This is intellectual dishonesty. The honest question to ask is "does a designer need to exist for design to occur?" And the answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes."
Alright. Let me be sure though. Do you want to debate whether design is real, or do you want to debate whether "design is real" is a scientific proposition?
James Bond 3rd: This thread has no goalpost. Witness the 15 pages devoted to Buddhism. I'm willing to debate anything related to the ID versus Blind Watchmaker topic.
Yes, a designer does not need to be known in order for design to occur. A designer doesn't need to exist in order for a design to exist, computers are not designers but we see computer generated design all the time. There is some programming of course, but such programming could be logically be an eternal situation of the universe, so we have design as a result, but logically we don't need to have a "designer."
Alright. Since you're such a big fan of "cause and effect," what is the "cause" of the "design" without a designer? (Don't tell me it's "random ignorant chance." )
I see. So your tactic is, that when you can't win one debate, you simply switch to another. Later on when no one is noticing, you switch back to the already debunked topic as if nothing had happened. Slick.
My "tactic" is to refute whatever bogus arguments the ID critics bring against ID. That's been my "tactic" from the beginning. Are you just now noticing it?
Cause and effect happen within the field of the material Universe, which is eternally cycling from the process of creation, to maintenance, to dissolution . Just as science assumes that the most basic fields of existence are eternal within the boundaries of the Universe, that means they don't change, they exist unending, they provide the foundation upon which change occurs. They may have been a period where they did not "exist" in anything more than a virtual "sleep" state, but the continuity is just as real as the continuity of a human being who sleeps then awakes, sleeps then awakes. While fully unconscious, the world disappears from the mind of man, time disappears from consciousness, and upon waking, the person picks up where they left off. A man in a coma could wake up after 20 years and have no more concept of passage of time as one who slept during the night and awoke in the morning. So, it is logically possible for an eternal cyclical condition of waking of Universe, , activity of the Universe, then sleeping of Universe, and those within the boundaries of the Universe are fully subject to the laws of Karma, cause and effect...while the Universe itself is not subject to individual Karmas, as it is a whole. The Universe is lifeless, without soul, yet houses all the souls. That is why the Buddhists believe in a Liberation. They believe that there is a state of being that is not cyclical, but eternal and never changing once achieved. The soul is liberated from the cycle of birth and death forever, upon full realization of the state which is beyond the cycle of birth and death. What is that state? Nearly everyone experience it daily...when they sleep deeply. The liberation is a permanent condition, like going to sleep forever, a complete loss of identity, dying for ever, fully liberated from cycle of birth and death, pain and pleasure, joy and suffering. All the duality is gone. Only Nirvana, Kaylava Moksh, impersonal form of God or whatever term people want to use, the situation remains. However, there is also a liberated condition spoken of in Hinduism, which is the condition of retaining personal identity yet liberated from the cycle of birth and death, to be eternally with the Personal Form of God.
This is perhaps the correct understanding of science 200 years ago. But certainly not today. I didn't know that z10 was such a fossil.
More self absorption... What you don't comprehend is therefore gibberish. Classic... Indian philosophy has only been around for at least 5,000 and it is gibberish to you, so that means it is gibberish. Oh, so provincial... As far as your claim that what nature of the ground state of the Universe is, the fields that the Universe exists on not being eternal within the lifespan of the Universe, it is a most illogical claim. Either the foundation of the Universe is static, or it is dynamic, or both alternatively, but in any case it would be an eternal condition, not changing over time. Either an eternally static, or eternally dynamic state. Even if someone would say that the ground state of the Universe randomly alternates from a static to a dynamic condition, that condition of random alternation would again be an eternal situation. The element of eternal is there and is non changing. Or are you suggesting that the Universe we see is not governed by the same properties, tendencies and laws of nature that it was governed by in the beginning? Sometimes the scientist and science supporters can be so illogical in their quest to deny the obvious.