[Ham] > Basically, a self-supporting universe which organizes its elements to produce > conscious life makes > no sense without a designer. Does a self-supporting universe which DOESN'T organize its elements to produce conscious life make sense without a designer? If so, then you need to provide empirical grounds why conscious life could not emerge from it. Would it be that it is impossible to evolve so, or just that there hasn't been enough time elapsed to do so? It seems risky to base a metaphysics on the argument from design.
[Ham] > The first principle of metaphysics is that nothing comes from nothing. This might be the first principle of YOUR metaphysics, but hardly the first principle of every metaphysics. If a positron & an electron can collide to annililate each other out of existence, why could they not have both jointly & simultaneously come into existence? [Ham] > to dismiss an uncreated source out of hand...is prejudicial and narrow-minded. If one can't dismiss an uncreated source, then one can't dismiss an uncreated world & if one can't dismiss an uncreated world, then why is a designer needed? [Ham] > (even) if there were a physical world, it would be meaningless without > cognizant awareness from > which all knowledge and value (including morality) are derived. So the world would have been meaningless at creation before cognizant awareness evolved, so what? Ham, Has your forthcoming book had any peer review? Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
