Statement: “The validity of this version of the ‘Design Argument” for God’s
>>existence depends essentially upon “watches, and worlds” being
>>indistinguishable. Does that bother anyone else? That’s my question to
Reaction: Of course it should bother any ‘objective’ human observer who honestly seeks for the closest description of sense phenomenal reality and an explanation of all beyond human sensory resolution, to an absolute, invariant reality. But we keep hopelessly in a cycle riding the special Merry Go Round of horse carriages where sometimes the carriage is either drawn by the horse (as in experiential phenomenal reality descriptions) or the horse is drawn by the carriage (as in probable and non testable, wishful thinking mathematical logic). And one keeps wondering how and when can the participants honestly and objectively agree on some basic premises (polymath dream?) and move forward to the next chapter of p
roviding new argument in defense of their respective specialty views on the very same sensory descriptive ontology and extrasensory explanatory epistemology we all witness in our midst. Then we respectfully share or learn, as the case may be. Is that so difficult to work as a group? With notably few exceptions, we keep being repetitious without providing new foundations in a most boring ride in the Merry Go Round….
Can we not agree on the anthropocentric premise that we, the perceptually/conceptually limited human beings are the exclusive historical narrators of our experience on our vital earth environment? That the very first historical account of ongoing, real time reality had to be sensory-experienced before it could be explained to self and others? Does that not lead to positing that a physical brain had to be previously in place such that distinguishable and important, life preserving experiences can be recorded as memories (incarnate), i.e., embodied, as neuron networks to be accessed (main ‘mind’ activity) when needed?. Because it is impossible for that first human experience to be communicated to self and others before it happens? Is it that difficult to conceive the communication media invariably reflects an individualized genetic and an acquired component that shapes your mindset frame of reference and sometimes may even cause cognitive dissidence when environmental reality evolves and affects your life experiences? I can continue on and on trying to move this discussion onto becoming a worthwhile learning experience for all.
The viral debate going on in practically all Christian assemblies everywhere exemplifies the slow but relentless doctrinal update where the new Jesuit Pope carries the baton. This is not a surprise because of the way Jesuits are trained under Augustinian tradition (“Seeing is believing”) and encouraging intellectual critical analytical biblical debates to reach a synthesis of both the ongoing pragmatic quotidian life now & the ideal trans-phenomenal reality we experience and conceptualize beyond the realm of our sensory resolution faculties to perceptually describe and communicate in our primitive language to self and others. .., from Leibniz (Monads) to Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) to Wittgenstein (The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein) to Chalmers (The Conscious Mind) to Fodor (Language of Thought), Chomsky (A New Synthesis of Language and Mind), Ledoux (The Emotional Brain, Synaptic Self) and few others. The very survival imperative of the human species, the exclusive historically-recorded narrators of the seen and the unseen and the sophisticated civilization (both the experimental information explosion and even the ineffable but consistent occurrences we all experience suggesting a theosophical manifold) may be at stake when we consider the relatively inferior adaptive capacity of humans when compared to other highly evolved Homo Sapiens (Bonobos, Neandarthals, etc. variety) subhuman social animals. We need to incorporate in a new hybrid synthesis unit both the ontologically verifiable physical brain neuronal networks plus the epistemologically mathematical logic calculus tool. The new unit of mesoscopic reality on our vital space-time earth environment, we have called the Epistemontological Theory of Everything as detailed in many volumes and Treatise (The Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, a Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model). Trafford, Inc.
As I write this brief summary, all Catholic Services are celebrating ‘Corpus Christi’ describing the synthesis of the practical, ongoing, real time convergence of the emotional uneducated Peter and the rational sophisticated scholar Paul who both experienced the very same environmental reality from their respective individual perspective as dictated by their individualized inherited and learned experiences during early childhood and subsequently as adult Jesus followers. As adults they both had the necessity of deriving their speculative conjecture about an intelligent design by an invisible unknown entity to create such wondrous complex reality, that taken separately, each was a necessary but an insufficient entity capable of generating such ineffable and naturally improbable complexity. They called it God, the invisible Father. When you join the Trinity of the Father, the real life spokesperson Son (Jesus) and posit a unifying Holy Spirit, they now become necessary and sufficient to explain the invariant and the evolving aspects of human complex reality. It also makes possible for the literati to test the various options available to describe and explain our human experience now and forever, ‘per secula seculorum’.
In Deltona, Florida Summer Solstice 2014