Would angry gods be angry if they were not gods?

[Beerina]

Given they're based on applying evolved emotions like anger to derivative animist theories about nature, I'd say so.

[Radrook]

Creation of imaginary gods by people doesn't prove the absence of an ID.

[The Man]

Doc Ostrow: Monsters, John. Monsters from the Id

Or in this case the ID, imaginary monsters gods or "ID" it is all the same.

[Wowbagger]

Creation of imaginary gods by people doesn't prove the absence of an ID. True.

But, can the existence of an ID be proven, in any way, beyond philosophy?

How can we even know the gods are "angry" or not, in the first place, except through philosophical musings?

[paximperium]

ID was created by a bunch of wannabee pseudo-scientists in an attempt to delude the public that the Emperor(ie.Creationism) has clothes when it fact the Emperor was made up as well.

[paximperium]

Creation of imaginary gods by people doesn't prove the absence of an ID.
True. But creation of the imaginary YHWH by some tribal bronze age people does prove the absence of YOUR god.

[Radrook]

True.

[quote]But, can the existence of an ID be proven, in any way, beyond philosophy?


First,I will assume that by "philosophy" you mean the use of cogent reasoning or logic which is the branch of philosophy used by scientists and philosophers to arrive at highly probable conclusions via induction and deduction. Two things without which science would not exist.
In short, it is a very serious mistake to discount induction and deduction as inapplicable when it comes to ID and applicable when it comes to science. If indeed we are to remain consistent then we would need to make induction and deduction inapplicable to science as well which is of course impossible.



How can we even know the gods are "angry" or not, in the first place, except through philosophical musings?

As stated above, if we tag induction and deduction as mere musings then consistency demands we do the same when they are used in the service of the scientific method.
Are you willing to do that in order to preserve consistency?


Example of inconsistency


Inductive and deductive conclusions are mere musings.
The high probability of an ID is based on inductive and deductive reasoning
The probability of an ID is based on mere musings.

Inductive and deductive conclusions are mere musings.
The improbability or impossibility of an ID is based on inductive and deductive reasoning.
The improbability or impossibilioty of an ID is NOT based on mere musings.

[Darth Rotor]

As stated above, if we tag induction and deduction as mere musings then consistency demands we do the same when they are used in the service of the scientific method.
Are you willing to do that in order to preserve consistency?


Example of inconsistency


Inductive and deductive conclusions are mere musings.
The high probability of an ID is based on inductive and deductive reasoning
The probability of an ID is based on mere musings.

Inductive and deductive conclusions are mere musings.
The improbability or impossibility of an ID is based on inductive and deductive reasoning.
The improbability or impossibilioty of an ID is NOT based on mere musings.
Dear sir:

Hate to be a turd in your punch bowl, but the difficulty ID will have the most trouble overcoming is the inherent ID assumption that the Bible was written as a science textbook. It was not collected with such a narrow, scholastic purpose in mind. When the anthology was collected into what we now know as The Scripture, a core purpose for the collection, consensus (save 2) agreement, and codification was to standardize what was being taught for Right Living.

As it stands this morning, proponents of ID have not yet overcome this difficulty. If they ever do so, I'll be suitably impressed.

DR

[Radrook]

Dear sir:

Hate to be a turd in your punch bowl, but the difficulty ID will have the most trouble overcoming is the inherent ID assumption that the Bible was written as a science textbook. It was not collected with such a narrow, scholastic purpose in mind. When the anthology was collected into what we now know as The Scripture, a core purpose for the collection, consensus (save 2) agreement, and codification was to standardize what was being taught for Right Living.

As it stands this morning, proponents of ID have not yet overcome this difficulty. If they ever do so, I'll be suitably impressed.

DR


Who mentioned the Bible? I merely pointed out that if you condemn induction and deduction as mere musings then to remain consistent you would have to include that condemnation in your precious attempts to disprove an ID. Which you don't and which makes your argument illogical on the inconsistency level alone. It is also illogical because induction and deduction are essential to the scientific method not to mention to sanity itself.

Now, if I had mentioned the Bible I would not have mentioned it as a science textbook as you seem to think I did although the word Bible nowhere appears in my argument. Also to keep in mind is that while YOU may find no room in your universe for and ID there are scientists who don't discount the possibility. In fact, there are scientists who propose it as a probability and as the preferable and more logical of the two alternatives alternative based on non-biblical factors. If that sours your lemonade with overripe urine, then simply don't quaff.

BTW
I mistook you for the poster who said induction and deduction are mere musing. So you can ignore the parts that don't apply to your response.

[Macoy]

Remember, not to quaff the incorruptible non-alcoholic wine.

[arthwollipot]

Who mentioned the Bible?Radrook is quite right. ID proponents never mention the Bible. If they did, it would let on that they are really creationists in disguise.

Name an ID proponent who does not believe that the anonymous Designer is actually God.

Okay, yes, the Raelians. But they don't count because their particular brand of science fiction isn't what most of us recognise as ID.

[bruto]

If you are a proponent of intelligent design, and at the same time propose that the intelligent designer is not God, are you not proposing something that conflicts with religious teaching? Isn't being the designer part of what is usually considered the definition of God?

Do you really believe that any proponent of intelligent design could honestly declare that he does not believe God to be the designer?

[ma1ic3]

An ID proponent can believe the designer is a god, without being a Christian or creationist in disguise. People that I know personally who believe in an intelligent designer / watchmaker concept of god, tend to lean more towards deism than Christian or Islamic doctrine. But I do agree that the ID movement going on right now originated from Creationists repackaging their beliefs to sound more scientific.

[Undesired Walrus]

Hate to be a turd in your punch bowl, but the difficulty ID will have the most trouble overcoming is the inherent ID assumption that the Bible was written as a science textbook.

Why would God seek to decieve us? Isn't it more likely that the common consensus at the time -that the Earth was stationary- is placed in the Bible because the book was written by ignorant (by our standards) Humans, not the inspired word of God?