john wrote:i know at least two absolute refutations to the concept of intelligent design:
Religious Politicians
Scientific Lawyers
(Quod Erat Demonstrandum)
and one other point. it is impossible for a (theoretical) omniscient being to have any capacity whatsoever for intelligence. if you know all, then there is nothing to know.
(i.e., the shorter version of oxford dictionary's leadoff definition for intelligence is "the faculty of understanding; intellect". if you are omniscient then by definition you have no "faculty of understanding".)
and as "design" is a function of intelligence - your "faculty of understanding" - it too completely disappears in the presence of omniscience.
which leads me to the conclusion, that, if we posit the existence of an omniscient being, the perceptible, physical, results of that being's existence would be a completely, utterly, random series of events.
everywhere, all the time, simultaneously
"who borrows the medusa's eye
resigns to the empirical lie
the knower petrifies the known
the subtle dancer turns to stone"
don't know the author
john
either i have very bad breath or an interesting argument.
we seem to be back to the number of angels which can be fitted onto the head of a pin discussion.
so, one more time,
would any of you intelligent designers care to challenge the definition of the christian god as "omnisicient, omnipotent and omnipresent"? if you agree, then please present your argument as to why an omniscient being has the capacity of intelligence, and design. And then why the bible trumps science.
if you disagree, then please present the evidence as to why the christian god is not "omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent". And then why the bible trumps science.
marduk wrote:well I could mention that the most advanced weaponry i.e. biological was first used by christians almost 1000 years ago
and that the deadliest weapons that scientists ever invented i.e. nuclear have actually saved more lives than theyve taken
but i won't
I don't that I would go so far as to say "saving lives" but certainly the horror of atomic weaponry scared both the US and USSR from ever using them against each other.
It is also a safe bet that far more people have been killed, up close and personal, with swords and spears throughout history. Decidedly low-tech weapons.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
I can see why Arch wouldn't jump at that one, John. Seems like a trick question.
But, as he is the only ID-er we have, I guess there is no one else to pick up the gauntlet.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
if, if, god is truly omniscient, omnipresent and onmipotent then evolution is part of his design. and not to be rejected, as an article of faith.
and, given the same argument, the supposition that christians are the chosen ones is just plain ludicrous. god has bigger fish to fry. like the entire universe, to the limited extent that we perceive it.
I can almost assure you that Arch will not look at it that way.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
I can almost assure you that Arch will not look at it that way.
minimalist -
so be it. taking the argument to the ultimate end, either our lives are pre ordained from front to end by a "higher being" or we make independent decisions, which, in the end, change the course of our lives.
if, if, god is truly omniscient, omnipresent and onmipotent then evolution is part of his design. and not to be rejected, as an article of faith.
minimalist is right, i won't pursue this kind of discussion for the following reasons;
1. this is an intelligent design topic not the attributes of God discussion
2. i try to stick to the topic and use archaeology and other proofs to defend the creation of man by God not evolution.
3. this is a archaeology board and though i am accused of not be archaeological i try to find as much evidence archaeologically touse and this topic belongs on a religious discussion board that is for these type of discussions.
John, I am an anarchist at heart so you know I'll always go for 'non-direction by any deity.'
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
archaeologist wrote:how about getting back on topic...
i take it that, from some of your comments, you agree that "intelligent design" has nothing whatsoever to do with god. christianity, or religion. but only archaelogy.
so please explain your post.
i.e., your statement about the 'creation of man by god not evolution"
it reminds me of aphrodite, sprung fully adult - tits ass and all - from the thigh of zeus.
i take it that, from some of your comments, you agree that "intelligent design" has nothing whatsoever to do with god. christianity, or religion. but only archaelogy.
NO. you can take from my comments that i will not get involved insome stupid tangent designed to stray from the topic.
i take it that, from some of your comments, you agree that "intelligent design" has nothing whatsoever to do with god. christianity, or religion. but only archaelogy.
NO. you can take from my comments that i will not get involved insome stupid tangent designed to stray from the topic.
so please explain your post.
no
on topic:
so please explain your statement that man was created by god and not by evolution. perhaps mere animals are different?
i take it that, from some of your comments, you agree that "intelligent design" has nothing whatsoever to do with god. christianity, or religion. but only archaelogy.
NO. you can take from my comments that i will not get involved insome stupid tangent designed to stray from the topic.
so please explain your post.
no
on topic:
so please explain your statement that man was created by god and not by evolution. perhaps mere animals are different?
john
dang. stupid me.
man was created by god, by god!, to serve god. no evolution expected or included. but then there was the problem of feeding the tribe. so, god created intelligent design on the 8th day to create animals to feed his servants. Yes????
