Lucy,
In the final analysis everything is "in our head." As thinking beings all gets
processed by our brain through our reasoning ability. As I said, I find the
assumption of a Creator very consistent with all my experiences and scientific
findings and I must say it is hard to avoid. I think a person who does not
believe in a Creator and argues his point will have to stand on his head.
Moorad
==== Original Message From Lucy Masters <masters@cox-internet.com> =====
>Moorad:
>
>I never meant to imply that I thought "reality" was in our heads. I
>meant to imply that I think "design" or "randomness" is in our heads.
>These are interpretations of the objective reality. When you talk about
>your "assumption" that all things are created by God, I guess I'd call
>that faith.
>
>Lucy
>
>
>
>----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
>To: Lucy Masters <masters@cox-internet.com>,
> asa <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]]
>
>One can always take a picture of an existing object. That object owes its
>existence to preexisting matter and was made or fashioned by someone. In
>most cases you can see someone fashion similar objects and so you logically
>conclude that someone fashioned what you now see. The tricky question is
>about nature at large, who fashioned nature? It is self-evident to me that
>a Creator fashioned nature and keeps it going. I certainly cannot prove
>that but such an assumption allows me to fit the totality of my experiences
>and those of others better. Reality is out there not in our head. In science
>objectivity means measured by non-human devices. The Crop Circles are
>physical, as attested by the fact that you can take pictures of it, and are
>clearly designed. The question that some people find it interesting is to
>speculate on the creators of such circles. There is no argument against the
>fact that something or someone fashioned them. I make no distinction
>between such circles and leaves in a tree. All is designed and have a
>creator or Creator. The creator fashions things from things created by the
>Creator. I think all claims of proving the existence of God are nonsensical.
>There are heuristic proofs that satisfy some and bewilder others. But there
>is no proof. We must die first to know the Truth. On this side of death,
>everything is faith. Moorad
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lucy Masters <masters@cox-internet.com>
>To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
>Date: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:30 PM
>Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]]
>
>
>>Hi. I hate to be so dense, but I humbly submit that I just do not "get"
>>your point. The two items you deem to be irrelevant in the "design
>>inference" seem completely relevant to me. Cameras can take pictures of
>>many things, but it is only humans who decide whether the picture is of
>>a designed thing or not. As the ID people like to say, "If you see a
>>design, you infer there must be a designer." I will agree to a point,
>>but the designer is....ME. The design is all in my head.
>>
>>In science, we use the term "objective" to describe those things that
>>the majority of people have declared to be X. But I submit it is not
>>absolutely objective.
>>
>>Try this example just for fun. A few years ago, my husband and I saw an
>>advertisement in the newspaper for a public meeting on Crop Circles. It
>>was held in a very large city - the ballroom of a huge hotel. We go to
>>stuff like that on occasion because we find it important to keep abreast
>>of trends in mass belief systems (never know when it will come up in a
>>session).
>>
>>Anyway, my husband is a notorious provocateur (you know how these
>>blasted Ph.D. types are - tee hee). Here we were in a ballroom with
>>about 500 serious crop circle fanatics all eagerly viewing the latest
>>slide shows. Well, it turns out the basic message was similar to that
>>of the ID movement: if you see a design, there must be a designer.
>>And...since no one person could possibly run around the planet creating
>>all these things, we can infer the designer to be alien.
>>
>>My husband didn't just raise his hand, he stood up and raised his hand.
>>(I tried to melt into my folding chair). A guy with a microphone came
>>over to take his question, and my husband inquired of the speaker why
>>the crop circles couldn't be "naturally occurring." The speaker said
>>the question was ridiculous. My husband persisted, declaring that crop
>>circles are no more ornate or "designed" than snowflakes - and nobody
>>thinks snowflakes are designed by aliens. The speaker said, "But
>>snowflakes are little! And besides, we **know** how snowflakes are
>>created!" My husband persisted, declaring that size has nothing
>>whatever to do with whether or not something is naturally occurring and
>>further that our ability to understand a thing or an event has nothing
>>whatever to do with "who" or "what" created it.
>>
>>OK - so here's the point. A camera could take a picture of crop
>>circles. We could declare that the words we will use universally to
>>describe "things that look like that" are "crop" and "circle." The
>>objectivity stops there. Whether or not the crop circle is any more of
>>a design than the striations in a leaf is purely subjective. Whether or
>>not a "designer" outside of nature is involved is also purely
>>subjective. It's just a system of beliefs. I can find no objectivity
>>beyond the photograph. And BTW, what if the camera guy slipped a bit
>>and took a picture only of the forested area behind the crop. Would it
>>be valid for someone to say, "Hey! I don't see any design here! This
>>proves there is no God (aliens, whatever)." I just don't understand how
>>there can be any relationship between proof of the existence of God and
>>whether or not I, we, you, anybody can detect design.
>>
>>Lucy
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 26 2001 - 15:48:22 EDT