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

[outhouse]

King David, for example,

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

 

[Skwim]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

He evolved.

 

[Desert Snake]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

G-d is self created. As to that argument you presented, never heard of it.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

G-d is self created. As to that argument you presented, never heard of it.

If one is not in existance then how do you create yourself?

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

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.

From all we can possibly observe, there was a specific creation event, and I agree entirely with what the atheists themselves complained of as the implications of that.

Again your lack of knowledge about science is apparent, as the Big Bang Theory does not beilieve that the universe was made from nothing but beilieves that all matter and energy was in a relatively small point until a "Big Bang" occurred that caused I to spread outwards. Also few scientist (Theistic and Atheistic) found much stock in his idea becuase (just like creactionst today) it had no proof. Now we have found proof, so it became a Theory, you make it sound like atheist are Aethism becuase they do not want theism to be correct. Aethist are usually aethist becuase they do not beilieve in things that do not have proof.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

Why is the Intelligent Design model I posit ludicrous? I doubt you understand the model I'm positing to be honest.

I said that it does NOT make it ANY MORE or LESS ludicrous, in short I am saying that is has just as many shortcomings as the idea of singular universe ID. No more no less.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

In short, yes, that's a serious problem with creationism, and it's not really possible to get around it without copping out on some level.

Paul Tillich, one of the most important theologians of the 20th century, called this out as a problem. If God is a being, then God cannot be responsible for being itself. In that case he might be older and more powerful than we are, but he's not essentially different from us and did not define the rules according to which things exist. Tillich's solution was to stop defining God as a being.

Lots of folks want to have it both ways: God is a being but also not subject to any of the real or philosophical limitations of being—but that's just another form of cop-out.

I agree, and my point is that one some level either the universe is eternal or it was created by something that was eternal or that was created by something that was eternal... Etc.

So that means that something is eternal and seeming as most humans came up with the idea of creaction myths in order to try to explain where things come from I propose that it is far more logical to beilieve that the universe/multiverse has always been here and that it always will be.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

It is true the Bible consists of 66 books, written by several dozen men over 1,600 years. Yet these men claimed to speak from God. King David, for example, said; " The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue. " ( 2 Samuel 23:2) The Bible elsewhere affirms "that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. (2 Peter 1:20,21) Thus, I believe what 2 Timothy 3:16,17 says about the Bible; "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Ok, prove it.

Thousands of people have claimed to be prophets of dieties other than yours, you cannot all be right

Come on show me your evidence.

Or do you choose to beilive in things without having any evidence.......

 

[Desert Snake]

If one is not in existance then how do you create yourself?

It would, imo, denote always having been in existence. Self created , therefore first creator. Incidentally, you encounter the same question without a deity.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

It would, imo, denote always having been in existence. Self created , therefore first creator. Incidentally, you encounter the same question without a deity.

Yes you do, that's my point.

If a creator is supposed to explain how the universe/multiverse got here (aside from it always being there).

It fails to answer the same problem for its own existence.

Therfore it makes more sense to me that what I can see and observabe has always been there and that the creator that was created by man to explain it's exitance never has.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

Oh and to be clear I am not arguing for athiesm.

I am actually not an aethist, I am a pantheist.

I do however accept the scientific explamations of The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution to be correct and do not recognize Intellegent Design/Creactionism to be valid hypotheses (let alone theories).

Many relgions are compatible with science, however I (and many others [a lot of them christians]) do not find the two concepts compatible.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes you do, that's my point.

If a creator is supposed to explain how the universe/multiverse got here (aside from it always being there).

It fails to answer the same problem for its own existence.

Therfore it makes more sense to me that what I can see and observabe has always been there and that the creator that was created by man to explain it's exitance never has.

Does that actually make more sense? It may make more sense if one does not believe in a deity, however, you are not an atheist, right? The creator scenario makes more sense to me.

 

[Willamena]

As I've noted elsewhere ...

The First Cause argument does not (or, at least, should not) claim that everything requires a cause. Rather, it posits that all natural phenomenon are caused. If this is accepted as true, either (a) there is no first cause, or (b) the first cause must be preternatural.​

Yes. The proposition is that the first cause, which is still causing all natural phenomenon, even today, is eternal. @FreedomIsNatural D'uh.

 

[Willamena]

Yes you do, that's my point.

If a creator is supposed to explain how the universe/multiverse got here (aside from it always being there).

It fails to answer the same problem for its own existence.

Unless "got here" is just a trick of language, selectable words, and "was always here" is what is synonymously meant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. The proposition is that the first cause, which is still causing all natural phenomenon, even today, is eternal.

I'm not at all sure that this is a necessary inference.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not at all sure that this is a necessary inference.

But it is an enthusiastic one. Kind of rare these days.

 

[Parsimony]

It would, imo, denote always having been in existence. Self created , therefore first creator. Incidentally, you encounter the same question without a deity.

If something has always existed, then it was never created ("self-created" or otherwise). Being created and having always existed are at odds with each other. That is, unless, when you say "always having been in existence" you mean "existed for as long as time has existed". Then He would have begun to exist when time began to exist, since existing "before time began" is an oxymoron.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

As I understand it, once one learns to navigate through the confused and obfuscated ways of ID, it ends up being a desperately-disguised claim that everything that is not a creator god needs to be either completely chaotic and dysfunctional or somehow planned and meant to be.

There is no actual argument in ID, let alone an actual theory. It is just a glorified expression of panic and disconfort. If it does not qualify as an actual cry for help, it is at the very least in the close vicinity.

 

[leibowde84]

Simply put, no, primarily because you misstate and bastardize the argument.

How is he misstating and bastardizing the argument? It's easy to criticize when you refuse to back it up in any way whatsoever. Just sayin.

 

[FreedomIsNatural]

Does that actually make more sense? It may make more sense if one does not believe in a deity, however, you are not an atheist, right? The creator scenario makes more sense to me.

I do not beilieve in a diety as Judeo-Christian relgions define it.