Arguments against Design (General)

by BBella , Saturday, August 01, 2009, 08:45 (5405 days ago) @ xeno6696

I would add, that no outside designer is needed if within every element (seen and unseen) that IS, lies the ability to be what it was, what it IS and, what it will become.
> 
> That sentence reads like a mystical statement... - Whether mystical or not it seems nearer to a fact to me. - 
> Isn't that the exact property of something that exists? - I believe it is. - 
> 
> I read that as: "Every element that exists must have the capacity to have had an origin, have a present moment, and a future moment." - Every element does have (rather than must have) the capacity to be what it was (if that's what you meant by origin), what it is and what it will become, doesn't it? 
 
> 
> That could also be read "Must be traceable through time." - All that IS is very likely 'knowable' backward, forward, in and out. The problem comes when we inquire to know the history of an element thru time. Elements shapeshift so rapidly it makes it near, if not impossible, to trace backward or forward in time. Time, itself, to me, is an untrustworthy story teller or marker to get to know more about an element or what IS. Quantum theory, for now, seems closer to the avenue to take to know more about elements and its path. 
 
> 
> That could also mean "Any action or reaction upon the object must be reversible." 
> - I'm not sure what you mean by reversible. There is not a circumstance I can think of where something is reversible...like me becoming a child again? Is that what you mean? - > Mind cleaning that up just a bit? - Did I clean it up or did I dirty it up more?