Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Sair]

My point remains that our models of many aspects of physical reality have extremely high degree of mathematical accuracy which supports the view that the universe is intelligible to a considerable extent and our power of reason is confirmed by the remarkable success of science. Moreover we don’t even need a model of ourselves because we have direct knowledge of our mental activity.

Actually - and again, apologies for jumping in, but I felt this particular branch of the subject to be within my ability to contribute - I think there is every likelihood that what we subjectively experience as mental activity is, in fact, a model of neurological processes. I don’t experience an awareness of the actual firing of my synapses every time I have a thought or feel an impulse or emotion. It takes external observation to ascertain that this is what happens when we experience certain mental states.

And the fact that the universe should be susceptible to a degree of understanding by beings that have evolved within it certainly is remarkable (and jolly useful, from our perspective) but not from the perspective of supposing the universe to have any overarching purpose; it is not something that necessarily suggests the universe was designed with beings such as ourselves in mind, if there was any such thing as a mind involved in the origin of the universe in any case. The reverse - that we evolved the capacity to comprehend natural phenomena - is more parsimonious a supposition. If natural order exists by virtue of unthinking particles behaving in certain ways because they cannot do otherwise - as seems to be the case from a multitude of physical observations - then the fact that such natural order can produce self-awareness is the remarkable thing. This ceases entirely to be a matter of any great moment if we assume an intelligent designer.

Our insight and understanding of ourselves are correct without sensory information. The superiority of particular senses is far outweighed by our power of insight and understanding.

This completely overlooks the fact that many people lack self-awareness to any great extent, and that our awareness of ourselves occurs in relation to our awareness of our surroundings and how we fit into them. Internal and external awareness are more connected than you seem to acknowledge.

There is a constant consensus on the physical constants! Otherwise the remarkable success of science is as inexplicable and as absurd as the hypothesis that insight and understanding are derived from events which lack insight and understanding…

The consensus comes from the fact that the physical constants have never yet been observed to be violated by any phenomenon.

And you have yet to offer an explanation as to why it should be considered absurd for complex interactions producing self-awareness, insight and understanding to be the result of unthinking particles. The only explanation I can imagine is that insight and understanding are considered to be indivisible, simple phenomena, yet this notion seems completely absurd as well. Why else do we have such a long period of infancy and childhood development in order to establish our full intellectual and emotional powers? If insight and understanding are not the result of complex interactions and long periods of development, why aren’t we born with the immediate ability to read Latin or solve quadratic equations or, indeed, comprehend quantum mechanics?

The fact that individuals can perform great feats of intellectual dexterity and deep comprehension - not to take any credit from those individuals, mind you, but nearly every great scholar has acknowledged, as Newton did, that he or she has stood on the shoulders of giants - is no less a collective effort amongst human thinkers than the first ape to stand upright and free its hands for other actions was a cumulative progression of natural evolutionary adjustments, or than the first life was very likely a result of extensive - if unconscious - trial and error in chemical combination. There is no reason to see ourselves as discontinuous with the vast tapestry of nature, and I, for one, believe we lose out if we do so.

 

[oval]

The fact that 85% of the members of the National Academy of Science do not agree with ID, leads me think think the assertion that the evidence is just slightly less than “overwhelming”.
Most of the space in the universe has no life, most of the time of the universe (zero to 80 decimal places), will have no life, most of the genetic material in our genes is left-over “junk”,
perhaps might lead one to a different view.

I agree 100%…reducing chemistry-biology is illogical from the outset. I feel it is a discrimination out-casting the form and order in abundance throughout the universe.Looking for design in chemistry-biology is like looking for design in 10000000 different universe’s with different story’s The development of life simply reflects a rock going through space and hitting its found mother rock…but…this time with found element and constant light in the mix…hence the unique non-repeatable product man…by consciousness-memory…with order in the mix as well due to the completion of mass in unity with light. …We are …light found mass…<unity<and assume the order …we are mini universe’sThe principals of design are less hazy in the order found in galaxy’s.

Chemistry bio congests the main subject, order, consequence and structure. It adds a never ending marvel opening the door to a never ending marvel of interpretation, “away” from the real subject…

On another note noticed in the thread

I saw a thought about the energy adding up to zero…Its easy to understand but there is a major flaw. If the thinker wants to consider energy in the creation and start adding things up…then he will need to know exactly what the energy or momentum is with respects to two things.

1. The expansion itself.
2. The environment of the expansion…in that…it allows the expansion to take place.

Above conditions not only are part of creation, but comply with creation and are energy inclined in principal…therefore the concept offered in this thread is sitting on the redundant cabinet waiting patiently to be possibly corrected…please know on a lighter note, I will catch any fancy talk trying to wiggle the concept back onto the playing board
If I’m wrong …fine thats great…but if not , we must toss all inference. Don’t forget the oven needs to be turned on for the buns to rise, and by virtue of the mechanism of the expansion and motion itself in energy, a mechanism for the expansion needs to be factored in before closing the book on the zero factor.

( that was a good question you asked up there Plato…I think some form of activity in intelligence-consciousness needs to be apprehended in the operations of the universe…looking for a form of participation on a level which shows to be fluid or consistent but lively I think…otherwise there is no need as its said…so looking for a need to be filled would seem to be the way to go…what can we find that happens, and invokes a need where their is no other explaining outcome in success, other then some foreign participation…order , galaxy formation for myself is the way to go.

 

[rossum]

My point remains that our models of many aspects of physical reality have extremely high degree of mathematical accuracy which supports the view that the universe is intelligible to a considerable extent and our power of reason is confirmed by the remarkable success of science.

I disagree. The intelligibility of the models support the idea that the models are intelligible. The universe is not the model, it is different. The properties of one do not always transfer to the other. As shown by gravity, the one phenomenon, gravity, can be described by very different models. One phenomenon, many models.

Moreover we don’t even need a model of ourselves because we have direct knowledge of our mental activity.
Ssensory modelling does not account for insight and understanding.

The Buddhist analysis of “self” is very different from your analysis. Another case of different models with different properties.

The origin of the ability to devise and formulate purposes requires explanation.

That ability is an emergent property of living organisms. Again you are reifying and thinking in essentialist terms. I do not reify, and I do not deal in essentials. In Thomist terms, I only see Accident, not Substance.

The fact remains that the remarkable success of science is compelling evidence that our models accurately describe many aspects of physical reality.

Agreed. But the models remain models.

There is a constant consensus on the physical constants! Otherwise the remarkable success of science is as inexplicable and as absurd as the hypothesis that insight and understanding are derived from events which lack insight and understanding…

Again, you are indulging in essentialist thinking. Draw back, and think about emergent properties. I am myself, not my parents. Yet I emerged from my parents. There was no “me” inside my parents. Insight and understanding can likewise emerge from things that are neither insight nor understanding.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’ll see your Wolpert and raise you a Marks.

Insufficient. David Wolpert was one of the authors of the NFL theorems. If he says they do not apply, then they do not apply. It is as simple as that.

This article by Dembski and Marks addresses your concerns about the applicability of NFL theorem and counters with the idea of “Conservation of Information” that covers what NFL theorems miss.

Conservation of information is false. Many physical processes can increase information. Rain falling can increase information:

I’m afraid I don’t agree with your first premise here. Whenever I set the groundwork for information in a discussion of ID, I make clear that information happens when there is a reduction of possibilities. Initially, there is a range of live possibilities. Later, one of these possibilities is realized. Information happens in that reduction and realization.

Now, the individuation of these possibilities and the causal process involved in their realization need involve no external intelligence. Tomorrow, it may rain or it may not rain. Both are live possibilities, and the fact that they are live possibilities does not depend on my, or any other external intelligence, drawing the distinction between rain and no rain. Moreover, the causal processes responsible for rain do not presuppose an external intelligence (at least not obviously so, though one might argue that if God created the world and providentially guides it, intelligence is involved even in the rain that falls).

Source: William Dembski uncommondescent.com/design-inference/bill-dembski-is-there-any-such-thing-as-information-in-the-abstract-or-is-it-always-information-for-an-agent/

The key question, one that you keep skirting, is this: “Are we ever justified in positing an intelligent cause even though we have no evidence concerning the identity of the agent that brought about the effect in question?”

Yes. However, in such a case, other causes may also be considered. For example, when Pulsars were first discovered, the “LGM” (Little Green Men) hypothesis was one of the explanations considered. Perfectly good science. That hypothesis didn’t make it in that case, but in principle it could. It lost out because a good natural explanation (rotating neutron stars) was preferred.

Your original point (al la Dawkins)was that Intelligent Design is a non-starter because if we posit an intelligent cause we must also identify the intelligent agent responsible otherwise a claim of intelligent cause is not credible.

We already have a good explanation for the origin of species, evolution. We are working on an explanation for the origin of life, abiogenesis. Neither is yet complete, especially abiogenesis, but neither has yet met any insurmountable problems. Any proposed replacement is going to have to provide much more detail that ID is currently prepared to do. For example, when did the designers start working? Have they finished? Are they still working now? How do they manipulate physical molecules of RNA/DNA? Science is very interested in detail. ID seems to be reluctant to provide it, and that makes it difficult for science to take ID seriously.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

My point remains that our models of many aspects of physical reality have extremely high degree of mathematical accuracy which supports the view that the universe is intelligible to a considerable extent and our power of reason is confirmed by the remarkable success of science.

By their fruits you shall know them…

If you deny that the universe is intelligible to a considerable extent and that our power of reason is confirmed by the remarkable success of science there is no point in discussing the matter further.

Moreover we don’t even need a model of ourselves because we have direct knowledge of our mental activity.
Sensory modelling does not account for insight and understanding.

The Buddhist analysis of “self” is very different from your analysis. Another case of different models with different properties.

If you believe sensory modelling accounts for insight and understanding there is no point in discussing the matter further.

The origin of the ability to devise and formulate purposes requires explanation.

That ability is an emergent property of living organisms. Again you are reifying and thinking in essentialist terms. I do not reify, and I do not deal in essentials. In Thomist terms, I only see Accident, not Substance.

If you believe insight and understanding are produced by things which lack insight and understanding - and persons are merely "bundles of perceptions " - there is no point in discussing the matter further.

The fact remains that the remarkable success of science is compelling evidence that our models accurately describe many aspects of physical reality.
Agreed. But the models remain models.

The fact that models are models does not alter the significance of the fact that our power of reason is responsible for remarkable success of science .

There is a constant consensus on the physical constants! Otherwise the remarkable success of science is as inexplicable and as absurd as the hypothesis that insight and understanding are derived from events which lack insight and understanding…

Again, you are indulging in essentialist thinking.

Again, you are indulging in labelling rather than addressing the issue.

Draw back, and think about emergent properties. I am myself, not my parents. Yet I emerged from my parents. There was no “me” inside my parents. Insight and understanding can likewise emerge from things that are neither insight nor understanding.I disagree.

Non sequitur. Persons are not material objects.

The intelligibility of the models support the idea that the models are intelligible. The universe is not the model, it is different. The properties of one do not always transfer to the other. As shown by gravity, the one phenomenon, gravity, can be described by very different models. One phenomenon, many models.

**Personal **reality is not a **physical **phenomenon. Materialism and Buddhism are odd bedfellows!

 

[fnr]

Great post fnr !

I’m one of the ones with no education in these things but enjoy the exploration in the subject and had no trouble following, Been through the idea’s in the links so didn’t check them fr now. I always wondered when exactly photosynthesis took place… due to some of my rough shaping.

I have a few idea’s which get into the statistical scheme of things and the nature of order, so this is super interesting and I’m sure there are some wonderings which you have thought about.I don’t want to expand any further for now of course plus will be busy for a bit,wanted to appreciate the good food for thought…

Yes, oval, you’re right! Photosynthesis is a very key thing in the shaping of this planet. Most of the gaseous oxygen on the planet comes from photosynthesis, and that was true starting about the time that life first appeared. The presence of oxygen was a game-changer for everything on the planet’s surface or in the oceans. New rocks formed. New forms of life evolved. All sorts of cool stuff.

Ah, statistics. So very useful!

In any contentious issue, I like to bring data into the conversation. This topic area is one such contentious issue. Otherwise, conversations are a lot about preconceptions.

Hmm… what else might be telling? The rover that’s just getting started on Mars may find evidence of past life there, but probably not directly. But if it did, wouldn’t that throw a bee in everyone’s bonnet?
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/30048/original/mars-rover-curiosity-mount-sharp-route.jpg

 

[tonyrey]

The truth and beauty of Christ’s teaching **alone **are powerful evidence for Design but taken in conjunction with its correspondence to His life and death the evidence is overwhelming.

“Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin?”

John 8:46

 

[oval]

The truth and beauty of Christ’s teaching **alone **are powerful evidence for Design but taken in conjunction with its correspondence to His life and death the evidence is overwhelming.

No doubt about it Tony R and a must for appreciation. You made a great point in the emergent idea and I believe it can be addressed for solid wonder but in a different way that would stumble opposition as said in rebut. Also it gives me a chance to explain the thrust and manner in some of my writings which may seem bold. In guilty with an explanation I can say my tone in voice is not discernible in these things and the style and info in approach is educational and much appreciated. My style in approach is different, design we know has many styles and its in all the styles and color that allows the garden to be what it is. So apologizing for any demarcation in contrasting but complimentary to be sure data and info.

Anyway before I go over to that music thread which I have been reading I wanted to share some info I found out a few weeks ago:

Scientists are saying in their cautious approach concerning the DM that they are showing a possibility that DM is connected with the behavior of galaxies and…that there may be elements of temp variation in this whole project.This seems exciting with respects to what the possible temp variation which takes up so much of the known, could be interacting with. Is there a proximity idea radiating temp properties interacting with the universe? Not jumping to any conclusions what so ever but it is an intriguing bit of an update in the science… As mentioned earlier I’m going to be busy re job related responsibility and will be a few days anyway

( Great pic of mars fnr…maybe if there are some critters up there, they’d be interested in a possible leader looking for a new job come fall. I’m concerned about these things.

 

[oval]

The truth and beauty of Christ’s teaching **alone **are powerful evidence for Design but taken in conjunction with its correspondence to His life and death the evidence is overwhelming.

John 8:46

No doubt about it Tony R and a must for appreciation. You made a great point in the emergent idea and I believe it can be addressed for solid wonder but in a different way that would stumble opposition as said in rebut. Also it gives me a chance to explain the thrust and manner in some of my writings which may seem bold. In guilty with an explanation I can say my tone in voice is not discernible in these things and the style and info in approach is educational and much appreciated. My style in approach is different, design we know has many styles and its in all the styles and color that allows the garden to be what it is. So apologizing for any demarcation in textures
Anyway before I go over to that music thread which I have been reading I wanted to share some info I found out a few weeks ago:

Scientists are saying in their cautious approach concerning the DM that they are showing a possibility that DM is connected with the behavior of galaxies and…that there may be elements of temp variation in this whole project.This seems exciting with respects to what the possible temp variation which takes up so much of the known, could be interacting with. Is there a proximity idea radiating temp properties interacting with the universe? Not jumping to any conclusions what so ever but it is an intriguing bit of an update in the science at least to my limited understandings. As mentioned earlier I’m going to be busy re job related responsibility and will be a few days anyway

( Great pic of mars fnr…maybe if there are some critters up there they’d be interested in the possibility of a leader looking for a new job

 

[tonyrey]

No doubt about it Tony R and a must for appreciation. You made a great point in the emergent idea and I believe it can be addressed for solid wonder but in a different way that would stumble opposition as said in rebut. Also it gives me a chance to explain the thrust and manner in some of my writings which may seem bold. In guilty with an explanation I can say my tone in voice is not discernible in these things and the style and info in approach is educational and much appreciated. My style in approach is different, design we know has many styles and its in all the styles and color that allows the garden to be what it is. So apologizing for any demarcation in textures
Anyway before I go over to that music thread which I have been reading I wanted to share some info I found out a few weeks ago:

Scientists are saying in their cautious approach concerning the DM that they are showing a possibility that DM is connected with the behavior of galaxies and…that there may be elements of temp variation in this whole project.This seems exciting with respects to what the possible temp variation which takes up so much of the known, could be interacting with. Is there a proximity idea radiating temp properties interacting with the universe? Not jumping to any conclusions what so ever but it is an intriguing bit of an update in the science at least to my limited understandings. As mentioned earlier I’m going to be busy re job related responsibility and will be a few days anyway

( Great pic of mars fnr…maybe if there are some critters up there they’d be interested in the possibility of a leader looking for a new job

Thanks for your appreciative comments.

No need to apologise. Variety is the spice of life!

 

[Sister_Terese]

Hmm… what else might be telling? The rover that’s just getting started on Mars may find evidence of past life there, but probably not directly. But if it did, wouldn’t that throw a bee in everyone’s bonnet?
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/30048/original/mars-rover-curiosity-mount-sharp-route.jpg

And that is precisely why so many are hell-bent on finding water…somehow that proves that life exists or existed, and SOMEHOW that translates into there being no God. That’s what it all boils down to.

 

[tonyrey]

Hmm… what else might be telling? The rover that’s just getting started on Mars may find evidence of past life there, but probably not directly. But if it did, wouldn’t that throw a bee in everyone’s bonnet?
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/30048/original/mars-rover-curiosity-mount-sharp-route.jpg
And that is precisely why so many are hell-bent on finding water…somehow that proves that life exists or existed, and SOMEHOW that translates into there being no God. That’s what it all boils down to.

The teaching of Jesus transcends all human discoveries because it applies to every person in heaven, on earth or anywhere else. Love knows no barriers or boundaries!

 

[tonyrey]

And that is precisely why so many are hell-bent on finding water…somehow that proves that life exists or existed, and SOMEHOW that translates into there being no God. That’s what it all boils down to.

It all boils down to precisely nothing!

 

[tonyrey]

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.

St Matthew’s Gospel 5:3-10

This is an outstanding example of not only the truth and beauty of Christ’s teaching but its originality. It highlights the** purpose **of life and how it can be achieved. It is directly opposed to the values of those who stake everything on what happens in this world. In the context of eternity the false values of power, wealth and possessions are exposed for what they are: obstacles and handicaps to spiritual development.

“Love your neighbour as yourself”. Paradoxically we have to hate ourselves in order to love ourselves. If we make no effort to overcome our faults and failings we become detestable rather than lovable. We have to experience suffering before we can feel real compassion for those who are afflicted. Then we are liberated from preoccupation with ourselves and our desires.

Provided we have the basic necessities of life the less we possess the richer we become! We are liberated from the burdens and barriers which separate us from others. That is why the first Christians sold what they had and shared everything. We cannot return to that ideal but it is not necessary. Jesus told us to be **poor in spirit **because in reality we own nothing: everything is a gift from God.

Our birth isn’t an accident nor is the outcome of our life. Each virtue brings its own reward so that we get precisely what we deserve. The first and last Beatitudes have the same final consequence: “the kingdom of heaven” where there is justice, mercy, peace and consolation - and, above all, love. To see God, the Source of all Perfection, is the culmination of His** purpose** in creating us. That is why St Augustine wrote:

You have made us** for yourself**, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.

Confessions c.397

It is the only convincing reason why God designed and created us in His image and likeness. Any other outcome would be a supreme anticlimax…

 

[tonyrey]

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.

The alternative to Design:

Foolish are the poor in spirit: for there is no kingdom of heaven.
Foolish are the meek: for they shall be exploited.
Foolish are they who mourn: for they shall never be comforted.
Foolish are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for justice is an illusion.
Foolish are the merciful: for they shall be exploited.
Foolish are the clean of heart: for they shall see nothing.
Foolish are the peacemakers: for they shall be frustrated.
Foolish are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for justice is an illusion.

Wise are they that strive for power: for they shall have power on earth.
Wise are they that are not meek: for they shall obtain wealth.
Wise are they that don’t mourn: for they shall not be comforted.
Wise are they that don’t believe in justice: for they shall not be disappointed.
Wise are they that are not merciful: for they shall rarely be shown mercy.
Wise are they that are not clean of heart: for there is no God.
Wise are they that are not peacemakers: for they are not frustrated.
Wise are they that avoid persecution for justice’ sake, for there is nothing after death.

 

[fnr]

It all boils down to precisely nothing!

Absolutely! It just shows that God planted the seeds for life everywhere!

 

[greylorn]

“In the absence of a brain, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form H2O, not H6O or HO2. When you calculate the odds of a few billion atoms behaving in exactly that way, you get the usual hugely improbable number. Chemistry does not require design, all it requires is valency.”

I’m not sure I understand your point, so I am going to respond based on what I THINK you are saying.

Atoms and the electrons in each valence do not happen by chance. One elemental atom can never be another elemental atom. When atoms share electrons in the outer valence to form chemical changes, what causes these electrons to do so? Some scientists say it is a magnetic/electronic attraction. Well then, what causes the attraction? I believe in the Big Bang theory–but not the conventional concept of it. I believe that God created all things from nothing and brought them into being…perhaps a BIG BANG. It seems to me that as we go back further and further, at some point there has to be a question of WHAT CAUSED THE FIRST CAUSE? There can only be ONE FIRST CAUSE because if there isn’t one cause, then whatever came before it IS the FIRST CAUSE. Scientists have not been able to answer that question because that would mean considering a Creator or Designer. To many scientists, that is anathema.

I am not a scholar or a philosopher. I can’t debate the issue on the scholarly level that most appear to do here. All I know is that until the First Cause can be scientifically determined absolutely (which would be to acknowledge a Supreme Being as creator), I simply believe that God exists, created all things out of nothing, and keeps everything in existence and in perfect harmony.

Sister Terese,
Your arguments from non-accident are intuitive, and reminiscent of the feelings that guided my own thoughts a half-century ago. IMO yours are correct.

However, you might consider rethinking your belief that the only possible first cause is that which is taught by Catholicism or any other contemporary religion. The belief that an unknowable, unverifiable, non-physical creator suddenly decided to create the universe is, after all, functionally identical to the notion that a mysterious “physical singularity” suddenly appeared out of nowhere and exploded, thus forming the universe.

Thus, at their core level, the belief in an almighty but unknowable God is functionally identical to cosmology’s silly Big Bang theory. Neither is verifiable.

However, there is an excellent theory which is derived from classical physics and the essential observation that human consciousness exists and is not explained by modern science, which avoids the shared pitfalls of conventional religion and modern science.

It proposes that two things, two causes, were required to create the universe and ourselves.

 

[greylorn]

The teaching of Jesus transcends all human discoveries because it applies to every person in heaven, on earth or anywhere else. Love knows no barriers or boundaries!

From my best readings, it seems that Jesus Christ taught fine points of moral behavior that the Jews had ignored, and some general rules for how humans might best get along and find their proper places in society. He also taught capitalism, and unfairness.

Christ did not discuss the purpose of human life, much less its origin.

If little green men climb onto the Mars Rover and place excrement in its detectors, thus providing DNA samples, we will know no more about the origin and purpose of life than we do today.

If they display samples of their scriptures in view of the machine’s detectors, all we will get is more stuff that some intelligent beings made up in the process of trying to figure out their purpose, just like we get here.

The only difference is that there will be more useless data for dimwitted intellectuals to transform into speculative nonsense, just like they already do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

From my best readings, it seems that Jesus Christ taught fine points of moral behavior that the Jews had ignored, and some general rules for how humans might best get along and find their proper places in society. He also taught capitalism, and unfairness.

Christ did not discuss the purpose of human life, much less its origin.

He did. …that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21) Our ultimate purpose is union with God.

If little green men climb onto the Mars Rover and place excrement in its detectors, thus providing DNA samples, we will know no more about the origin and purpose of life than we do today.

If they display samples of their scriptures in view of the machine’s detectors, all we will get is more stuff that some intelligent beings made up in the process of trying to figure out their purpose, just like we get here.

The only difference is that there will be more useless data for dimwitted intellectuals to transform into speculative nonsense, just like they already do.

And your speculations are not nonsense because… ?

 

[ReapReason]

From my best readings, it seems that Jesus Christ taught fine points of moral behavior that the Jews had ignored, and some general rules for how humans might best get along and find their proper places in society. He also taught capitalism, and unfairness. .

Christ taught Capitalism and unfairness? On what basis do you ascribe to this opinion?