The design for language is in the human brain. Otherwise, you would not have the situation in which all languages seem to share common principles. -------------------------------
On Apr 24, 8:27 am, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, I would add that to see certain "design", and to derive a > "designer" from there is a common place in many instances. > For instance, in language. > Does a two years old boy know grammar? > Yes and no, no because he had no time to go through those classes, and > yes because he is able to talk and express subjects, verbs and the > chain, even if with difficulties. > Languages' rules are not previous to language, nobody seated there to > design language, but they exist. > Everybody can see certain pattern in language, that does not mean > there was a designer > > As there wasn't either in some beautiful little lambs I can see in > clouds shape > > On 22 abr, 23:28, allknowingfrog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This discussion has shot through a number of complicated questions > > and > > theories about time, and I would like to voice my own perspective on > > the nature of the beast. > > > If we except the prevailing theory that the universe can be traced to > > a singularity, then I would argue that just as matter began at the > > singularity, so too did time and space, because both are ultimately > > measures of matter. Space is a measure of the distance between bits > > of > > matter, while time is a measure of changes in matter. Without matter, > > both measurements are meaningless. If everything that exists truly > > originated from the singularity, it is meaningless to talk about > > "before" the singularity, because the singularity was static. Without > > change, there is no time. > > > The other issue I would like to address is with the original post. It > > is really just the argument from design, i.e. "the universe is > > designed and must therefore have a designer." I agree that there are > > principles by which the universe is organized, but to conclude that > > those principles must be an intelligent force is a non sequitur. If > > the universe is so complicated as to necessitate an intelligent > > designer, imagine how much more complicated the designer must be. > > Following the same logic, the designer's level of complexity also > > necessitates an even more complicated designer. With that conclusion, > > we've come back to the "infinite progression" that the original > > poster > > so ardently criticized. > > > On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > > > Obviously, the universe is organized. From quarks, to subatomic > > > particles, to atoms and molecules, to dust and planets and stars and > > > galaxies, we can trace a hierarchy of structure. > > > > We can also see that the universe is organized into four contextual > > > components: space, time, energy and mass. These four components are > > > so strongly inter-related as to be considered a single thing, space- > > > time and energy-mass, or space-time-energy-mass. > > > > Time seems to consist of three components in continual flux--- past, > > > present and future. Although in some cosmological models, all three of > > > these are really the same thing, and our perception of the passage of > > > time is an illusion. > > > > However little we understand the structure of the universe, it becomes > > > clear to us that there is, in fact, a structure, an organization of > > > the universe into discernible "parts," so to speak. > > > > This brings us to the question: what principle organizes the universe > > > into the way we see it organized? > > > > Remember that prior to the big bang, the universe was (theoretically) > > > a point particle, homogenized, with neither discrete components nor > > > passage of time. Nevertheless, in order for the universe to organize > > > itself afterward, there had to be inherent in that primordial point- > > > particle, the principle which eventually gave rise to what we see. > > > > This is a crucial idea: that there should be some fundamental > > > governing principle which gives rise to observed phenomena. > > > > Such an idea is itself axiomatic, defying definition. And as with all > > > axioms, the best proof of its truth is to examine what would be the > > > case if the axiom were not true. > > > > Gravity is a subordinate of the central organizing principle. Gravity > > > explains our observation of falling objects (among other > > > observations). If there were no gravity, we would not see objects > > > falling. > > > > In like manner, if there were no organizing principle of the universe, > > > we should expect there to be no organization observed. > > > > Then the question proceeds to infinite sequences of principles. By > > > what principle is the principle brought into being? > > > > As always in such cases, we must settle on the idea of an ultimate, > > > self-existent absolute. It simply is. Nothing brings it into being, > > > but rather, it is the final principle upon which all else is founded. > > > > Some thinkers deny that there is any final principle, but only an > > > infinite progression of them. But even that begs the question, since > > > by what principle is there an infinite progression of principles? > > > > It is axiomatic that there is a final, underlying reality upon which > > > all else is founded. Denial of the axiom brings us only to an endless > > > sequence of useless conclusions. > > > > But when we admit of a final, ultimate absolute, we are confronted > > > with the question of an inherent life force, an inherent > > > consciousness, intelligence, and supreme being overarching all of > > > nature, all of reality. > > > > We, finite and transient mortals, can never hope to know anything > > > whatsoever about this ultimate absolute except for two possibilities: > > > it reveals itself to us, and it endows us with the capacity to > > > understand what it reveals. > > > > We could never reason our way to God. On the contrary, we are utterly > > > dependent upon Him to show Himself, and to give us eyes with which to > > > see Him. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
