Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ID logically implies non-ID, but u have none!

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    There s theism and non-theism. There s humans and non-humans. There s numbers and non-numbers. There s planets and non-planets. There s empiricism and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      There's theism and non-theism.

      There's humans and non-humans.

      There's numbers and non-numbers.

      There's planets and non-planets.

      There's empiricism and non-empiricism.

      So there's also intelligent design AND non-intelligent
      design.

      Since the existence of the one implies the other, it
      is also true that if you cannot find it's logical
      counterpart, it might be because the affirmation was
      wrong to begin with.

      Since you are the one affirming intelligent design,
      you should have no more problem finding examples of
      non-intelligent design in the universe, anymore than
      she who affirms a left hand would have problems
      showing the existence of it's counterpart (the
      non-left hand, or the right hand).

      You may discover that your "God intelligently designed
      everything in the universe" mantra is a bit too
      inclusivistic, because it leaves no room whatsoever,
      for something that is logically necessary.....the
      non-intelligent design.

      You can no more have ONLY intelligent design, than you
      can have ONLY one side of a coin.

      Of course the way out of this is to retract your
      belief that all things were intelligently designed.
      That would end the logical jam you are now in. But if
      you don't wanna give up your faith just yet, I'd like
      to see you produce evidence of stuff in the universe
      that was non-intelligently designed, because
      non-intelligent design is a logical NECESSITY, once
      you affirm intelligent design.

      Or, are you willing to live with a faith that affirms
      only one side of the coin, and actually DENIES the
      other side of it?,apologetics@yahoogroups.com

      --- Dave




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Sponsored Link

      Try Netflix today! With plans starting at only $5.99 a month what are you waiting for?
      http://www.netflix.com/Signup?mqso=80010030
    • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
      Dave, Your post wasn t really germane to the purpose of this list, but I will allow a brief discussion and then close it when it seems appropriate. You wrote:
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        Your post wasn't really germane to the purpose of this list, but I
        will allow a brief discussion and then close it when it seems
        appropriate.

        You wrote:

        << There's theism and non-theism.
        There's humans and non-humans.
        There's numbers and non-numbers.
        There's planets and non-planets.
        There's empiricism and non-empiricism.
        So there's also intelligent design AND non-intelligent design.

        Since the existence of the one implies the other, it is also true
        that if you cannot find it's logical counterpart, it might be
        because the affirmation was wrong to begin with. >>

        Then again, there are valid arguments and invalid arguments.

        Your argument is akin to an art critic claiming that unless one can
        show that Leonardo da Vinci was responsible for the fading and
        cracking apparent in his painting of the Last Supper, we cannot
        attribute the painting itself to da Vinci or to any other artist.

        You wrote:

        << Since you are the one affirming intelligent design, you should
        have no more problem finding examples of non-intelligent design in
        the universe, anymore than she who affirms a left hand would have
        problems showing the existence of it's counterpart (the non-left
        hand, or the right hand). >>

        Indeed, we have no problem finding examples of a lack of intelligent
        design ("non-intelligent design" could be misunderstood to mean
        design that is not intelligent). When a rock slide occurs as the
        result of natural processes, the consequent positions of the rocks
        are not the result of design. Innumerable additional examples could
        be given.

        You wrote:

        << You may discover that your "God intelligently designed everything
        in the universe" mantra is a bit too inclusivistic, because it
        leaves no room whatsoever, for something that is logically
        necessary.....the non-intelligent design. >>

        If any advocate of ID has actually claimed that "God intelligently
        designed everything in the universe," that person either misstated
        or was speaking in a different context than what you are construing
        such a statement to mean. The usual ID position is that God
        intelligently designed the universe as a whole and that his design
        is evidentially supported by some specific phenomena in the universe
        (e.g., DNA), not that God intelligently designed every specific
        physical object that has ever existed and every event of every type
        that has ever occurred.

        I believe you are knocking down a straw man.

        In Christ's service,
        Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
        Manager, Apologetics & Interfaith Evangelism
        North American Mission Board
      • Dave Wave
        ... By this you distance yourself from a large assortment of internet apologists who insist that non-intelligent design is an oxymoron, having assumed that
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
          <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:

          > Indeed, we have no problem finding examples of a
          > lack of intelligent
          > design ("non-intelligent design" could be
          > misunderstood to mean
          > design that is not intelligent). When a rock slide
          > occurs as the
          > result of natural processes, the consequent
          > positions of the rocks
          > are not the result of design. Innumerable additional
          > examples could
          > be given.

          By this you distance yourself from a large assortment
          of internet "apologists" who insist that
          non-intelligent design is an oxymoron, having assumed
          that "design" must always be inevitably linked to
          "intelligence".

          > If any advocate of ID has actually claimed that "God
          > intelligently
          > designed everything in the universe," that person
          > either misstated
          > or was speaking in a different context than what you
          > are construing
          > such a statement to mean. The usual ID position is
          > that God
          > intelligently designed the universe as a whole and
          > that his design
          > is evidentially supported by some specific phenomena
          > in the universe
          > (e.g., DNA), not that God intelligently designed
          > every specific
          > physical object that has ever existed and every
          > event of every type
          > that has ever occurred.

          Ok, now you are even further from the rest I've spoken
          to, who had no problems saying God intelligently
          designed absolutely everything in the universe.

          By the way, since Hebrews 1:3 says God upholds all
          things by the word of his power, and Jesus said not a
          bird will fall from heaven without the heavenly
          Father, doesn't this indicate complete oversight of
          the creation? How can God NOT have intelligently
          designed every last little bit of matter in the
          universe, in the biblical world view?

          Doesn't the Calvinist view accentuate this even more,
          even saying that every drop of rain is predestined to
          hit exactly where it does, or that rocks will break
          apart the way God wishes them to?

          --- Dave

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Paul Leonard
          Hi Rob and Dave, Robert M. Bowman, Jr. wrote: Along with s Robs rock slide I
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Rob and Dave,

            "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
            Along with's Robs rock slide I think we could also list Cancer as an example of non-intelligent design.

            << Since you are the one affirming intelligent design, you should
            have no more problem finding examples of non-intelligent design in
            the universe, anymore than she who affirms a left hand would have
            problems showing the existence of it's counterpart (the non-left
            hand, or the right hand). >>

            Indeed, we have no problem finding examples of a lack of intelligent
            design ("non-intelligent design" could be misunderstood to mean
            design that is not intelligent) . When a rock slide occurs as the
            result of natural processes, the consequent positions of the rocks
            are not the result of design. Innumerable additional examples could
            be given.



          • Lenny Esposito
            Actually, I believe the negation to Intelligent Design would be non-intelligent non-design. Of that we have plenty of examples. Lenny Lenny Esposito,
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              Actually, I believe the negation to Intelligent Design would be non-intelligent non-design.  Of that we have plenty of examples.

              Lenny
              Lenny Esposito, President

              Come Reason Ministries
              P.O. Box 20527
              Riverside, CA 92516

              p. 866.957.3276
              f.  951.616.2005
              http://www.comereason.org/
              Lenny@...

              _._,___

            • Dave Wave
              ... actually intelligence implies non-intelligence. so an intelligent design implies a non-intelligent design. ...
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Lenny Esposito <lenny@...> wrote:

                > Actually, I believe the negation to Intelligent
                > Design would be
                > non-intelligent non-design. Of that we have plenty
                > of examples.

                actually intelligence implies non-intelligence. so an
                intelligent design implies a non-intelligent design.


                > Lenny
                > Lenny Esposito, President
                >
                > Come Reason Ministries
                > P.O. Box 20527
                > Riverside, CA 92516
                >
                > p. 866.957.3276
                > f. 951.616.2005
                > http://www.comereason.org/
                > Lenny@...
                >
                > _._,___
                >
                >


                --- Dave




                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Yahoo! Music Unlimited
                Access over 1 million songs.
                http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.