William J Murray on November 9, 2011 at 9:33 pm said:
(Brother Daniel): It astonishes me that creationists prefer the hypothesis of a less competent creator.
What is even more astonishing is your presumption that you know what ultimate purpose any such creator might have had in creating the universe that it did, and find yourself not only in possession of such cosmological, existential knowledge, but also fully capable of judging whether or not this is the best universe for fulfilling that purpose.
William J Murray on November 10, 2011 at 1:26 am said:
(Elizabeth Liddle): I don’t think he’s presuming anything, William. He’s evaluating an idea, and finding the idea that God has to tinker with his/her creation to make it work properly wanting.
Of course he’s presuming something; he’s presuming to know what the parameters (of that which is doing the creating, and that which is being created, the possible and impossible, and what all the chain-reaction effects would be multiplied over billions of years) are, and what the purpose is. Without that knowledge, one has no rational capacity to assess the competency of the design of the universe.
It’s easy to just say something like “why don’t car designers just design a car that requires no further maintenance” and judge the competency of the presumed designer against one’s completely ungrounded, uninformed ideal that doesn’t take into account any of the pertinent and necessary parameters – or even the purpose of the design.
Hey willy, it's obvious that you don't have a clue so I'll try to give you one. You say that Brother Daniel is presuming completely ungrounded, uninformed things without knowledge of the pertinent and necessary parameters – or even the purpose of the design, yet you and the other IDiots, and other religious zombies, constantly claim that you cosmologically, rationally, morally, philosophically, scientifically, intellectually, empirically, and existentially know exactly what the "designer" (your chosen imaginary god) thinks, wants, feels, designs, creates, destroys, does and doesn't do, it's ultimate purpose, etc., etc., etc.
What do you think the bible and all other religious writings are? They're what people like you claim to KNOW about their imaginary god. What do you think the so-called ID inference/hypothesis/theory is to an IDiot? It's what IDiots claim to KNOW about their imaginary designer (god). What do you think all the different interpretations of ID are to you IDiots? They're the individual interpretations that each of you claim is the right interpretation of what and/or how and/or when and/or why your imaginary designer (god) designed things. What do you think all the thousands of interpretations of every religion on Earth are? They're the thousands of ways that people like you claim to KNOW all about what their imaginary god thinks, wants, feels, designs, creates, destroys, does and doesn't do, it's ultimate purpose, etc., etc., etc.
What makes you think that your particular interpretation of your imaginary designer (god) is more grounded, informed, and less presumptuous than the findings of science and/or the thousands of other interpretations of your imaginary god and other gods? Why do you religious lunatics always think that you and you alone are the holder of all correct knowledge?
By the way willy, car designers aren't worshiped as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect gods and they don't claim to be gods. Is your imaginary god no better at designing things than a fallen, sinful, imperfect, limited human being?