A basic question about ID

[truthmonger89]

This has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but I was just wondering. For those who think that life and the universe are too complex and orderly to have formed without an intelligent designer/creator, what about the designer/creator itself? If complex, orderly things cannot exist without a designer/creator, why is the designer/creator of the universe exempt from this logical conclusion?

 

[SKSmokes]

The thought on this is that we and the universe are "dependent" entities and an intelligent designer is an "independent" entity. Dependent entities require independent entities to exist whiel independent entities can cause themselves to exist.

 

[TheNewAge]

The thought on this is that we and the universe are "dependent" entities and an intelligent designer is an "independent" entity. Dependent entities require independent entities to exist whiel independent entities can cause themselves to exist.

In other words, the ID philosophy is completely unscientific, unprovable, dependent upon miracles to be possible, and just another re-hash of creationism.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

In other words, the ID philosophy is completely unscientific, unprovable, dependent upon miracles to be possible, and just another re-hash of creationism.

That's just crazy talk. Go stand in the corner.

 

[DavidBomin]

I think they mean the world is so complicated, to assume what made it was anything other than a supernatural being is ridiculous.

 

[TheNewAge]

That's just crazy talk. Go stand in the corner.

Please explain.

 

[truthmonger89]

The thought on this is that we and the universe are "dependent" entities and an intelligent designer is an "independent" entity. Dependent entities require independent entities to exist whiel independent entities can cause themselves to exist.

That doesn't really answer the question. Why are some things dependent and other things independent? Why is the designer/creator independent? Why is it the only exception to a rule that applies to everything else?

How can something cause itself to exist? How does that work? If something does not exist, how can it construct itself?

 

[nvxplorer]

That doesn't really answer the question. Why are some things dependent and other things independent? Why is the designer/creator independent? Why is it the only exception to a rule that applies to everything else?

How can something cause itself to exist? How does that work? If something does not exist, how can it construct itself?

An eternal being/force is a philosophical presupposition of supernaturalism.

 

[Matthew777]

This has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but I was just wondering. For those who think that life and the universe are too complex and orderly to have formed without an intelligent designer/creator, what about the designer/creator itself? If complex, orderly things cannot exist without a designer/creator, why is the designer/creator of the universe exempt from this logical conclusion?

The universe had a beginning while God, by definition, did not.

Peace.

 

[truthmonger89]

The universe had a beginning while God, by definition, did not.

Peace.

That is certainly a very popular explanation, but I have a hard time accepting something that doesn't seem to make sense simply on the grounds that a lot of other people accept it. What is the logical justification for saying that God had no beginning? If everything else needs a beginning, why doesn't God?

 

[Matthew777]

What is the logical justification for saying that God had no beginning? If everything else needs a beginning, why doesn't God?

If causality is a law then the first cause must be uncaused.

Peace.

 

[truthmonger89]

An eternal being/force is a philosophical presupposition of supernaturalism.

One can philosophically presuppose anything one wants, so why should I accept the philosophical presupposition that everything requires a designer/creator except for one thing? There must be some logical explanation for it, or else nobody would have posited it in the first place.

I could philosophically presuppose that Leprechauns cause rain, but since I have no logical explanation to support my claim, it is unacceptable.

 

[nvxplorer]

One can philosophically presuppose anything one wants, so why should I accept the philosophical presupposition that everything requires a designer/creator except for one thing? There must be some logical explanation for it, or else nobody would have posited it in the first place.

I could philosophically presuppose that Leprechauns cause rain, but since I have no logical explanation to support my claim, it is unacceptable.

No argument from me. I’ve attempted to read logical explanations, but they gave me a headache.

 

[truthmonger89]

If causality is a law then the first cause must be uncaused.

Peace.

If causality is a law, then everything must have a cause. To say that one particular thing has no cause is to dismiss the law of causality.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

If causality is a law then the first cause must be uncaused.

Peace.

I don't understand why this must be so. While the notion of cause-and-effect makes good sense in our everyday world, we already know it is utterly inapplicable at the quantum level. If it fails to apply there, maybe it fails to apply in other realms of physics inquiry. Maybe it is possible that the universe did not require a cause.

 

[Patzak]

If causality is a law then the first cause must be uncaused.

But if causality is the law, then the first cause cannot be uncaused.

 

[SKSmokes]

How can something cause itself to exist? How does that work? If something does not exist, how can it construct itself?

That's the definition of an independent entity--something that can exist in and of itself without dependency on anything else.

How do you get an independent entity? I'm not sure--if you find one let me know and we'll ask it.

 

[Matthew777]

If causality is a law, then everything must have a cause. To say that one particular thing has no cause is to dismiss the law of causality.

Once it is demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, one wonders whether an eternal being caused it.

Peace.

 

[Matthew777]

Maybe it is possible that the universe did not require a cause.

Maybe it's possible that a Big Mac and fries will magically appear on my keyboard.

Peace.

 

[Guywiththehead]

Once it is demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, one wonders whether an eternal being caused it.

Peace.

If everything must have a cause eternal beings can't exist.