>
>Ralph:It seems to me, too, that complexity should be more likely to arise
>through intelligence rather than chance.
>
>Silk here: There appear to be three factors at play here.
>(1) Intelligence (2) chance & (3) your interpretation of them? If there is
>an "uncreated creator" (god to many)
>who is responsible for all then I believe that this unproduced producer
>(god to many) must be magnanimous [relative to us] & capable of "anything""
If you are limiting the discussion to "uncreated creators", then that keeps
things in the realm
of the supernatural and, by definition, such a Being would be capable of
anything. But why
"must" it be magnanimous towards us? Why couldn't it be simply neutral?
>
>N' est-ce pas? Therefore if this "capable of anything entity" is the
>designer then it would, given the above postulates, not be out of the
>realm of possibility that this designer designed all to do what, when &
>where it is doing how it is doing it & there is no intelligence nor chance
>to it, only those adjectives you ascribe to it?
>In other words all is doing what it does exactly how it is doing it
>because it was programmed to do it that way
>& none other & thats why it does what it does! Period!!
Certainly, this is not "out of the realm of possibility".
>It is however true that there are "things"going on that we mere mortals
>can observe but let none dare call it chance nor intelligence yet treason!
>Year 2000. State of the art thinking:
"things"? Could you be clearer?
>Psychiatrists delve into our brains & physiologists map out our bodies &
>geneticists trace our DNA & the iron grip of heredity & as they do so they
>discover how little control or responsibility, if any, we have over our
>actions but yet most continue to cling to this "free will" nonsense .
>
Are you planning on setting up a "It's-not-my-fault-my-genes-made-me-do-it"
defense?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 29 2000 - 12:03:11 EST