Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chili]

Oops, sorry, maybe you idea of God is different then mine

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.

Do you know what 'first cause' means? And do you also know that it ends with 'second cause'?

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.

---

Oh and you know what? Human is opposite to woman and is why there is enmity between our left and right with a pigeon flying in between so that distance can be made between heaven and earth. This is to say that woman is equal to the heart of God in us, that in Christendom is called the Christ and therefore is God with us.
.

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.

[Jenny A]

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."

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

Lewis Carroll

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

[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."

[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.

[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?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As someone who has a deep respect for the Scholastic tradition, I must say that I am not following Chili. I will however note that the proof of Aquinas remains untouched.

Plato did not inspire the NT Scriptures; however neo-Platonic thought has certainly influenced Christian theology.

[Jenny A]

As someone who has a deep respect for the Scholastic tradition, I must say that I am not following Chili. I will however note that the proof of Aquinas remains untouched.

The only way to follow Chili is with a tequila chaser.

Plato did not inspire the NT Scriptures; however neo-Platonic thought has certainly influenced Christian theology.

But thank you, that was my understanding.

[Foxaèr]

I will however note that the proof of Aquinas remains untouched.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blo...pologetics

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) wrote a specific series of works in Summa Theologica where he attempted to use logic alone to prove the existence of god. He came up with five arguments, or 'ways', that he felt could logically lead to that one conclusion. Of course, like all god claims, there is no evidence to support the claims, and his arguments have all been thoroughly debunked as containing serious logical flaws and presuppositions.

And yet modern apologists, either knowingly or simply through parallel thinking, use the same arguments to this day as if they are completely bullet-proof.

Next will be a detailed deconstruction of the 'Five Ways'. Each section starts with the translated arguments followed then by the refutations specific to the premises and conclusions made. These refutations are highly useful in many arguments with theists given the similarities of theist arguments to these ancient ideas. (refer to the above link to see how they are refuted)

Another link:
http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-wa...dead-ends/

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are all Dead Ends

[Chili]

As someone who has a deep respect for the Scholastic tradition, I must say that I am not following Chili. I will however note that the proof of Aquinas remains untouched.

Plato did not inspire the NT Scriptures; however neo-Platonic thought has certainly influenced Christian theology.

That may not be a direct inspiration, but if you can read Plato the scriptures are easy. I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

Original sin is his absence of glow while in oblivion, and that makes known the Being in being and so halo's are for the Saints only and that very well means heaven on earth was outside the Cave.

First cause simply is truth being prior to us wherefore chaos was prior to order, and light was needed to see without looking, and then water gathered in pools as knowledge retained to give us dry land to walk on long before the light of common day was created to so we can see while in the state of oblivion. So there is no history in Gen.1, 2 and 3.

None of this matters, but it does mean that there was no historical Jesus as presented while the story is a true account in which the difference between what we call heaven and hell on earth is made known. As I see it the time was right to set this difference apart in the 4 gospels and called it the NT to include the caution as presented. To be sure, if there was a historical Jesus how can he go to hell in Matthew and Mark and to heaven in Luke and in John.

I should maybe add that we are talking about metamorphosis here and that is native to all animals including man.