If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

hope is not part of the physical universe so it cant be natural.

Hope is not made of physical things, it’s not a physical object, so what sense does it make to say that physics is the ultimate cause of it’s possibility and existence, that such is ultimately the manifestation of blind physical forces.You are assuming the primacy of physical reality and you are trying to force things into it that are not identical to it.

We have agreed that the universe may be completely natural so everything in the unverse is completely natural and i am completely natural as i am part of the physical universe. I am made up of bits of the physical universe. But then if i have a sensation i call hope then we cant say its natural any more?? We have to say its super natural?? We have to have some thing supernatural or i can have that feeling?? If thats what you believe then ok.

 

[IWantGod]

But then if i have a sensation i call hope then we cant say its natural any more?? We have to say its super natural??

Why can’t we call it a blind natural process made entirely of physical objects? We have just gone over that.

We have agreed that the universe may be completely -

Anything that is physical intrinsically involves and is comprised of blind natural processes and forces. It’s activity is completely natural, and is not acting toward any goal. If you want to believe that hope is simply the activity of blind natural processes, that is up to you. But don’t expect me to think that idea is rational or intelligible in any sense, or even scientific, because it involves a contradiction.

 

[Frankenfurter]

There is a beautiful proof of the fact that the more we learn, the less we know.

It goes like this: Imagine a sphere that contain all that we know. As we learn more the sphere grows. But so does the surface of the sphere that interfaces to the unknown.

The more we learn, the more our awareness of the size of the unknown becomes.

Any philosophy that assumes it knows everything is not consistent with this simple notion.

If science proved intelligent design, then the sphere of the known would have to had to increased to include evidence of this design. But then the surface area of the unknown would have increased as well. That would create new unknowns that we are not aware of now, and those new unknowns would lead to other explanations of this design other than God.

Our relationship to God would still be one of a Father to a son. It would be based on love, salvation, faith and mercy, but these would have changed from the way we think of them now.

 

[EndTimes]

[If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?]

Although encompassing them and more …
… Intelligence Itself … lies outside the domain of science and maths …

That said, it’s far easier to evidence DESIGN … and then let the cookies fall as they may re: HOW?