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

[FreedomIsNatural]

Kinda depends one one's definition of "something." I've seen a song begin to exist (watched my piano teacher create one right before my eyes), and believe it or not, a cumulus cloud begin to exist right before my eyes.

Really! Care to point out some of them?.

Well yeah becuase some would say the song came from "nothing". I say it came from her brains interpretation of her environment.

 

[gnostic]

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.

are you going on about bloody Hoyle?

Hoyle is or was an atheist? big deal.

Hoyle was wrong...everyone know that.

Lemaitre's wasn't the first to propose an expanding universe, Alexander Friedmann did. Lemaitre did contribute more than Friedmann, but the idea came from Friedmann first, but Friedmann died a couple of years later, before he could expand on his idea. this is confirmed when Einstein first heard of Lemaitre's paper.

and Lemaitre wasn't the only one who contributed to the expanding universe theory. other scientists have contributed to this growing theory, including Hubble, Einstein (through his General Relativity theory, as the framework for the Big Bang, despite being skeptic of bb at the beginning), and George Gamow who expanded upon Lemaitre's original, with hot beginning (Hot Big Bang) and the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

today's the BB theory may owe Lemaitre's hypothesis as being a pioneer, but it is actually Gamow's theory that are being taught in all the universities around the world.

 

[`mud]

And it's hiding out there somewhere's !
~
Where does the non-existence of inertia end ?
~
'mud

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Unsupported? Everything we have ever seen is support for that claim including your "particles". However none of them including your particles begin to exist without a cause. You could even include things that begin to exist in a new way. But forgetting all of that, the BBT and BGVT both posit a universe that began to exist and they are obsessed with finding what caused it to exist. Why didn't they just write it off and stop looking if things don't require causes?

We have not seen anything "begin" to exist. Nothing like the big bang. It is an event all of its own with next to no information about it. Exactly zero information about what happened prior or even during.

If you actually want to get into particle physics I am more than happy to. I don't know what your depth is on them though. It seems you are under the misunderstanding that they somehow support your point.

Natural causal chains act in space time. If space time is not infinite then causal chains cannot be infinite.

Name me any effect that lacked a cause?

Name an effect that did not exist prior and was totally created. Something we have observed before and after. Name a "creation" event we have witnessed. Cause an effect is not the issue here.

The way you formatted your post when I quoted it in order to respond it dropped everything but what is above. The rest of whatever you wrote disappeared.

That is weird.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No particles come out of nothing, they can be converted from other particles or energy but never nothing.

This is true to an extent. It depends roughly on what your definition of "nothing" and "exist" is. Quantum fictionalizations for example seem to happen at all times without cause. The "existence" of many if not all particles result from these fluctuations from one degree to another.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Kinda depends one one's definition of "something." I've seen a song begin to exist (watched my piano teacher create one right before my eyes), and believe it or not, a cumulus cloud begin to exist right before my eyes.

More accurately it developed out of something that had already existed. Or do you say the energy waves that we interpret as "sound" came from nothing? Or is the energy used to create them equivalent to the force transferred minus the loss from lack of total efficiency?

Really! Care to point out some of them?.

While debated to a degree virtual particles.

 

[Etritonakin]

If you believe what is claimed in the Bible without outside evidence, it merely demonstrates a confirmation bias. You start with the presupposition that the Bible is accurate.

Been a while, but wanted to get back to this.....

I do not believe what is claimed in the bible without outside evidence.


As that relates to the flood, I have no reason to think that it could not have happened as described, and have experienced very much evidence that what is written in the bible otherwise is accurate, possible, true, etc..... because I have had experiences which have caused me to know that very miraculous things are possible, have studied prophecy thoroughly and have seen things happen time and again exactly as written, read and anticipated.
More important than any single event, however, is the absolute knowledge that God exists -and that universal adherence to the Ten Commandments would cause things to be as they should be -now and forever. They make sense. They work.

The flood is not like a personal experience -like seeing fish and bread multiplied, people healed, etc... (Though miracles can also be used to deceive)
It is a major event which is not going to happen again.
Similarly, the parting of the Red Sea is not going to happen again -but I have no reason to doubt it did happen.

1Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I actually keep myself from "believing" something initially -because I have learned that I don't even necessarily understand what I am reading initially.

When I first started looking into Genesis, for example, I had to really try to keep all that I had heard about it out of my mind in order to find out what it actually said -could possibly mean given the definitions, etc...
and realized that the whole evolution v creationism and young earth controversies are based on things which aren't even actually written in the bible.

Anyway -just though I would clear that up.

 

[leibowde84]

Been a while, but wanted to get back to this.....

I do not believe what is claimed in the bible without outside evidence.


As that relates to the flood, I have no reason to think that it could not have happened as described, and have experienced very much evidence that what is written in the bible otherwise is accurate, possible, true, etc..... because I have had experiences which have caused me to know that very miraculous things are possible, have studied prophecy thoroughly and have seen things happen time and again exactly as written, read and anticipated.
More important than any single event, however, is the absolute knowledge that God exists -and that universal adherence to the Ten Commandments would cause things to be as they should be -now and forever. They make sense. They work.

The flood is not like a personal experience -like seeing fish and bread multiplied, people healed, etc... (Though miracles can also be used to deceive)
It is a major event which is not going to happen again.
Similarly, the parting of the Red Sea is not going to happen again -but I have no reason to doubt it did happen.

1Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I actually keep myself from "believing" something initially -because I have learned that I don't even necessarily understand what I am reading initially.

When I first started looking into Genesis, for example, I had to really try to keep all that I had heard about it out of my mind in order to find out what it actually said -could possibly mean given the definitions, etc...
and realized that the whole evolution v creationism and young earth controversies are based on things which aren't even actually written in the bible.

Anyway -just though I would clear that up.

This still shows a confirmation bias. You are merely saying that the things presented in the Bible "make sense" or "they work". That isn't objective evidence. It could easily be the action of shaping the evidence to support that the Bible is true.

From the start, before reading the Bible, how did you "know" that God exists?

 

[Etritonakin]

This still shows a confirmation bias. You are merely saying that the things presented in the Bible "make sense" or "they work". That isn't objective evidence. It could easily be the action of shaping the evidence to support that the Bible is true.

From the start, before reading the Bible, how did you "know" that God exists?

If something in the bible is obviously true (killing and stealing are bad, etc.), I take that and add it to other truths.
I don't think I will ever be able to "prove" scientifically that things such as the flood/Noah's ark happened in my lifetime, but I don't feel that is very important.
I am not worried about doing so -and having experienced things which cause me to know and believe such things as described in the bible are quite possible is far more important than proving any event actually happened as described.
I have not experienced all things written -but enough to not scoff as others do.
I just put such things in the "I wasn't there" pile.

First, I don't think knowing God exists in a scientific proof sort of way is even the most important part -but that knowing God is as he says he is -and that it is actually him saying it even if the words are written by men -is more important.
Similarly, many things can be known about a human before actually meeting them (of course, deception is also possible).
I know a whole bunch of people without ever having met them by how they have affected my life.
So -I don't necessarily know what others would call proof of God's existence.

Ironically, in the biblical account, Satan, Adam and Eve knew God personally. Yet.... God essentially told the being which eventually became Satan -and then Adam and Eve -that he was God -that he was of a certain description -and told them what was good to do and not to do........ and even they essentially said "I don't believe you".
So -knowing "God" exists requires experience -not even seeing God in person is enough -because seeing God's "person" is not the same as knowing God.
God's "body" is only a representation of him -and changeable.

Imagine Christ returns in power and glory -in his "glorious body" -and his feet are standing on the Mount of Olives which has been cloven by an earthquake as described in scripture....
Would that be proof that God exists?
According to scripture, the armies of the most powerful forces on earth at the time will have gathered in the valley of Megiddo to war with each other and over the holy land -and will turn to fight against Christ (who will be accompanied by an army), but will be defeated by him and his army.
I don't know what any individual might think -but even someone who has read that prophecy might think it was an alien and try to blow it up just in case.
If that scripture is fulfilled, will that be proof that God exists?

Knowing God exists takes much time and many experiences together -but some of those experiences are not the sort which can be "proved" to others.
Some are and will be quite obvious -to individuals and to large groups, but it still takes time to know God -his character, personality, etc...

I can't say I "knew" God existed before I ever heard anything from the bible.

I was very young when I first heard things read from the bible -a very few verses at Catholic services.
I did have some experiences before that which -even at the time -I believed involved an invisible intelligence external to myself,
but I was so young I did not even see that as unusual (though initially kinda freaky in a non-scary way) -and I was not thinking of the name or word "God".
Otherwise, I always just generally felt a sense that everything was intended to be positive for me....
not sure how to say it..... maybe that I always felt that an intended love was being expressed through nature.
Still wasn't really thinking "God", though.

There is much "proof" in the bible that an intelligence had future events written down before they occurred -but it takes quite a bit of study to prove that it is so -and that it is not just confirmation bias.
It actually contains a perfectly accurate outline of the succession of governments from Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon to the present-day E.U., the outcomes of world wars, etc. -but few are interested in a real in-depth study with an open mind.
Prophecy is definitely one of the things that has led me to know that God exists -and is probably the most provable thing possible to every individual -but it is only one thing, and an individual must want to consider it.
There are some things which I don't even want to share -partly because it would be pointless to share them -and partly because there are few good things in my life people haven't affected adversely or can't affect adversely, and it's just none of their business.

"God" is quite big -so it isn't just a matter of finding one bit of evidence. Prophecy is one thing -evidence of miraculous things being possible is another, etc., etc, (being raised from the grave and seeing a being that says "I did that" will certainly help many believe)... but it really is an individual thing -and God himself also decides when he will reveal certain things to certain people.
He is not actually overly concerned that people believe he exists. He is far more concerned that people know who he is -and accept and acknowledge him for what he is.
Therefore, he is allowing us to experience things which will be a reference -which new beings could not possibly have.

One can only prove the many characteristics of God over time -and sometimes only when given opportunity. Generally speaking, however, that which he has caused -and will cause -to precede his actual presence will allow us to know him more than only his actual presence would.

His having declared the end from the beginning is one way we can know something about him -that he indeed is capable of such.
Other things will reveal that he has power over life and death/power over cosmic events -that he has our best interest at heart -that he is qualified to lead us -that his leadership is necessary, etc....

 

[McBell]

If something in the bible is obviously true (killing and stealing are bad, etc.), I take that and add it to other truths.
I don't think I will ever be able to "prove" scientifically that things such as the flood/Noah's ark happened in my lifetime, but I don't feel that is very important.
I am not worried about doing so -and having experienced things which cause me to know and believe such things as described in the bible are quite possible is far more important than proving any event actually happened as described.
I have not experienced all things written -but enough to not scoff as others do.
I just put such things in the "I wasn't there" pile.

First, I don't think knowing God exists in a scientific proof sort of way is even the most important part -but that knowing God is as he says he is -and that it is actually him saying it even if the words are written by men -is more important.
Similarly, many things can be known about a human before actually meeting them (of course, deception is also possible).
I know a whole bunch of people without ever having met them by how they have affected my life.
So -I don't necessarily know what others would call proof of God's existence.

Ironically, in the biblical account, Satan, Adam and Eve knew God personally. Yet.... God essentially told the being which eventually became Satan -and then Adam and Eve -that he was God -that he was of a certain description -and told them what was good to do and not to do........ and even they essentially said "I don't believe you".
So -knowing "God" exists requires experience -not even seeing God in person is enough -because seeing God's "person" is not the same as knowing God.
God's "body" is only a representation of him -and changeable.

Imagine Christ returns in power and glory -in his "glorious body" -and his feet are standing on the Mount of Olives which has been cloven by an earthquake as described in scripture....
Would that be proof that God exists?
According to scripture, the armies of the most powerful forces on earth at the time will have gathered in the valley of Megiddo to war with each other and over the holy land -and will turn to fight against Christ (who will be accompanied by an army), but will be defeated by him and his army.
I don't know what any individual might think -but even someone who has read that prophecy might think it was an alien and try to blow it up just in case.
If that scripture is fulfilled, will that be proof that God exists?

Knowing God exists takes much time and many experiences together -but some of those experiences are not the sort which can be "proved" to others.
Some are and will be quite obvious -to individuals and to large groups, but it still takes time to know God -his character, personality, etc...

I can't say I "knew" God existed before I ever heard anything from the bible.

I was very young when I first heard things read from the bible -a very few verses at Catholic services.
I did have some experiences before that which -even at the time -I believed involved an invisible intelligence external to myself,
but I was so young I did not even see that as unusual (though initially kinda freaky in a non-scary way) -and I was not thinking of the name or word "God".
Otherwise, I always just generally felt a sense that everything was intended to be positive for me....
not sure how to say it..... maybe that I always felt that an intended love was being expressed through nature.
Still wasn't really thinking "God", though.

There is much "proof" in the bible that an intelligence had future events written down before they occurred -but it takes quite a bit of study to prove that it is so -and that it is not just confirmation bias.
It actually contains a perfectly accurate outline of the succession of governments from Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon to the present-day E.U., the outcomes of world wars, etc. -but few are interested in a real in-depth study with an open mind.
Prophecy is definitely one of the things that has led me to know that God exists -and is probably the most provable thing possible to every individual -but it is only one thing, and an individual must want to consider it.
There are some things which I don't even want to share -partly because it would be pointless to share them -and partly because there are few good things in my life people haven't affected adversely or can't affect adversely, and it's just none of their business.

"God" is quite big -so it isn't just a matter of finding one bit of evidence. Prophecy is one thing -evidence of miraculous things being possible is another, etc., etc, (being raised from the grave and seeing a being that says "I did that" will certainly help many believe)... but it really is an individual thing -and God himself also decides when he will reveal certain things to certain people.
He is not actually overly concerned that people believe he exists. He is far more concerned that people know who he is -and accept and acknowledge him for what he is.
Therefore, he is allowing us to experience things which will be a reference -which new beings could not possibly have.

One can only prove the many characteristics of God over time -and sometimes only when given opportunity. Generally speaking, however, that which he has caused -and will cause -to precede his actual presence will allow us to know him more than only his actual presence would.

His having declared the end from the beginning is one way we can know something about him -that he indeed is capable of such.
Other things will reveal that he has power over life and death/power over cosmic events -that he has our best interest at heart -that he is qualified to lead us -that his leadership is necessary, etc....

That has got to be the longest "I pick and choose what I want" I have ever seen.

 

[Etritonakin]

That has got to be the longest "I pick and choose what I want" I have ever seen.

I prove what I can when I can. Otherwise, I make the best decisions I can.
It's not about choosing, but acknowledging what is actually known and what is not.
Even when things are not fully known, one must make decisions.
I know enough to say I know God exists.

If I just accepted that which I have not proved or have no reason to believe, I'd be faulted for that.

Much of what I do know I would not choose -though I understand its necessity.

 

[Unification]

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?

If there is a Creator, it is not an it or a thing or a being, or any physical thing. . Then by scientific definition the Creator would have to be created and so on.

 

[Unification]

We have no idea what David said or did not say, since most of what was written about him is not historical.

King David was more likely an ape, than a human being.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

King David was more likely an ape, than a human being.

That's like saying "Hitler's dog was more likely a dog than a German Shepherd".

 

[Etritonakin]

Just thinking....
admittedly, with no deep understanding of the issue...
that DNA -though complex -is not the "machine level" code for life.

All I have been able to consider thus far makes me think that the arrangement of only four molecules is not the most basic level -though that is presently an intuitive belief.
(Yet -I have much reason to believe we can understand much more than we can explain)

We (at least I) tend to think of every atom of each element as identical -but can their components not be manipulated to pass/throughput/manipulate code even as we manipulate their electrons?

Assuming that the elements accidentally formed -then accidentally produced life -or that encoding begins at the atomic or molecular level -might keep us from investigating that which could reveal another intelligence, or from considering our own potential capabilities.

and stuff

 

[idea]

1. All things that begin to exist have causes.

Nothing has an ultimate beginning of course. Everything changes form - from energy to matter perhaps, and then back again - but everything is eternal.

1. Everything is eternal with no beginning and no end.
2. Everything has the ability to change from one form to another, for good or for bad. This is free will.
3. The greatest of the intelligences, the one who transforms the eternal into goodness, we call God.
4. Forces that destroy order and free will, we call evil.

God is cleaning up a mess He did not make... read the original Hebrew version of it.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

The only ways this could logically happen is that:

1. The universe is eternal.

2. A creator(s) made the universe and they are eternal.

3. A creator(s) made the universe and they where made by a creator(s), who are eternal or made by a creator(s), etc.

But then we must remember that there is evidence for a Universe but not a creator.

Which makes the two following views of theism make the most sense to me.

Pantheism (deity(ies) is the universe) and Aethism (no deity(ies).

Due to personal experience I beilive in Pantheism myself.

 

[outhouse]

As that relates to the flood, I have no reason to think that it could not have happened as described, and have experienced very much evidence that what is written in the bible otherwise is accurate

Then you have chosen to be either willfully ignorant to geology and science and biblical history including anthropology and archeology, or you chose to write about things and make claims based on complete lack of knowledge on all the topics regarding said mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I do not believe what is claimed in the bible without outside evidence.

Then why are you avoiding credible evidence, and just fabricating it, or using known biased worthless websites for evidence?

Your position is not academic.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Then why are you avoiding credible evidence, and just fabricating it, or using known biased worthless websites for evidence?

Your position is not academic.

Wait a minute, his position is not accedemic and your position is?

Let me see what source do YOU NOT CONSIDER baised? Oh that's right the ones biased towards Christianity.

Oh yeah and let me tell you about Anthropology, Christianity did not emerge till around 40 C.E. and was based on Judaism mixed with pagan beliefs. Do not believe me? Then read the story of Isis and Anubis, and tell me how it was such a great coincidence that Christianity took on aspects of one of its rival religions. When Christianity was young it had to resort to adapting parts of other religions, outright liking about other relgions, forced conversions, and the killing of pagans and trying to destroy their religions. Heck, the Aset Ka was almost wiped out by zealots. And no this is not a rant against Christianity it is a rant against Authortive Dogmatic Relgions which teach it's followers to ignore reality and insult those who try to understand it!

If you want to keep making these Ignorant claims, then let's go to a new thread I am making called Disproving the Bible in the religious debates section.

After im done there I will go onto disprove the Koran and Torah.

See you there if you have the evidence, knowledge, and/or intelligence to defend your primary resource.