Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
There is no logic in this argument at all.
The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable.
It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth.
Of course He cannot be explained or tested or He would not be God. I cannot explain or test a thought while its going through your mind or test that you think before you speak or write--therefore should I assume that you never had a thought or that you never think before you speak or write?
