Is a Concept of a Designer unscientific?

I think the concept of a designer is not totally unscientific, but rather that a designer is more thoroughly investigated, and given credence - through philosophy. Science cannot lay it's hands on a designer, just like I cannot lay my hands on the designer of a car, by examining it. The nature of the design might be found - it could "look" like design, or not. The design can be seen, but not the designer. This is why philosophy deals well with God. Science is used for determining the facts, truth can remain unscientific. Therefore - trying to give credence to God through science is unnaceptable to some people because the design can be seen, but not the designer. This doesn't mean that nature doesn't show God, it just means that science isn't the dudeguy who talks about it showing God. We are able to believe in God without him being evidenced, but science doesn't deal with belief.So I'm not too bothered about making God "impressive looking" via science, becaue the universe speaks for itself and science doesn't own it. Science is the facts of reality and truth may escape it, I can understand why people want to make God look convincing through science, but basically - science doesn't say anything about God, because it's too clever to. It says what it get's it's hands on.As for "eyeballs at the scene", lol - good post Ned. Also - eyes might "see" what they want to see. Yesterday I seen a funny cloud coming my way, I could have sworn it was an angel but it wasn't - it was just a cloud, and that's that. Thinking more about this - deep down I knew it was a cloud, I just wanted it to be some big supernatural entity, but it wasn't - it was a cloud. I think I agree with this part though, as I cannot see how any man/woman could repeat the beginning of the universe; I mean - origins of life - people have tried to get life through experimentation, but the beginning of the universe, that is unrepeatable, but there is nevertheless evidence of a Big Bang which can be observed presently. So, I dunno.

Well yeah, you're right Sherlock, I should have used "faith and belief", but I guess that God is mulled over in philosophy rather than science. One can ask philosophical questions(Like Lam's thread) and knowledge and truth need not evidence if I remember correctly. I guess what I was saying is that science doesn't really deal with God - but maybe reasoning and beliefs do. Yes. Science doesn't mention God, but surely God is included in philosophy? Anyway - F&B would definately qualify, as you say. But that doesn't bother me much - as I don't need to evidence God, nor do I seek him to be scientifically validated - if I did then I would try. But as Phatboy says - God doesn't need to show off to man or take interest in his endeavours; So if God isn't included in science, I won't lose too much sleep because of my attitude towards homosapiens and their arrogance. Like I say - the universe isn't under the ownership of what man says. I'm not trying to say the ToBB is not scientific remember - as I said that it's evidence can be gathered today, like on your tv set.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-04-2004 05:14 PM