There is no necessity to use traditional metaphysical language to substantiate what Jon has suggested. Stephen asks interesting questions. I submit that we render to Mystery the inference that there is a reason for all that is and that we are not wrong to assume that intelligence is involved. In other words, it makes sense to let go of a notion of metaphysics as separate from everything else and to let go of the premise that we need to give a wider berth to mystery in our representations than we have been willing to do.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephen J., List: > > I have no desire (and no time these days) to engage in a debate here, but > ... > > SJ: I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to > the nature of existence. > > > Why is there existence at all? Why is there something, rather than > nothing? Peirce's answer was the Reality of God as *Ens necessarium*. > > SJ: What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why should He care > to create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He use? Does He have > hands with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering iron? Does he have > eyes with which to read a blueprint? ... I’m not big fan of Richard > Dawkins, but he does have a point when he asks, sarcastically, who created > god? A god-god? Then who created god-god? A god-god-god? God as a creator > makes no sense and explains nothing. > > > These kinds of questions reveal a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps > willful ignorance, of what classical theists actually believe about the > nature of God. > > SJ: Here’s my prediction… whatever the right theory is, it MUST make > sense… and we will know it when we see it. A godly designer does not make > sense. > > > Your faith in human reason is impressive, but sadly misplaced. Why would > anyone expect an infinite God, if Real, to be entirely comprehensible to > finite beings like us? > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > wrote: > >> Hi Colin, >> >> I don’t understand what insights a creator/designer provides as to the >> nature of existence. What phenomenology explains His motivation to be? Why >> should He care to create life? Where is His workshop? What tools does He >> use? Does He have hands with which to wield a hammer or use a soldering >> iron? Does he have eyes with which to read a blueprint? >> >> Many of us might be receptive to a God as a unity, as Kashyap suggests, >> in the laws of nature around us. It would make more sense for God’s >> emergence to be bootstrapped with the emergence of the universe as a unity, >> not as a meddler in a workshop working to a blueprint. God and the universe >> as one. Or maybe a systems-theory view of nested hierarchies, where >> autopoiesis (self-organisation) can be considered a form of >> creation/design. But not god as a visitor in some kind of workspace. >> >> I’m not big fan of Richard Dawkins, but he does have a point when he >> asks, sarcastically, who created god? A god-god? Then who created god-god? >> A god-god-god? God as a creator makes no sense and explains nothing. >> >> Isaac Newton provided the axiomatic framework for a physics that did not >> make sense at the time. Now it makes perfect sense, and we bear witness to >> its relevance in our engineering and technological achievements. We need a >> similar awakening with the life sciences. What axiomatic framework does God >> the Creator/Designer relate to? Here’s my prediction… whatever the right >> theory is, it MUST make sense… and we will know it when we see it. A godly >> designer does not make sense. There is no phenomenology that explains his >> motivations or existence. >> >> And you raise the topic of mutations again. Natural selection based on >> mutations violates the principles of entropy, as the tendency to disorder. >> Nobody’s proven the relevance of mutations to evolution. Pure, >> unsubstantiated conjecture. Calvin Beisner, with reference to the work of >> RH Byles, dispenses tidily with the mutation mumbo jumbo: >> >> https://www.icr.org/article/270 >> >> >> Regards >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
