FallentoReason 2.0

[The Grand Nudger]

@DP
LOL......Granted, granted, ID is very thinly disguised christian creationism. However, you don't -fully- accept any theory of evolution we currently have at our disposal, because none of them come packaged with intent bud...which is a pretty massive addition. The thing that mystified me about your post, was the transparency of your examples. Our biology, behavior, and civilization seem to you to imply intent? Granted....human intent. I don't know how else to take that, because the moment I start plugging "god" in before intent it all goes bat-shit in an instant. A god intended what, and how does our biology, behavior, or civilization lend credence to whatever that intent was?
(all of this of course means nothing if I misread the statement you made about intent)

@FTR
The conditions for all of the laws. Well, that's not incredibly specific. But that's okay. What about those conditions for all the laws required divine tinkering? Further, if we look down there are at least some laws you've exempted, specifically natural laws that are the mechanisms of evolution. Why are these laws not the tinkered laws? Still wondering about evidence btw.

I should have clarified more thoroughly what I meant by the drugs thing. So, in this day and age, it so happens that our bodies can't deal with certain substances i.e. drugs. I'm not saying that the Creator pre-defined everything so that 13.7 billion years into the universe we would be sitting here unable to consume drugs. Quite clearly, evolution is random and it could very well have turned out that we couldn't consume e.g. corn or something. Never was any of this planned out though. All I'm saying is that science can be used to understand what works and what doesn't in our current evolutionary state.

I wanted to set this right next to the statement that drew me in

To the contrary, I find that my Deistic inclinations enhance my experiences with reality. For example, the evidence shows that most drugs will destroy your body one way or another. That in itself is obviously something to take away and remember, but to me it's like the Creator is speaking and saying there's reason not to take those drugs because our bodies were never meant to be treated that way.

Now......I'm having trouble figuring out how the one statement (in bold) doesn't completely rob the other statement (in bold) of meaning. If nothing was planned out, if this particular expression of natural law is random and not tinkered with (even if others were - and I'll be honest...that would still be troubling-) then what exactly does it mean to have "meant" anything? Our bodies never having been "meant" for this or that? Onward and upward.

What I'm saying is that if there is a Creator, then it's logical to me that we can observe and experiment with the stuff it left behind to ultimately understand how to live better.

What about there being a creator would make that logical. Maybe the creator fucking hates you, and takes delight in watching you suffer. Maybe it set the all those laws for the purpose of a divine snuff film. Firstly, nothing that you wrote follows from "if there is a creator". Secondly, if we just removed the creator bit and all reference to it then is it somehow less logical to leverage and utilize the world around us " to ultimately understand how to live better" In this instance, like the other, the creator bit is bare assertion, nothing follows from it, and it is not required. Save yourself a step.