Originally posted by josephwHow do you think that argument would go? Observations of certain regularities do not, on their own, justify any conclusions about the origins of the universe. You'll need some ancillary premises to get to the conclusion that the universe was created by an agent. What do you take those ancillary premises to be?
But you don't think those observations justify identifying that the universe was created?
Originally posted by bbarr"Certain regularities" meaning the look of design? That the universe appears designed doesn't justify it was created? You need more proof?
How do you think that argument would go? Observations of certain regularities do not, on their own, justify any conclusions about the origins of the universe. You'll need some ancillary premises to get to the conclusion that the universe was created by an agent. What do you take those ancillary premises to be?
The ancillary premise is a final authority.
Originally posted by JS357This whole forum is about design. Every argument is over design. The question is who's design?
We have a perfectly serviceable thread running, about design.
Is there a final authority on all matters spiritual? If not, then there's no argument to be had. We're just pissing into the wind.
Originally posted by josephwOh you agree the question of whether the universe was designed is spiritual not scientific. We are together on this
This whole forum is about design. Every argument is over design. The question is who's design?
Is there a final authority on all matters spiritual? If not, then there's no argument to be had. We're just pissing into the wind.
But: "Every argument is over design."??