Chris
>You assume that they were created or generated. The third alternative is
>that they were not created or generated at all.
Bertvan:
Hi Chris. For some time many Darwinists have insisted no one could criticize
"random mutation and natural selection as the principle mechanism of macro
evolution" without offering an alternative. I never found that reasonable.
Therefore I certainly respect your right to believe the laws of nature were
neither created according to some complex design, nor arose by spontaneous
generation, but came into existence in some third unspecified manner. And
just as I can see design in nature without concerning myself about a
"designer", I suppose you can believe something can exist without concerning
yourself with the question of whether it "came into existence". In any case
can we agree that it is probably not a question which can be answered by
science?
Chris
>Let me ask a question: Can you imagine a universe that COULD possibly exist
>that would not provide "evidence" of "design"? I cannot imagine such a
>universe, because anything that exists is subject to the basic law of
>causation: A thing DOES what it IS. All possible universes are orderly,
>though it's possible that they don't all support life (a universe with only
>one atom in it, for example, would not support life).
Bertvan:
No. Since the only two options I am able to imagine are universes created
according to some complex design or those which arose by spontaneous
generation (and I can't really imagine that one), I choose to accept the
obvious (design), until I see reason to believe what appears to me as reality
is really an illusion.
Bertvan