Originally posted by RJHindsNo Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
The Instructor
13 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by PhrannyAre you saying you believe there could be an intelligent prime mover who created everything, but doesn't care a whit about anything in the creation this prime mover was repsonsible for creating? If so, then why would any prime mover care a whit about creating it in the first place?
No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
Edit: Never mind, I just now realised that was not what you were saying. But if this prime mover is intelligent, then why would he make himself subject to the laws he made, and why wouldn't he care a twit about his own creation?
By the way, when I say he i'm not suggesting the prime mover is male. It's just more economical to simply say he than it is to always say the prime mover. And if the prime mover is intelligent, then it doesn't make sense to refer to him as it. Any conscious intelligent entity deserves better than to be referred to as an it.
2nd Edit: "No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible."
Does this mean Dawkins admits to the possibility of intelligent design, but not to the possibility of an intelligent designer? I'm not well versed in the nuances of pantheism.
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by PhrannyI suspect admitting a prime mover is not really an admission of anything. Intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, but this prime mover of yours doesn't appear to have any intelligence. Your prime mover appears to be simply an admission of a first cause.
No Dawkins did not admit to intelligent design. He said it could be possible. Indeed, many agnostics such as myself, admit there might be some prime mover. That prime mover, if it exists, is subject ot all the laws of nature it put in place. Laws that explain evolution. it is not an omnicient, omnipotent being with an ego that needs recognition from humans. It does not care a twit about you or anyone else.
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI am sure Dawkins would, as I would, admit to the possibility of both. What neither of us currently admit to, is good evidence for either (or other considerations that may lead us to belief in their existence). We also claim that the God as described in the Bible could not possibly exist as described.
Does this mean Dawkins admits to the possibility of intelligent design, but not to the possibility of an intelligent designer?
13 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWait a second, Richard Dawkins says I've watched alien vs predator 🙂
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
The Instructor
I'm sorry to say that intelligent design always strikes me as bad science - Amphibians and Molluscs have quite malleable DNA but that's as intelligent as dna manipulation gets I think, until we start - The only example I can think of is Humans selectively breeding plants / farm animals
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI think that any science that can't be tested and reproduced is bad science. People need to understand what Science can say and what Science can't say. When they try to use science incorrectly to try to convince themselves and others that what they want to believe is correct, it is bad science.
Wait a second, Richard Dawkins says I've watched alien vs predator 🙂
I'm sorry to say that intelligent design always strikes me as bad science - Amphibians and Molluscs have quite malleable DNA but that's as intelligent as dna manipulation gets I think, until we start - The only example I can think of is Humans selectively breeding plants / farm animals
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI doubt it. I think Dawkins is just trying to be clever, like pantheists who talk about a prime mover when all they are really talking about is a first cause. The term Prime Mover is suggestive of an intelligence, but nothing they say about it suggests anything of the kind. I don't know why they don't just acknowledge their idea as first cause and simply leave it at that.
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
The Instructor
They could just as easily call themselves First Cause-ists, it would mean the same thing.
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHey, you are so all fired sure of your god, find the archaeological evidence for the bible stories outside of the bible. For instance, Paul didn't know much about JC, the exodus didn't happen like it says in the bible and most of the other tales in the bible are all way exaggerated. Especially the stupid flood tale. Oh, Jonah got swallowed by a whale? REALLY?
They can't allow anybody to do that.
The Instructor