There are several ways to clarify. We could note the code in DNA as requiring an author. We could note the apparent design in our fine-tuned biological systems that allow our intelligence. We could pose the philosophical assertion that whatever caused our intelligence must have been sufficient to have caused it. In other words, is it not more likely that what caused intellect would have had it inherently to impart?
More so, in the context of the discussion, I'd like to deal with your first objection before going further. There are two points to be made about your objection to my use of the "supernatural." You claim that whatever caused our nature could have been another type of nature. But from our perspective, that statement is false by definition. Whatever caused our nature is separate from our nature. We can not experience it, so it is by definition supernatural-- above and beyond nature as we know it.
If your claim is that the "nature" that caused ours is like our nature, only preceding it, then it too would need a cause for itself. If it was/is a time-based alternate universe, then it too is an effect, and you seem willing to trade a universe designer for a universe factory designer. :) If it is not a time-based nature such as ours, then it is not natural as we define natural, and is thus supernatural by definition.
Either way, it is separate from our knowable reality and thus, by definition, supernatural. You are therefore making an appeal to the supernatural to answer these questions. As such you are verifying the need for science to look outside of natural causes, which is exactly what the empirical philosophy says can't happen.
In that philosophy, the apparent design in the universe is dismissed for no other reason than one of a priori. The apparent design in our complex bodies, systems, organs, down to the very DNA code which is the alphabet of life is dismissed for no better reason than a priori. Because a philosophy states that it must be proven otherwise.
Is this a good reason? When we already see that something outside of our natural existence caused our natural existence... When we see apparent design in this existence, from the fine-tuning of the Universe to the incredibly organized complexity which is the foundation of our DNA and thus our intellect... When we note the incredibly fortuitous nature that is, in total, our life and the Universe that supports it... Is a philosophical mandate a good reason to dismiss what we observe, and write it off as only "apparent" (i.e. apparent design)?
Perhaps it is apparent for a reason? Because it is there? If we (a) currently see the need for an outside cause for our existence, and we (b) see apparent design in our existence then (c) it seems logical to believe that an apparent designer was at work.
I can understand whatever disagreement you may have, and I respect your position. If nothing else, our exchanges should prove that there are sincere and reasonable people on both sides of these discussions.
Overall, I hope that we can agree that our differences of opinion are rooted in the collision of philosophies, and not the collision of science. If that is the case, then I am closer to stating my point in these blogs than ever before. And if I am getting closer to that endeavor, then it is in no small part a result of interaction with you, and your ability to point out where I need to clarify my thoughts. So, thank you for that.
With all that said, I hope that I clarified my use of "supernatural", and how my mind logically connects that nameless, faceless cause with a personal, intelligent Creator.
It's actually very logical...
There are several ways to clarify. We could note the code in DNA as requiring an author. We could note the apparent design in our fine-tuned biological systems that allow our intelligence. We could pose the philosophical assertion that whatever caused our intelligence must have been sufficient to have caused it. In other words, is it not more likely that what caused intellect would have had it inherently to impart?
More so, in the context of the discussion, I'd like to deal with your first objection before going further. There are two points to be made about your objection to my use of the "supernatural." You claim that whatever caused our nature could have been another type of nature. But from our perspective, that statement is false by definition. Whatever caused our nature is separate from our nature. We can not experience it, so it is by definition supernatural-- above and beyond nature as we know it.
If your claim is that the "nature" that caused ours is like our nature, only preceding it, then it too would need a cause for itself. If it was/is a time-based alternate universe, then it too is an effect, and you seem willing to trade a universe designer for a universe factory designer. :) If it is not a time-based nature such as ours, then it is not natural as we define natural, and is thus supernatural by definition.
Either way, it is separate from our knowable reality and thus, by definition, supernatural. You are therefore making an appeal to the supernatural to answer these questions. As such you are verifying the need for science to look outside of natural causes, which is exactly what the empirical philosophy says can't happen.
In that philosophy, the apparent design in the universe is dismissed for no other reason than one of a priori. The apparent design in our complex bodies, systems, organs, down to the very DNA code which is the alphabet of life is dismissed for no better reason than a priori. Because a philosophy states that it must be proven otherwise.
Is this a good reason? When we already see that something outside of our natural existence caused our natural existence... When we see apparent design in this existence, from the fine-tuning of the Universe to the incredibly organized complexity which is the foundation of our DNA and thus our intellect... When we note the incredibly fortuitous nature that is, in total, our life and the Universe that supports it... Is a philosophical mandate a good reason to dismiss what we observe, and write it off as only "apparent" (i.e. apparent design)?
Perhaps it is apparent for a reason? Because it is there? If we (a) currently see the need for an outside cause for our existence, and we (b) see apparent design in our existence then (c) it seems logical to believe that an apparent designer was at work.
I can understand whatever disagreement you may have, and I respect your position. If nothing else, our exchanges should prove that there are sincere and reasonable people on both sides of these discussions.
Overall, I hope that we can agree that our differences of opinion are rooted in the collision of philosophies, and not the collision of science. If that is the case, then I am closer to stating my point in these blogs than ever before. And if I am getting closer to that endeavor, then it is in no small part a result of interaction with you, and your ability to point out where I need to clarify my thoughts. So, thank you for that.
With all that said, I hope that I clarified my use of "supernatural", and how my mind logically connects that nameless, faceless cause with a personal, intelligent Creator.
Blessings...