L2 Posted:

It doesn’t mean one designed us, but it does give a precedent.

But in addition…even the most sophisticated, human-like program we could create would still be bound to the programming we’ve given it – a creation is not bound to all the same rules as it’s creator. If we’re the result of some form of ID, we’re bound to the rules it places on us, and those could be that the Designer doesn’t want us to acknowledge it’s existence.

Then what’s the point of it at all? By saying “There’s an intelligent designer, but he’s made it so exactly so it looks like there isn’t one” you’ve made an arguement that doesn’t allow any opposing sides. And one that offers nothing, I might add.

I’ve heard somewhat convincing arguments that our existence is a highly-sophisticated hologram or computer program, or that we’re a kind of ‘test-tube’ for some other form of intelligence. I don’t believe them, but they certainly count as ID as well.

Sure they count as ID. But it’s not science. And studying it is impossible.