arndt@lymph.DEC (12/11/84)
Not so fast with the 'prime cause' argument. Besides Lord Russell is dead and now knows better! You said: " --if you assume that God is not created (as several have advocated here), then it becomes equally reasonable to think of the Universe as not having been created." Only if in the Universe (why capitalize it?) you can account for personality! We are VERY far from doing that! If there is more to the universe than matter, for example, mind, then your statement (or Lord Russell's) does not follow. Design tends (please notice I said 'tends') to presupose mind in back of it. You know, add up all the elements of a watch (gold,glass,etc) and you still do not explain what a watch is. You must include the engineering principle! By analogy, the only source of designs being produced we are aware of are the work of sentient beings. Remember, not everyone in the world is a rationalist. Or materialist. See my posting to Rich Rosen quoting Medawar, ADVICE TO A YOUNG SCIENTIST. For you to espouse logic and float the mystical crap -: you are on the net seems to me a little strange. Lord Russell was forced to ultimately say, upon reflection as to why the order in the world was there, "It's just THERE, that's all." Not a thrilling answer perhaps? What one finds upon investigation, which is what I have against people like Rich Rosen who admits he doesn't read, is not so much that you are 'proved' right, but that the other arguments are not all as great as you first might have thought. Many and varried are the arguments taking the other side from Lord Russell. May I suggest that you dip into Paul Davies, GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS ? He comes down on the side of not needing a God to explain the world but clearly (p.170 ?) states a choice between a Many-Worlds view and one of a God to account for us all is a matter of 'faith' - his word. Medawar is has also come out with a new book I haven't seen yet called, THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE. Check it out and let us know. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt