MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Radrook]

Sorry, I probably sounded a bit rude there.

I'm not perplexed though, as has been mentioned it seems as if you go out of your way to avoid clarifying your position, that was another example.



This post suggests that you believe a designer sets things up to work automatically and has no need to constantly tinker. Great, but then you go on to say this...



But you did propose (albeit indirectly) and it seems like an approach that would be consistent with science and theology, to me at least.

Proposing it would mean that I accept it as THE only explanation. Since I don't, then I am not proposing it. I am merely explaining that it FITS within the intelligent design parameters.

the definition of propose

 

[Loudmouth]

Proposing it would mean that I accept it as THE only explanation. Since I don't, then I am not proposing it. I am merely explaining that it FITS within the intelligent design parameters.

the definition of propose

What wouldn't fit?

 

[Radrook]

What wouldn't fit?

Your idea.

 

[bhsmte]

Your idea.

What idea? Why wouldn't it fit?

 

[Radrook]

What idea? Why wouldn't it fit?

Your atheist ideas obviously don't fit into the intelligent design framework.

 

[bhsmte]

Your atheist ideas obviously don't fit into the intelligent design framework.

Too vague. Is it too much to ask for specifics?

 

[Strathos]

I wonder if the OP has ever considered the possibility that, as God knows the future, natural processes can be 'random' while still unfolding according to His plan.

 

[Speedwell]

I wonder if the OP has ever considered the possibility that, as God knows the future, natural processes can be 'random' while still unfolding according to His plan.

All chance, the direction thou canst not see...

--Alexander Pope​

 

[Speedwell]

Undoubtedly it was considered and rejected. The intention of the OP is to prove the existence of the designer to atheists or, at least, to prove that they are too wicked to consider it. Your proposal would not serve that purpose.

 

[Radrook]

I wonder if the OP has ever considered the possibility that, as God knows the future, natural processes can be 'random' while still unfolding according to His plan.

Please note that what you propose doesn't contradict intelligent design. It harmonizes with the assertion made in the thread title that intelligent design is evident in nature. But I am curious about the randomness you propose. Is it explainable via your biblical text?

 

[Radrook]

Mathematical realities are the result of God creating a knowable and consistent world in which organisms like us are possible.

Amen!

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder if the OP has ever considered the possibility that, as God knows the future, natural processes can be 'random' while still unfolding according to His plan.

With some, if considering something contradicts their tightly held belief, guess what happens......

 

[Strathos]

Please note that what you propose doesn't contradict intelligent design. It harmonizes with the assertion made in the thread title that intelligent design is evident in nature. But I am curious about the randomness you propose. Is it explainable via your biblical text?

Psalm 139:16 is a good start. Also see Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 46:10, etc.

Basically the idea is that things which may be random (or at least unpredictable/stochastic) to us are not to God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Our entire perceived universe or reality is subjective in that way. Sweetness, loudness, roughness, aromas, stenches, brightness, darkness, height, depth, wideness, length, broadness, hotness, coldness, whiteness, blackness, and all other concepts which we call reality are all subjectively dependent on our conceptual evaluation. Apart from that they are merely interpretational possibilities totally dependent on who or what might chance to encounter them.

We can objectively measure heat using a thermometer. In fact, we can objectively measure anything with a direct physical basis. It's just that, with items that are purely conceptual, such as morality or justice, it's impossible, since they don't physically exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We can objectively measure heat using a thermometer. In fact, we can objectively measure anything with a direct physical basis. It's just that, with items that are purely conceptual, such as morality or justice, it's impossible, since they don't physically exist.

Maybe Locke's idea of primary and secondary properties would be useful here...

 

[Radrook]

We can objectively measure heat using a thermometer. In fact, we can objectively measure anything with a direct physical basis. It's just that, with items that are purely conceptual, such as morality or justice, it's impossible, since they don't physically exist.

There are standards of morality which are used in order to measure every behavior as to whether it is morally acceptable or not. If such things as morality or justice were impervious to evaluation which involves a measurement against a standard, then we could never condemn anything as wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

1+1=2 is proof of the paranormal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your idea.

You just said it would fit. You need to make up your mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are standards of morality which are used in order to measure every behavior as to whether it is morally acceptable or not. If such things as morality or justice were impervious to evaluation which involves a measurement against a standard, then we could never condemn anything as wrong.

The problem is that those standards are relative to which culture you belong to, and in which time period you find yourself in.

 

[KCfromNC]

There are standards of morality which are used in order to measure every behavior as to whether it is morally acceptable or not.

You left out a word that was important to the post you were replying to. Can you figure out which one it is or do you need some help?