Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ?
Ironically, it's in the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God." (Thus God is a product of complex verbal behavior - a concept formed by humans.)
So you do not realize that God IS the word ? Read John chapter one.....
What “Word"?
As far as I can tell, god has never said even one word. All you have is third party to one-hundred thousand party hearsay of evolving religion based upon faith. And now you are claiming that this is all very scientific.
I don’t care what John said. What do you have that is first hand directly from “god"?
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C.
Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.
Why do you grant an *intelligent designer*? Why not a *mathematical function*? Even a *brainless* amoeba such as slime mold knows what you can do with a few mathematical functions. You don't have to be Intelligently designed at all in order to *function* in a successful manner in nature.
But your system must function mathematically correct or you get sick. This mathematical law applies to all things. Real or unreal.
This emphasis of a higher intelligence and motivated designer wich must create irreducible complex systems to make it all work, seems an inherently false statement, when we know that it all can be broken down mathematically into smaller and smaller components and values, So small, they become fuzzy and only the potential Implicate values remain, yet must be able to act in accordance to the mathematical function.
moreover, if an irreducible complex system can evolve, then it is no longer irreducibkly complex. ID proposes a self-contradictory concept.
Accrding to ID, the universe itself is an irreducible complex system based on the mathematical function of the irreducibly complex system.(a mathematical construct.
a) an irreducible complex system is all there is, and we know this is not true.
b) an irreducible complexity able to evolove proposes a contradictory duality
c) an irreducible simple mathematical equation, a fundamental law of coming into existence , that allows evolution of complxity from the infinititely subtle to gross expresseion in reality.
My pick is *c)*My point in granting an ID is to emphasize that these ID "arguments" are nothing but disguised Christian missionary work. An ID implies nothing other than possibly a very smart alien. Anything else is just disguised missionary work using silly word play. And generally, the IDers won't admit that the Christian God is not THE god, and that's where they're exposed.
I find this to be true much of the time and the argument goes something like this:
Life must have been the result of an intelligent designer, therefore, God exists. If God exists, then Christianity is true!Exactly my point. These guys aren't arguing about an ID. They're just doing missionary work in another manner. They think if they use the words of science and logic that somehow they might be more successful convincing people to become Christians. But all the sciencey talk is just a smoke screen. But it IS fun watching them twist and turn.
Exactly my point. These guys aren't arguing about an ID. They're just doing missionary work in another manner. They think if they use the words of science and logic that somehow they might be more successful convincing people to become Christians. But all the sciencey talk is just a smoke screen. But it IS fun watching them twist and turn.
I do admit though that there are many radical, philosophical Rationalists that believe in a philosopher's God and espouse intelligent design. They tend to be anthropocentric, believe in a mind/body duality, and that mind exists independently of matter. They are often very critical of empiricism, which they often mistakenly equate all of science with.