3,550
06-07-2024, 04:57 PM
This post was last modified 06-07-2024, 04:58 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
The key word in the argument is not "design," it's "creator," that's what twinges the dissent. I find that almost ironic.
Since humans model everything, by what I believe is a species compulsion along side "communicate," it appears that any allusion to a divine entity rubs the wrong way. Some might postulate that a "designer" is not so outrageous a likelihood, since we clearly can see infer the mechanics well enough to render denial into oblivion. Others may see that such a 'creation' mentality is a surrender of some kind, as if that meant there were unattainable 'secrets' beyond our understanding. As if the consideration automatically renders the materialistic approach as insufficient.
Well, the truth be told, the materialistic approach to reality is, in fact, insufficient. That can be stated because we don't know everything that is knowable. If it were sufficient we would know everything.
The mathematical disharmony required for the universe to have 'spontaneously' manifested as it is, is tantamount to faith, of no less magnitude than simply 'believing' in a creator.
I'm uncertain that either 'side' of the argument can successfully resolve the matter.
It is not impossible that the universe is a spontaneous manifestation of some sort... and it is not impossible that there was, or have been, or are, elements of design in the set of circumstances that are in our universe. But within the group of all things "not impossible," is an entire universe of possibilities.
Since humans model everything, by what I believe is a species compulsion along side "communicate," it appears that any allusion to a divine entity rubs the wrong way. Some might postulate that a "designer" is not so outrageous a likelihood, since we clearly can see infer the mechanics well enough to render denial into oblivion. Others may see that such a 'creation' mentality is a surrender of some kind, as if that meant there were unattainable 'secrets' beyond our understanding. As if the consideration automatically renders the materialistic approach as insufficient.
Well, the truth be told, the materialistic approach to reality is, in fact, insufficient. That can be stated because we don't know everything that is knowable. If it were sufficient we would know everything.
The mathematical disharmony required for the universe to have 'spontaneously' manifested as it is, is tantamount to faith, of no less magnitude than simply 'believing' in a creator.
I'm uncertain that either 'side' of the argument can successfully resolve the matter.
It is not impossible that the universe is a spontaneous manifestation of some sort... and it is not impossible that there was, or have been, or are, elements of design in the set of circumstances that are in our universe. But within the group of all things "not impossible," is an entire universe of possibilities.
