Not following your thinking here at all.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>Not following your thinking here at all.
Not surprised.
>Please elaborate.
Where did the "intelligent designer" come from?
ID/Creationism/etc. is a very simple, believable and comfortable position until one wrestles with that basic question -- a question rarely ask and even more rarely addressed.
Carry on.
JB
>Not following your thinking here at all.
Not surprised.
>Please elaborate.
Where did the "intelligent designer" come from?
ID/Creationism/etc. is a very simple, believable and comfortable position until one wrestles with that basic question -- a question rarely ask and even more rarely addressed.
Carry on.
JB
Why is it necessary to know where an intelligent designer came from?
Do you need to know where your food comes from in order to eat it? Do you need to know where water comes from to drink it? Do you need to know where the air comes from to breathe it? You don't have to wrestle with food, water, or air to eat, drink, and breathe.
Not necessary at all to know where an ID comes from for there to be an ID.
Besides, why does an ID have to come from anywhere? The ID could have been there/here all the time, not coming from anywhere that the ID was not already...
Do you need to know where your food comes from in order to eat it? Do you need to know where water comes from to drink it? Do you need to know where the air comes from to breathe it? You don't have to wrestle with food, water, or air to eat, drink, and breathe.
Not necessary at all to know where an ID comes from for there to be an ID.
Besides, why does an ID have to come from anywhere? The ID could have been there/here all the time, not coming from anywhere that the ID was not already...
Quote from Turok:
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>Not following your thinking here at all.
Not surprised.
>Please elaborate.
Where did the "intelligent designer" come from?
ID/Creationism/etc. is a very simple, believable and comfortable position until one wrestles with that basic question -- a question rarely ask and even more rarely addressed.
Carry on.
JB
Of course. Don't you?Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Do you need to know where your food comes from in order to eat it?
Of course. Don't you?Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Do you need to know where water comes from to drink it?
Of course!! Don't you?Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Do you need to know where the air comes from to breathe it?
Those of us who strive to understand the world around us, to further the cause of human understanding, and to fuel the engine of human progress are constantly asking ourselves these questions.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You don't have to wrestle with food, water, or air to eat, drink, and breathe.
It is only the faithmongers of your ilk who can wake up in the morning with no questions, secure in the knowledge that a benevolent Creator God is looking down upon them and will forgive their weak-mindedness and lies and take them up into the Kingdom of Heaven upon death. There is no need to ask questions about the origin of the water, the food, the air. God has made it all for Man.
As I have said here - I envy you your faith. It would make life very simple. It also accounts for your lack of compunction about lying, evading, distorting and generally trolling here on ET.
Thank goodness the vast majority of Christians aren't like you, you filthy disgusting hypocrite.
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>Why is it necessary to know where an intelligent
>designer came from?
I've never said it was necessary.
What I've stated is that labeling one's belief system as "simple" because it rolls up into a neat "intelligent designer" package is only simple if you avoid that key question.
Belief A:
Milk comes from the corner store and it's stand up cooler. It's always been this way and will always be this way.
Belief B:
Milk is the product of lactating bovines (and all the hormonal implications therein). The commercial existence of said product depends on a myriad of interrelating and complex factors -- market factors, technological factors, human resource factors, chemistry, biology, husbandry, weather, law enforcement, trade enforcement, health code enforcement, and because of the odor downwind...NIMBY issues. In many of these areas we have only scratched the 'knowledge surface' and as a society will continue to spend billions on research to further that knowledge.
Belief "A" is simpler, easier and allows said believer to mock the holder of belief "B" using the following argument.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304048#post1304048
Again, asking the question "where did the intelligent designer (or milk) come from" isn't necessary -- it's just important if you wish to have a chance at coming to the correct conclusions.
JB
>Why is it necessary to know where an intelligent
>designer came from?
I've never said it was necessary.
What I've stated is that labeling one's belief system as "simple" because it rolls up into a neat "intelligent designer" package is only simple if you avoid that key question.
Belief A:
Milk comes from the corner store and it's stand up cooler. It's always been this way and will always be this way.
Belief B:
Milk is the product of lactating bovines (and all the hormonal implications therein). The commercial existence of said product depends on a myriad of interrelating and complex factors -- market factors, technological factors, human resource factors, chemistry, biology, husbandry, weather, law enforcement, trade enforcement, health code enforcement, and because of the odor downwind...NIMBY issues. In many of these areas we have only scratched the 'knowledge surface' and as a society will continue to spend billions on research to further that knowledge.
Belief "A" is simpler, easier and allows said believer to mock the holder of belief "B" using the following argument.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304048#post1304048
Again, asking the question "where did the intelligent designer (or milk) come from" isn't necessary -- it's just important if you wish to have a chance at coming to the correct conclusions.
JB
Key question?
Is that a scientific term?
It is not necessary to know where or how a car was designed to drive it, or where or who designed a TV to watch it...and if they break we call a repairman anyway...
I mean, if you want to know more about the details of certain things we enjoy in life, fine by me, but it really is irrelevant in most cases in practical life, especially in a life as complicated as modern life. Simply not enough time to become seriously proficient in all areas of knowledge, so we have to trust the specialists.
Knowing or not knowing where an ID came from keeps no one from living their lives. I dare say that someone who could not do anything in life until they knew what was the source of life would be deemed daft...
Knowing where an ID came from suggests that the ID was not and is not "here" all the time.
The simplest answer is that the ID was here, and is here, and we simply can't see the forest because we are stuck in the trees, examining trees...
If correct conclusions means complete conclusions, then correct conclusions about the forest are not going to be found in examination of one section of the trees...
That's the reason your milk analogy fails, as it goes to knowledge of a tree, not he forest. The worlds greatest "tree expert" may know everything there is known about trees, but still no nothing of the reason we have forests...
So if anyone wants to focus on trees, that is cool, but comparing an ID to a tree, or a milk carton, is, well, it is silly to me...
We either have design or not, and design is the simplest explanation, which has never been shown to be false...
So why resist the simplest answer that has not been shown to be incorrect?
Dull Razor, perhaps...
Is that a scientific term?
It is not necessary to know where or how a car was designed to drive it, or where or who designed a TV to watch it...and if they break we call a repairman anyway...
I mean, if you want to know more about the details of certain things we enjoy in life, fine by me, but it really is irrelevant in most cases in practical life, especially in a life as complicated as modern life. Simply not enough time to become seriously proficient in all areas of knowledge, so we have to trust the specialists.
Knowing or not knowing where an ID came from keeps no one from living their lives. I dare say that someone who could not do anything in life until they knew what was the source of life would be deemed daft...
Knowing where an ID came from suggests that the ID was not and is not "here" all the time.
The simplest answer is that the ID was here, and is here, and we simply can't see the forest because we are stuck in the trees, examining trees...
If correct conclusions means complete conclusions, then correct conclusions about the forest are not going to be found in examination of one section of the trees...
That's the reason your milk analogy fails, as it goes to knowledge of a tree, not he forest. The worlds greatest "tree expert" may know everything there is known about trees, but still no nothing of the reason we have forests...
So if anyone wants to focus on trees, that is cool, but comparing an ID to a tree, or a milk carton, is, well, it is silly to me...
We either have design or not, and design is the simplest explanation, which has never been shown to be false...
So why resist the simplest answer that has not been shown to be incorrect?
Dull Razor, perhaps...
Quote from Turok:
ARogueTrader(ART)/Optional77/JaneDoe/Zx/Etc.:
>Why is it necessary to know where an intelligent
>designer came from?
I've never said it was necessary.
What I've stated is that labeling one's belief system as "simple" because it rolls up into a neat "intelligent designer" package is only simple if you avoid that key question.
Belief A:
Milk comes from the corner store and it's stand up cooler. It's always been this way and will always be this way.
Belief B:
Milk is the product of lactating bovines (and all the hormonal implications therein). The commercial existence of said product depends on a myriad of interrelating and complex factors -- market factors, technological factors, human resource factors, chemistry, biology, husbandry, weather, law enforcement, trade enforcement, health code enforcement, and because of the odor downwind...NIMBY issues. In many of these areas we have only scratched the 'knowledge surface' and as a society will continue to spend billions on research to further that knowledge.
Belief "A" is simpler, easier and allows said believer to mock the holder of belief "B" using the following argument.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304048#post1304048
Again, asking the question "where did the intelligent designer (or milk) come from" isn't necessary -- it's just important if you wish to have a chance at coming to the correct conclusions.
JB
>We either have design or not, and design is the
>simplest explanation, which has never been
>shown to be false...
As previously pointed out, it's only the "simplest explanation" if you go with "A", stick your head in the sand and keep buying the argument that milk simply comes from the corner store.
>So why resist the simplest answer that
>has not been shown to be incorrect?
See above.
JB
PS: We're not going to go round and round with this (well, I'm not at least). You've chosen sand as it relates to "B", so enjoy all the nose picking. I'm out.
>simplest explanation, which has never been
>shown to be false...
As previously pointed out, it's only the "simplest explanation" if you go with "A", stick your head in the sand and keep buying the argument that milk simply comes from the corner store.
>So why resist the simplest answer that
>has not been shown to be incorrect?
See above.
JB
PS: We're not going to go round and round with this (well, I'm not at least). You've chosen sand as it relates to "B", so enjoy all the nose picking. I'm out.
Since your milky analogy is in no way representative of the standing of an intelligent designer to the universe, you are indeed out...complicated, and out...
Quote from Turok:
>We either have design or not, and design is the
>simplest explanation, which has never been
>shown to be false...
As previously pointed out, it's only the "simplest explanation" if you go with "A", stick your head in the sand and keep buying the argument that milk simply comes from the corner store.
>So why resist the simplest answer that
>has not been shown to be incorrect?
See above.
JB
PS: We're not going to go round and round with this (well, I'm not at least). You've chosen sand as it relates to "B", so enjoy all the nose picking. I'm out.
the question where did the designer come from or who made the designer may be non-sensical.
The question is being asked as if the designer is inside of time. But we know time started after the big bang. So if someone or something created the big bang he would be outside of time.
From the perspective of the designer there may be know before or after.
The question is being asked as if the designer is inside of time. But we know time started after the big bang. So if someone or something created the big bang he would be outside of time.
From the perspective of the designer there may be know before or after.