rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/30/85)
> I have to agree (partially) with Byron Howes and Rich Rosen on this one; you > can't get to God from purpose. You can't even get to morality from Purpose. > I think it entirely reasonable, however, for a person who knows God to > recognize divine purpose in the world, IN VERY GENERAL TERMS. Obviously, > this doesn't represent prove of GOd's existence. [WINGATE] Quite right. In fact, it's putting the cart before the horse. To assume that the "purpose" one observes in (imposes onto) some phenomenon is in fact the "purpose" with which the phenomenon was designed, assumes both the existence of a designer (not a given by ANY standards) and, in addition, intimate knowledge of the intent of the designer. You can't get to ANYTHING from purpose, when purpose is nothing but an assumption about the possible intent of a possible designer based on patterning observation. Real purpose can only be determined by the designer. To assume a designer AND knowledge of its intentions is flawed; all that has been done is to impose one's own patterns onto phenomena and to ascribe those patterns to the intents of a designer, without even bothering with the steps of proving the existence of a designer, let alone "discussing" its intentions with it. (This is why teleological arguments have fallen into such disrepute.) Wingate has shown above that some people DO in fact take a "reverse" approach: see a "purpose" in a phenomenon, assume the existence of a designer, assume that the intent of this designer is equivalent to the "purpose" you have observed, and "recognize divine purpose". At least Charlie admits that this is hardly proof of the existence of god. It would seem that others do, in fact, see such arguments as evidence for the existence of god. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr