(1) "An attempt to circumvent the obvious"? I've no idea what you mean by
that. I can speculate, but I'd probably guess wrong, so I'll let you
explain.
(2) I agree that our understanding of nature -is- seriously lacking,
especially at a foundational level. It would be fascinating to see the
successors of today's relativity, quantum, etc. (The most obvious problem
to this philosopher: consciousness, and along the same lines, conscious
personal agency. [Perhaps that lies in part outside science; we'll see.] I
suspect too that today's evolutionary theories will be seen some tomorrow as
Newton's theories are today, which is perhaps a criticism, but also
obviously a strong compliment.)
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:entheta@eskimo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 11:23 AM
To: Pim van Meurs; Calvin Evolution Reflector; 'John E. Rylander'
Subject: RE: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
John:
And your question "Who created God?" actually does -not- require an answer
on traditional views of God. More precisely, the answer is that God is the
ultimate reality, and so has no creator.>>
Which is not an answer, only an attempt to circumvent the obvious.
John: Of course, atheists can claim that about nature. It's just that seems
to most people to be more arbitrary and intuitively unsatisfactory. Nature
(certainly as we understand it today) seems too explanatorily and
metaphysically inadequate and too contingent to be the ultimate reality.>>
A subjective observation and interpretation. Perhaps our understanding of it
is what is lacking ?