Spendi, if I recall correctly, your argument started out along the lines of: God is necessary for the sake of stable society, and the Anti-IDers, if their ideas were followed through, would dismantle that society.
Doesn't the example of secular eastern governments prove that God isn't a necessary part of a country's governmental grounding?
Moreover, since this topic is about the debate as to whether Intelligent Design is science or religion, doesn't this suggest that it isn't necessary to bring God as an explanation into science(an idea neither religion nor science advocates)? And if it isn't necessary, shouldn't it be proposed on its merits alone, rather than on the belief that evolutionism is wrong, the way so many IDers do(i.e. IDers should stop making their case by arguing, "it's insane that the evolutionists believe our universe sprung from nothing. If I show you a watch, you don't assume it sprung into existence randomly." and then they go on to list a myriad of other problems and "problems" in modern evolutionary theory)
spendius wrote:Are not the mods a type of god. They have codes and punishments. Would it not be a punishment to be refused entry to A2K and banished for all eternity to the nether regions of the dark underworld where the pangs of loss would stab at the heart. Would A2K run sweetly without them?
It would be primeval chaos I rather think. The urges being the only arbiter.
We all trust that your urges, untrammeled by discipline, would include the desire to good unto others all the time and not just most of the time when you're feeling expansive. One lapse can be a bit traumatic for third parties. Even the threat of eternal punishment has not proved sufficient to eradicate such lapses by any stretch of the imagination.
The mods are only gods if you assume that all code enforcing entities are divine.
Why not?
