23
kairosfocus
08/08/2011
6:43 am
FG:
Have you burned your match half way and turned the head up yet?
Did you see it try to go out?
Do you now see the nature of external, necessary causal factors for a contingent being?
As shown by concrete example — not convoluted debate?
Have you found an exception to the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 year, or found a possible place and time where it does not hold?
If so, do you now understand that there are necessary beings that do not have a beginning, and cannot cease from being?
If not, why not?
Have you now considered that a contingent cosmos, such as we credibly inhabit, points — even through a multiverse speculation — to an underlying necessary being with the power, purpose and knowledge as well as skill to build a cosmos that is fine tuned for C-chemistry, cell based life?
If you reject the above, why, why specifically — apart from mere talking points?
[For details cf here. Observe the comment by SB, a philosophically sophisticated observer, and a communication professional.]
The above shows that your imagined objections are overturned. There is no necessary infinite regress of causes for our observed cosmos and features in it that show signs of design [and that is a side track in any case as the issue is whether THIS ifrem per tested reliable signs is best understyood as designed], and there is no “absurd” inference that original life must have come from a non-living intelligence, your put up strawman.
For, if there is good reason to see that the contingent cosmos comes from a necessary being, and that in the case of our observed — fine tuned for C chemistry cell based life — cosmos, that necessary being manifests signs of purpose, knowledge, and creative action, that terminates the chain in something that is intelligent and self-moved, thus en-souled or living.
GEM of TKI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fuck does a match "try(ing)" to go out have to do with "the nature of external, necessary causal factors for a contingent being"? And where the fuck does gordo get the idea that everything he barfs is a concrete fact and must be believed??
And what is an "ifrem"?
gordon e. mullings of Montserrat is crazy (and apparently drunk), and getting crazier by the second.
kairosfocus
08/08/2011
6:43 am
FG:
Have you burned your match half way and turned the head up yet?
Did you see it try to go out?
Do you now see the nature of external, necessary causal factors for a contingent being?
As shown by concrete example — not convoluted debate?
Have you found an exception to the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 year, or found a possible place and time where it does not hold?
If so, do you now understand that there are necessary beings that do not have a beginning, and cannot cease from being?
If not, why not?
Have you now considered that a contingent cosmos, such as we credibly inhabit, points — even through a multiverse speculation — to an underlying necessary being with the power, purpose and knowledge as well as skill to build a cosmos that is fine tuned for C-chemistry, cell based life?
If you reject the above, why, why specifically — apart from mere talking points?
[For details cf here. Observe the comment by SB, a philosophically sophisticated observer, and a communication professional.]
The above shows that your imagined objections are overturned. There is no necessary infinite regress of causes for our observed cosmos and features in it that show signs of design [and that is a side track in any case as the issue is whether THIS ifrem per tested reliable signs is best understyood as designed], and there is no “absurd” inference that original life must have come from a non-living intelligence, your put up strawman.
For, if there is good reason to see that the contingent cosmos comes from a necessary being, and that in the case of our observed — fine tuned for C chemistry cell based life — cosmos, that necessary being manifests signs of purpose, knowledge, and creative action, that terminates the chain in something that is intelligent and self-moved, thus en-souled or living.
GEM of TKI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fuck does a match "try(ing)" to go out have to do with "the nature of external, necessary causal factors for a contingent being"? And where the fuck does gordo get the idea that everything he barfs is a concrete fact and must be believed??
And what is an "ifrem"?
gordon e. mullings of Montserrat is crazy (and apparently drunk), and getting crazier by the second.
