Epistemology of Design (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 13, 2009, 16:30 (5241 days ago) @ Matt


> What makes it a bit more frustrating in your case, is that you are willing to make the claim without much to say about the nature of this deity... an explanation that includes a God must also include how it does what it does. I don't think I've ever asked you that...-Frankly, I have no idea. Frank's convoluted theology was instructive in how one might go about developing explanations. I don't think you can. I think a designer can be implied if the odds turn out to indicate that 'chance' has no chance, as I like to say. If the odds (probability bound by your rules) for life by chance exceed 10^80th, then there has to be a designer. We are now at a supernatural level and science and our reason can't go there. This is where didactic religion has its faults. They say God is unknowable and then invent all sorts of things about Him. This is where Adler is sharp. God is a personage like no other person, period. Adler stops!-{Sorry I broke off last evening: had to make a fire, swim 1,000 yards (to stay young) and have dinner, fascinating as our discussions are.:-}