I can accept it but I cannot excuse it. It meets every requirement to by submersible as evidence under ancient document laws but nothing I said here requires it to be. The bible in my claims has been a premise which bore out under investigation. The bible posits a rational God who would create a rational universe. A rational universe is found which validates the bible.
That is not the consensus view. I have heard so many times that the chances are so astronomically against blind forces creating rationality either in nature or in our minds to decode it that despite I do not understand that exactly I do respect the pervasiveness of that claim.
Looking at stick insects is not really the place where this becomes apparent. It is more in the ability to comprehend abstract mathematical principles and physical deductions. Natural selection might explain why looking at a horse communicates the fact he is strong but it does not explain why we can tear his muscles apart and figure out exactly how they work. To debate what time is. To discourse on the nature of morality. In fact it is so rare that of all the minds we are aware of only one has the capacity to reason out the riddles of the universe proper. Any Library will contain only a few percent of material hat has any survival value but tons that contain learning for the sake of learning. Most animals seem to think primarily about things related to survival and little more but we are totally unique in our capacity to extract meaning and principle from reality.
That explains why I might think something is good or bad not why I would think hat good or bad is an objective realm. It explains why I might think the sun is hot not why I think about thermodynamics. Explains why I might understand two pieces of food are better than one not why I think about triple integrals. Explain why I know I should not jump from a cliff not why gravity is related to mass.
So since our ability to rationalize is quantum leaps ahead of what we need to survive you have disproven your own argument. Out of our eco systems? We are out of our galaxy in knowledge long before we have really left our planet physically.
If you find a principle existing in nature then you need to account for it. If we find the universe is lawful then that needs an explanation. It is either a natural necessity or it is in need of a transcended explanation. Rational things like freewill (and the ability to reason about what that means), morality, a lawful universe, mathematics, what gravity is, etc.. do not seem to have any natural explanation. They are abstract furniture we just happen to find in existence without an explanation beyond God.
Well like I said (I didn't say to work properly by the way) brute facts only have two explanations. The first is not really an explanation but it is where many people stop. Either natural necessity can account for a thing or something transcendent must. You have nature and beyond nature to shoes from. If it is not the former the later is the only refuge left. I will let another give you a quote the bears this out.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
Fred Hoyle
When Mr. Hoyle says you need the transcendent to account for science then attempts to dismiss the idea seem absurd.
Well that is disconcerting.
Hey don't include me in your intellectual self annihilation or nihilism.
Let me ask this. Are there laws of logic?
Does mathematics exist?
Does gravity exist?
Does morality exist?
Does abstract reasoning exist?
Does a lawful universe exist?
Do any of the things found as brute facts without much in the way of a natural necessity exist?
