Originally posted by amantine
1. Intelligent Design can not explain itself. How were the higher beings that started life created?
Your question seems to boil down to "If the complexity of design in the universe argues for a creator, then how can a Creator, who is more complex,
not be created?" We must tackle two issues here: first how we categorize things, and how we define those categories.
The first issue raised is one of category. In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things.
Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a
beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.
Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we
also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they
had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything
that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led
to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models,
etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't
need a Creator to exist.
Now we can look at the other category, the non-created things. One would expect something that had no beginning to not be constrained to time as we
measure it. In fact, most scientists know that time is tied to the universe as a dimension like length, or height, or width (this is why physicists
refer to matters as happening in space-time). This idea means that time is a created thing also. A non-created thing would have to exist outside time
altogether! We would then expect that non-created thing to never change because, being outside time, it is the same at its beginning, its middle, and
its end. A non-created thing must necessarily be eternal.
The question that must be asked, then, is "If something is created, who or what created it?" If the universe is created, and left to itself it will
run down, then who put it together in the first place? We know it shows intelligence, design, and balance. It is logical to look at the evidence and
argue for the existence of a creator. If the universe is a thing, and it is a created thing, then it had to come from something else. A thing cannot
come from no-thing. That would be a logical contradiction. A state of being “A” couldn’t come from an anti-“A”. Since the state of being anti-“A”
entails a negation of any “A” (none of “A” can be around for anti-“A” to be true), it doesn’t make sense to claim that the very thing negated would
spring forth from its negator.
So, if the created thing must come from something else, then it must come from something that exists prior to it. If we look at all the created things
as a whole, they must come from a non-created thing. That is the only logical option open to us.
So far we have made a lot of head way. We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type
of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of
time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence,
"God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is
consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.
2. Intelligent Design requires unprovable assumptions to be made.
I don't beleive so read what is above and you will find a scientific and completely logical outline of Intelligent design.
3. There is no proof for Intelligent Design, while there is a lot of proof for Evolution. At best, Intelligent Design is a unneccessary
supernatural extension of evolution. But I guess Occam's Razor can solve that.
The proof for intelligent design is all around you. If you look at yourself and your DNA and you think hey this all just kinda happened this way you
would be making a large assumption. Anyways here is some proof for you scientific and logical.
The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.
Within the universe, cause precedes effect.
If cause, then effect:
If A then B
A
Therefore B
The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.
Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:
If not B then not A,
not B
therefore not A
The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We
observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty
is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.
Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.
Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.
If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.
Therefore:
The universe is an intelligent mind.
