Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is the intelligent designer of ID?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 5:21:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Chaos Theory reconciles contradicting theories through irony.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 5:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:21:53 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Chaos Theory reconciles contradicting theories through irony.

Great! Any response on topic?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

I'll put you down as the Christian god is the agent, and he actively directs the process of mutations.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:18:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ID proves that it takes more than a carpenters son Jesus to understand the complexities of life. Man with technology and science have gone beyond what God revealed to him in the scriptures. There is little he owes God for his hard found knowledge. Especially after being banished for wanting to know what was good and evil.
Christians should end their hypocrisy crediting God with everything when they know it was man's ingenuity that created science, technology and that brought about the advances we all enjoy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).


Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"


2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:40:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:18:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
ID proves that it takes more than a carpenters son Jesus to understand the complexities of life. Man with technology and science have gone beyond what God revealed to him in the scriptures. There is little he owes God for his hard found knowledge. Especially after being banished for wanting to know what was good and evil.

I really wish you would read the Bible before talking about it. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden for disobeying God. Eve at the apple because she was tempted with "you will be like God."

And God kicked them out lest they eat of the tree of life and be like God.

And then after mankind matures in revelation, the saved eat of the tree of the tree of life. Essentially what was forbidden in the beginning is freely given in the end after growing. And the banishment has nothing to do with "wanting to know good and evil" it has to do with obedience and getting knowledge in due time by due process.

Christians should end their hypocrisy crediting God with everything when they know it was man's ingenuity that created science, technology and that brought about the advances we all enjoy.

There are man made systems, incomplete in even being able to explain reality. I already gave you list of God fearing people who were giants who set the stage for science as we know it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:56:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

The real problem with intelligent design is it doesn't prove anything or do anything worthwhile, it's pretty much useless to science and mankind in general.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:22:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

If the Christian God doesn't exists can anything be accidental? Hypotheticals are always fun. :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:33:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.

I see. When some say intelligent design this is what comes to your mind? This is my understanding of ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.

Yea, I'm sure he's not, but I don't accept him as an authority.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?

Necessary intelligence/being is merely an attempt to special plead the infinite regression away. Mute=/=moot. I don't understand your last sentence.



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.

Okay, so these are your definitions?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:01:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected? : :

Our Creator has been teaching me exactly how He created everything invisible before any visible objects could be observed by each of His created beings ( humans and beasts ). So this means that we have a Creator to everything we experience through our senses.

Our Creator is totally invisible to us, His created beings, so there's absolutely no proof that He exists. Only us saints and prophets and a few believers got to know Him directly but we aren't proof that He exists, either.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 6:25:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 12:33:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.

I see. When some say intelligent design this is what comes to your mind? This is my understanding of ID.

When talk about the universe being designed I used fine tuned. When I talk about life I used ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.

Yea, I'm sure he's not, but I don't accept him as an authority.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?

Necessary intelligence/being is merely an attempt to special plead the infinite regression away. Mute=/=moot. I don't understand your last sentence.



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.

Okay, so these are your definitions? I think they are accurate labels.

I know when people hear ID they lump all of these together as creationism.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 9:24:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 12:22:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

If the Christian God doesn't exists can anything be accidental? Hypotheticals are always fun. :-)

If there is no Christian God then everything is accidental. So there is purpose or there is no purpose.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 9:28:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:38:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
Intelligent Design: To look at what nature is doing and say "nah, nature can't do that".

To look at nature and note how it is following God's plan.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 9:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 6:25:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:33:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.

I see. When some say intelligent design this is what comes to your mind? This is my understanding of ID.

When talk about the universe being designed I used fine tuned. When I talk about life I used ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.

Yea, I'm sure he's not, but I don't accept him as an authority.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?

Necessary intelligence/being is merely an attempt to special plead the infinite regression away. Mute=/=moot. I don't understand your last sentence.



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.

Okay, so these are your definitions? I think they are accurate labels.

I know when people hear ID they lump all of these together as creationism.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were accurate labels.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:00:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 9:24:11 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:22:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

If the Christian God doesn't exists can anything be accidental? Hypotheticals are always fun. :-)

If there is no Christian God then everything is accidental. So there is purpose or there is no purpose.

Exactly - It was either by purpose or not. Without an intelligent agent it cannot be accidental.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:17:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:40:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:18:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
ID proves that it takes more than a carpenters son Jesus to understand the complexities of life. Man with technology and science have gone beyond what God revealed to him in the scriptures. There is little he owes God for his hard found knowledge. Especially after being banished for wanting to know what was good and evil.

I really wish you would read the Bible before talking about it. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden for disobeying God. Eve at the apple because she was tempted with "you will be like God."

Please read your bible. Note the reasons Eve gave for eating the fruit of the tree. It was also desirable for gaining wisdom besides being tasty and pleasing to the eye.

Genesis 3:4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

And God kicked them out lest they eat of the tree of life and be like God.

And then after mankind matures in revelation, the saved eat of the tree of the tree of life. Essentially what was forbidden in the beginning is freely given in the end after growing. And the banishment has nothing to do with "wanting to know good and evil" it has to do with obedience and getting knowledge in due time by due process.

The nature of man will never change. That is why his salvation is now based on forgiveness and accepting Jesus as saviour. Jesus failed to reinstate the law. It is justification by faith and no longer by works.

Christians should end their hypocrisy crediting God with everything when they know it was man's ingenuity that created science, technology and that brought about the advances we all enjoy.

There are man made systems, incomplete in even being able to explain reality. I already gave you list of God fearing people who were giants who set the stage for science as we know it.
There isn't enough science or math in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 4 schooler. Odd that God would create man and not give him the knowledge of science and technology (which man discovered on his own) but condemn man for acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. Such a shortsighted petty minded God.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:54:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 9:57:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:25:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:33:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.

I see. When some say intelligent design this is what comes to your mind? This is my understanding of ID.

When talk about the universe being designed I used fine tuned. When I talk about life I used ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.

Yea, I'm sure he's not, but I don't accept him as an authority.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?

Necessary intelligence/being is merely an attempt to special plead the infinite regression away. Mute=/=moot. I don't understand your last sentence.



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.

Okay, so these are your definitions? I think they are accurate labels.

I know when people hear ID they lump all of these together as creationism.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were accurate labels.

I was typing on a phone and backspaced accidentally. I think they are accurate labels and delineations. I gave examples of people who advocate such and breifly noted how tbey are different. If you disagree I could care less. Sorry I tried answering post
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:58:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:17:48 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:40:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:18:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
ID proves that it takes more than a carpenters son Jesus to understand the complexities of life. Man with technology and science have gone beyond what God revealed to him in the scriptures. There is little he owes God for his hard found knowledge. Especially after being banished for wanting to know what was good and evil.

I really wish you would read the Bible before talking about it. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden for disobeying God. Eve at the apple because she was tempted with "you will be like God."

Please read your bible. Note the reasons Eve gave for eating the fruit of the tree. It was also desirable for gaining wisdom besides being tasty and pleasing to the eye.

Genesis 3:4 "You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

And God kicked them out lest they eat of the tree of life and be like God.

And then after mankind matures in revelation, the saved eat of the tree of the tree of life. Essentially what was forbidden in the beginning is freely given in the end after growing. And the banishment has nothing to do with "wanting to know good and evil" it has to do with obedience and getting knowledge in due time by due process.

The nature of man will never change. That is why his salvation is now based on forgiveness and accepting Jesus as saviour. Jesus failed to reinstate the law. It is justification by faith and no longer by works.

Christians should end their hypocrisy crediting God with everything when they know it was man's ingenuity that created science, technology and that brought about the advances we all enjoy.

There are man made systems, incomplete in even being able to explain reality. I already gave you list of God fearing people who were giants who set the stage for science as we know it.
There isn't enough science or math in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 4 schooler. Odd that God would create man and not give him the knowledge of science and technology (which man discovered on his own) but condemn man for acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. Such a shortsighted petty minded God.

My mistake. She desired knowledge. Thanks for the correction "
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 9:24:11 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:22:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

If the Christian God doesn't exists can anything be accidental? Hypotheticals are always fun. :-)

If there is no Christian God then everything is accidental. So there is purpose or there is no purpose. : :

If there was no Christian god, life would be much better without those hypocrites who call themselves Christians. This will be so in Paradise with no one calling themselves Christians and pretending to be the authority on the New Earth.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

It seems to me, that the way you put the question, is that we are to presuppose ID as a fact, And your only remaining query, is who created or started the creation.

Would this be correct?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 12:57:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/22/2015 9:24:11 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:22:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?

If the Christian God exists and holds all of creation in existence by his will alone, can anything be accidental?

If the Christian God doesn't exists can anything be accidental? Hypotheticals are always fun. :-)

If there is no Christian God then everything is accidental. So there is purpose or there is no purpose. : :

If there was no Christian god, life would be much better without those hypocrites who call themselves Christians. This will be so in Paradise with no one calling themselves Christians and pretending to be the authority on the New Earth.

Just out of curiosity why do you believe the Bible? We only have it because of the accepted authority of those who descended from the apostles...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:18:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:54:26 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 9:57:58 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/22/2015 6:25:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2015 12:33:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:46:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:37:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:01:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Intelligent Design is an alternate hypothesis to Abiogensis. It attempts to answer the question as what are the causes to the emergence of living systems?

Did you mean for that to be a question? Also, I don't think ID, as popularly represented, is generally limited to the origins of life, but will also include the origins of existence.

Right I address this in universal ID.

I see. When some say intelligent design this is what comes to your mind? This is my understanding of ID.

When talk about the universe being designed I used fine tuned. When I talk about life I used ID.


1. Universal ID - Cosmological arguments that say the universe as a whole is Intelligently Designed. A God like being would be the creator.

This isn't necessarily god though. Nobel laureate and Atheist Dr. Brian Josephson http://sms.cam.ac.uk... suggested the universe could have been designed by energy based extra dimensional intelligences.

I'll have to watch this later (it will take more time to watch than I have currently).

He is not the only atheist or award winning scientist to have an intelligent agency as basis for certain scopes of this universe.

Yea, I'm sure he's not, but I don't accept him as an authority.



Some suggest the universe is a simulation and the designers are like hacker gods as Andrei Linde Standford physicist puts it. http://www.slate.com...

I would be one of the individuals saying, "But who created the physicist hacker?"

Well for the classical deity infinite regression is said to have to end with an eternal necessary intelligence. Other would say the question is mute, because these hacker physicist would essentially be gods impossible to understand. Which leads back to the question God like being worthy of worship?

Necessary intelligence/being is merely an attempt to special plead the infinite regression away. Mute=/=moot. I don't understand your last sentence.



2. Creationism - is an ID position, That I would say is more religious than scientific. The creationist holds the opinion that all life in it's varied forms was created by a deity. This is in opposition to Evolution. Not hard to find examples of that.

3. Creationism with Evolutionary mechanism - This is another different ID position that denies macro-evolution and states that the original "kinds" of life were created. Even among such creationist there is debate in what constitutes "kinds" and is it different species spontaneously created or different genus. (both of which are rather arbitrary like "breed") The biggest rebuttal to this is the fossil record. Hugh Ross would be one example. Nobel laureate Charles Townes as well, but not to the degree of Ross. http://www.berkeley.edu...

4. Intelligent Design - The original ancestors to all life were manufactured by intelligent agency. Design being the required element to produce anything that can have evolution take over of. The arguments proposed in this case like irreducible complexity are arguments FOR design. Behe and Myer would be examples of this type of ID. But anything more about the designer would be speculation, only that the agency is willful and intelligent. This type of I.D. also works with types of panspermia and such,

5. Genetic Engineering - That nature can "design" things. A study in cybernetics and self correcting systems suggesting the design of life was achieved through the computational power of the elements making life up. James A. Shapiro. That the apparent top-down flow of information came from the quantum calculations and entropy and phase shifts result in a kind of information first emergence. Though I add it here for completeness it is the least I.D. like theory. But the theist can still imply these calculations and information transmissions were the result of a deity. Because even in this system there is a uniqueness to life that is not seen in most environments.

Where do derive these different versions of ID?

From research. I listed examples and tried to denote the differences.

Okay, so these are your definitions? I think they are accurate labels.

I know when people hear ID they lump all of these together as creationism.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they were accurate labels.

I was typing on a phone and backspaced accidentally. I think they are accurate labels and delineations. I gave examples of people who advocate such and breifly noted how tbey are different. If you disagree I could care less. Sorry I tried answering post

I see it was an honest mistake. There's no need for the guilt trip though. (It was not my mistake). At any rate, thanks for adding to the conversation.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:21:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 1:10:54 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?


It seems to me, that the way you put the question, is that we are to presuppose ID as a fact, And your only remaining query, is who created or started the creation.

Would this be correct?

Sure, for the sake of the argument, ID is true. Who is the intelligent agent?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:32:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 1:21:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/22/2015 1:10:54 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?


It seems to me, that the way you put the question, is that we are to presuppose ID as a fact, And your only remaining query, is who created or started the creation.

Would this be correct?

Sure, for the sake of the argument, ID is true. Who is the intelligent agent?

Well, Who ever it is, is obviously a very powerful and intelligent being,
But we can conclude, if ID is true, then there is someone, we don't have to know who, or what this someone is, to know that it's someone.

Similarly, we have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature, there must be an operator, we don't have to know who is the operator, to know that there must be an operator.

An operator with an incomprehensible power and intelligence, A god would fit into this category. If we can conclude a God like being, then this God must have other attributes, Like being supreme in the very least.

And we go from there, Supreme means the highest authority ect ect,
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 1:54:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 1:32:09 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/22/2015 1:21:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/22/2015 1:10:54 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/21/2015 5:18:36 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I get different answers to this - everything from the Christian god to extra-terrestrial life. I would like to get a feel for what the IDers here on this site believe.

Just in case you're not familiar with ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I see this link says ID is a directed process as opposed to the undirected process of natural selection. However, I have heard it represented as the original spark of 'creation'. (essentially evolution/Big Bang with an entity to hit the "go" button). Where do you stand on this - directed or undirected?


It seems to me, that the way you put the question, is that we are to presuppose ID as a fact, And your only remaining query, is who created or started the creation.

Would this be correct?

Sure, for the sake of the argument, ID is true. Who is the intelligent agent?


Well, Who ever it is, is obviously a very powerful and intelligent being,
But we can conclude, if ID is true, then there is someone, we don't have to know who, or what this someone is, to know that it's someone.

Similarly, we have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature, there must be an operator,

(Unsupported assertion and false equivalence)

we don't have to know who is the operator, to know that there must be an operator.


An operator with an incomprehensible power and intelligence, A god would fit into this category.

Or just a very advanced, 5 or more dimensional life form or some other prime mover. A god is not the only possibility.

If we can conclude a God like being, then this God must have other attributes, Like being supreme in the very least.

Or simply advanced far beyond our intellectual capability but not 'supreme' or 'ultimate', those attributes not being necessary.

And we go from there, Supreme means the highest authority ect ect,

By your definition. Yet another unsupported assertion.