From whence came the Intelligent Designer.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Those who support ID usually adhere to the notion that the Intelligent Designer is God. Given that the classical statements about God are true, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnijust, Eternal, Divine, Infinite, Pure Act, ect..., then there need be no explanation for the origin of such a one. This is because such a one would, in fact, have no origin, and so no explanation is possible. Actually, only two components need be necessary to show this: God's eternality, and God's infinity.
No. "It" is the uncaused cause. "It" is clearly god, although they try real hard to hide that fact (for clearly disingenuous reasons). Bastards.
They're trying to sucker punch the school system with an old idea by Paley. Sounds noble and intelligent, but it's really a cheap way to pull the wool over someone's eyes.
Bad Christains...bad!
Bad Christains...bad!
No, I don't understand "eternal" or "infinite". I can't imagine an existence outside of the confines of time as we know it here, but that's not really surprising to me...it's all I've known.
And it's not just Christians that believe in a Creator.
And it's not just Christians that believe in a Creator.
but there all different creators lori, which one would be the right.
would'nt it make more sense to say none.
would'nt it make more sense to say none.
Sure, if God didn't need a creator, why does a butterfly?
God could be existence itself?
wesmorris said:
Well the word God is just a symbol for something, but it is something that is unknown. Therefore, there should actually be no symbol, this is too assertive. So if God turns out to be something we already know...eh...no changing the word...it was just a false assumption.
Here's a funny alternative (mocking ID):Dinosaur said:
http://www.venganza.org/
It's bloody fucking hilarious. Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Intelligent Design is logically incoherent.
Of all it's implications, the one that should raise a stink most is that any postulated "Designer" who is responsible for "all the design we see around us" must necessarily be so complex that He/She/It too is designed by some other "Designer" which must also necessarily be designed.. by another one.. which must also necessarily be denied..
Ad infinitum.
Of all it's implications, the one that should raise a stink most is that any postulated "Designer" who is responsible for "all the design we see around us" must necessarily be so complex that He/She/It too is designed by some other "Designer" which must also necessarily be designed.. by another one.. which must also necessarily be denied..
Ad infinitum.