The resurrection of Jesus Christ happened, did it not? Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God, not the son of the space lord xemu.
It's not a good argument for any one belief, but it is a good argument for design. Sure, someone, of highly motivated, could deny that there was intelligent design behind anything that exists that man can't create, but that's not really an argument.Sure, but it just kind of underlines why it's not a good argument for any one belief. Also, it's kind of self-defeating, since God himself was clearly not designed, therefore intelligence does not inherently imply design
It's not a good argument for any one belief, but it is a good argument for design. Sure, someone, of highly motivated, could deny that there was intelligent design behind anything that exists that man can't create, but that's not really an argument.
Fact is, when it comes to that sort of stuff, all any of us can do is observe, experiment, and come up with our own personal opinions. And they are all equally valid, in the end, but for different reasons.
Everything except God.I think you missed the second part of my post there though. The problem is that God himself was not designed by anyone, yet He exists. So therefore, if you believe in God, you believe intelligent things can exist without being designed. Thus the argument is self-defeating.
God does not exist as a designed thing.I think you missed the second part of my post there though. The problem is that God himself was not designed by anyone, yet He exists. So therefore, if you believe in God, you believe intelligent things can exist without being designed. Thus the argument is self-defeating.
God does not exist as a designed thing.
God is not a thing. Only things are things.
Everything except God.
Thing is, some things our outside our ability to even form a mental model. It doesn't mean they are not what they are.
Would anything exist if God didn't exist?maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want
So if you can accept that there are things outside of our ability to form a mental model, why draw the line at "this looks designed to me"? I accept that I cannot comprehend that fact that at least one intelligent, conscious thing exists without being designed so therefore neither intelligence or consciousness inherently require having been designed by something.
I don't. I can comprehend evolution so it's outside the argument I was making. If someone can convince me, though the scientific method, I'll buy it. But it's a daunting task, like proving to me that my wife doesn't exist.
I'm saying design explains it adequately until a better answer comes along. And the fact that I have a relationship with the designer makes it more difficult to convince me of some other explanation.Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.
God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?
I'm saying design explains it adequately until a better answer comes along. And the fact that I have a relationship with the designer makes it more difficult to convince me of some other explanation.
And to me the question is binary. That is, either someone designed it, or it happened by accident.
So, is what your saying is that you think that humans have the highest mental model and since you cannot fathom a conciousness or intelligence existing without being created,than God must have been created?So if you can accept that there are things outside of our ability to form a mental model, why draw the line at "this looks designed to me"? I accept that I cannot comprehend that fact that at least one intelligent, conscious thing exists without being designed so therefore neither intelligence or consciousness inherently require having been designed by something.
So, is what your saying is that you think that humans have the highest mental model and since you cannot fathom a conciousness or intelligence existing without being created,than God must have been created?
Is that correct?
Exactly. The existence of God is not as some "thing".I don't mean "material things", I mean "something that exists"
You are talking about orderlyness. I'm talking about orderlyness as applied to almost unconscionable complexity. And when you add my personal relationship with the creator into the mix, well, you see where I'm coming from.I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is a philosophy forum and OP started this thread to discuss what we might consider proofs of God's existence.
What I'm trying to point out is that you can ask the same (well, similar) thing about God.
Maybe I'm not understanding the argument correctly so correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's this:
A) If something is not random, it is orderly
B) If something is orderly, it must have have a designer.
Given that
C) I am not random
We conclude that
D) I am orderly (A, C)
Therefore
E) I must have a designer (B, D)
Which I think is the common argument.
But you can also say
F) God is not random
So
G) God is orderly (A, F)
and
H) God must have a designer (B, G)
But this is utterly preposterous and would lead to and infinite regression. So (B) has to be false.
Therefore a designer must not be necessary for orderliness
Again, please correct me if I have misrepresented the argument
You are talking about orderlyness. I'm talking about orderlyness as applied to almost unconscionable complexity.
And when you add my personal relationship with the creator into the mix, well, you see where I'm coming from.
I used to say that evolutionists are like a guy arguing that a '57 chevy rusting away in a field was created by rust, in spite of the obvious signs that it was not only created, but created for a purpose.
They will argue that that is because we know who made it. My response: Exactly.
Of course, if you never saw a human being before, and are from a different planet where nothing like a human being exists, you wouldn't know who made it, but it would still be obvious from its attributes, complexity and order, that someone designed it.
Same thing with creation in general.
The problem is that it is what we've known since leaving the womb and don't appreciate it for what it is.
And for some of us, we are desperate to NOT believe that it was designed, so we work hard to come up with other possible explanations. I see two general categories of reasons for that, both related:
1. We don't want to believe there is a designer due to the implications.
2. We worship our own intelligence and simply will not accept that something we don't understand and can't disprove is actually true.
Design sounds like an aetheist word.Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.
God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?
Design sounds like an aetheist word.