mework of assumptions to make sense? Do I detect a hint of Creationist
> arrogance on the part of JAS?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com
> <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 7:40 PM
> *To:* sjaro..
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] The failure of Intelligent Design
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 exis
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
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
