[
Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #52]
When I say "Intelligent Design(er)", I mean God..or a God.
Clearly I saw that and responded with critiquing that.
I can't speak for others and how they use it, nor will I be gaslighted to overthink what I deem as a simple concept.
As I understand it, (and argue for) the universe is obviously unfolding intelligently and this tells me that its design is intelligent. However, my point wasn't for the purpose of gaslighting but was for the purpose of getting folk who want to do so to think rationally about that.
While you claim the concept is simple, and therein a placeholder ("God") is sufficient, as explained, my critique is aimed at pushing the discussion beyond mere theological or science-based assertions. "God" becomes a straw man when disconnected from the procedural rigor of critiqued observations. It is, as far as simple answers go, insufficient to the subject and requires at the very least, a sufficiently complex definition due to the fact that the universe is sufficiently complex.
As such, "God did it" does not fit the description of a "simple concept" which has any explanatory power when place alongside the actual universe and all of its complexity.
Gaslighting is a psychological manipulation tactic where someone tries to convince another person that their reality is untrue. The goal is to make the victim question their own reality, memory, or perceptions - none of which I am doing or have done herein with your argument, because I am arguing against the argument, whereas
you have been warned since then, not to
make personal comments, so perhaps what has occurred here is projection on you part?
Why are you framing the debate as if opponents are rejecting the concept of "God" in principle?
The points of critique I made, are pertinent.
The issue is not with the idea of "God" itself but with the method by which such claims are introduced into broader discourse.
Teaching ID as synonymous with Christian theology risks conflating it with that particular religion (which is itself rife with internal disagreements). This undermines both the integrity of critical education and the boundaries between these distinct branches of thought.
For the idea of "God" to be considered validly within any structured framework, it must:
1. Present hypotheses without relying on theological presuppositions.
2. Distinguish itself from religious doctrine to align with consistent epistemological standards.
Additionally, I would ask: what methodology have you used to arrive at your understanding that "God" and ID are the same? Assertions like "God" and ID being as indistinguishable as wet is from water are simply opinions. These unsupported claims lack the rigorous evidence required for a useful discussion and remain unconvincing in this context.
Re what you wrote in post #40
1. God, with sight, vision, and a mind created the universe with all its irreducible complexity, entropy, law, order, functionality, etc.
Or..
2. Mother nature, a blind, mindless process created the universe with those aforementioned features.
I can demonstrate how an entity with those features in #1 can do it.
But what you can't do is demonstrate how #2 could have done it.
If what you mean by "Mother Nature" is the mind of the universe itself, then it can be argued that its nature is to create and recreate itself and has always existed, even in a formless state (not being the universe).
Does that align with what you mean by "God" or are you alluding to something more religious in context?
If this is not what you are alluding to, then it is a fair question to ask you for more definition of God other than the simple "God" without the need to get flustered and make personal-based comments or otherwise be defensive.
