Detecting design or intent in nature

[Brian37]

I've never seen anyone provide any real evidence of a god of any sort. You want to prove yours? You should start by defining him. You theists have a number of different definitions. Usually the definition of a god you attempt to prove is much more abstract and limited than the god you believe though.


Oh and yes I know about the first cause argument. It's a very old argument going back to the ancient Greeks who formulated it this way:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, something that is not an effect must exist.

Thomas Aquinas is traditionally given Christian credit for it. He formulates it this way:

1. A contingent (unnecessary cosmologically speaking) being exists.
2. Every contingent being has a cause of its existence.
3. The cause of its existence must be something other than itself.
4. What causes a contingent being to exist must be either only contingent beings or at least one necessary being.
5. Contingent beings cannot cause this contingent being to exist.
6. Therefore, what causes this contingent beings to exist must contain at least one necessary being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being exists.

My biggest object to such such arguments is that they are special pleading. They assume that everything requires a cause, but then magically release god from that requirement.

Immanuel 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 a premise.

Yes, Kant was a legalist and Aquinas was a Catholic.

Causation is not a premise but the is the result of conflict when a stand is made. God always is, or what I call God always is the positive in each and every stand that yields a conclusion in the end.

This is where God is truth that is prior to us, also in the new to expand as if it is our own playmate to entertain. We may call this curious for now, and that is the reason why science can be exhilarating as we expand the God in us and do greater things as time moves on. This so is how we create the wisdom of God in us and is why God can be no greater than me for me, and in that same way your God can be no greater than you for you.

So this would be where the finite is the negative stand in each and every rout that provokes a positive to action that yields a conclusion in the end that the ancients called a form, . . . of the 'good' that we may call a loop that we come full circle in and understand.

This would be how 'things on the run' can yield when understanding comes about. They so come to rest in us as an insight that we have.

It is best for me to stop here now and present Aristotle's last lines from his Posterior Analytics to agree with what Aquinas had to say.
To note here is that while doing this I point at our God within and let intuition have it's final say.

Here it is and I can reduce this to one line that looks like this:

"If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge."

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premisses by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. Now of the thinking states by which we grasp truth, some are unfailingly true, others admit of error-opinion, for instance, and calculation, whereas scientific knowing and intuition are always true: further, no other kind of thought except intuition is more accurate than scientific knowledge, whereas primary premisses are more knowable than demonstrations, and all scientific knowledge is discursive. From these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor, consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge. If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge. And the originative source of science grasps the original basic premiss, while science as a whole is similarly related as originative source to the whole body of fact.

This finally means that omniscience can be ours to find in which we only need to know who we really are and that would be where Plato's Final Form is at.

---

You should really go easy on the glue or whatever it is you're taking.

Sorry, but we have and Icon on this in which "the heart of Christ" is shown to be the exact same as "the hearth of woman" that we call Mary there.

---

Or course I can add that Plato's Final Form is what Aristotle would call 'par-ousia,' as final ousia when our own einai/soul is seen, but I am not sure if he ever did.

Aquinas was an idiot. He had absolutely no modern understanding of science.

Oh and Plato was too. Plato set up humanity for all the baggage that divides us in the form of political and religious ideology. He had the stupid idea that that if you simply thought about something you could find its "essence", or "pure form". What Plato could not know back then was with questioning and thinking you needed the quality control of testing and falsification. His idea of trying to find the pure form of anything bleed into political and religious utopia thought. It has been plaguing humanity since.

Dawkins explain's Plato's flaw in the opening of his book "The Greatest Show On Earth."