Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, November 14, 2009, 14:54 (5487 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> The alternative ... a designer, whom I would see as a scientist not a miracle-worker ... is equally unacceptable, for the reasons given, but when it comes to evidence there is one more area to be considered (the possible exception I referred to). You call it the "supernatural", which is a term I dislike. In her discussion with Frank, BBella asks most pertinently: "Is it possible there are natural laws that are not yet evident or are not yet fully realized by humanity [...]?" You and I part company when you refuse to consider (I don't mean accept) evidence other than material. On this forum alone, BBella and Frank have undergone what we might call "mystic" experiences, and although David turned from agnosticism to panentheism through his scientific studies, he too ... like myself ... has witnessed the acquisition of apparently inaccessible knowledge. I haven't met David, BBella or Frank, but just as I would never dream of saying the theory of abiogenesis is false, I would never dream of telling them that they are faking, deluded, off their heads. Nor would I assume as you clearly do that every one out of millions of other similar experiences is the result of faking, delusion or madness. I keep an open mind. We all have our subjective limits of credulity, though, which is why I'll switch off if that old drunk Paddy O'Reilly tells me about his leprechauns. Of course even what we might call the bona fide experiences are not material evidence you can study, but just as materialism makes sense after the initial leap of faith, so too do these experiences, which ... if you take the initial leap ... suggest that there may be dimensions of existence beyond our current comprehension. Since our knowledge of ourselves and our universe is so riddled with gaps, I can't take either of these leaps, which leaves me, as we have noted before, both more sceptical and more open-minded than you! However, I hope you will now see why I regard both options as equally reasonable/unreasonable.-I have some minor issues with the last statement; there's a difference in recognizing the paralysis of study that non-material claims present us with, and writing all such things off as "delusion." You're putting words into my mouth--I don't do that. I do "write it off" as part of the subjective human experience, such as art and music that is unique to each person and therefore irreconcilable to any objective measure at all. [EDIT] You can't study what you can't truly compare, without having a common language, without *knowing* that the object(s) you're studying are the same object(s). You are hamstrung and paralyzed, and the only thing I take issue with on your thinking, is how you can consider claims that cannot be studied with any level of objectivity?-I think of myself more as an open mind that is very aware of the limits of human endeavors; I can see the boundaries. Even in subjective measures, there is limits. It is important to know and identify the limits if you're ever going to do anything about them. -In terms of "mystic experiences," there's still a couple of outstanding ideas I'd put forth on OBEs that were never demolished--and they still had a materialistic bend to them. (They are at least--studyable.) -BBella's, and to some extend David's idea is really similar to the thinking of the "New Thought" movement at the beginning of the 20th century; what has since become "New Age." (I use these terms without derision!) They have this statement as a core of its dogma: "Chance is but a name for undiscovered law." (From the Kybalion.)-EDITED

--
\"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.\"