Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

God and Aristotle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Not really. Final causality does not necessarily entail creation by intelligent design. Modern apologists may use it in this way, but this is not Aristotle's understanding of final causality.
    Yes, final causality does not necessarily entail creation by an Intelligent Designer. The concept of Intelligent Design is based on the presupposition the an unintelligent universe requires and Intelligent Designer to move forward, according to Aquinas's fifth way. The modern Intelligent Design argument evolved from this argument proposing that the 'complexity' of life and apparent 'fine tuning' makes an Intelligent Designer necessary. The modern movement makes a vain effort to use science to support their argument.

    The proposed final causality of Aristotle does play a role in some of the presuppositions of Aquinas's arguments, and in some ways modern arguments for the existence of God. The concept of 'final causality' is proposed that Nature and Natural Law cannot be the primal cause of the nature of our physical existence.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-30-2015, 07:40 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Yes, final causality does not necessarily entail creation by an Intelligent Designer. The concept of Intelligent Design is based on the presupposition the an unintelligent universe requires and Intelligent Designer to move forward, according to Aquinas's fifth way. The modern Intelligent Design argument evolved from this argument proposing that the 'complexity' of life and apparent 'fine tuning' makes an Intelligent Designer necessary. The modern movement makes a vain effort to use science to support their argument.

      The proposed final causality of Aristotle does play a role in some of the presuppositions of Aquinas's arguments, and in some ways modern arguments for the existence of God. The concept of 'final causality' is proposed that Nature and Natural Law cannot be the primal cause of the nature of our physical existence.
      You still seem to be assuming, as do many, that the fifth way is about a Designer, which actually has no specific meaning unless you are speaking of a designer of a creation of some kind, someone who designs prior to implementing a design. That is not Thomas' fifth way, and it is certainly not Aristotle.
      Last edited by robrecht; 08-30-2015, 09:59 PM.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        You still seem to be assuming, as do many, that the fifth way is about a Designer, which actually has no specific meaning unless you are speaking of a designer of a creation of some kind, someone who designs prior to implementing a design. That is not Thomas' fifth way, and it is certainly not Aristotle.
        Maybe not Aristotle, but Aquinas's propose that an 'intelligence' is necessary to explain an unintelligent universe, and note the following highlighted.

        Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3



        The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Maybe not Aristotle, but Aquinas's propose that an 'intelligence' is necessary to explain an unintelligent universe, and note the following highlighted.

          Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3



          The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

          © Copyright Original Source

          With respect to the highlighted, I have already pointed out to you in the other thread that it is not a good translation of Thomas' Latin.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            With respect to the highlighted, I have already pointed out to you in the other thread that it is not a good translation of Thomas' Latin.
            If you believe this is so, provide a better on that is well accepted. The word may change, but I doubt the intent will change. I will withhold final judgment depending on the alternate translation provided.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              If you believe this is so, provide a better on that is well accepted. The word may change, but I doubt the intent will change. I will withhold final judgment depending on the alternate translation provided.
              On what grounds do you doubt it? Do you have any expertise in Latin? I do not have access to another translation, but I can provide you with the original Latin and my own very quick translation:
              Quinta via sumitur ex gubernatione rerum. Videmus enim quod aliqua quae cognitione carent, scilicet corpora naturalia, operantur propter finem, quod apparet ex hoc quod semper aut frequentius eodem modo operantur, ut consequantur id quod est optimum; unde patet quod non a casu, sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem. Ea autem quae non habent cognitionem, non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente et intelligente, sicut sagitta a sagittante. Ergo est aliquid intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem, et hoc dicimus Deum.
              http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1002.html

              A fifth way is summarized from the government of things. We see that things lacking thought, natural bodies, act for an end, which is evident from this, that they always or frequently act in the same manner, which results in that which is best; thus not by chance but from intention they achieve their end. Things which themselves do not possess thought do not tend or end in an end unless directed by another that is thinking and intelligent, as an arrow from one shooting an arrow. Thus there is some other intelligence by which all natural things are ordered toward an end, and this we call God.

              As I already mentioned in the other thread, the Latin makes no mention of design but rather 'intentionality' and acting toward an 'end' (propter/ad finem). This is typical final causality in Aristotle. All things act toward natural ends, and ultimately out of a kind of natural love or desire for the Unmoved Mover, who is the final cause for which all things act without the Unmoved Mover itself exercising any interest whatsoever in directing nature. The Unmoved Mover is Thought Thinking itself. It does not design the world, but the world acts toward natural ends, and ultimately toward the highest end. Thomas is somewhat less Aristotelian than Aristotle here so there is room for wondering if he might also be implicitly thinking of some kind of creation but there is certainly no explicit mention of a designer who created the world. Thomas explicitly agrees with Aristotle that such cannot be known through natural reason without revelation. Still there are perhaps a couple of hints that Thomas is indeed a Christian Aristotelian here. 'As an arrow from someone shooting an arrow' might provide just a hint of a prior act such as creation, but there is no mention of a designer who created the world. There is perhaps a little more of an allusion to a more Christian idea of God perhaps providentially governing things, more involved than Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, but again no mention of creation, a designer, design, or even providence per se. While one might wonder if Thomas' Christian faith is guiding his desired understanding of Aristotle, or that of John Damascene before him, one cannot legitimately read into Thomas' Latin what is not there explicitly, especially when we know for a fact that Thomas admits elsewhere that this is not something that can be known by natural reasoning.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                On what grounds do you doubt it? Do you have any expertise in Latin? I do not have access to another translation, but I can provide you with the original Latin and my own very quick translation:
                I have working knowledge of Latin from an early age, since I grew up in the Roman Church and attended their school system mostly in Latin America. My use of Latin since went to science and not theology. Actually, growing up with Spanish and with tortuous French taught in school, Latin is an easy language to learn. The Latin in the following citation is not that difficult.

                Quinta via sumitur ex gubernatione rerum. Videmus enim quod aliqua quae cognitione carent, scilicet corpora naturalia, operantur propter finem, quod apparet ex hoc quod semper aut frequentius eodem modo operantur, ut consequantur id quod est optimum; unde patet quod non a casu, sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem. Ea autem quae non habent cognitionem, non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente et intelligente, sicut sagitta a sagittante. Ergo est aliquid intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem, et hoc dicimus Deum.
                http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1002.html

                A fifth way is summarized from the government of things. We see that things lacking thought, natural bodies, act for an end, which is evident from this, that they always or frequently act in the same manner, which results in that which is best; thus not by chance but from intention they achieve their end. Things which themselves do not possess thought do not tend or end in an end unless directed by another that is thinking and intelligent, as an arrow from one shooting an arrow. Thus there is some other intelligence by which all natural things are ordered toward an end, and this we call God.

                As I already mentioned in the other thread, the Latin makes no mention of design but rather 'intentionality' and acting toward an 'end' (propter/ad finem). This is typical final causality in Aristotle. All things act toward natural ends, and ultimately out of a kind of natural love or desire for the Unmoved Mover, who is the final cause for which all things act without the Unmoved Mover itself exercising any interest whatsoever in directing nature. The Unmoved Mover is Thought Thinking itself. It does not design the world, but the world acts toward natural ends, and ultimately toward the highest end. Thomas is somewhat less Aristotelian than Aristotle here so there is room for wondering if he might also be implicitly thinking of some kind of creation but there is certainly no explicit mention of a designer who created the world. Thomas explicitly agrees with Aristotle that such cannot be known through natural reason without revelation. Still there are perhaps a couple of hints that Thomas is indeed a Christian Aristotelian here. 'As an arrow from someone shooting an arrow' might provide just a hint of a prior act such as creation, but there is no mention of a designer who created the world. There is perhaps a little more of an allusion to a more Christian idea of God perhaps providentially governing things, more involved than Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, but again no mention of creation, a designer, design, or even providence per se. While one might wonder if Thomas' Christian faith is guiding his desired understanding of Aristotle, or that of John Damascene before him, one cannot legitimately read into Thomas' Latin what is not there explicitly, especially when we know for a fact that Thomas admits elsewhere that this is not something that can be known by natural reasoning.
                I compared the two translations and find the difference only nuanced, and not significant considering the use of Latin in the time of Aquinas. You chose 'intention they achieve their end' to substitute for 'designedly.' I consider both conceptually as having the same meaning. Even though the word design or designedly is not a direct translation, I believe design is described in the citation. In Aquinas's argument the nature of our unintelligent physical existence must be the result of an intelligent 'intention to achieve the desired result,' and not by chance. The modern argument in ID simply describes their argument in modern terms, 'not by chance, but design' best explains the nature of our physical existence.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I have working knowledge of Latin from an early age, since I grew up in the Roman Church and attended their school system mostly in Latin America. My use of Latin since went to science and not theology. Actually, growing up with Spanish and with tortuous French taught in school, Latin is an easy language to learn. The Latin in the following citation is not that difficult.



                  I compared the two translations and find the difference only nuanced, and not significant considering the use of Latin in the time of Aquinas. You chose 'intention they achieve their end' to substitute for 'designedly.' I consider both conceptually as having the same meaning. Even though the word design or designedly is not a direct translation, I believe design is described in the citation. In Aquinas's argument the nature of our unintelligent physical existence must be the result of an intelligent 'intention to achieve the desired result,' and not by chance. The modern argument in ID simply describes their argument in modern terms, 'not by chance, but design' best explains the nature of our physical existence.
                  Correct me if I'm wrong (I do not read much apologetic stuff), but isn't the theory of Intelligent Design typically used to argue for some kind of doctrine of creation to explain the temporal origin of the world/universe? Neither Aristotle or Thomas argue for this. Thomas believed this, but did not think it could be known through reason, but only from revelation. Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Correct me if I'm wrong (I do not read much apologetic stuff), but isn't the theory of Intelligent Design typically used to argue for some kind of doctrine of creation to explain the temporal origin of the world/universe? Neither Aristotle or Thomas argue for this. Thomas believed this, but did not think it could be known through reason, but only from revelation. Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?
                    The basis of ID has focused more on the problems of complexity in life, which they claim cannot be explained by a natural (unintelligent source) explanation, and unexplainable natural origins of life (abiogenesis). Philosophically they promote the necessity of 'fine tuning,' applying to certain features of the universe,' but their focus of trying to develop scientific research is Intelligent Design in terms of issues of the nature of life and humanity.

                    The best source for modern arguments for ID is the Discovery Institute. The following is an exert from their website.

                    Source: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/



                    Questions about Intelligent Design

                    1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
                    The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

                    2. Is intelligent design science?
                    Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. For further information, see Casey Luskin’s article on how intelligent design follows the scientific method and Stephen Meyer’s comments on why intelligent design is science.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    They claim to have a secular mission and foundation, which is a farce.

                    I do not believe their focus is on whether our universe is finite nor infinite.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 07:23 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The basis of ID has focused more on the problems of complexity in life, which they claim cannot be explained by a natural (unintelligent source) explanation, and unexplainable natural origins of life (abiogenesis).

                      The best source for modern arguments for ID is the Discovery Institute. The following is an exert from their website.

                      Source: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/



                      Questions about Intelligent Design

                      1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
                      The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

                      2. Is intelligent design science?
                      Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. For further information, see Casey Luskin’s article on how intelligent design follows the scientific method and Stephen Meyer’s comments on why intelligent design is science.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      They claim to have a secular mission and foundation, which is a farce.

                      I do not believe their focus is on whether our universe is finite nor infinite.
                      My question was, "Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?"

                      Saying that you do not believe their focus is on whether our universe is finite nor infinite is not really an answer to my question.

                      Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        My question was, "Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?"

                        Saying that you do not believe their focus is on whether our universe is finite nor infinite is not really an answer to my question.

                        Are you aware of Intelligent Design being used as an argument for an eternally existing universe?
                        No, if you believe so, reference please. I did a search of their website and found nothing.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-04-2015, 08:24 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          No, if you believe so, reference please. I did a search of their website and found nothing.
                          No, I don't believe so. In fact, their educational materials do indeed address the beginning of the universe. I suspect most views of intelligent design are based upon a creative designer that should not be shoe-horned into Aristotle's understanding of final causality or Thomas' use of final causality in his fifth way of knowing God through his effects.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            No, I don't believe so. In fact, their educational materials do indeed address the beginning of the universe. I suspect most views of intelligent design are based upon a creative designer that should not be shoe-horned into Aristotle's understanding of final causality or Thomas' use of final causality in his fifth way of knowing God through his effects.
                            The only reference was a discussion with De. Rob Sheldon that described a finite universe, which is not really relevant to the Intelligent Design argument. The argument for an infinite or finite physical existence is a separate argument from the fifth way nor the modern Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute. No shoe horning found here. I believe the Intelligent Design is a modern continuation of the Aquinas argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Design, because there is not a satisfactory natural explanation for a unintelligent physical existence.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The only reference was a discussion with De. Rob Sheldon that described a finite universe, which is not really relevant to the Intelligent Design argument. The argument for an infinite or finite physical existence is a separate argument from the fifth way nor the modern Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute. No shoe horning found here. I believe the Intelligent Design is a modern continuation of the Aquinas argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Design, because there is not a satisfactory natural explanation for a unintelligent physical existence.
                              I looked at one of their educational videos and they do indeed address the beginning of the universe. Aristotle and Thomas both agree that intelligence is necessary as a final cause but do not argue that this is related to any beginning of the world or universe that can be known by human reason alone.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I looked at one of their educational videos and they do indeed address the beginning of the universe. Aristotle and Thomas both agree that intelligence is necessary as a final cause but do not argue that this is related to any beginning of the world or universe that can be known by human reason alone.
                                I did not say they do not address this, in fact, I acknowledged it. I said their primary focus and in fact all their work is devoted to justifying 'Intelligent Design.' I see no references where they attempt to use logic nor science to argue for a finite universe.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X