[Buddha-l] Paul Williams

[Timothy Smith]

So, if the choice of either position is naive realism, then we are  
left with no choice but the Buddha's.  Don't ask.  Don't tell.


Timothy Smith
Wheelwright Associates

www.wheelwrightassoc.com



On Dec 24, 2007, at 4:15 PM, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:

> "[DPD Web] Shen Shi'an" <shian at kmspks.org> wrote:
>
>> Causation already answers about the nature of why there is  
>> anything at
>> all. On the other hand, postulating the existence of an uncaused God
>> stirs up the classic problems.
>>
>> Once again, from
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/ 
>> message/
>> 221 : (The 3rd para is the crux - a simple "proof" on why there is no
>> God)
>>
>> Why "Intelligent Design" Lacks Intelligence
>>
>> Recently, there was much outrage in the academic world when  
>> "intelligent
>> design" was proposed by some to be scientific. The theory of
>> "intelligent design" argues that the universe, being so intricately
>> structured, must surely be the design of a super-intelligent  
>> being. This
>> belief is creationism, which is based on mere faith. It is the  
>> opposite
>> of evolution, which is the largely observable fact that life and the
>> universe evolves over time, adapting to changes of natural  
>> conditions.
>
> the statement for a creator or against are not based simply on  
> observation, since one can conclude either from reflection upon  
> what is observed.  There is an element of faith in either position,  
> which to deny or overlook places one in the position of naive realism.
>
> Stan Ziobro
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>