erisken
Member
Member # 2022
|
posted 20. July 2006 05:49
First of all, I want to state that this is not a religious argument, but it is a logical consequence of the design argument.
In all explanations of ID and irreducible complexity, it is always stated that "ID does not tell anything about the personality of GOD"…
But, is it really so? I have learned a lot by re-thinking about the definition of what can be considered as "designed"…
The very first condition of "design" argument is that, the "thing" we investigate must be composed of more than one part, a system.
If it is a one-piece (or unique - singular) existence, then we can never conclude that it is "designed", in the light of design argument.
So, does ID really imply nothing about the only undesigned thing – GOD.
I think it certainly does.
Here it is:---------->>> If GOD is an existence which is composed of more than one "thing" (cooperating like one), then the logical question to ask is "Is his existence reducible or irreducible?".
If his existence is irreducible, then one can easily claim that He is also DESIGNED by someone else (If one can not say this, then all ID staff is worthless, since we found something which is both an irreducibly complex system and not-designed).
If his existence is reducible, then what? (A GOD whose existence depends on pure-chance or a supernatural Darwinian process)
I also want to state that the "nature" of GOD is not important here (In fact, what ID can not say anything about GOD is his nature), the important thing is the fact that (the logical consequence of the "design" argument) ID implies that He must be ONE-AT-ALL (-unique, one-piece, singular-, I mean).
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic