How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?

[WITHTEETH]

OK, lets get back on topic.

 

After Jesus ressurected word got around. A skeptical man named Thomas didn't believe this resurection occured, he said that he would have to pick at his nail holes to believe Jesus has ressurected. Thus this man is dubbed Thomas the Doubter. He had no faith.

 

Jesus says your not suppose to believe God out of Reason, but out of faith. Kierkagaard put it beautifully when he said

"Christianity can only be based on faith because it is a paradox. we can't believe by virtue of reason. I think you have to suspend reason for something higher in christianities case."

 

For those Christians that believe in intelligent design out of reasoning: Is it incorrect, and hypocriticle to your/their belief?

[Cantousent]

Secondly, I don't see why you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so the universe (or multiverse, if you will) is itself eternal, divine, without limits, self-sustaining? since when did you become a pantheist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not only that, but this conclussion is no more scientific than religion. There is no solid, conclusive evidence to suggest the ever looping universe. It's an argument tailored to answer the question of origins where there is, as yet, no answer to be found. The real answer is that scientists continue to seek the answers. Fair enough. The origins aren't "spiritual" by necessity, but they are not established as yet by science.

 

Here's another way of looking at it, this first cause argument, because it is so intuitive, is used a lot. If you want to argue against religion, you come up with arguments that are feasible within the discussion. This sort of speculative argument is really only an answer against religious folks. It certainly isn't rigorous.

 

The correct answer really should be, "we don't know, but we continue to look for an answer that does not rely on divinity." Fair enough.

 

When folks arguing against religion rely on "well, it could be that...." then they are no better than a religious group.