ok so now we have God ... was it random or was it designed? Strange how naturalistic explanations don't throw up such dead ends. Is that why you don't like them and try not to understand what they mean so much?
No need for discouragement, I'm not arguing that utilitarianism isn't a good method for picking a paradigm.
Come on Ricter, don't be that ridiculous. Are you really trying to argue there is no objective compulsion to choose what you call the scientific worldview over others when you want to produce medicine, or send a communications satellite into space. Do you really have to produce those kind of asinine remarks to make a gap for your "meta-level" ?
That would be more of a dead start, than a dead end. God came from a dead start? Somehow dead and the God idea might sound about right to many, but I don't think religious followers are going to go for that.
I have already explained how Chaos Theory details randomness is at the heart of the universe, from beginning to end, NOT design. Additionally, to claim intelligent design (ID) is evidenced by mathematics and science, and that those who rightly disagree have their "science backwards", is absolutely ludicrous. They surely are not teaching ID to physics students at Cambridge, Oxford, or Yale. They do not even teach it in public schools. Why? Because it's religion, not science. If you want to discuss a "creator" or "designer", please, by all means, go to a church, and keep it there. You are free to believe whatever you want, just make sure not to claim something as scientific when it really isn't. Nothing more than abstract theological/philosophical syllogisms which really, when you take a deep hard look at them, explain absolutely nothing. Sure, post them again.
Its you who has been pretending there are naturalistic explanations... other than the possibility of a designer... I have no problem if science does or does not have the ability to confirm a designer... I would obviously have an issue if science proved there was no God... but that seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime. However, you have the issue... you pretend science confirms you atheism... but when pressed you refused to provide true answers... watch this... Stu provide us evidence that life evolved from non life... prediction... stu will spew some words and provide no evidence.
Reread what you just wrote, I'll bold the important part--it's value driven. The "meta" part refers to the subjective choice made before facts are winnowed.
I do not think you get it... please explain how chaos theory formed a universe. you seem to be saying the universe is caused by random chance.... seriously -- do you have any peer reviewed articles which suggest that in the last 20 years... here are some links to get you started.. here is a starter http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx-- a former mit professor or lecturer -- below is an "infidel" website - which does provide some of the arguments from more than one side. http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ins/design.html http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...hannam/fta.html