God

<infobox>

 <title source="title1">
   <default>God</default>
 </title>
 <image source="image1">

</image> <group> <header>Information</header> <label>Gender</label> <label>Scientific Name</label> <label>Positions</label> <label>Debating Against</label> <label>Skills</label> <label>Links</label> </group> </infobox> >Causer. Maker. Tinker. Meddler. Destroyer. From misopathy to philanthropy, this concept and its entailing dogma is the key contributor around which the GDC is centered for debate. Not beholden to brand, region, version, translation, nor context, it is the all-attributing attributelessness that makes this concept so enticing to be set as placeholder for phenomena not yet (or already) explained.   >Automaton. Benefactor. Saboteur. Provocateur. Voyeur. All of these words properly describe the concept of gods, but none of them describe the god of the person you are currently debating. Saying "aw, but I can explain all that with my god!" We know they can, we could explain it too; it is not difficult coming up with ex-post facto justifications when you have a poorly defined being that conceptually can fix any problem for you. Such is the pursuit of rational discourse. Getting your interlocutor to elucidate the characteristics of their god in a way that would progress the conversation forward makes you want to go back to debating the definition of the word "atheism".* *This is not an invitation to start debating the meaning of the word "atheism." Stop it. No, you heard me. Stop it. Don't make me pull this wiki over. >Cryptographer. Oracular. Indicter. Confuser. Prosecutor. The very grandiloquence required to write a wiki page about an all-powerful catch-all should be enough to turn you off to the concept. Though there are sincere and even perhaps rational believers, beware those that use this ill-defined construct as a crutch for their own ignorance.  If their grand designer saw fit not to equip them with a cogent argument outside an appeal to the magical or mysterious, that's really not your problem. >Monger. Redeemer. Expropriator. Comforter. Torturer. With so much to say, perhaps we should leave the rest to the debates. Should there be rationale demonstrated or even, (dare I say it?) evidence presented that indicates your version of your god concept positively exists in reality, please contact the James Randi Foundation and the Nobel Foundation for your money and prizes.  >Intelligent Agent (IA). Intelligent Designer (ID-er). In the science of the new Intelligent Design <id>, God is simply the "Source of existence" or simply called as the "Intelligent Agent (IA) who had intelligently designed (intellen) everything that we know of and we don't know of". This Source of existence is parallel to the Christian God who had claimed through the Bible this claim: Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. - King James Version (KJV) John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - King James Version (KJV) "I Am That I Am" simply means "I am the existence and I am existing". Thus, the new Intelligent Design <id> had made this Intelligent Agent (IA), aka God (Jesus Christ), as the Candidate for the Designer of everything/existence. - from MrIntelligentDesign