Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chili]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Now I done gone studied lots of subjects including philosophy, but gosh darn I ain't got no clue what you typing.

Seriously, you need to work on your clarity. Again, I very much doubt that I'm the only one to be utterly perplexed about what you're writing about.

Ok let me try, and please know before hand that I am earnest in my effort here. And no, it is not brevity but maybe the truth that is concealed in or behind the words that I write.

So the topic here is detecting design in nature, and if that is true the designer would also be part of us. Since Jenny introduced Kant to say that human understanding cannot 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.

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.

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.

---

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."


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.

---

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."

Aquinas could have been an idiot. All I know as he was a Catholic for sure.

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.