Not only is Free Will incompatible with an omniscient, recent studies have shown that it is not even a valid concept. Don't equivocate choice with Free Will as espoused by theists. They are not analogous. Given almost identical scenarios, and individual will respond in an almost identical manner every time. We are products of our phenotypes, our DNA, and all that has passed before us throughout our evolution. While environment influences choice, heredity seals the deal. There are copious amounts of writing and study out there for you to peruse. It may make the theistic scales drop from your eyes. Use caution if you don't want your faith challenged.<quoted text>
Thank you. I appreciate your reply, and I agree with you that we all have the freewill to choose what we wish to believe in or not.
Ah, but you are begging the question here. You call it creation and then claim it is intelligent design. How do you tie that into your culturally-conditioned idea of what a god or gods is, then, exactly?<quoted text> I personally find creation to amazing and intricate to not be by intelligent design.
From our fine friends at the Discovery Institute:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
To have any scientific validity, theories need to set constraints on possible outcomes. That means there have to be potential observations and measurements not explicable by the theory. What potential observation or measurement could show that “certain features”(whatever that may mean) of the universe are not “best explained”(who judges whether or not an explanation is “best”?) by “intelligent cause”(what exactly does that mean? How does one distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent cause?) To make a scientific case,(DI, not you, as i know you were not doing that) they need to come up with an hypothesis which can be tested, just as any other scientific hypothesis can be tested.
Here’s an example of a theory for those who consider ID as relevant, one that can be tested, and falsified. Listen to how precise it is, how predictive and specific it is.
“Any two material particles, or bodies, if free to move, will be accelerated toward each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.”
THAT is a robust theory, capable of being tested, observed, and falsified.
“We can’t explain some stuff so therefore design” isn’t a theory. It doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. It has no predictive power. It has no specific claims. It is vague and general. It has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. I realize you are operating through emotion,,and not science, and that is fine, but to make the claim while begging the question, you do yourself a great disservice.