religious pseudoscience' - 'Big Bang' he called it, and never accepted it till his dying day.

From all we can possibly observe, there was a specific creation event, and I agree entirely with what the atheists themselves complained of as the implications of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you prove hat material things had a begining?

I'm personally not capable of proving anything regarding the material world, particularly "hat material".
This is compounded by the difficulty of defining "beginning".
We can say our universe has one, but that could be its current structure.
The matter, energy, & whatever else makes it up could have a prior existence.

 

[outhouse]

From all we can possibly observe, there was a specific creation event

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Creation has NO observable evidence what so ever. There is ZERO evidence in support of creation outside mythology.

 

[rusra02]

What scientific evidence suggests that Jehovah is the god in question, and that such a God is worthy to glory, honor, or power?

The scientific evidence that a supreme Intellect is responsible for creation rests in what has been created. (Romans 1:20) The fact that Jehovah is the God responsible for creation is established more by the historical record, rather than science, and includes the following, IMO:

• Jehovah claims credit for being the Creator, in the Bible. I believe his is the only credible claim. (Genesis 2:4)
• Scientific accuracy- when the Bible discusses the earth's shape, being suspended in space, and many other such facts, it proves correct. Only the Creator would know these facts when they were recorded as long ago as 3,500 years. False ideas, such as the earth being the center of the universe, have been erroneously attributed to the Bible without just cause.
• The Bible reliably foretells the future. (Isaiah 46:10) So much so, critics have claimed that such prophecies were actually written after the events occurred.
• Jehovah has revealed much about himself by acting in history. Many of the events recorded in the Bible have been confirmed as accurate history.
• The Bible gives evidence it was authored by an Intellect far higher than any man or group of men. It's wisdom benefits, when applied, all people everywhere.

Thus, based on the evidence above and other evidence, I believe what the Bible tells us about our Creator, and that Jehovah has shown himself to be the only true God.

 

[rusra02]

Until such point that you can prove that the document known as The Bible is infallible I will not take it as evidence.

I think it is fair to examine the Bible to determine if it is what it claims to be, God's Word. I also believe such an examination is worth our careful attention. Please understand that the Bible has been maligned, misquoted, and misrepresented for centuries, often by those who claimed to teach it. Still, it remains the world's all-time best seller and is worthy, IMO, of being carefully read and studied. Many who have done this are convinced the Bible is what it claims to be.

 

[George-ananda]

The presence o mutiple universes does not make the idea of Creactionism any more or less ludicrous.

Why is the Intelligent Design model I posit ludicrous? I doubt you understand the model I'm positing to be honest.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I think it is fair to examine the Bible to determine if it is what it claims to be, God's Word. I also believe such an examination is worth our careful attention. Please understand that the Bible has been maligned, misquoted, and misrepresented for centuries, often by those who claimed to teach it.

For example, the assertion that it claims to be "God's Word." The Bible as a whole does not claim anything whatsoever about itself. It's an anthology of different texts that were assembled long after the individual texts were composed. None of the authors had anything to say about the final form of the text, which didn't even exist yet.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

Many ID enthusiast claim that evolution is incomplete becuase it does not explain the origin of the first life (which is not evolution's purpose) and thus insist that it should have no scientific standing (using the same 'logic' one could say that Gravity is not true becuase we can not solidly identifiy it's source [though Gravitons are very likely, similar to how Abiogenesis is very likely]). I therfore ask these ID proponents as to where the "Designer" originates. Many Creactionist and ID proponents say that as a complex universe we need a complex being to design it. However if this is the case then why wouldn't an even more complex being be needed to make such a complex being?

In short, yes, that's a serious problem with creationism, and it's not really possible to get around it without copping out on some level.

Paul Tillich, one of the most important theologians of the 20th century, called this out as a problem. If God is a being, then God cannot be responsible for being itself. In that case he might be older and more powerful than we are, but he's not essentially different from us and did not define the rules according to which things exist. Tillich's solution was to stop defining God as a being.

Lots of folks want to have it both ways: God is a being but also not subject to any of the real or philosophical limitations of being—but that's just another form of cop-out.

 

[rusra02]

For example, the assertion that it claims to be "God's Word." The Bible as a whole does not claim anything whatsoever about itself. It's an anthology of different texts that were assembled long after the individual texts were composed. None of the authors had anything to say about the final form of the text, which didn't even exist yet.

It is true the Bible consists of 66 books, written by several dozen men over 1,600 years. Yet these men claimed to speak from God. King David, for example, said; " The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue. " ( 2 Samuel 23:2) The Bible elsewhere affirms "that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. (2 Peter 1:20,21) Thus, I believe what 2 Timothy 3:16,17 says about the Bible; "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."