On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:56:45 -0500 Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
writes:
...
> Chris
> You make a good point. From an ID point of view, every form of
> intelligent life would appear designed, even though from the point
> of view of naturalistic evolutionary theory, it would only be
"designed"
> by natural culling or "editing" out "bad" design.
>
> But, worse is the prospect of *God* as a designer, because *He*
> would, being perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., be even *more*
> clearly the object of design from an ID point of view than ordinary
> life on Earth.
My reasoning against a natural undesigned designer was carefully couched
in ID's own terms. ID claims to empirically detect design by analysis of
parts and how those parts mesh and interact. In my post, I tried to show
how any alien designer must conceivably have its own parts (a type of
brain, systems for metabolism, systems for movement, etc.). From this I
made my further deductions.
But please note: nowhere was my argument for the necessary design of any
natural designer based on merely the sheer existence of its intelligence.
In general, the argument for design does not depend upon the existence
or non-existence of intelligence within the entity being studied. A
paramecium is not intelligent, as far as we know, but the argument is
made that it's cilia are designed. The case for design is founded solely
upon parts and how they interact, independently of any possible
intelligence coming from those parts.
This, therefore, would not mean that God is a "worse prospect" for being
the undesigned designer. Yes, He is revealed as being infinitely
intelligent, perfect, etc. But this, in and of itself, does not
necessarily mean He is designed. This would only be true if His essence
is shown to have its intermeshing parts. But long before the ID movement
ever sprung up, Christian theologians were unanimously agreed from
certain descriptions in the Bible that God has no parts, that His essence
is absolutely unified and cannot be divided into sections. (See, for
instance, the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith
written in the late 17th century.) If this understanding is correct,
then it would mean that design cannot be detected in the divine being
(assuming we could even detect Him in the first place). He would
therefore qualify as a possible candidate for the undesigned Designer.
> How could such a perfect being exist without having
> been created to *be* perfect? Other than glazing over or blanking
> out, there really is no viable alternative for ID theory, because the
> idea that such an amazing being just *happens* to be the basic
> metaphysically self-existing "thing" is almost too preposterous to
> discuss.
Now we're really getting into some philosophical-theological issues. The
question of self-existence hinges upon our understanding of its nature.
There have been those who have argued that God self-exists because He is
the cause and grounds of His own existence. They conceive of some kind
of infinite loop within God's being.
In my view, the better approach to divine self-existence is to say that
God self-exists because there is no cause whatsoever to His existence.
Not even God Himself causes His own existence. He is the uncaused Cause.
He refers to Himself as the "I AM." This would suggest that His
existence is just that: sheer existence.
But it all boils down to one's own presuppositions. If this seems "too
preposterous" to one's mind, it is probably due to some kind of belief
that, if we can't fully understand something, then it's best to think
that it doesn't exist or doesn't happen. I don't claim to fully
comprehend even the things that I just wrote above. Instead, it is my
faith that bridges the apparent gap between revelation and reason.
> Much better would be a demigod, or "minigod," who
> basically has only one power: The ability to analyze molecules
> and manipulate them to produce new molecules. This power would
> only involve only *tiny* amounts of energy, and yet would be sufficient
> to create and then to manipulate life on Earth from its beginning until
> now.
>
> But, then, we are back at the fact that *it* would need design, by ID
> theory terms, and the infinite regress towards ever-more-powerful
> designers is back in session.
>
> I think the only way to stop this regress is to simply admit that what
> appears as design to ID theorists may not actually *be* design. But,
> of course, *that* won't be popular.
Yes, this is one way to stop the infinite recursion of designers and
their designs. Yet, the above scheme of a God having no parts is another
way. You may not find this "reasonable" or "rational," but this would be
due more to your presuppositions rather than the concept itself.
Steve C.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 11:00:21 EDT