Of course. This was evident for humans for thousands of years, but then humans abandoned God's revelation and tried to reason in their own fallen way. Now we know that grandfather was a snail, my cousin was a potato and we all were pond scum at one time but randomly mutated into organisms that are capable of reasoning about being itself :clown:
I think intelligent design is evident in the precise systems needed to sustain life as we know it, yes. An Ultimate Creator makes the most sense to me.
Sys (together) sta (to stand)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/system Only apart can life choose to stand together, and standing implies balancing as choice within motion, which togetherness shapes into a progressively increasing burden.
The opposite of system implies disorder aka division (life) of order (inception towards death) aka the process of dying providing the necessities for living. A system represents a wanted or not wanted arrangement within the mind of a living being, which few shape into a consensus among many to systematically enslave each divided/divined being.
An Ultimate Creator makes the most sense to me
a) Ultimate implies coming to an end...it's origin which brings into being by moving forwards. Few suggest ultimism and progressivism to turn the mind of many from perceivable origin towards suggested outcome.
b) One cannot sense "most"...artificially summoning together (synthesis) what nature sets apart (analysis) distorts ones sense.
Most implies "more"...being implies one within all. There cannot be more than all for each one within. More God contradicts almighty all-father, yet a contradiction can be shaped within a mind who ignores God.
God cannot create because that would imply creating more than God. All transforming into each one implies loss (inception towards death) generating growth (life)...more vs less implies a contradiction based on measurements taken.
A being can always shape more (want) or less (not want) out of all given (need)...
If non-life cannot become life then the creator couldn't have created it, yes? Unless the creator does not follow natural laws, at which point your creator has the characteristic of being chaotic, which isn't typically known to produce order.
You've created a circular logic without entry nor exit points. Whether you think it's true depends solely on whether you think it's true.
If non-life cannot become life then the creator couldn't have created it, yes?
Absolutely no, a living being would have had to create life. It would take a being of intelligence to create something that cannot come into being on its own
Unless the creator does not follow natural laws, at which point your creator has the characteristic of being chaotic, which isn't typically known to produce order.
If the creator doesn’t follow natural laws, we don’t understand what he can and cannot do. Therefore he can theoretically create life and order.
Why not the opposite? living-matter becoming non-living matter. How about this; All things in the Universe are just constant vibrations. All matter is just different types of vibrations. In other words all is counciousness.
Hunt and Schooler speculate that every physical object, including you and me, are vibrating and oscillating. The more synchronized these vibes are, the more complex our connection with the world around us, and the more sophisticated our consciousness. The “resonance theory of consciousness” they present posits that synchronized vibrations are central not only to human consciousness but to all of physical reality.
So is consciousness the creator? is there a super-consciousness many people call God? or maybe we are being created and re-created constantly, some people refer to this as a simulation?
All implies whole; thing implies partial...things implies a sum of partials within whole. A sum of partials cannot made whole again...a jew suggests tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) to tempt gentiles into believing that it can.
constant vibration
Constant implies "standing together"...applying vibration to anything standing together would shake each stance apart from one another.
different types
If it's different from one another, then why type it together? Few suggest typecasting to tempt many together, which distracts from differences.
all is counciousness
Con (together) scious (to perceive)...all perceivable sets each ones perception apart from one another, thereby making differences perceivable. Few are conning (con) perception (scious) by suggesting many to join a consensus.
Likeness obscures difference.
speculate that every physical object
a) Spec implies special aka apart from one another...every implies a collection of each held together. One cannot speculate about every (plural) without ignoring each (singular).
b) Physical aka phsy (to be) i (within) al (all) implies as partial within whole aka as essence (perception) within abstract (perceivable).
But there's a C in physi(c)al...because it's based on each being to SEE (c) or not to SEE (c). Those with eyes to see (c)...didn't fell for phonetic tricks.
oscillate
Only within a current (inception towards death) can oscillation come into being (life).
The more synchronized these vibes are...
...the less stable each VI(brating)BE(ing) becomes. Vibration implies holding onto one side while turning against the other; adaptation implies resisting the temptation of both sides (inception/death) from in-between (life).
Com (together) plex (to weave) implies bondage for each ones free will of choice if joined like for example the world wide web.
our
Our implies holding in possession...being implies procession (inception towards death) letting go potential (life). Possession restricts potential if held onto.
around
Being (life) implies within delineation (inception towards death)...few shape an inward circle (logic); which turns into an outward circle (reason) to tempt the minds of many into circular confinement aka the mythological ouroboros.
US
To be implies a different state from one another, hence within the process of differentiation.
Few suggest united states; united nations; united kingdom; soviet union; european union; uniformity; university; unicode; unisex; universality aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka mosaic law (a game of puzzle) aka "there's comes a time when we need to heed a certain call; when the world must come together as one" aka globalism aka multiculturalism aka miscegenation aka melting pot etc. to artificially put together (synthesis) what nature sets apart (analysis).
It's ones consent to any suggestion by another which establishes the connection between slave (ones choice) and master (chosen one).
resonance
Re (to respond) son (sound)...sound/sanus (whole; entire; all) generates each instrument (mind structured within) by internal division aka motion (sound) > momentum (spectrum) > matter (instrument).
Few trick many with the articulation (word) of natural sound into an echo-chamber aka ones mind resounding the words suggested by another.
A word is shaped by putting letters together which implies ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape LETTERS together. Oneself represents the letter of each word shaped by another.
The letters are then shaped through an alphabet aka abecedary (abracadabra) into crafted spells to establish definitions aka DEAF PHONETICIANS aka those who are deaf to phonics (sound).
Furthermore...it's the word (logos) which shapes the inward circle (logic) which turns into outward conflict (reason) among instruments.
some people refer to this as a simulation?
ATION (action) generating reaction implies singularity. Reacting to pluralism (some; people) SIMULATES action. If you view others as a sum and yourself as part of a people, then your mind is running an artificial simulation of natural differentiation.
Being implies person (per sonos; by sound) aka a singular instrument within the singularity of sound. It's the mind of each instruMENT which can be instructed with pluralism (people) to deny singularity.
No no no no no don't reach for that word. There's no 'reason'. That's teleology and teleology will stitch your eyelids shut.
Why do we have atoms? Because atomic matter is more stable than the primordial broth. Atoms defeated the broth. That was the first war. There were two ways to be and one of them won. And everything that came next was made of atoms.
Atoms made stars. Stars made galaxies. Worlds simmered down to rock and acid and in those smoking primal seas the first living molecule learned to copy itself. All of this happened by the one law, the blind law, which exists without mind or meaning. It's the simplest law but it has no worshippers here (out there, though, out there - !)
Living implies within animation...the "mat" within aniMATion implies matter living within motion. There's no such thing as non-living matter; only matter in de-nial/nihilo (nothing) of motion.
higher being
Being implies in-between inception and death aka rising during loss. High and low represent measurements taken by a being who ignores in-between for inclining towards a side.
Life implies effect within cause aka reaction within action aka growth within loss aka one within all aka each thing within everything aka form within flow.
Life implies transformation (action forming transfer)...not creation.
chance
Nature gives being choice...beings tempt one another to ignore given choice by taking chance aka gambling.
common sense
Sense implies being send apart from one another...few suggest common (together) as the inversion of private (apart) to invade ones privacy by tempting one to join others willingly.
logically makes sense
Being send aka becoming sensible implies within linear motion...logic implies circular thinking. Only within a line can a circle be shaped, and few shape circles inwards (logic) and outwards (reason) to confine the minds of many.
Of course. This was evident for humans for thousands of years, but then humans abandoned God's revelation and tried to reason in their own fallen way. Now we know that grandfather was a snail, my cousin was a potato and we all were pond scum at one time but randomly mutated into organisms that are capable of reasoning about being itself :clown:
I think intelligent design is evident in the precise systems needed to sustain life as we know it, yes. An Ultimate Creator makes the most sense to me.
Sys (together) sta (to stand)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/system Only apart can life choose to stand together, and standing implies balancing as choice within motion, which togetherness shapes into a progressively increasing burden.
The opposite of system implies disorder aka division (life) of order (inception towards death) aka the process of dying providing the necessities for living. A system represents a wanted or not wanted arrangement within the mind of a living being, which few shape into a consensus among many to systematically enslave each divided/divined being.
a) Ultimate implies coming to an end...it's origin which brings into being by moving forwards. Few suggest ultimism and progressivism to turn the mind of many from perceivable origin towards suggested outcome.
b) One cannot sense "most"...artificially summoning together (synthesis) what nature sets apart (analysis) distorts ones sense.
Most implies "more"...being implies one within all. There cannot be more than all for each one within. More God contradicts almighty all-father, yet a contradiction can be shaped within a mind who ignores God.
God cannot create because that would imply creating more than God. All transforming into each one implies loss (inception towards death) generating growth (life)...more vs less implies a contradiction based on measurements taken.
A being can always shape more (want) or less (not want) out of all given (need)...
That if is doing some heavy lifting.
If non-life cannot become life then the creator couldn't have created it, yes? Unless the creator does not follow natural laws, at which point your creator has the characteristic of being chaotic, which isn't typically known to produce order.
You've created a circular logic without entry nor exit points. Whether you think it's true depends solely on whether you think it's true.
Absolutely no, a living being would have had to create life. It would take a being of intelligence to create something that cannot come into being on its own
If the creator doesn’t follow natural laws, we don’t understand what he can and cannot do. Therefore he can theoretically create life and order.
Yes.
Why not the opposite? living-matter becoming non-living matter. How about this; All things in the Universe are just constant vibrations. All matter is just different types of vibrations. In other words all is counciousness.
Hunt and Schooler speculate that every physical object, including you and me, are vibrating and oscillating. The more synchronized these vibes are, the more complex our connection with the world around us, and the more sophisticated our consciousness. The “resonance theory of consciousness” they present posits that synchronized vibrations are central not only to human consciousness but to all of physical reality.
So is consciousness the creator? is there a super-consciousness many people call God? or maybe we are being created and re-created constantly, some people refer to this as a simulation?
Interesting position.
Because how could "not" have an opposite?
All implies whole; thing implies partial...things implies a sum of partials within whole. A sum of partials cannot made whole again...a jew suggests tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) to tempt gentiles into believing that it can.
Constant implies "standing together"...applying vibration to anything standing together would shake each stance apart from one another.
If it's different from one another, then why type it together? Few suggest typecasting to tempt many together, which distracts from differences.
Con (together) scious (to perceive)...all perceivable sets each ones perception apart from one another, thereby making differences perceivable. Few are conning (con) perception (scious) by suggesting many to join a consensus.
Likeness obscures difference.
a) Spec implies special aka apart from one another...every implies a collection of each held together. One cannot speculate about every (plural) without ignoring each (singular).
b) Physical aka phsy (to be) i (within) al (all) implies as partial within whole aka as essence (perception) within abstract (perceivable).
But there's a C in physi(c)al...because it's based on each being to SEE (c) or not to SEE (c). Those with eyes to see (c)...didn't fell for phonetic tricks.
Only within a current (inception towards death) can oscillation come into being (life).
...the less stable each VI(brating)BE(ing) becomes. Vibration implies holding onto one side while turning against the other; adaptation implies resisting the temptation of both sides (inception/death) from in-between (life).
Few suggest vibration to distract many from adaptation... https://genius.com/The-beach-boys-good-vibrations-lyrics
Com (together) plex (to weave) implies bondage for each ones free will of choice if joined like for example the world wide web.
Our implies holding in possession...being implies procession (inception towards death) letting go potential (life). Possession restricts potential if held onto.
Being (life) implies within delineation (inception towards death)...few shape an inward circle (logic); which turns into an outward circle (reason) to tempt the minds of many into circular confinement aka the mythological ouroboros.
To be implies a different state from one another, hence within the process of differentiation.
Few suggest united states; united nations; united kingdom; soviet union; european union; uniformity; university; unicode; unisex; universality aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka mosaic law (a game of puzzle) aka "there's comes a time when we need to heed a certain call; when the world must come together as one" aka globalism aka multiculturalism aka miscegenation aka melting pot etc. to artificially put together (synthesis) what nature sets apart (analysis).
It's ones consent to any suggestion by another which establishes the connection between slave (ones choice) and master (chosen one).
Re (to respond) son (sound)...sound/sanus (whole; entire; all) generates each instrument (mind structured within) by internal division aka motion (sound) > momentum (spectrum) > matter (instrument).
Few trick many with the articulation (word) of natural sound into an echo-chamber aka ones mind resounding the words suggested by another.
A word is shaped by putting letters together which implies ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape LETTERS together. Oneself represents the letter of each word shaped by another.
The letters are then shaped through an alphabet aka abecedary (abracadabra) into crafted spells to establish definitions aka DEAF PHONETICIANS aka those who are deaf to phonics (sound).
Furthermore...it's the word (logos) which shapes the inward circle (logic) which turns into outward conflict (reason) among instruments.
ATION (action) generating reaction implies singularity. Reacting to pluralism (some; people) SIMULATES action. If you view others as a sum and yourself as part of a people, then your mind is running an artificial simulation of natural differentiation.
Being implies person (per sonos; by sound) aka a singular instrument within the singularity of sound. It's the mind of each instruMENT which can be instructed with pluralism (people) to deny singularity.
Something got the ball rolling.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8895405/
Where did the Chemical Evolution of Natural Product Structure get started?
Did it just form outta nothing or did someone get that ball rolling?
You're speaking of electronegativity and energy levels?
That doesn’t make a non-living thing living. Just creates more non-living things of a bigger or different type.
...then nothing else.
Living implies within animation...the "mat" within aniMATion implies matter living within motion. There's no such thing as non-living matter; only matter in de-nial/nihilo (nothing) of motion.
Being implies in-between inception and death aka rising during loss. High and low represent measurements taken by a being who ignores in-between for inclining towards a side.
Creation implies out of nothing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo which represents a jewish deception tempting gentiles into denial.
Life implies effect within cause aka reaction within action aka growth within loss aka one within all aka each thing within everything aka form within flow.
Life implies transformation (action forming transfer)...not creation.
Nature gives being choice...beings tempt one another to ignore given choice by taking chance aka gambling.
Sense implies being send apart from one another...few suggest common (together) as the inversion of private (apart) to invade ones privacy by tempting one to join others willingly.
Being send aka becoming sensible implies within linear motion...logic implies circular thinking. Only within a line can a circle be shaped, and few shape circles inwards (logic) and outwards (reason) to confine the minds of many.
Word.