Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chili]

These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside.

No, they "must'nt".

After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made,

No, it isn't.

or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

No such requirement.

That's about as far as I could follow. What -is- your native language, btw?

Oh, OK to all three of your objection then. And true enough, I did not read 'what's his name' again?

Netherlands.

[BlackMason]

Good to know.

Now let's be clear here. I'm not suggesting nature is actually designed. I just don't think that you have come up with proof that it isn't.

I was presenting an argument not proof.

Of course the extinction of the dodo didn't do the dodo any good. But that doesn't mean the dodo wasn't designed.

Not all prototypes lead to final products. And sometimes, you try an thing and it doesn't work, so you stop production. Sometimes, a perfectly useful thing is superseded by a better thing or even just something we prefer. We currently prefer CD's and MP3s to 8 Tracks. That doesn't do the 8 Tracks any good, but it doesn't mean we didn't design them.

I see the problem. You've confused my argument. I'm arguing that nature has no goals as per my syllogism. I'm not talking design here.

I'm not sure anything came out of the dodos, but many modern animals do have extinct ancestors who could be thought of as a waste products.

No I disagree. We have a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes. If chimpanzees were to become extinct tomorrow can we say they were our waste product or we theirs?

You are arguing that nature is not designed because there are extinct species. And I am saying that when people design things, we do create things which we later abandon. Therefore abandoned things in nature aren't proof that there was no designer of nature, only that if there is a designer, it sometimes abandons things.

No that's not my argument. Teleology =/= design

[Chili]

I do not think that your citation is my line.

Oh it is. I just gave it some meaning for the unenlightened.

I am telling you that this line:

Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

is Jenny's, and not mine

[abaris]

Our Original Sin equals Plato's State of Oblivion, and therefore shepherds are good news, and are good news without even saying a thing. They just give us a sense of belonging so we will know where the manger is at. That is the only reason for this and then please know that the manger was missing in Matthew as an early foreshadow that hell will be destiny for him.

Ah, yes, Chily, you're quite right. But I have to tell you, that I don't remember shepards in any of my playthroughs. And as for hell, the closest thing I encountered were the Oblivion gates, which were kind of repetitive after a while.

[Cyberman]

Oh it is. I just gave it some meaning for the unenlightened.

I am telling you that this line:

Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

is Jenny's, and not mine

Then instead of complaining about it in open thread, you should have reported it so the error could be corrected. By not doing so, you've created a metric shit-ton of extra work for the Staff. Thanks.

[LostLocke]

... These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside. After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made, or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

You might want to, oh I don't know, read a bit about evolution before you try to use or refute it in your 'proof' for gods.

[Jenny A]

Our Original Sin equals Plato's State of Oblivion, and therefore shepherds are good news, and are good news without even saying a thing. They just give us a sense of belonging so we will know where the manger is at. That is the only reason for this and then please know that the manger was missing in Matthew as an early foreshadow that hell will be destiny for him.

Limbo would be with no shepherds to guide the us, and that comes with communion with the saints in heaven to show direction for us, also again without saying a word.

Original Sin does not equal sinful, and shepherds also are inside the Cave with only a connection to the outside and therefore can be our guide.

Of course they are allegory but be reminded here that we are the illusion our self, as in each one of us while inside the cave.

The shepherds in the Gospels merely were insights in the mind of Joseph the Jew, but that is not part of the argument here.

Okay this time I understand what it is you are trying to say. I can't imagine how you get that out of the Bible, Christianity, or Plato. I does does sound vaguely Gnostic though.

Yes I know, but that also makes the Gnostics an illegitimate group because the -ism does not belong in the same way as the -ity does not belong to the word Christian.

I don't know what you have against suffixes, but there's nothing illegitimate philosophically or etymologically about words that use them. "Ism" is just a suffix used in the English language for forming nouns of action, state, condition, and especially doctrine. So Gnosticism if you translated its roots literally would be a state or condition of having knowledge or a doctrine concerning knowledge. But words change meaning over time. And Gnosticism means something a little more specific than that.

"-Ity" has even less specific meaning than "ism." It means roughly having the quality of, being, or being like, or being collectively. It's a perfectly reasonable suffix to use with Christ to describe people attempting to follow Christ.

Let's just call "the mind of Christ" the end that we seek where gnosis would be ours, and would that not make Gnosticism and Christianity a denial of that and a contradiction in terms?

Let's not. If I understand you correctly you think that if you know the mind of Christ you have the ultimate knowledge and that that is what you seek. Sounds like a brand of Gnosticism to me. However, I don't see how such a pursuit would make Gnosticism or Christianity contradiction in terms (the idea makes me wonder if you know what a contradiction is terms is). But, as I don't believe in god or the Jesus was Christ, or that there is such ultimate knowledge, I won't be seeking it. I'll leave you to it.

It is just philosophy dear, but these words are crucial in seeing the end while we are believers and doubters looking for destiny our self.

It's just nonsense. You are having your own little battle with language. But it doesn't appear to be a battle that produces clarity.

The answer is very simple and that is "know who you are" in the end and that can be called Christian (if you like or not like), but that surely means that religion is not any part of it then = no -ity or -ism for sure.

Now that is a philosophy of sorts. But it has nothing to do with Christianity, or being Christian, which is not to say that some Christians might not seek to know themselves.

Once again? What does any of this have to do with design in nature?

And why do you call yourself Catholic?

[Chili]

Our Original Sin equals Plato's State of Oblivion, and therefore shepherds are good news, and are good news without even saying a thing. They just give us a sense of belonging so we will know where the manger is at. That is the only reason for this and then please know that the manger was missing in Matthew as an early foreshadow that hell will be destiny for him.

Ah, yes, Chily, you're quite right. But I have to tell you, that I don't remember shepards in any of my playthroughs. And as for hell, the closest thing I encountered were the Oblivion gates, which were kind of repetitive after a while.

Where you Catholic too? All I can remember is that the pasture was so big that the sheep couldn't get lost, with room to roam and play without end and confession became much like a tall tale telling event.

---

I am telling you that this line:

is Jenny's, and not mine

Then instead of complaining about it in open thread, you should have reported it so the error could be corrected. By not doing so, you've created a metric shit-ton of extra work for the Staff. Thanks.

Not to worry, thanks. All I know is that when I read that line it could not be mine because I would never write something like that.

---

... These potential changes obviously would be inter-generational as they must bring changes about that are permanent and in the right direction as seen from the outside. After all, evolution is in response to the need to survive and flourish in an environment that is involutional to demand that changes must be made, or at least, there must be an awareness that changes may have to be made, or perhaps there is a continuum in which changes are made.

You might want to, oh I don't know, read a bit about evolution before you try to use or refute it in your 'proof' for gods.

I am telling you that Gen.1, 2 and 3 explain how the intelligent design is built inside the species, where Lord God is Plato's genus and the difference is made known by the essence we see that we call the son who brings logos to the fore, that would account for the difference between [bare naked] animal and the being in charge. For Plato this was a re-emergence and then we first see the body as byproduct with new life emerging from within.

[Cyberman]

Not to worry, thanks. All I know is that when I read that line it could not be mine because I would never write something like that.

Not the point. We have a rule against misquoting people; while I am sure from the context of later posts that it was unintentional, I'm also sure that Abaris would have appreciated the opportunity of having it corrected. Since you opted to complain about it publicly and repeating the misquote instead of drawing it to Staff attention, correcting it will now entail unnecessary extra work and may not even be feasible.

This goes for everyone, of course, Staff included; however I'm singling you out in this instance because you spotted the error and failed to act appropriately. Please don't do it again.

[LostLocke]

You might want to, oh I don't know, read a bit about evolution before you try to use or refute it in your 'proof' for gods.

I am telling you that Gen.1, 2 and 3 explain how the intelligent design is built inside the species, where Lord God is Plato's genus and the difference is made known by the essence we see that we call the son who brings logos to the fore, that would account for the difference between [bare naked] animal and the being in charge. For Plato this was a re-emergence and then we first see the body as byproduct with new life emerging from within.

Yeah, nice, and none of that has anything to do with evolution.