|
Author
|
Topic: So... who designed The Designer?
|
David unfamous
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 13 (23079)
11-18-2002 6:42 AM
|
|
|
Yep, it's an old question, but I'm new here and I'd like to hear the answers afresh. Shoot...
|
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
Yep, it's an old question, but I'm new here and I'd like to hear the answers afresh. Shoot...
Easy....God's dad. ------------------ It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
Yep, it's an old question, but I'm new here and I'd like to hear the answers afresh. Shoot...
*************** Microsoft...that's why life has so many bugs
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by mark24, posted 11-18-2002 3:20 PM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 4 of 13 (23114)
11-18-2002 3:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Mammuthus
11-18-2002 6:47 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Microsoft...that's why life has so many bugs
The graphics are good, though. Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2002 6:47 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
David unfamous
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 5 of 13 (23118)
11-18-2002 4:07 PM
|
|
|
*sigh* I presume it's a question that no one has an answer to.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by gene90, posted 11-18-2002 10:46 PM | | David unfamous has replied |
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5053 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
Is this the samequestion as mayr's on Delbruck etc of the unmoved mover? I tend to think of Newton's 'conspiring motions' vs a narrow chemistry of Linnus Pauling's bond the genes enumerate when this Q&A comes up but I do not know if this is in/at/aboard/about etc the same you ask?
|
gene90
Member (Idle past 3843 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: 12-25-2000
|
Unless God is eternal (so not everything needs a designer--therefore undermining ID) or there is an infinite regression of gods. Wonder which is more offensive?
|
David unfamous
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 8 of 13 (23195)
11-19-2002 4:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
11-18-2002 10:46 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Unless God is eternal (so not everything needs a designer--therefore undermining ID) or there is an infinite regression of gods.
Well that's what I was thinking. I'd like a pro ID member to cast light on this one, as it seems to be the first question that needs answering before anything else. Whatever the answer is, it contradicts ID.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by gene90, posted 11-18-2002 10:46 PM | | gene90 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 11-19-2002 5:14 AM | | David unfamous has not replied |
|
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Whatever the answer is, it contradicts ID.
Of course, that's the entire point. IDists simply beg the question by asserting that the actual Designer doesn't matter for the purpose of whether or not we can detect design in nature. This is Dembski's argument, IIRC.
|
David unfamous
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 13 (23198)
11-19-2002 6:03 AM
|
|
|
I suppose I'm not being fair with the question as it is purely from the Christian/theist angle. Would I be correct in thinking there are IDist's who would be happy to accept non-diest explanations to life on Earth - i.e. alien design/creation? Surely this reasoning could validate ID, as the 'designers' may not necessarily create a paradox to their own existence or creation. p.s. Through knowledge or ignorance, I'm in the atheist/evolution category.
|
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
I suppose I'm not being fair with the question as it is purely from the Christian/theist angle. Would I be correct in thinking there are IDist's who would be happy to accept non-diest explanations to life on Earth - i.e. alien design/creation? Surely this reasoning could validate ID, as the 'designers' may not necessarily create a paradox to their own existence or creation. p.s. Through knowledge or ignorance, I'm in the atheist/evolution category.
If you're going to go down the aliens route, you could always say that Moses, Jesus, Muhammed et al were sent by (or actually were) aliens with a moral code to teach to humanity so that humanity could thrive and populate the entire planet. Then the aliens could one day come and harvest all that meat they had cultured for a bumper Sunday roast. As a creationist might say - you can't prove to me this hasn't happened (although I happen to think its a lot more likely than the God hypothesis). PE ------------------ It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. - Bertrand Russell
|
David unfamous
Inactive Member
|
Don't worry, I'm not going down the alien route, just trying to pre-empt non-paradoxical answers.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Peter, posted 11-27-2002 7:14 AM | | David unfamous has not replied |
|
Peter
Member (Idle past 1499 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: 02-05-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
Don't worry, I'm not going down the alien route, just trying to pre-empt non-paradoxical answers.
The who designed the designer question is glossed over by most IDer's as irrelevant. Personally I agree that it undermines ID ... the basis being that design is detected via specified complexity, and irreducible components. If God is specified, complex, and irreducable I don't know what is ... so according to ID he/she/it must have been designed. Paradox sums it up nicely.
|
™ Version 4.2