XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:53:42 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 13/10/2014 7:00 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:08:37 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>    Yes, I agree this is absurd. However, is there some _indirect_   
   >>>> evidence which can be seen as intelligent involvement in the formation   
   >>>> of the universe and nature? There does exist, what certain scientist say   
   >>>> "appears" to be design in nature, however, you will find few, if any   
   >>>> scientist who will acknowledge this is _actual_ design. Design infers a   
   >>>> designer   
   >>>   
   >>> It also infers a specific problem that the design addresses, assuming   
   >>> that you're using "design" in a non-aesthetic sense. So tell me, what   
   >>> problems does God have that he would need to design anything?   
   >>   
   >> How do you think you mean "problems". Why do you think it would have to   
   >> involve problems for God in order for him to produce and influence the   
   >> development of life on this planet or anywhere else?   
   >   
   >That's an important aspect of (the non-aesthetic usage of) 'design'. Ask   
   >any engineer. Ask any architect. Ask any software developer. Ask anyone   
   >who designs on a regular basis.   
      
       So it's in the same way that anyone gets out of bed, puts on their clothes,   
   brushes their teeth, and deals with problems throughout the day, and evening,   
   and even when they go back to bed again. Now that that's been established I see   
   that what I was really wondering is why you think God would have problems that   
   would make him "need" to design what, if you feel it would require some sort of   
   need?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)