exactly my sentiments
'i mean, there must be something that started the universe. god must exist'
'so what started god?'
'nothing! he's god. god doesn't need to be started or created'
'but the universe does?'
'exactly'
( the brass moustache putting the ass moust in brache since, Thu 18 Mar 2010, 19:55, 1 reply)

To be fair, there's no inconsistency there (flawed logic, sure, but not inconsistent)
The fact that god is so unutterably, impossibly amazing that he's not bound by the laws of the universe is sort of built-in to the belief that he exists.

He's not withing the universe because he is outside of it and created it. The universe is just the bit of the godniverse (I'm trademarking that term, by the way) that god create for us to exist within.
( Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Fri 19 Mar 2010, 10:29, closed)

Teleology
If there is God, and he made the universe, then I don't see the problem with ID. Of course he will have nudged it in a certain way. He is God.

One (atheistic) alternative to "why?" is the anthropomorphic principle (ie this universe must exist because something intelligent needs to be aware of it) is similar in vein. We (humanity) are the end point in a long chain of events that MUST have come about.
(justin(e), Sat 20 Mar 2010, 10:55, closed)

Ha
The universe would be here whether we were here or not.

With regards to ID, I don't have a problem with someone suggesting that God might nudge things slightly. ID doesn't say that. It clearly and distinctly states that God is intimately involved at every step in the process of evolution, and that it is impossible for evolution to happen without him. This is utter bollocks, and is what I object to.
( MatJ LOOK, Sun 21 Mar 2010, 1:26, closed)

I get tired...
...of the literalist mindset that has to come up with ideas like ID to make more of the early books of the Bible true.

Where are the theologians (or scientists) arguing that an omniscient, omnipotent deity might just get a tad BORED by knowing what's going to happen next all the time. Maybe creating a universe with fixed physical laws and introducing randomness into it, is the only way for an omniscient being to ever be surprised - you know all the possible outcomes but you're never entirely sure which ones will happen or when they will.

You know that some form of intelligent life will one day evolve, but you don't know whether it will be an aquatic mollusc, a dinosaur, a cetacean or a primate (or any other possible route) that'll end up being the first one to be able to appreciate mathematics and music and knock knock jokes. And you don't really want to interfere with them much because that would spoil the surprise - they are no more the pinnacle of what you set out to achieve than houseflies or primroses, just another intriguing effect of your wonderful clockwork universe.

But you learn from your early attempts at direct interaction that the lucky winners of evolutions race for intelligence are rather too willing to interpet what you say the way that suits them best, rather than the way you intended, so eventually settle into leaving them to it and just observing.

That kind of deity would be perfectly compatible with everything we know about science and evolution, but it would mean that the whole Biblical creation story was just a Bronze Age aetiology rather than a documentary account, and we can't be having that, can we?
( shinyshinyscalp less a man, more a way of life, Mon 22 Mar 2010, 13:42, closed)

Surely if he/she/it is omniscient then regardless of the randomness involved they will always know the outcome?
(KipperMinge has been watching out for the penguins since, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 13:19, closed)