--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.) >
It must hurt - having enormous intellect, confined within such a small mind.
