Arguments against Design (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 01, 2009, 17:14 (5591 days ago) @ BBella

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.
> - I meant that more in terms of extracting useful meaning than in a metaphysical manner. Mystical statements tend to be couched in language that allows a myriad of interpretations... for what it is that dhw's trying to do, that isn't good. It's confusing. - > 
> > Isn't that the exact property of something that exists?
> 
> I believe it is. - That confuses the statement even more. If we agree that "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." is the property of anything that exists, that would morph your statement to "No designer is necessary if an [element] exists." Clearly you don't mean that. What do you mean? - > 
> 
> > 
> > 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's a tall order, I've had 2 consecutive years of "higher math" and I'm only now finding out how to work with those models. The concepts of QM do however make mysticism such as from the Kybalion have a bit more weight.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"