ADN

at the risk of exhaustive replies:

My ideas of this include the use of the Term "Intelligent Design" outside the conventions being argued, in this thread or by the religious right, where most criticism seems to be gravitating. That biblical Creationism is a point I simply cannot defend, because it is not my own.

the "directives of survival" comment by x3n is far more like what I percieve that intelligence as being, though I would go so far as to say it as a "directive of being" and furthermore I would say one could commune with it, within or without, even when they least expect it.

I don't have a judgement for the case of a "Supreme Being", for that implies the Supreme is a FORM, and I simply believe the concourse of FORCES is the origin of FORM. Thus, for me, I argue that if there is a "supreme", it must be a FORCE.

----anecdote----
...and everyone in the building is wondering why the wind is blowing the roof off of the building piece by piece and it has went from rain to shine to rain to shine as I attempt to try and argue the case for the possibility of communing with that force. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> synchronicity is funny like that.
------------------

and as far as Supreme,.. I was a sailor and a swordsman. A man who thinks he has mastered the sword is the person most likely to get hurt by it. A man who thinks he has tamed the sea has more despair in his horizon than bounty. A man who thinks he has unravelled history is weaving a delusion of simplicity.

mine is a life of adventure and discovery, not dissection and assumptions.

and as far as written doctrines, bible or otherwise:
Just because Hanuman was a monkey doesn't mean Shiva wore a yellow hat... but Curious George is still a great story.

What about first (first as in primary) cause, x3n (and windlord)? What do you think about that?

How about you tell me what you think about it?. If it's at all possible, leave out the concept of intention, otherwise we are again discussing god as a being with motives and aspirations. If you'd like the whole discussion to take a hundred steps back from where we're at, then at least have the decency to show us the way.

Ok...let me drop a little Taylorism then...If you are familiar with his work (as I assume most of you are) then you know he is the one *accredited* for coming up with the Principle of Sufficient Reason...this basically says nothing exists randomly without reason...

Taylor claims that there are two kinds of truth (and existence): necessary and contingent. Necessary truths are self-reliant, contingent rely on something else for their validity. Everything in the earth and the cosmos is contingent. (I should point out that it is impossible for a necessary thing NOT to exist, but it is possible for a contingent thing not to exist)

He says everything in the earth is contingent...It's perfectly plausible for nothing to exist at all...Especially when you deny God or purpose, because chance becomes the reason for existence...and instead of perfect life, we could very (very very very very) easily ended up with nothing at all...

BUT, how could a contingent earth come into being? nothing comes from (absolutely) nothing. The earth must be eternal then...But this presents a problem too...1) As mentioned earlier, HOW could the earth and cosmos be necessary and thus eternal, if nothing in them resembles eternal qualities? and 2) The Kalaam cosmological argument, as shown below:

Past ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ finished
Future ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“not yet finished
Finite ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ finishable
Infinite ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ unfinishable

The past implies that something is finished (can't be changed, temporally "over". Yet infinite implies that something is unfinishable (in a theoretical way)...So an infinite past gives us the finished unfinishable...

Now I already argued for the world's contigency, but I have not provided an alternative. Well, I think this is the part where I bring God into it. But if the world's not necessary, why should God be? I think it is because God resembles qualities such as omnipotence, and is eternal, and is recognized as the "greatest possible being." I think those qualities, if any, qualify something as being necessary...call it God, god, consciousness, w/e....my point is here that something supernatural or undiscovered must exist, because the earth and cosmos, as we know them now, cannot foster the beginning of themselves.

I have an argument for design too, but we'll save that for later...I am only claiming what was said in the last sentence of the above paragraph..no 7 days ish or stuff like that...In the design argument I will claim merely that chance, just as it could not foster a beginning, could not foster evolution...

Just threw that last paragraph in to make sure nobody argues with me regarding something I did not claim...

See, and I got all that just reading the analects of Nature, by Chuang Tze, Aemeth.

Is the reason for the rabbit snare truly the rabbit or the trapper? meditate on that...

I know the other thread is active...c'mon guys..lol

I have no idea about Taylor or his writings. Only Taylor that comes to mind is Heston in Planet of the Apes and even he realized through evidence what is a self-reliant truth.

Doesn't "everything" rely on us for its validity?
Seems his "truths" are all based on necessity, none are self-reliant.
QUOTEBUT, how could a contingent earth come into being? nothing comes from (absolutely) nothing. The earth must be eternal then...But this presents a problem too...1) As mentioned earlier, HOW could the earth and cosmos be necessary and thus eternal, if nothing in them resembles eternal qualities?
What are these qualities?
The earth is not eternal, neither is the universe.QUOTEPast ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ finished
Future ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“not yet finished
Finite ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ finishable
Infinite ¢¢¬¢‚¬Å“ unfinishable

The past implies that something is finished (can't be changed, temporally "over". Yet infinite implies that something is unfinishable (in a theoretical way)...So an infinite past gives us the finished unfinishable...Forgive my infinite density...but as I don't see what a "finished unfinishable" is then I can't even begin to make my counter-argument.

Your following paragraph, by the way, simply jumps into God "having qualities resembling..." which is fundamentally flawed, since these qualities are ALL need-based, but hardly self-reliant, and ultimately a human construct. Terribly easy to argue about something as eternal and all-knowing when the majority of humans can't grasp those concepts and have no way of quantifying them. Which is why it has worked so well for so long.
QUOTEbecause the earth and cosmos, as we know them now, cannot foster the beginning of themselves. From what little I can get out of that string of statements, I don't see how you arrived to that conclusion. What makes your god eternal and necessary?

I can safely assume there is still no word on god's purpose, correct?. Still a big mystery. Chance is out of the question, but god's purpose, unknown to all, is still a reliable argument.

QUOTEThe earth is not eternal, neither is the universe

How do you propose it came into being?

QUOTEYour following paragraph, by the way, simply jumps into God "having qualities resembling..." which is fundamentally flawed, since these qualities are ALL need-based, but hardly self-reliant, and ultimately a human construct. Terribly easy to argue about something as eternal and all-knowing when the majority of humans can't grasp those concepts and have no way of quantifying them. Which is why it has worked so well for so long.

The idea of God being eternal and what not comes from the notion of God being the greatest possible being. Now I suppose you could say that God is not the greatest possible being, but most do not think of Him like that. I don't know about you, but being eternal, omniscient and what not seems to be as good as it gets...

QUOTEFrom what little I can get out of that string of statements, I don't see how you arrived to that conclusion. What makes your god eternal and necessary?

The fact that *something* has to be eternal and necessary for the world to exist...Everything in the universe resembles contingent, temporary characteristics, so it cannot be nature alone. Something has to be out there, if you will, or there would be no possibility of us being here...

QUOTEChance is out of the question, but god's purpose, unknown to all, is still a reliable argument.

Chance is not out of the question...The issue here isn't what the dice roll, it's where the dice come from...Since nature/science alone has yet to provide a logical explanation for 1)how the earth could be eternal or 2)if it isn't, how it could bring itself into being all alone, I say that there must be another factor involved, a God, if you will...

Well, if you are asking me what I think, I can tell you I adhere to the theory of expansion. Most cosmologist do. The theory of the big bang is subject to refinement, and further obsrvation, but it's as solid a concept as we have through sience and EVIDENCE. See the thing about this "can't get something out of nothing" idea is that it cuts off everyone's legs. What people don't seem to wanna get is that if you propose it can't be done, then surely you have to offer an alternative explanation for the god-friendly view. God's creation came from nothing, correct?. The difference between your views and mine is simply faith. Faith that his super-awesomness CAN do it, nothing else could. But it DOES come from nothing as well, right?
quantum physics is still very young, but from what little has been observed...particles DO "appear and disappear" out of nothing, and randomly. Random, by the way, doesn't imply chance or disorganization. Random in this context simply suggest that current methods fall short of predicting events at immense or infinitely small scales. "God wills it so" is an excuse, not an explanation.

QUOTEThe idea of God being eternal and what not comes from the notion of God being the greatest possible being. Now I suppose you could say that God is not the greatest possible being, but most do not think of Him like that. I don't know about you, but being eternal, omniscient and what not seems to be as good as it gets...
These lofty notions are man-made. You can grant him any superpowers you want, but it's still simply opinion.

QUOTESince nature/science alone has yet to provide a logical explanation for 1)how the earth could be eternal or 2)if it isn't, how it could bring itself into being all alone, I say that there must be another factor involved, a God, if you will...
No, not paying attention to findings is one thing, please don't reduce it to "science has yet to provide..." because science, unlike religion, has PROVIDED our asses PLENTY. Not only has it provided explanations, but it allows for adjustments and corrections; again, more than I can say for the regurgitated and rehashed concept of making folklore and mythology into fact.
Earth...is not eternal...even biblical creationists will tell you. It's 6,000 years old!.
It is also, not alone...the same essentials are everywhere and in between, different factors account for differences in the combination of these, but essentially, it is all exactly the same, and expanding.

Ok...I am going to break it down to the core of the argument..."something can't come from nothing"...You say then, well where did God come from? I say he is eternal...this explanation works for God, but not for nature (at least not yet)...Yea sure, I can't prove it...But like I said initially, this argument is based on Inference to the Best Explanation...Basically, the 100% nature argument does not get it done, so I say, "shit, something else must be at work here"....I don't buy the quantum physics ish, yes particles behave in mysterious ways, including going from A to B without travelling in between (disappearing and reappearing as you said)...but the point here is that the BALANCE...New particles aren't just coming into existence, they are just relocating in strange ways...The day where quantum science proves that new particles can come into existence all on their own is the day I will seriously rethink this portion of my worldview...