From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Ellen K. wrote:
> You are anthropomorphizing G-d... making Him just like a person only
> more.   While it is a normal human tendency to explain things in human
> terms, in this case it is wrong.
>

Rubbish. That is the old "oh but God is so far from your understanding
that you will just have to accept" bullsh*t that died in the
enlightenment.

The ID fallacy depends for it's pseudo-logic upon the central concept that
something complex (such as an eye or a person) can not just come about but
must be created/designed etc.

However it appears that central conept is flawed in that it would appear
that the very same people then go onto declare that something as complex
etc as God did just come about & was not created/designed.

Adam

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:39:20 +0000, Adam 
> wrote in message :
>
>
>>Gary Britt wrote:>>Adam
>>
>>
>>>Gary
>>>
>>>"Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote
>
> in
>
>>>message news:43744185$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary Britt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>God is definitely a he.  That's why he made me a he.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That would make him an it.
>>>>
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>"Adam" 
wrote in message
>>>>>news:43736cf9{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Geo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doesn't your definition of God kind of require
that? I mean unless
>
> you
>
>>>>>think
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>he got drunk one weekend and barfed up the universe..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well...(A) it may be a she & (b) I think it's
the Egyptian version
>
> which
>
>>>>>>had the chief god type having a wank & all life
& te stars etc are his
>>>>>>"effusion"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>No, God always was.  The beginning and the end.
>>>
>>
>>So your own argument breaks down irretrievably.
>>
>>Either something very complex etc requires an ID or it doesn't & God is
>>the most complex of all given he is omnipresent & omnipotent.
>>
>>Thus it follows that vastly complex things do not require an ID at all
>>as you are saying that God did not require one.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>>Gary
>>>
>>>"Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote in
>>>message news:4372f66e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Geo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, one is a religious argument that starts out from
the assumption that
>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>>>know or at least that someone knows, the other is a
quest to understand
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>
>>>>>nobody knows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also the whole argument falls down on the basis that the most complex
>>>>thing of all (i.e. the ID it/him/herself) apparantly did just
>>>>spontaneously come into being.
>>>>
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Geo.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>news:437270d4{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is a religious argument, but so is the
theory of evolution from
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>big bang to modern man.  They are both religions
not scientific fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tony Williams" 
wrote in message
>>>>>>news:43726e0e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You see the point though. It's always possible
to back up one meta
>>>
>>>level
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>and say that's where the Intelligent Designer
put a hand on the wheel.
>>>>>>>It's a religious argument, not a scientific one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary Britt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not if the unseen hand was smart enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Tony Williams"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:43726920$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gary Britt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It might have been an intelligent
hand that created gravity and the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>laws of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>%%% COSMOS RUNTIME SYSTEM %%%
>>>>>>>>>%%% FATAL ERROR %%%
>>>>>>>>>%%% INFINITE RECURSION DETECTED AT LINE
6060842 %%%
>>>>>>>>>%%% STOP %%%
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5