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

[Revoltingest]

It gets extra interesting by which the residence of the creator comes to mind. Where does a beginningless creator even live?

I bet it's one of the better neighborhoods.

 

[leibowde84]

I have heard Dawkins say "Evolution is a fact" about a thousand times. In fact I have never seen him give a lecture or debate where he does not make dozens of claims to know this or that. Any claim to knowledge is an absolute claim and is defined:

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

That requires that whoever claims it also have the proof for it, or at least evidence that makes it the best explanation of whatever facts and evidence that can be found.

I argue to the best explanation for the evidence we have. That is how theology and history work and really all subjects should. Science can't prove science.

I argue to the best explanation not to certainty. I do have certainty but of a kind that is unavailable to anyone else and so do not claim certainty even though I have it.

[Sweden has no oil. Norway does. And some Islamic countries.] I didn't say oil, I said natural resources that until now have not been utilized.

It was not an argument for God. It was pointing out that scripture makes this compatible with God. In other words the amount of evil in the world has been all but given up in professional theological circles as a argument against God. 2000 years after the bible already pointed it out.



That is not the glaringly obvious context of that statement. In fact the surrounding texts explain the context very well. And no your choosing to live will not mean you will, you will die anyway, but this is not even the death in question. God was saying chose me and you will live the life intended for you from the beginning, but if you do not chose him you will suffer a second death and be destroyed in Hell. How much of the bible have you studied. Much of it you seem to lack even a Sunday school understanding of. No offense meant.

I just heard two extremely good debates on what predestination means. They were both Christians but DR White was one of them and he never loses a debate. The other guy went first and set up some arguments so well I though "Uh oh, White is in trouble". Five minutes into White's rebuttal he had demolished the other guys argument to such an extent it could no longer be even considered tenable. No God cannot be taken by surprise by events.

New International Version
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'

Isaiah and I believe Jeremiah both contain what are referred to as the trial of the God's. I recommend you read them or at least the parts dealing with foreknowledge.

I did not say low probability events are proof of God or a denial of natural law. I am saying that when a series of almost zero probability events occur within time spans that coincide with obeying God that God is a better explanation than luck. I only gave you a few examples and few of the details for those examples. I was too lazy to type all the things that almost always go wrong that went right after that, that had such low probability as to intuitively suggest intent and would to anyone. I have found that the hardest atheists subtly show signs of Karma, God's justice, etc..........I have never known anyone that have a series of low probability events happen and not think intention was involved instinctually. I guaranty you do it, you may catch yourself doing it and back away but it is virtually universal.

First none that are even fractionally as good of an explanation as the gospel explanation. Pick one natural explanation you think better explains salvation and we will compare them.

I would agree with the first to, but the last will only multiply misery.



Agreed that is why it is so frustrating when every argument is countered with a hypothetical claim from experimental science. It's as if you must escape anything that can be verified as fast as possible and escape into the twilight where no one can see clearly. Not just you, this is what 75% of atheists do. They dismiss faith by using things that are not even close to being known and most people can't understand anyway including themselves. It's like that statement about gravity I always post as an example of mumbo jumbo that know one knows, contracts its' self, and has about 4 errors in 2 sentences, and has nothing to do with science at all. But it carries all this weight because Hawking said it. I am afraid that he is over rated because of his handicap. I don't understand 90% of what he says but find it either wrong or questionable and many scientific giants like Penrose call his theories "not even a good excuse for not having an answer" Most of what he writes is philosophy anyway and I have seen philosophers refer to it as abject absurdity.

If I had recently been to India and worshipped Shiva that might be relevant. I see no culture that Shiva worship dominates that is blessed with what currently Christian or recently Christian nations are. If you want to use other cultures to weigh God, lets bring in Israel and see if God explains their history pretty well.

I could start writing now and die before I listed all the reasons. I will give you two. The Koran plagiarized works well know to be gnostic and heretical, or Muhammad's impression of his revelation. Pick one if you wish.



That is a weird question. The vast majority of workers in them believed in the divine but I do not see how that is relevant. I was explaining what really turned the tide in WW2, now whether that entity was divine. BTW factories a mere humans can't be divine anyway. Nor does God have any reason why he could not use non believers if he wished like Babylon. I don't the question.

[/quote][/QUOTE]
"Fact" doesn't mean certainty, it means that something is indisputably the case. The ToE seems correctly classified as "fact" in this context. There is no valid dispute about it based on verifiable evidence.

 

[viole]

I have heard Dawkins say "Evolution is a fact" about a thousand times. In fact I have never seen him give a lecture or debate where he does not make dozens of claims to know this or that. Any claim to knowledge is an absolute claim and is defined:

Evolution is a fact. All we need is a mirror to realize that. What he is not certain about is the existence of a god.

I argue to the best explanation not to certainty. I do have certainty but of a kind that is unavailable to anyone else and so do not claim certainty even though I have it.

Same here. Yet knowledge can be wrong. Obviously. We hold different knowledges and we cannot be both right.

It was not an argument for God. It was pointing out that scripture makes this compatible with God. In other words the amount of evil in the world has been all but given up in professional theological circles as a argument against God. 2000 years after the bible already pointed it out.

The jury is still out on this, I am afraid. Some Jewish theologians even postulate that God is not almight rather than question His moral qualities.

That is not the glaringly obvious context of that statement. In fact the surrounding texts explain the context very well. And no your choosing to live will not mean you will, you will die anyway, but this is not even the death in question. God was saying chose me and you will live the life intended for you from the beginning, but if you do not chose him you will suffer a second death and be destroyed in Hell. How much of the bible have you studied. Much of it you seem to lack even a Sunday school understanding of. No offense meant.

What is the point of a second death? Looks like God wants to have the last word. Sure He is male?

I just heard two extremely good debates on what predestination means. They were both Christians but DR White was one of them and he never loses a debate. The other guy went first and set up some arguments so well I though "Uh oh, White is in trouble". Five minutes into White's rebuttal he had demolished the other guys argument to such an extent it could no longer be even considered tenable. No God cannot be taken by surprise by events.

Which leads to determinism, doesn't it? Which is an obvious consequence of living outside of time and space. How can He know what I am doing tomorrow, if tomorrow is not determined?

I did not say low probability events are proof of God or a denial of natural law. I am saying that when a series of almost zero probability events occur within time spans that coincide with obeying God that God is a better explanation than luck. I only gave you a few examples and few of the details for those examples. I was too lazy to type all the things that almost always go wrong that went right after that, that had such low probability as to intuitively suggest intent and would to anyone. I have found that the hardest atheists subtly show signs of Karma, God's justice, etc..........I have never known anyone that have a series of low probability events happen and not think intention was involved instinctually. I guaranty you do it, you may catch yourself doing it and back away but it is virtually universal.

Every event in the Universe has an infinitesimal probability to have happened. A posteriori.

And, again, my Muslim friend says exactly the same. I expect believers in Apollo said the same, too. It is called confirmation bias.

First none that are even fractionally as good of an explanation as the gospel explanation. Pick one natural explanation you think better explains salvation and we will compare them.

There is no such a thing as salvation or sins in naturalism. It is like asking what better explanation has naturalism for prophets living three days in a fish or how can serpents talk. You are getting circular.

I would agree with the first to, but the last will only multiply misery.

Well, gays will behave like gays, anyway. No matter how much you pray or missionaries you deploy. Unless you want to jail them or execute them. I think letting them out of the closet might be helpful. At least, they will not feel compelled to marry or date a member of the opposite sex that might increase this alleged misery even further.

Agreed that is why it is so frustrating when every argument is countered with a hypothetical claim from experimental science. It's as if you must escape anything that can be verified as fast as possible and escape into the twilight where no one can see clearly. Not just you, this is what 75% of atheists do. They dismiss faith by using things that are not even close to being known and most people can't understand anyway including themselves. It's like that statement about gravity I always post as an example of mumbo jumbo that know one knows, contracts its' self, and has about 4 errors in 2 sentences, and has nothing to do with science at all. But it carries all this weight because Hawking said it. I am afraid that he is over rated because of his handicap. I don't understand 90% of what he says but find it either wrong or questionable and many scientific giants like Penrose call his theories "not even a good excuse for not having an answer" Most of what he writes is philosophy anyway and I have seen philosophers refer to it as abject absurdity.

How can you judge if you do not understand it? You must at least understand the rebuttals. And in order to understand the rebuttals, it helps to understand what has been rebutted.

And why do you concentrate on Hawkins? Einstein said the Bible is a book of fables and pretty childish. And he was not handicapped. Honestly, can you really imagine the creator of the Universe,the laws of Nature, gravity, time, the beautiful mathematical symmetries in physics, the trillions of galaxies and stars, life, etc. etc. .... selecting a tribe in the Middle East as His chosen beings? Isn't the contrary more likely: that a tribe in Middle East made up a God who is on their side?

If I had recently been to India and worshipped Shiva that might be relevant. I see no culture that Shiva worship dominates that is blessed with what currently Christian or recently Christian nations are. If you want to use other cultures to weigh God, lets bring in Israel and see if God explains their history pretty well.

Who knows how it is going to look like in a thousands years? An ancient Roman would have been justified to say the same about Jupiter accordind to your criteria,

I could start writing now and die before I listed all the reasons. I will give you two. The Koran plagiarized works well know to be gnostic and heretical, or Muhammad's impression of his revelation. Pick one if you wish.

That does not entail that Allah does not exist. And if you insist that He does not exist, how would you explain that my muslim friend says the same as you do concerning wonderful and unlikely events that happened in his life because of worshipping Allah? He mentioned them to me and they are quite unlikely.

Like Hume so eloquently said: any evidence of god that takes the form of answers to prayers, unlikely positive events, miracles, mystic experiences, revelations, etc. which are also shared by believers in other and different gods, is inherently self defeating.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

"Fact" doesn't mean certainty, it means that something is indisputably the case. The ToE seems correctly classified as "fact" in this context. There is no valid dispute about it based on verifiable evidence.

Oh come of it leibowde84, this is about the most trivial case of splitting hairs I have ever observed. If you want to call it proof or certainty makes no difference to me. Dawkins has said about things that lack even ordinary certainty that they are categorically true. Now I would agree that much of what he claims that about is as I say "probably the best explanation of the evidence" in many cases. However his claims are to brute truth not high probability and therefor he has a burden to absolutely prove that not only is all the evidence consistent with but does not even lack a possible defeater. Most people in debates do not get that technical but this conversation did adopt the existing technical burdens that do exist in philosophy and Dakin's and countless other atheist's violate the burdens they themselves set themselves up to provide yet fail to do so.

There are similar claims that can be made about Christians and in the same circumstances I would agree. I started watching a debate on proof that God exists. I turned it off after 30 minutes because they did not meet their burden. They were giving things that made the Bible's explanation for them the best we have but did not prove anything. I hold or try to hold both sides to their respective burdens. I find most atheists reverse the burdens and assign the burden of proof to a claim too faith, and the burden of having some level of evidence for their claims to fact, proof, certainty, absolute truth,........ or whatever word you will allow to be used to describe the nature of their claims. Some are careful not to make claims that require proof, many professional atheists and many posters here do not.

 

[1robin]

Evolution is a fact. All we need is a mirror to realize that. What he is not certain about is the existence of a god.

No it most certainly is not. I would agree micro-evolution is the best explanation for genetic drift within a type of creature but abiogenesis to a human being generalized evolution has never been proved and can never be proven.

Let me ask you this (the reason being that even claims to microevolution can be wrong). Is the classic example of a type of insect becoming immune to a insecticide evidence of evolution in the classic sense?

Same here. Yet knowledge can be wrong. Obviously. We hold different knowledges and we cannot be both right.

I am not saying anything about whether knowledge can or cannot be right or wrong. I am saying claims to absolute knowledge (That X is a fact, certain, proven, etc......) comes with the burden of proof.

The jury is still out on this, I am afraid. Some Jewish theologians even postulate that God is not almight rather than question His moral qualities.

I was not insinuating no philosopher what so ever still clung to that argument. I tried hard to suggest that the consensus of philosophers have abandoned that as a meaningful argument against God.


Sorry Viole, but applied science is currently failing in my lab every 2 - 3 minutes and not allowing time to respond. I will have to discuss what happened 15 billion years ago or holographic universes with you as soon as I can get two instruments designed by teams of scientists utilizing technology we have known about for a century to work correctly for more than 5 minutes at a time. It's ironic when the failures of comparatively simplistic science take up the time to discuss science almost infinitely less reliable and known.

I will try and get back to the rest of this tomorrow. I need to bring an exorcist to the lab instead of 3 engineers. Please don't add to this very long post until I can finish it as is.

Talk at you soon.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh come of it leibowde84, this is about the most trivial case of splitting hairs I have ever observed. If you want to call it proof or certainty makes no difference to me. Dawkins has said about things that lack even ordinary certainty that they are categorically true. Now I would agree that much of what he claims that about is as I say "probably the best explanation of the evidence" in many cases. However his claims are to brute truth not high probability and therefor he has a burden to absolutely prove that not only is all the evidence consistent with but does not even lack a possible defeater. Most people in debates do not get that technical but this conversation did adopt the existing technical burdens that do exist in philosophy and Dakin's and countless other atheist's violate the burdens they themselves set themselves up to provide yet fail to do so.

There are similar claims that can be made about Christians and in the same circumstances I would agree. I started watching a debate on proof that God exists. I turned it off after 30 minutes because they did not meet their burden. They were giving things that made the Bible's explanation for them the best we have but did not prove anything. I hold or try to hold both sides to their respective burdens. I find most atheists reverse the burdens and assign the burden of proof to a claim too faith, and the burden of having some level of evidence for their claims to fact, proof, certainty, absolute truth,........ or whatever word you will allow to be used to describe the nature of their claims. Some are careful not to make claims that require proof, many professional atheists and many posters here do not.

First, I think, we must define God, or there is no actual claim. Can you do that?

 

[Etritonakin]

These are quite telling.....

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I AM
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
THAT
H834
אשׁר
'ăsher
ash-er'
A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; also (as adverb and conjunction) when, where, how, because, in order that, etc.: - X after, X alike, as (soon as), because, X every, for, + forasmuch, + from whence, + how (-soever), X if, (so) that ([thing] which, wherein), X though, + until, + whatsoever, when, where (+ -as, -in, -of, -on, -soever, -with), which, whilst, + whither (-soever), who (-m, -soever, -se). As it is indeclinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.
I AM
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

 

[viole]

No it most certainly is not. I would agree micro-evolution is the best explanation for genetic drift within a type of creature but abiogenesis to a human being generalized evolution has never been proved and can never be proven.

Let me ask you this (the reason being that even claims to microevolution can be wrong). Is the classic example of a type of insect becoming immune to a insecticide evidence of evolution in the classic sense?

Claim of microevolution are not necessarily wrong. Macroevolution is just the cumulation of many microevolutions to a point where the phenotype is quite different from the original. Evolution is actually based only on microevolution. Many of them. If they are few, they cover your insects, if they are many they cover the transition from a common primate to humans and chimps. If they are more than many, they cover the transition from a fish to that common primate and so on.

The caricature of creationists expecting a microbe turning into a crocodile in a few generations achieves the only useful objective of exposing the ignorance of the creationist.

Claming that the cumulation of millions or billions of microevolutions must still be called a microevolution is something that cannot be intellectually justified since there is no logical reason to dismiss significant phenotypes changes (e.g fish to man) given a sufficiently big amount of small changes. The only reason is clinging to an ancient book written by people without a clue. And that is no more intellectually tenable, nowadays.

If you are not convinced, then please lend me 1 billion cents. It is only a micro loan, so it should not be a problem for you. I give you my old iPad to pay it back. Deal?

I am not saying anything about whether knowledge can or cannot be right or wrong. I am saying claims to absolute knowledge (That X is a fact, certain, proven, etc......) comes with the burden of proof.

The burden of proof that evolution is true is available to anyone. Who is actually interested to read it. And kill it, if possible. There you have your chance to become famous.

Showing the Bible as evidence will not do, I am afraid.

I was not insinuating no philosopher what so ever still clung to that argument. I tried hard to suggest that the consensus of philosophers have abandoned that as a meaningful argument against God.

Yes. Mysterious ways, I guess. All "mysterious ways" arguments can be used as a rebuttal of anything, I am afraid.

Sorry Viole, but applied science is currently failing in my lab every 2 - 3 minutes and not allowing time to respond. I will have to discuss what happened 15 billion years ago or holographic universes with you as soon as I can get two instruments designed by teams of scientists utilizing technology we have known about for a century to work correctly for more than 5 minutes at a time. It's ironic when the failures of comparatively simplistic science take up the time to discuss science almost infinitely less reliable and known.

You are confusing science with poor design. it appears as if the intelligent designer designed unintelligent designers.

I will try and get back to the rest of this tomorrow. I need to bring an exorcist to the lab instead of 3 engineers. Please don't add to this very long post until I can finish it as is.

Talk at you soon.

Take your time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

These are quite telling.....

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I AM
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
THAT
H834
אשׁר
'ăsher
ash-er'
A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; also (as adverb and conjunction) when, where, how, because, in order that, etc.: - X after, X alike, as (soon as), because, X every, for, + forasmuch, + from whence, + how (-soever), X if, (so) that ([thing] which, wherein), X though, + until, + whatsoever, when, where (+ -as, -in, -of, -on, -soever, -with), which, whilst, + whither (-soever), who (-m, -soever, -se). As it is indeclinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.
I AM
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

Isn't this circular reasoning, using scripture to support the claim that scripture is accurate?

 

[Etritonakin]

Isn't this circular reasoning, using scripture to support the claim that scripture is accurate?

If that was what was being done -then yes.

However, I was giving scripture as support of what is the scriptural definition of God.

The accuracy of the scriptural definition will be provided by God to everyone eventually -but you do not have to believe that now.

 

[leibowde84]

If that was what was being done -then yes.

However, I was giving scripture as support of what is the scriptural definition of God.

The accuracy of the scriptural definition will be provided by God to everyone eventually -but you do not have to believe that now.

How do you know that? More scripture?

 

[Etritonakin]

How do you know that? More scripture?

No.

 

[leibowde84]

No.

How do you know that, then?

 

[Etritonakin]

How do you know that, then?

No point in discussing it any more than I have in other threads -or reiterating, if that info is not available or accurate.
If you are interested enough, you can look into the matter on your own.
I just wanted to help with the definition of God -and the definition I gave was scriptural -and if this continues we will be going around in circles.

Why worry about what I know or think I know? Why would you believe me any more than scripture?

 

[leibowde84]

No point in discussing it any more than I have in other threads -or reiterating, if that info is not available or accurate.
If you are interested enough, you can look into the matter on your own.
I just wanted to help with the definition of God -and the definition I gave was scriptural -and if this continues we will be going around in circles.

Why worry about what I know or think I know? Why would you believe me any more than scripture?

I am just curious as to why you believe what you do, rather than what you believe.

 

[Etritonakin]

I am just curious as to why you believe what you do, rather than what you believe.

It just seems like we've done this all before.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If creation is necessary, who created the creator?

The creator would have already existed. There is nothing to be known before that.

 

[`mud]

I AM THAT I AM,
and you guys,
all alone in this endless cosmosis of un-detectable existences.
I wish you all would get along better !
Geeeeeeeeeessse !
~
'mud

 

[Etritonakin]

That would be great

 

[Etritonakin]

I have been thinking about this recently -and the following are simply some things I was pondering.....

I do not see that what we call the big bang could have been the beginning of absolutely everything.
It must have had an extremely complex make-up (if essentially self-contained and self-extracting) or processing ability (if it could be likened to a seed which arranged things into something else) at that point in order to become the universe, life, ourselves, etc...

It does not seem to me to be simple enough to be the very beginning of all things.

If the present is a more complex arrangement than (or of) the past (big bang becoming elements, etc., elements becoming life, etc...), then it seems to me that much preceded the big bang.

If some time in the past things were as simple as possible, what are the most basic and simple things which exist -what are the ones and zeros of reality, if you will -and how did they becoming increasingly ordered, complex -and lead to us?

From our perspective, it is understandable to believe that we did not require a creator -because it may be that the emergence of life was inevitable after the big bang -the inanimate preceded the animate, or whatever....

...but if the big bang was preceded by something which caused it to become the singularity which would produce our universe and all therein....

perhaps the first thing that necessarily existed or came to exist -by arrangement or rearrangement of the simplest things -was self-awareness and increasing creativity?

What if that which existed initially could not have become what it now is without first being or becoming able to say "I AM"?

Perhaps that was necessary before anything became anything else.

If we can believe that an arrangement of stardust can eventually say "I AM" -then why not an arrangement of that which preceded the stars or the big bang which caused the stars?

If we can know that something was designed by man by comparing it to nature, perhaps we can know that everything was designed by comparing it to absolute simplicity.
We know everything has design of sorts -but perhaps it truly could not have become that way without a self-awareness, and that of which to be aware and act upon, self-evolving in tandem....
I and AM becoming increasingly complex.