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

[Desert Snake]

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

That is fine. However, any Deity idea, can correlate with the creation belief. I don't have a cultural specific idea of Deity, and I'm still a theist, and creationist.

 

[Etritonakin]

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 see it, based on the nature of ourselves and our environment, our selves and our environment required a creator (even if we were created by said creator through or partly through evolution).... but for a creator to not require having been created, said creator would have self-created, but also have always had the potential to do so -would always have "been" in some state.

That is not a conclusion, but it is my best reasoning at this point.

We know that WE are not the initial creator because we know we were created by something -even if we credit "evolution" and say it was not initiated by an intelligence.
We also know (or, at the very least, are at least quite sure) that what we are created from was created by what we call the big bang.

What is written of God in scripture indicates something which might be described as self-evolution -but not in the sense of becoming more fit to survive. He has always been perfectly fit to survive, but has caused more reason to survive/survives to cause more reason/whatever.

His overall intent is said to essentially be to increase love -and he does so by reproducing himself (in the "children of God").

I considered what is written about God -what those words actually say -and also the present state of things.

We know we exist. We know we can create. We are beginning to realize we can eventually create beings similar to ourselves.

It appears (to man, generally) that we evolved, but we evolved to create -and cannot say for certain whether evolution was set in motion by a creator.

It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made, so perhaps evolution is analogous to God's self-evolution.

We wonder about our origin -we know we are not responsible for our own existence -but God would be aware of the fact that nothing was before him -or aware of his self-origin... if indeed that is what happened.

For God to be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.... his personality would essentially be the mind of all things, and all things his body.

In scripture, God (at least the Word who became Christ) is able to appear in different ways -in different bodies -but is not limited to those bodies (unless by choice for a time).

We are said to have the potential to be given a body similar to that employed by Christ/The Word (who is said to have actually done the creating) when he created all things... ( "like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.") -then we see the glorious being whose back parts Moses saw -then a pillar of fire and smoke -and then we see Christ in a human body -so his mind is able to be represented by -presented through -the environment in any way, and the Father's mind would essentially be represented by all things.

It is also said that God created us to live in us, and us in him, etc.... So our minds would essentially a part of God's mind that he caused to be separate -our bodies separate from his, etc..... by his decision.
That all sounds a bit mental -but it is essentially a multiple personality ORDER rather than disorder.
In order for us to create something new to him, he necessarily -by decision -said that there would be certain things he would keep himself from knowing -and essentially gave over some power by causing us to be able to decide certain things.

God is said to be eternal (as Melchisedek -who was also the Word, Christ, I AM, etc. -is described.... without descent, without beginning of days or end of life), but what is not described is his state throughout eternity.

If something cannot come from nothing, then there was never nothing.

If there was also never no one, perhaps the state of things is indicative of the state of that one.

There would necessarily have always been something to act upon, and someone to act upon it -so the nature of things would reflect the nature of the mind of the one acting.

He calls himself I AM -which doesn't just mean he has always been, but also essentially means he is everything.

God is said to be able to make new things -to create, so he must be able to think new things into being which once were not.

Of Christ it is written that of the increase of his government there will be no end -which makes me wonder how little God might have ruled in the past.

He could not be ruler of the universe before he created the universe -though he inevitably would be.

So -if things are ever-increasing, it makes me wonder how much they can be reduced moving backward in time.

Complicating matters is the statement that the Word (who became Christ) was in the beginning with the Father -and it is stated that God can conceal things from him (such as the hour of his own return).

An eternal God would necessarily be irreducible at some point -but at what point? In what state?

I'unno

That also brings up the question of self-awareness. Even though God always WAS, was he always able to say "I AM"?

If so... how is that possible?

We become self-aware at a certain point, but did God always sense himself and his environment to some degree (some initial "ping" returned leading to more) -, then make more of himself and his environment to be aware of -or was the initial state of all more complex than that?
A certain degree of complexity must have always been -but how simple could that complexity have once been? How complex must simplicity have once been to lead to this?

Some things we'll just have to wait to find out.

 

[rusra02]

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.......

To show all the evidence of the Bible being God's Word would require a book. (There are such books, BTW.) Here are a few lines of evidence I find convincing:

1. The Bible accurately foretells the future. One prophecy in Isaiah foretold the ruler who would conquer Babylon, giving his name, some 150 years before he was born. The God of the Bible points to his ability to fulfill prophecy as proof he is the one true God. (Isaiah 44:26-28)
2. Scientific accuracy. When men in general ignorantly supposed the earth was resting on the backs of elephants or a turtle, the Bible accurately said that God " stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There are many like examples. Those who claim scientific inaccuracies in the Bible often misstate what the Bible says.
3. Historical accuracy. Despite centuries of attacks against the Bible's historical record, archeology has confirmed many Bible events and persons whose historicity was once challenged.
4. The principles and wisdom found in the Bible, when applied, bring benefits to people in all nations, cultures, and time periods.

 

[outhouse]

To show all the evidence of the Bible being God's Word would require a book.

Now one with credible and reliable evidence does not exist does it?


You have zero credible evidence in support of anything but man writing every word.

 

[Skwim]

To show all the evidence of the Bible being God's Word would require a book. (There are such books, BTW.) Here are a few lines of evidence I find convincing:

1. The Bible accurately foretells the future. One prophecy in Isaiah foretold the ruler who would conquer Babylon, giving his name, some 150 years before he was born. The God of the Bible points to his ability to fulfill prophecy as proof he is the one true God. (Isaiah 44:26-28)

And, of course, revising prior history to fit later facts would never be done. Oh no!

2. Scientific accuracy. When men in general ignorantly supposed the earth was resting on the backs of elephants or a turtle, the Bible accurately said that God " stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There are many like examples. Those who claim scientific inaccuracies in the Bible often misstate what the Bible says.

And other scientific "accuracies" such as the value of pi as 30. Or that he earth was formed before the Sun. Or that some insects walk on only four legs. Or that hares chew the cud. Or that a great flood covered the earth. Or that unicorns existed. Or. . . . .

3. Historical accuracy. Despite centuries of attacks against the Bible's historical record, archeology has confirmed many Bible events and persons whose historicity was once challenged.

Think it's historically accurate that a flood covered the entire world? Or that at one time everyone on earth spoke the same language until the Tower of Babel incident? Sure you do, but almost everyone else knows they're not.

4. The principles and wisdom found in the Bible, when applied, bring benefits to people in all nations, cultures, and time periods.

Like the wisdom of keeping slaves, the wisdom in killing innocent children, and the principle of raping captive women.

But this is why the Bible is so neat. One can cherry-pick those parts that agree with one's standards while ignoring all the others, and still call oneself a Christian. .

 

[rusra02]

And, of course, revising prior history to fit later facts would never be done. Oh no!

And other scientific "accuracies" such as the value of pi as 30. Or that he earth was formed before the Sun. Or that some insects walk on only four legs. Or that hares chew the cud. Or that a great flood covered the earth. Or that unicorns existed. Or. . . . .

Think it's historically accurate that a flood covered the entire world? Or that at one time everyone on earth spoke the same language until the Tower of Babel incident? Sure you do, but almost everyone else knows they're not.

Like the wisdom of keeping slaves, the wisdom in killing innocent children, and the principle of raping captive women.

But this is why the Bible is so neat. One can cherry-pick those parts that agree with one's standards while ignoring all the others, and still call oneself a Christian. .

The claims you made that the Bible teaches there are unicorns, that the earth was formed before the Sun,etc. are simply not true. The other things you claim the Bible teaches are either not true or twist what the Bible really says. As for the Flood and confusing of languages, no one to date has successfully proven these are not historical events.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The claims you made that the Bible teaches there are unicorns, that the earth was formed before the Sun,etc. are simply not true. The other things you claim the Bible teaches are either not true or twist what the Bible really says. As for the Flood and confusing of languages, no one to date has successfully proven these are not historical events.

We have without a doubt proven that there was no global flood. Beyond the fact that it is physically impossible there would be massive historical evidence of it. There is not however, a shred of evidence. ESPECIALLY within the time frame given in the bible.

 

[Etritonakin]

We have without a doubt proven that there was no global flood. Beyond the fact that it is physically impossible there would be massive historical evidence of it. There is not however, a shred of evidence. ESPECIALLY within the time frame given in the bible.

Nope. One of the problems is that "science" begins by assuming there is no God -that no being is capable of doing what he is said to be able to do -and addressing the rest of the situation from that viewpoint. Obviously, the supernatural (such as a supernatural flood) is impossible if nothing supernatural can happen.
It tends to assume that only what we believe to be possible at any time is possible. It may be proven that the flood/ark account could not happen "naturally", but that is not the same as proving it did not happen.

It is false to say that the flood was "physically impossible" -though it may be physically impossible given what is assumed.
It required a manipulation of physics we do not see to be possible -that is not the same thing.

As for the flood itself, much is assumed about the nature of it -which affects the physical evidence we might seek.
Assuming supernatural manipulation (not unnatural) of physical things......
If water rained straight down everywhere and came up from beneath the earth as described, much of what we believe would be evidence of a flood (which we tend to base on the floods we have experienced) would not be present.
Things would not have been rearranged as greatly as assumed, etc...

(Also... are there life forms which would not have needed to be on an ark to survive? That would save a lot of room and make some of the jokes a bit less funny.)

So -it is, perhaps, correct to say that a flood of a certain description is known to be impossible without supernatural manipulation of physical things -but even that is based on assumptions and limited understanding/data/evidence.

Science often says "It was once thought....." or "It was once thought impossible..." after finding new evidence, so I would not be so quick to close my mind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nope. One of the problems is that "science" begins by assuming there is no God -that no being is capable of doing what he is said to be able to do -and addressing the rest of the situation from that viewpoint.
It tends to assume that only what we believe to be possible at any time is possible. It may be proven that the flood/ark account could not happen "naturally", but that is not the same as proving it did not happen.

It is false to say that the flood was "physically impossible" -though it may be physically impossible given what is assumed.
It required a manipulation of physics we do not see to be possible -that is not the same thing.

As for the flood itself, much is assumed about the nature of it.
Assuming supernatural manipulation (not unnatural) of physical things......
If water rained straight down everywhere and came up from beneath the earth as described, much of what we believe would be evidence of a flood would not be present.
Things would not have been rearranged as greatly as assumed, etc...

So -it is, perhaps, correct to say that a flood of a certain description is known to be impossible without supernatural manipulation of physical things -but even that is based on assumptions and limited understanding/data/evidence.

Science often says "It was once thought.....", so I would not be so quick to close my mind.

We know that if he had done it with supernatural powers then there should still be evidence. If god went through all of the trouble of hiding his powers and evidence then I would only assume he doesn't want us to believe in him.

Though back on the topic of evidence and the way that plays into faith. One cannot simply say "well god..." and then state that it doesn't matter what evidence or lack thereof that we have god will have been able to do it. I suppose you can but then you loose any kind of credibility or weight to your argument. If what you claim to be is true, god or otherwise, then there should be sufficent evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence then why do you not take a good look at your beliefs and evaluate them?

 

[leibowde84]

To show all the evidence of the Bible being God's Word would require a book. (There are such books, BTW.) Here are a few lines of evidence I find convincing:

1. The Bible accurately foretells the future. One prophecy in Isaiah foretold the ruler who would conquer Babylon, giving his name, some 150 years before he was born. The God of the Bible points to his ability to fulfill prophecy as proof he is the one true God. (Isaiah 44:26-28)
2. Scientific accuracy. When men in general ignorantly supposed the earth was resting on the backs of elephants or a turtle, the Bible accurately said that God " stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) There are many like examples. Those who claim scientific inaccuracies in the Bible often misstate what the Bible says.
3. Historical accuracy. Despite centuries of attacks against the Bible's historical record, archeology has confirmed many Bible events and persons whose historicity was once challenged.
4. The principles and wisdom found in the Bible, when applied, bring benefits to people in all nations, cultures, and time periods.

The best this "evidence" shows is that the authors of the Bible were vague enough to be correct. Since God is not even claimed to have written the Bible, it cannot be said that it is "the word of God", but, instead, must be classified as "the word of God as translated through imperfect men thousands of years ago".

 

[Etritonakin]

We know that if he had done it with supernatural powers then there should still be evidence. If god went through all of the trouble of hiding his powers and evidence then I would only assume he doesn't want us to believe in him.

Though back on the topic of evidence and the way that plays into faith. One cannot simply say "well god..." and then state that it doesn't matter what evidence or lack thereof that we have god will have been able to do it. I suppose you can but then you loose any kind of credibility or weight to your argument. If what you claim to be is true, god or otherwise, then there should be sufficent evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence then why do you not take a good look at your beliefs and evaluate them?

Evidence of supernatural manipulation would be difficult to find, but I was referring to seeking the wrong sort of physical evidence for the flood itself (as described) -not that God has hidden the evidence.

I do hope to research the flood/evidence question more in the future, but what I have heard against it I have seen to be based on things not as described in the bible, peoples' assumptions and present beliefs concerning what is possible, etc.

I do not have sufficient evidence -from what has been presented in documentaries/commentaries from various sides and what is written in the bible, etc... to believe the flood did not happen -and am continuing to examine the issue and my beliefs.... but I have experienced an extreme amount of evidence that supernatural things can and do happen, and I feel very fortunate (and sometimes very unfortunate) to have experienced such things. That has also caused me to question my beliefs. Unfortunately, such things are, as I describe them, unusual arrangements of what is possible -not easily or readily reproduced -and if you had experienced the same (all will in time), you would also be taking a good look at your beliefs and evaluating them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nope. One of the problems is that "science" begins by assuming there is no God -that no being is capable of doing what he is said to be able to do -and addressing the rest of the situation from that viewpoint. Obviously, the supernatural (such as a supernatural flood) is impossible if nothing supernatural can happen.
It tends to assume that only what we believe to be possible at any time is possible. It may be proven that the flood/ark account could not happen "naturally", but that is not the same as proving it did not happen.

It is false to say that the flood was "physically impossible" -though it may be physically impossible given what is assumed.
It required a manipulation of physics we do not see to be possible -that is not the same thing.

As for the flood itself, much is assumed about the nature of it -which affects the physical evidence we might seek.
Assuming supernatural manipulation (not unnatural) of physical things......
If water rained straight down everywhere and came up from beneath the earth as described, much of what we believe would be evidence of a flood (which we tend to base on the floods we have experienced) would not be present.
Things would not have been rearranged as greatly as assumed, etc...

(Also... are there life forms which would not have needed to be on an ark to survive? That would save a lot of room and make some of the jokes a bit less funny.)

So -it is, perhaps, correct to say that a flood of a certain description is known to be impossible without supernatural manipulation of physical things -but even that is based on assumptions and limited understanding/data/evidence.

Science often says "It was once thought....." or "It was once thought impossible..." after finding new evidence, so I would not be so quick to close my mind.

I remember being told the flood was impossible because there was simply not enough water in Earth's system, so it was religious pseudoscience- just like a beginning to the universe used to be called

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over | ExtremeTech

One of the researchers, talking to New Scientist, said that if the water wasn’t stored underground, “it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out.”

"on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth"- this is mentioned in the Bible before rain...

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. One of the problems is that "science" begins by assuming there is no God -

Nope.

That's not it at all.

Science, its fully name is "Natural Science", meaning it's the study of natural phenomenon explained by natural causes. God is supernatural, meaning natural science doesn't study the supernatural. If supernatural was part of the natural, then God is part of nature, which means that pantheism/panentheism are true. There are many believers among scientists. The only thing is, they don't necessarily believe in the Bible-God.

Science doesn't begin by assuming that there's no God. Science only begins by assuming that natural things can be explained by natural reasons. If God is part of that or not, that's up to the scientist's personal beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

Evidence of supernatural manipulation would be difficult to find, but I was referring to seeking the wrong sort of physical evidence for the flood itself (as described) -not that God has hidden the evidence.

I do hope to research the flood/evidence question more in the future, but what I have heard against it I have seen to be based on things not as described in the bible, peoples' assumptions and present beliefs concerning what is possible, etc.

I do not have sufficient evidence -from what has been presented in documentaries/commentaries from various sides and what is written in the bible, etc... to believe the flood did not happen -and am continuing to examine the issue and my beliefs.... but I have experienced an extreme amount of evidence that supernatural things can and do happen, and I feel very fortunate (and sometimes very unfortunate) to have experienced such things. That has also caused me to question my beliefs. Unfortunately, such things are, as I describe them, unusual arrangements of what is possible -not easily or readily reproduced -and if you had experienced the same (all will in time), you would also be taking a good look at your beliefs and evaluating them.

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.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evidence of supernatural manipulation would be difficult to find, but I was referring to seeking the wrong sort of physical evidence for the flood itself (as described) -not that God has hidden the evidence.

I do hope to research the flood/evidence question more in the future, but what I have heard against it I have seen to be based on things not as described in the bible, peoples' assumptions and present beliefs concerning what is possible, etc.

I think rather than attempting to disprove evolution creationist and IDers should focus really hard on researching the flood. Put all of those billions of dollars and millions of man hours into that.

I do not have sufficient evidence -from what has been presented in documentaries/commentaries from various sides and what is written in the bible, etc... to believe the flood did not happen -and am continuing to examine the issue and my beliefs.... but I have experienced an extreme amount of evidence that supernatural things can and do happen, and I feel very fortunate (and sometimes very unfortunate) to have experienced such things. That has also caused me to question my beliefs. Unfortunately, such things are, as I describe them, unusual arrangements of what is possible -not easily or readily reproduced -and if you had experienced the same (all will in time), you would also be taking a good look at your beliefs and evaluating them.

You shouldn't need to see sufficient evidence something didn't happen if there is no evidence that it did. But you may set your default position wherever it lay. Just realize that you have purposefully set your default position there and it is untenable to others whose default position is not there.

I do actually get my beliefs shaken up every so often. For example I was a very devout christian for a while. Then I became a christian-Esq deist where I couldn't really accept the bible as perfectly true after learning about the history of it but still believed in god. It slowly over time morphed into a god that was more and more distant and seemed to care less and less. Then I got ignited into paganism which was new and exciting and great. I loved it. Slowly though I lost faith in it as being "true" (even though I loved paganism and still keep up with many of my old pagan friends and acquaintances) I just couldn't go on pretending that I believed it to be true. Then I explored pantheism for a while and eventually got stuck on atheism. I have been an "atheist" several different times throughout my life but once I landed on it I stayed pretty much in it. I was a hardcore anti-theist reddit style atheist who believed all believers were simply morons who hadn't seen the truth that their religion was a lie. But I have had that belief shaken up and tossed around as well. Now I don't have any inclination to think that atheism or atheists is a mentally superior position. I think its the more tenable position for sure but I'm not more intelligent than a theist version of myself.

Most recently I have had a lot of my beliefs shattered by a few different major life events. The death of my grandfather and more recently my divorce. The latter has had me question who I am. What I really believe and how to deal with the terms of reality. So at my current position I have re-evalued it recently and I can only hope that I have more life experiences that bring into question everything that I believe and things that I don't believe are brought up again. And when I said that I hope you re-evaluate your beliefs I didn't mean it in a way that hopefully you would simply become an atheist but that you did honestly hold your position in a way that felt right to you rather than simply believing something and holding it as an axiom. I have done that, on both sides of the theistic scale, and it was never a good feeling and I felt like I lied to myself. If you come out still believing in god after re-evaluation then you will have a stronger, better and more logical belief in god. And that is always better than blind faith.

 

[rusra02]

We have without a doubt proven that there was no global flood. Beyond the fact that it is physically impossible there would be massive historical evidence of it. There is not however, a shred of evidence. ESPECIALLY within the time frame given in the bible.

Of course, I disagree that the Flood is physically impossible. And it is obvious there is historical evidence of it. How else would we know of it?

 

[rusra02]

The best this "evidence" shows is that the authors of the Bible were vague enough to be correct. Since God is not even claimed to have written the Bible, it cannot be said that it is "the word of God", but, instead, must be classified as "the word of God as translated through imperfect men thousands of years ago".

Calling a man by his name and telling what he would do and how he would do it, 150 years before his birth, is not "vague" in my opinion. And that is but one of many examples of prophecies in the Bible.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course, I disagree that the Flood is physically impossible. And it is obvious there is historical evidence of it. How else would we know of it?

The Bible doesn't provide historical evidence, but merely a claimed story. I coukd create a fabricated story, and if someone read that story a thousand years fekm now, that woukd not provide that someone with any historical evidence. That is how we heard of it. So what historical evidence are you referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

Calling a man by his name and telling what he would do and how he would do it, 150 years before his birth, is not "vague" in my opinion. And that is but one of many examples of prophecies in the Bible.

Was he the only person by that name? Isn't it possible that it was because of that story he was named that? There are so many other possibilities, it's crazy to be confident.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course, I disagree that the Flood is physically impossible. And it is obvious there is historical evidence of it. How else would we know of it?

Because it is in an influential book that was compiled a few hundred years after the beginning of its religion that came from an ancient Jewish text. We also all know of Heracles but we don't consider him factual.

There is no historical evidence. There are literary accounts.