The Intelligent Design Dilemma : Which God?

[walterpthefirst]

Hello. 

 

https://livingislam.org/m/tskr_e.html

 

The above page came to my notice recently and upon closer examination I realized that the Muslim writing it was using exactly the same Intelligent Design ( ID ) arguments that Christian apologists use.  Even to the point of quoting certain the arguments of Christians like Michael Behe, Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig to make the case for Allah, the god of Islam.

 

The fact that the same arguments can be used to make the case for two different gods is an immediate red flag for us sceptics and a terrible dilemma for the theists.  ID arguments cannot identify which is the correct god to worship.  This is not a trivial problem.  For a theist, it is the ultimate problem.  Worship the wrong god and you will pay for your mistake forever, suffering indescribable agony in everlasting fire.

 

So, perhaps the next advocate of ID arriving in Ex-C should have this dilemma presented to them so that they can tell us exactly how they know which god to worship?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

They're no doubt going to want to make a move towards the bible to try and answer which god. Probably thinking, at least at first, that by getting into the bible they can demonstrate that YHWH, not Allah is the designer. Possibly thinking that establishing YHWH over Allah with the bible will funnel the muslim ID arguments back down to YHWH. 

 

But we'll just have to seen what direction they try and reach for when presented with the problem. 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I don't think WLC has ever shied away from the fact his approach is built upon the Kalam Cosmological Argument, first fleshed out by Islamic scholars.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I don't think WLC has ever shied away from the fact his approach is built upon the Kalam Cosmological Argument, first fleshed out by Islamic scholars.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

 

Just so, Krowb.

 

Your link provides this about the Kalam.

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. No scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws and initial conditions of the universe) can provide a causal account of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, since such are part of the universe.
5. Therefore, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a non-natural, personal agent).

But he runs into trouble by using this paper to establish that the universe began to exist.

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

"The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made: (i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant),..."

 

In 1998 it was established that the universe possesses a positive cosmological constant, thus invalidating Hawking and Penrose's first assumption.

 

Which means that Craig cannot legitimately claim that the universe began to exist and therefore cannot make a proper Kalam-style argument.

 

 

 

But, that's not the real thrust of my argument, Krowb.  In this thread I focus on the dilemma exposed by Christians and Muslims both using arguments for Intelligent Design.  Since ID arguments cannot reveal the identity of the designer, they have no way, outside of personal preference, to discover which is the true god.  The penalty for getting it wrong is a bad as it can be.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

What all of you fail to understand is that the world is flat. And we are riding on the back of a cosmic turtle. That's all there is to it. Praise Ganesh.