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
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon Alan, list:
If one is, unlike you, not a theist, then, your answers don't
provide any rationale for 'the nature of existence'. Your assertion
that one simply has to accept the 'reality of god' is a Fixation
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
Edwina, list,
Thank you for getting the discussion of Intelligent Design, etc. into the
Peirce list proper (that is, *only*). Ben Udell and I, as well as the
technical staff at IUPUI, have not yet found a way to stop the automatic
forwarding to our forum of messages sent by Sadhu Sanga members
JAS, list
JAS >”I have no desire (and no time these days) to engage in a debate here, but
...”
Given that it is beneath you to engage in debate, JAS, then we conclude that
you are trolling, and not really interested in an answer. So my following reply
is not directed at you, but to those who
Stephen J., List:
I have never been accused of trolling before, but I guess there is a first
time for everything. In any case, since I am not a member of Sadhu Sanga,
my reply to that address was immediately rejected, such that your responses
are all that anyone else on that list will ever see.
