--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > > > and the other does not. > > > > > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. > > > > My point is that they're effectively the same thing > > because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the > > laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is > > obviously irrelevant. > > Not at all. To assume that these two statements > are synonymous is to assume that things *were* > "designed" and that non-changing "laws" of nature > exist, something I do not assume for a moment.
It would really help if you read the piece we've been discussing so you had some idea of what you were talking about. > The universe could just as easily be chaos, onto > which humans, whether their bent is science or > religion, *project* their desire for "laws" and > "design" onto a universe that contains neither. > > I'm suggesting that you can't step back from the > assumption that there *are* such "laws" and/or > "design" and contemplate a universe in which neither > exists. Oh, I can step back from it, no problem. It isn't inconceivable that randomness is the answer to the question. But that wouldn't alter the point in the slightest. And *that* is what makes you think that these > two statements are synonymous. Nope, they'd be synonymous even if randomness were the case. > I can posit a universe in which any "law" you can > point to *as* a "law" could change at any moment. > I suspect that they do so all the time, and that > humans are just so rigid in their beliefs that they > never notice. > > I'm not even comfortable with the statement "Just > how it is." That implies that a human being could > actually know "just how it is." A truly non-biased > scientist *or* religionist would have to say, "Just > how it appears to me (and/or my instruments) at this > moment." Heh. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Or maybe not, if what I suspect about where Davies wants to go with this is on target. So let's throw something else into the mix here, Bertrand Russell's notion that we all have two heads, as expounded by Robert Anton Wilson: http://www.headtochrist.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1550 (I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis might find it of interest.)
