Philosophical Speculations

Mark Mahan says, One of the central myths about DNA is the idea . . . that it is some kind of blueprint for an organism. I think my title is an apt summation of Mahan's extensive commentary, but I won't belabor the point. Jim said, However, I think instincts are built-in physiological and neurologi...

https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-soul-might-explain-instincts-but-dna.html Every time I link to one of Mark Mahan's commentaries, I feel obliged to state that while I tend to agree with him in general, we differ in some important respects. Nevertheless, his posts are well worth reading, as i...

(and I trust you do not take any of the above as a personal attack, just my perspective on the issue) LOL. I am fine with personal attacks, just not as a substitute for reasoned rebuttal. Which is the more plausible? Since there is no proof of either, we must choose based on evidence and reason. [/...

Restating my argument, it is that, of all the plausible explanations for the universe as it is, the "chance" hypothesis is not only weak, it is fatally flawed. Random chance can explain why a die lands as it does, but it first requires that the "die" be specified as having X numb...

I wrote: Designed for what? Since our universe seems to be precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization, it is most likely that that is what it is designed to do. If we must parse every word, and not follow the logical steps, then allow me to parse by quoting Designed for what? S...

Jim wrote If it was designed, there was a designer. Your choice of words matters. You could have written for example: No matter how hard we may try to avoid order, we cannot. We cannot substitute chance for order. Order just will not go away. The universe is (or the universes are) ordered. Now we a...

Jim Cross: Robert, it's just my opinion that this is a topic you are obfuscating about. You made the claim that you deliberately omitted any consideration of a "Designer" but the word "design" itself implies a designer. Otherwise, you could just be talking about some kind of nat...

Jim Cross wrote:

So you have fooled yourself into believing in design.

Merely argumentative, without basis.
Have you fooled yourself into believing that I have fooled myself?

This seems no way to have a mutually respectful conversation.
Perhaps that is by design?
.
.

I don't get really get it so far - I am assuming there is there more coming? It's just a launching point, introducing a metaphysical conjecture. Can the past be changed? Why, or why not? What would be the consequence in either case? (Can the future be changed? If so, then why not the past?) I am an...

People have played these logic games to fool themselves into believing in God for thousands of years. Logic and language don't extrapolate to existence as a whole. Actually, I agree. That is why my OP refers to "design," not God. I did not even say "Intelligent" design. I did, h...