R
rossum
Guest
Then again design fails. For many billions of years after the Big Bang the universe was not suitable to sustain either life or rational existence.The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant because the purpose of Design is to sustain life and a rational existence.
I note that you fail to answer my point that your proposed designer is incapable of changing its design. Hence we can deduce that the designer is not omnipotent, because there is something which is perfectly logically possible, and which human designers can easily do, which your designer cannot do. That is a big problem for a theistic designer.
And your theory of design is so perfect that you will never need to modify it? By the very fact that it is a theory, you show that it can be modified. Again, science and design give us the same answer so this point does not distinguish between them.All scientific propositions are provisional and subject to revision in the light of further evidence whereas Design is not.
How is this relevant. You said “never”. I am asking how we can test “never” without taking infinite time?In that case many neuroscientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!
No, but it is irrelevant to deciding between science and design.Is everything outside the realm of science irrelevant to the interpretation of reality?!
Again, the problem is how to test your “never” within a finite time.In that case many AI scientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!
Assuming that both Democrats and Republicans are rational beings then your test is useless, since they will not agree on anything. Requiring 100% agreement reduces your test to irrelevance.All rational beings!
Be careful of using universal qualifiers, like “always”, in a philosophical argument.Hardly - unless your faith in Buddhism is waning! That statement was specifically addressed to you (as you could have inferred by the exclamation mark.)
rossum