Detecting design or intent in nature

[Jenny A]

So the topic here is detecting design in nature, and if that is true the designer would also be part of us.

No the topic is whether the marks of a designer can be detected in nature. So far design in nature has not be established.

Setting that aside, I take issue with the idea that if we were designed, that the designer would necessarily be a part of us. I design and create things all the time, written, painted, sculpted, etc. I know people who design houses, bridges, engines, and computer programs. None of us are "in" the things we design. Though some of us have a recognizable style which might be detected in our work.

Since Jenny introduced Kant to say that human understanding cannot be transcended

No, I introduced Kant's refutation the argument of the first cause:

Kant rejected the idea because "causality cannot legitimately be applied beyond the realm of possible experience to a transcendent cause." In other words Kant rejected the necessity of causation as an ultimate cause.

How in the world did you leap from the inapplicability of applying knowledge about perceived causes to a "transcendent cause" to the notion that "human understanding can't be transcended"?

I introduced Aristotle to say that it can, and we do this simple by posing a valid question to be sorted out in us, which according to him is already sublime right from the start or even the prompt would never be ours to see. If this is true it would follow also the answer is already in us and that is how we learn more about who we really are.

Back to the slithy toves. Beware the Jabberwock.

From this would follow that faith is a gift of what I would call God if the image we see is iconic in us, and from here the scientist just gives it a go to prove himself right. This then is where the word exhilarating fits him just right and in this fashion learns on his own, and learns more about himself along that same way.

Yep, there goes the vorpal blade. Snicker-snack!

The ancients called this a telic vision that would be an insight for him. In the Gospels this would be one shepherd and that would be one of those 12.

"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

---

As for Plato, as I understand it he was the inspiration for the NT and that has send people in the wrong direction ever since.

This is amusing. Plato has had considerable influence on early Christian philosophy. But you think he inspired the whole New Testament? You have got to be kidding. So Jesus and Paul were really just embellishing Plato? Really? Any Christians want to weigh in here?