Design vs Evolution, is there a solution?

[Age]

Spelling of Chalmers name noted. The topic he raised has not gone away because the nature of consciousness is still unknown, as is the nature of mind.

The so-called 'nature of consciousness' may not be known, by you. But this does NOT mean that the 'nature of consciousness' is still unknown.

As for the 'nature of mind' this is ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, by some.

Human beings REALLY do have such a narrowed or closed way of LOOKING AT 'things' that they ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that because they have NOT YET been exposed to some 'thing', then that 'thing' is "still unknown".

Is philosophy about letting a topic die because material science has not made it factual yet?

It can be. The word 'philosophy' can be about absolutely ANY thing of one's choosing. Just like absolutely EVERY word can be about whatever one so chooses it to be about.

But I found using words more closely to how they once meant, and as long and that usage still works with 'current' usages, then that to be far more helpful in being about to UNIFY absolutely EVERY thing together as thee One Everything.

There are many forums where the topic of consciousness is raised as well as on twitter. Original ideas are tenuous as they come up against programmed thought and the certainty of a ‘this is the way it is’ mentality. That is not new. Ideas such as panpsychism, the term first coined in the 16th century, meet with skepticism, if not outright dismissal.

Still the question remains, as consciousness is a fact, just as much as existence is a fact and its laws will continue to be studied.

What, exactly, again, is 'the question' that, supposedly, remains?

Both sides; physicalist view and primacy of consciousness view have prominent voices, to dismiss either side is flippancy.

And to NOT be ABLE to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, is because 'two' SIDES have been 'created'. Even you talked about "choosing the middle way of two opposites" but now continue on about how there IS 'two sides'. But there IS NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL. There is just a human being created PERCEPTION that there are 'two sides'.

There are ACTUAL Truths, and ACTUAL Falsehoods, within "BOTH, perceived, SIDES" or versions. And, like just about EVERY 'one' OR 'other' perceived 'things' thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' lays somewhere in about the middle, with a part of BOTH 'sides' existing somewhere, in 'there'.

So Searle is not convinced, he does not have to be. Five discussions were a lot on one topic. Searle probably would not have said “gotta run” to Socrates either until he had attended at least five dialogues, respectfully listening before he went back to what he did for a living. It behoves scientists and philosophers to think outside the box, even if they mostly settle for one perspective, as everything is necessarily specialized.

In fact Chalmers’ view is not dismissive of brain processing, which reductionists love, so that should garner him some attention. It may answer why “A rose is only a rose because man sees it as such; without him it would be only a pattern of energy vortices.”

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' just exists, that EVERY 'thing' is just labelled and provided with a name is because human beings see 'it' (that 'thing') as such. And, without a human being 'it' (that 'thing') would only be a pattern of ....

Even the word 'thing' is just another label/name of what you say, and see, here as being 'only a pattern of energy vortices'.

This topic was supposed to be about the opposing views of Design vs. Evolution.

AND, if there is a solution or not, correct?

Also, when you say this topic was, "supposed to be, about the opposing views of Design verses Evolution", what do you propose this topic is about now?

And, the opposing views of Design/Creation and of Evolution have been discussed for millennia, so WHY make another discussion thread about those OBVIOUS opposing views?

Design, not necessarily meaning a Deity, as that would be a non-starter.

WHY would that supposedly be a "non-starter"? This just sounds like you just are wanting to express your OWN opinion, and NOT really wanting to have a dialogue at all, which may evoke insight or clarity.

Do you have some sort of BELIEF that a 'Deity' (whatever that means or refer to, to you) is an IMPOSSIBILITY?

Rather a discussion in light of all that is known since Darwin’s day about what is primary in and to cosmic evolution which had been under way for quite some time before as Darwin saw it: ‘life emerged from a body of water on land.’

LOL
LOL
LOL


It is this SIMPLE, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is in Creation, through an evolutionary process. And, EVERY 'thing' was created, and will be created, besides thee Universe, Itself.

What does 'Design' even mean to you?

And, 'Life', Itself, IS 'emerging' ALWAYS. There was NO 'start'.

Quote a philosopher who has explained the nature of mind or of consciousness.

But how could I when NONE has?

Some things ARE ALREADY KNOWN, but which have NOT YET been explained.

I am not aware of any. A belief in a Deity is just that. If someone is enlightened they know. They likely have little to say as what is beyond quality and thought cannot be described by concepts limited to qualities and thought.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST be so, correct?

Darwin was not an abstract thinker he found mathematics repugnant. Still abstract thought flourishes in mathematics and theoretical physics. Many think of themselves as rational beings with the power to choose and the ability to eventually know the nature of reality. Others view themselves as biological entities bound by natural law which sociobiology views as responsible for morality and ethics. Which would be alright so long as it is not the law of the jungle.

And, some of 'you', human beings, view and do things differently. But so what?

[owl of Minerva]

The so-called 'nature of consciousness' may not be known, by you. But this does NOT mean that the 'nature of consciousness' is still unknown.

As for the 'nature of mind' this is ALSO ALREADY KNOWN, by some.

Human beings REALLY do have such a narrowed or closed way of LOOKING AT 'things' that they ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE that because they have NOT YET been exposed to some 'thing', then that 'thing' is "still unknown".


It can be. The word 'philosophy' can be about absolutely ANY thing of one's choosing. Just like absolutely EVERY word can be about whatever one so chooses it to be about.

But I found using words more closely to how they once meant, and as long and that usage still works with 'current' usages, then that to be far more helpful in being about to UNIFY absolutely EVERY thing together as thee One Everything.



What, exactly, again, is 'the question' that, supposedly, remains?



And to NOT be ABLE to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, is because 'two' SIDES have been 'created'. Even you talked about "choosing the middle way of two opposites" but now continue on about how there IS 'two sides'. But there IS NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL. There is just a human being created PERCEPTION that there are 'two sides'.

There are ACTUAL Truths, and ACTUAL Falsehoods, within "BOTH, perceived, SIDES" or versions. And, like just about EVERY 'one' OR 'other' perceived 'things' thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' lays somewhere in about the middle, with a part of BOTH 'sides' existing somewhere, in 'there'.



Absolutely EVERY 'thing' just exists, that EVERY 'thing' is just labelled and provided with a name is because human beings see 'it' (that 'thing') as such. And, without a human being 'it' (that 'thing') would only be a pattern of ....

Even the word 'thing' is just another label/name of what you say, and see, here as being 'only a pattern of energy vortices'.


AND, if there is a solution or not, correct?

Also, when you say this topic was, "supposed to be, about the opposing views of Design verses Evolution", what do you propose this topic is about now?

And, the opposing views of Design/Creation and of Evolution have been discussed for millennia, so WHY make another discussion thread about those OBVIOUS opposing views?



WHY would that supposedly be a "non-starter"? This just sounds like you just are wanting to express your OWN opinion, and NOT really wanting to have a dialogue at all, which may evoke insight or clarity.

Do you have some sort of BELIEF that a 'Deity' (whatever that means or refer to, to you) is an IMPOSSIBILITY?



LOL
LOL
LOL


It is this SIMPLE, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is in Creation, through an evolutionary process. And, EVERY 'thing' was created, and will be created, besides thee Universe, Itself.

What does 'Design' even mean to you?

And, 'Life', Itself, IS 'emerging' ALWAYS. There was NO 'start'.

Quote a philosopher who has explained the nature of mind or of consciousness.

But how could I when NONE has?

Some things ARE ALREADY KNOWN, but which have NOT YET been explained.

I am not aware of any. A belief in a Deity is just that. If someone is enlightened they know. They likely have little to say as what is beyond quality and thought cannot be described by concepts limited to qualities and thought.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST be so, correct?

Darwin was not an abstract thinker he found mathematics repugnant. Still abstract thought flourishes in mathematics and theoretical physics. Many think of themselves as rational beings with the power to choose and the ability to eventually know the nature of reality. Others view themselves as biological entities bound by natural law which sociobiology views as responsible for morality and ethics. Which would be alright so long as it is not the law of the jungle.

And, some of 'you', human beings, view and do things differently. But so what?

In reference to your last sentence and “But so what?” No dialogue here, it is what it is.

[Age]

Quote a philosopher who has explained the nature of mind or of consciousness.

But how could I when NONE has?

Some things ARE ALREADY KNOWN, but which have NOT YET been explained.

I am not aware of any. A belief in a Deity is just that. If someone is enlightened they know. They likely have little to say as what is beyond quality and thought cannot be described by concepts limited to qualities and thought.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST be so, correct?

Darwin was not an abstract thinker he found mathematics repugnant. Still abstract thought flourishes in mathematics and theoretical physics. Many think of themselves as rational beings with the power to choose and the ability to eventually know the nature of reality. Others view themselves as biological entities bound by natural law which sociobiology views as responsible for morality and ethics. Which would be alright so long as it is not the law of the jungle.

And, some of 'you', human beings, view and do things differently. But so what?

In reference to your last sentence and “But so what?” No dialogue here, it is what it is.

LOOK;

BOTH Design (Creation) AND Evolution EXIST. This is IRREFUTABLE.

There is a 'solution' for EVERY 'problem'. This is ALSO IRREFUTABLE. And,

You have NOT even provided absolutely ANY thing here for us to SHOW you what the solution IS.

[owl of Minerva]

But how could I when NONE has?

Some things ARE ALREADY KNOWN, but which have NOT YET been explained.



If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST be so, correct?


And, some of 'you', human beings, view and do things differently. But so what?

In reference to your last sentence and “But so what?” No dialogue here, it is what it is.

LOOK;

BOTH Design (Creation) AND Evolution EXIST. This is IRREFUTABLE.

There is a 'solution' for EVERY 'problem'. This is ALSO IRREFUTABLE. And,

You have NOT even provided absolutely ANY thing here for us to SHOW you what the solution IS.

You are not understanding the problem. It is not up to me to show you what the solution is, you are supposed to come up with some ideas that might shed some light on it. The problem is when there is conflict over dualities is consensus possible or does the argument between opposing views continue and lead to conflict over opposing views. You made a dogmatic statement that both are true but have not explained how you know that.

Explain why it is irrefutable that both design and creation exist. When there are two opposites, if there is a solution, it would mean that the opposites are reconciled. How do you reconcile opposites, do you have any ideas how?

One way suggested was a Middle Way, negotiating a path between opposites, leaving both as dualities, with belief in one or the other being accepted without conflict until opinions on either perspective becomes fact through knowing.

Do you disagree with that assessment or have you any other realistic ideas on the topic. No dogmatic statements or beliefs please, they are the problem, not a solution to the problem.

[Age]

In reference to your last sentence and “But so what?” No dialogue here, it is what it is.

LOOK;

BOTH Design (Creation) AND Evolution EXIST. This is IRREFUTABLE.

There is a 'solution' for EVERY 'problem'. This is ALSO IRREFUTABLE. And,

You have NOT even provided absolutely ANY thing here for us to SHOW you what the solution IS.

You are not understanding the problem.

LOL You OBVIOUSLY did NOT read what I wrote up thread, which was something like;

A 'problem' is, literally, just a question posed for a solution.

WHICH MEANS until you PROVIDE an actual 'question' posed for a 'solution', there is, literally, NO 'problem' AT ALL here.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY might like to define the 'problem' word DIFFERENTLY, which you are perfectly FREE to do so. But, if you WANT to do this, then I suggest you let us ALL in to HOW you define the word 'problem'.

Just saying, "You are not understanding the problem", is absolutely HILARIOUS, especially considering how I am defining the word 'problem' here.

It is not up to me to show you what the solution is, you are supposed to come up with some ideas that might shed some light on it.

I do NOT want you to show us the solution. I want you to PROVIDE the 'problem'. And this was what I even SPECIFICALLY asked you for. I EVEN SAID you have NOT provided ANY 'problem' for us to SHOW you what the 'solution' IS.

So, how you managed to TWIST and TURN that around COMPLETELY to the EXACT OPPOSITE never ceases to amaze me.

The problem is when there is conflict over dualities is consensus possible or does the argument between opposing views continue and lead to conflict over opposing views.

I have ALREADY TOLD you that consensus is NOT just POSSIBLE but has ALREADY OCCURRED.

I have, also, ALREADY TOLD you that for EVERY 'problem' there is a 'solution'. And,

I have, even, ALREADY TOLD you that that last sentence of yours here is NOT even a 'problem' AT ALL. And, this is because of what a 'problem', literally, IS EXACTLY, to me.

LOOK, when there IS 'conflict' over what you call "dualities" what REALLY exists is NOT "dualities" AT ALL. What ACTUALLY EXISTS is just PERCEPTIONS that there are "dualities", which are just IMAGININGS or ILLUSIONS.

Consensus is REACHED by NOT "seeing" the IMAGINED "dualities" but by SEEING what ACTUALLY IS and ACTUALLY EXISTS, INSTEAD. Or, consensus is REACHED by SEEING that the SUPPOSED "dualities" are just ILLUSIONS ONLY, and thus NOT REAL AT ALL.

However, what is also OBVIOUSLY True is that if and when 'you', human beings, "see" that there are "dualities" PICK "one (perceived) side" over "another (perceived) side", then arguing/fighting for "sides" will last for as long as there are PERCEIVED "sides". As ALREADY PROVED True for millennia, hitherto when this is being written.

And, OF COURSE, the continual arguing, fighting, and bickering over "sides" will OBVIOUSLY lead to conflict over these "opposed views", again as PROVED True for millennia. But what makes these thousands of years old conflicts among 'you', adult human beings, all the MORE HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE is that 'you' are LITERALLY bickering, arguing, AND fighting over absolutely NOTHING AT ALL. What 'you' are LITERALLY fighting over does NOT even exist.

You made a dogmatic statement that both are true but have not explained how you know that.

OF COURSE I made a so-called "dogmatic" statement here. And that is because the statement I made here is IRREFUTABLE.

Also you are Correct I made that statement that both are true but I did NOT explain how I KNOW that. Was there some ASSUMPTION that I somehow HAD TO explain how I KNOW that?

Furthermore, you made the statement you just did here, and NEVER even asked a CLARIFYING question about, "How do you know that?"

Oh, and by the way, I have EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY how I KNOW that.

Explain why it is irrefutable that both design and creation exist.

Do NOT TELL me WHAT TO DO, and, I will NOT TELL you WHAT TO DO ALSO, okay?

If you would like me to explain to you WHY BOTH design AND creation exist and that this is irrefutable, then just ask a specific CLARIFYING question, okay?

Also, from what I have gathered from most of 'you', adult human beings, 'design' is more related 'creation', while it is 'evolution' which is on the PERCEIVED "opposing side".

Design AND creation could be seen to exist together ANYWAY.

So, if you do get around to asking a CLARIFYING question the more specific the better.

When there are two opposites, if there is a solution, it would mean that the opposites are reconciled. How do you reconcile opposites, do you have any ideas how?

The so-called "opposites" do NOT actually exist OUTSIDE of 'human thought'. The "opposites", well in philosophical discussions anyway, are just a figment of the imagination.

If you would like to PROVIDE an example of what you consider a "opposites", then I can SHOW what I have been saying here.

One way suggested was a Middle Way, negotiating a path between opposites, leaving both as dualities, with belief in one or the other being accepted without conflict until opinions on either perspective becomes fact through knowing.

We can LOOK AT thousands upon thousands of 'suggestions' made by thousands upon thousands of human beings. But if ANY of them worked FULLY, then we would ALREADY be using that ONE. So, instead of going over what OBVIOUSLY does NOT work, how about we LOOK AT some 'thing' new, to you, and find out if 'that' ACTUALLY WORKS or NOT?

Or, would you REALLY prefer to just 'rehash' those OLD 'suggestions'?

I have, also, ALREADY partly explained how to REACH and ACHIEVE the so-called 'middle ground'.

And, what IS IRREFUTABLE 'Fact' has ALREADY become KNOWN, by the way.

Do you disagree with that assessment or have you any other realistic ideas on the topic.

Did you READ what I wrote in my other replies here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY did you get from that READING?

No dogmatic statements or beliefs please, they are the problem, not a solution to the problem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once one KNOWS what thee 'problem' IS, then one CAN find thee 'solution', and once one HAS thee 'solution', then ALL of these 'opposing views' CAN BE and HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE-SOLVED.

And, once this has been ACHIEVED, then IRREFUTABLE statements CAN BE and WILL BE expressed, of which they can NOT be REFUTED, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, you are so far BEHIND that we are STILL WAITING for you to PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'problem'. That is; PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'question' posed for a 'solution'.

[owl of Minerva]

LOOK;

BOTH Design (Creation) AND Evolution EXIST. This is IRREFUTABLE.

There is a 'solution' for EVERY 'problem'. This is ALSO IRREFUTABLE. And,

You have NOT even provided absolutely ANY thing here for us to SHOW you what the solution IS.

You are not understanding the problem.

LOL You OBVIOUSLY did NOT read what I wrote up thread, which was something like;

A 'problem' is, literally, just a question posed for a solution.

WHICH MEANS until you PROVIDE an actual 'question' posed for a 'solution', there is, literally, NO 'problem' AT ALL here.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY might like to define the 'problem' word DIFFERENTLY, which you are perfectly FREE to do so. But, if you WANT to do this, then I suggest you let us ALL in to HOW you define the word 'problem'.

Just saying, "You are not understanding the problem", is absolutely HILARIOUS, especially considering how I am defining the word 'problem' here.

It is not up to me to show you what the solution is, you are supposed to come up with some ideas that might shed some light on it.

I do NOT want you to show us the solution. I want you to PROVIDE the 'problem'. And this was what I even SPECIFICALLY asked you for. I EVEN SAID you have NOT provided ANY 'problem' for us to SHOW you what the 'solution' IS.

So, how you managed to TWIST and TURN that around COMPLETELY to the EXACT OPPOSITE never ceases to amaze me.

The problem is when there is conflict over dualities is consensus possible or does the argument between opposing views continue and lead to conflict over opposing views.

I have ALREADY TOLD you that consensus is NOT just POSSIBLE but has ALREADY OCCURRED.

I have, also, ALREADY TOLD you that for EVERY 'problem' there is a 'solution'. And,

I have, even, ALREADY TOLD you that that last sentence of yours here is NOT even a 'problem' AT ALL. And, this is because of what a 'problem', literally, IS EXACTLY, to me.

LOOK, when there IS 'conflict' over what you call "dualities" what REALLY exists is NOT "dualities" AT ALL. What ACTUALLY EXISTS is just PERCEPTIONS that there are "dualities", which are just IMAGININGS or ILLUSIONS.

Consensus is REACHED by NOT "seeing" the IMAGINED "dualities" but by SEEING what ACTUALLY IS and ACTUALLY EXISTS, INSTEAD. Or, consensus is REACHED by SEEING that the SUPPOSED "dualities" are just ILLUSIONS ONLY, and thus NOT REAL AT ALL.

However, what is also OBVIOUSLY True is that if and when 'you', human beings, "see" that there are "dualities" PICK "one (perceived) side" over "another (perceived) side", then arguing/fighting for "sides" will last for as long as there are PERCEIVED "sides". As ALREADY PROVED True for millennia, hitherto when this is being written.

And, OF COURSE, the continual arguing, fighting, and bickering over "sides" will OBVIOUSLY lead to conflict over these "opposed views", again as PROVED True for millennia. But what makes these thousands of years old conflicts among 'you', adult human beings, all the MORE HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE is that 'you' are LITERALLY bickering, arguing, AND fighting over absolutely NOTHING AT ALL. What 'you' are LITERALLY fighting over does NOT even exist.

You made a dogmatic statement that both are true but have not explained how you know that.

OF COURSE I made a so-called "dogmatic" statement here. And that is because the statement I made here is IRREFUTABLE.

Also you are Correct I made that statement that both are true but I did NOT explain how I KNOW that. Was there some ASSUMPTION that I somehow HAD TO explain how I KNOW that?

Furthermore, you made the statement you just did here, and NEVER even asked a CLARIFYING question about, "How do you know that?"

Oh, and by the way, I have EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY how I KNOW that.

Explain why it is irrefutable that both design and creation exist.

Do NOT TELL me WHAT TO DO, and, I will NOT TELL you WHAT TO DO ALSO, okay?

If you would like me to explain to you WHY BOTH design AND creation exist and that this is irrefutable, then just ask a specific CLARIFYING question, okay?

Also, from what I have gathered from most of 'you', adult human beings, 'design' is more related 'creation', while it is 'evolution' which is on the PERCEIVED "opposing side".

Design AND creation could be seen to exist together ANYWAY.

So, if you do get around to asking a CLARIFYING question the more specific the better.

When there are two opposites, if there is a solution, it would mean that the opposites are reconciled. How do you reconcile opposites, do you have any ideas how?

The so-called "opposites" do NOT actually exist OUTSIDE of 'human thought'. The "opposites", well in philosophical discussions anyway, are just a figment of the imagination.

If you would like to PROVIDE an example of what you consider a "opposites", then I can SHOW what I have been saying here.

One way suggested was a Middle Way, negotiating a path between opposites, leaving both as dualities, with belief in one or the other being accepted without conflict until opinions on either perspective becomes fact through knowing.

We can LOOK AT thousands upon thousands of 'suggestions' made by thousands upon thousands of human beings. But if ANY of them worked FULLY, then we would ALREADY be using that ONE. So, instead of going over what OBVIOUSLY does NOT work, how about we LOOK AT some 'thing' new, to you, and find out if 'that' ACTUALLY WORKS or NOT?

Or, would you REALLY prefer to just 'rehash' those OLD 'suggestions'?

I have, also, ALREADY partly explained how to REACH and ACHIEVE the so-called 'middle ground'.

And, what IS IRREFUTABLE 'Fact' has ALREADY become KNOWN, by the way.

Do you disagree with that assessment or have you any other realistic ideas on the topic.

Did you READ what I wrote in my other replies here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY did you get from that READING?

No dogmatic statements or beliefs please, they are the problem, not a solution to the problem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once one KNOWS what thee 'problem' IS, then one CAN find thee 'solution', and once one HAS thee 'solution', then ALL of these 'opposing views' CAN BE and HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE-SOLVED.

And, once this has been ACHIEVED, then IRREFUTABLE statements CAN BE and WILL BE expressed, of which they can NOT be REFUTED, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, you are so far BEHIND that we are STILL WAITING for you to PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'problem'. That is; PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'question' posed for a 'solution'.

Taking your perspective into account, both creation and evolution are the case. There is no need for a difference of opinion on the topic as both are true, both valid. A solution is not necessary because there is not a problem requiring a solution. The dualities are reconciled. Difference views on design and evolution are based on what is cosmic in nature, and you reconciled them.

Can you similarly reconcile dualities that are terrestrial in nature, Ukraine for example. If from your perspective there is no problem, both points of view exist, both are valid, therefore no solution is necessary. Are dualities a human problem looking for a solution when, as you see it, there is no problem to begin with. Is that your perspective on all dualities; points of view, or does your perspective just apply to points of view that are based on cosmic dualities?

[Age]

You are not understanding the problem.

LOL You OBVIOUSLY did NOT read what I wrote up thread, which was something like;

A 'problem' is, literally, just a question posed for a solution.

WHICH MEANS until you PROVIDE an actual 'question' posed for a 'solution', there is, literally, NO 'problem' AT ALL here.

Now, you OBVIOUSLY might like to define the 'problem' word DIFFERENTLY, which you are perfectly FREE to do so. But, if you WANT to do this, then I suggest you let us ALL in to HOW you define the word 'problem'.

Just saying, "You are not understanding the problem", is absolutely HILARIOUS, especially considering how I am defining the word 'problem' here.

It is not up to me to show you what the solution is, you are supposed to come up with some ideas that might shed some light on it.

I do NOT want you to show us the solution. I want you to PROVIDE the 'problem'. And this was what I even SPECIFICALLY asked you for. I EVEN SAID you have NOT provided ANY 'problem' for us to SHOW you what the 'solution' IS.

So, how you managed to TWIST and TURN that around COMPLETELY to the EXACT OPPOSITE never ceases to amaze me.

The problem is when there is conflict over dualities is consensus possible or does the argument between opposing views continue and lead to conflict over opposing views.

I have ALREADY TOLD you that consensus is NOT just POSSIBLE but has ALREADY OCCURRED.

I have, also, ALREADY TOLD you that for EVERY 'problem' there is a 'solution'. And,

I have, even, ALREADY TOLD you that that last sentence of yours here is NOT even a 'problem' AT ALL. And, this is because of what a 'problem', literally, IS EXACTLY, to me.

LOOK, when there IS 'conflict' over what you call "dualities" what REALLY exists is NOT "dualities" AT ALL. What ACTUALLY EXISTS is just PERCEPTIONS that there are "dualities", which are just IMAGININGS or ILLUSIONS.

Consensus is REACHED by NOT "seeing" the IMAGINED "dualities" but by SEEING what ACTUALLY IS and ACTUALLY EXISTS, INSTEAD. Or, consensus is REACHED by SEEING that the SUPPOSED "dualities" are just ILLUSIONS ONLY, and thus NOT REAL AT ALL.

However, what is also OBVIOUSLY True is that if and when 'you', human beings, "see" that there are "dualities" PICK "one (perceived) side" over "another (perceived) side", then arguing/fighting for "sides" will last for as long as there are PERCEIVED "sides". As ALREADY PROVED True for millennia, hitherto when this is being written.

And, OF COURSE, the continual arguing, fighting, and bickering over "sides" will OBVIOUSLY lead to conflict over these "opposed views", again as PROVED True for millennia. But what makes these thousands of years old conflicts among 'you', adult human beings, all the MORE HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE is that 'you' are LITERALLY bickering, arguing, AND fighting over absolutely NOTHING AT ALL. What 'you' are LITERALLY fighting over does NOT even exist.

You made a dogmatic statement that both are true but have not explained how you know that.

OF COURSE I made a so-called "dogmatic" statement here. And that is because the statement I made here is IRREFUTABLE.

Also you are Correct I made that statement that both are true but I did NOT explain how I KNOW that. Was there some ASSUMPTION that I somehow HAD TO explain how I KNOW that?

Furthermore, you made the statement you just did here, and NEVER even asked a CLARIFYING question about, "How do you know that?"

Oh, and by the way, I have EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY how I KNOW that.

Explain why it is irrefutable that both design and creation exist.

Do NOT TELL me WHAT TO DO, and, I will NOT TELL you WHAT TO DO ALSO, okay?

If you would like me to explain to you WHY BOTH design AND creation exist and that this is irrefutable, then just ask a specific CLARIFYING question, okay?

Also, from what I have gathered from most of 'you', adult human beings, 'design' is more related 'creation', while it is 'evolution' which is on the PERCEIVED "opposing side".

Design AND creation could be seen to exist together ANYWAY.

So, if you do get around to asking a CLARIFYING question the more specific the better.

When there are two opposites, if there is a solution, it would mean that the opposites are reconciled. How do you reconcile opposites, do you have any ideas how?

The so-called "opposites" do NOT actually exist OUTSIDE of 'human thought'. The "opposites", well in philosophical discussions anyway, are just a figment of the imagination.

If you would like to PROVIDE an example of what you consider a "opposites", then I can SHOW what I have been saying here.

One way suggested was a Middle Way, negotiating a path between opposites, leaving both as dualities, with belief in one or the other being accepted without conflict until opinions on either perspective becomes fact through knowing.

We can LOOK AT thousands upon thousands of 'suggestions' made by thousands upon thousands of human beings. But if ANY of them worked FULLY, then we would ALREADY be using that ONE. So, instead of going over what OBVIOUSLY does NOT work, how about we LOOK AT some 'thing' new, to you, and find out if 'that' ACTUALLY WORKS or NOT?

Or, would you REALLY prefer to just 'rehash' those OLD 'suggestions'?

I have, also, ALREADY partly explained how to REACH and ACHIEVE the so-called 'middle ground'.

And, what IS IRREFUTABLE 'Fact' has ALREADY become KNOWN, by the way.

Do you disagree with that assessment or have you any other realistic ideas on the topic.

Did you READ what I wrote in my other replies here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY did you get from that READING?

No dogmatic statements or beliefs please, they are the problem, not a solution to the problem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once one KNOWS what thee 'problem' IS, then one CAN find thee 'solution', and once one HAS thee 'solution', then ALL of these 'opposing views' CAN BE and HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE-SOLVED.

And, once this has been ACHIEVED, then IRREFUTABLE statements CAN BE and WILL BE expressed, of which they can NOT be REFUTED, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, you are so far BEHIND that we are STILL WAITING for you to PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'problem'. That is; PROVIDE an ACTUAL 'question' posed for a 'solution'.

Taking your perspective into account, both creation and evolution are the case. There is no need for a difference of opinion on the topic as both are true, both valid. A solution is not necessary because there is not a problem requiring a solution. The dualities are reconciled. Difference views on design and evolution are based on what is cosmic in nature, and you reconciled them.

Can you similarly reconcile dualities that are terrestrial in nature, Ukraine for example.

Until you explain how "ukraine", itself, (whatever the word 'ukraine' even means or refers to, to you, that is), is, supposedly, a "duality", to you, then I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to how you are "seeing" 'ukraine', itself, as a 'duality'.

I will explain what the word 'ukraine' refers to, to me, and this might help you to explain what you are "seeing" here.

To me, the word 'ukraine' is used to define a particular parcel of land, on earth.

If from your perspective there is no problem, both points of view exist, both are valid, therefore no solution is necessary.

You STILL do NOT YET seem to UNDERSTAND AT ALL what the word 'problem' refers to, to me.

1. To me, there is, literally, absolutely NO 'problem' AT ALL here.

2. What are the SUPPOSED "both points of view" here"?

3. I REALLY DO have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what you are ACTUALLY referring to here.

And, I am NOT even sure how to NOR where to begin to ask you ANY CLARIFYING questions here.

Are dualities a human problem looking for a solution when, as you see it, there is no problem to begin with.

'dualities', themselves, are NOT 'problems' LOOKING FOR a 'solution'.

'dualities' are just what human beings DO. And they do this NATURALLY because this is how 'they' and the human brain, MAKES SENSE of, and LEARNS about, the Universe, in which 'you', human beings, have found "yourselves" WITHIN.

The human brain compartmentalizes thee One into 'things', as the brain can only take 'snippets' in, at a time, and then it is these 'snippets' how 'you' then 'view' and 'see' the 'world' and/or Universe.

'dualities' are NOT human problems. ONLY 'you', human beings, MAKE 'problems'. 'you' do this by questioning 'things', for a 'solution'.

ONLY when human beings asked questions, which are posed for a solution, then an ACTUAL 'problem' is created.

By definition, ALL 'problems' are so-called 'looking for' a 'solution'. Although it is ACTUAL 'you', the human beings, who are LOOKING FOR a 'solution'.

To me, there are NOW NO more 'problems', as once thee answer to the question/problem, 'What is the solution/answer to ALL of 'our' problems/questions?' was answered, properly AND correctly, and because for EVERY problem there is A 'solution', thee answer to 'that' question was thee solution to ALL 'problems', which i found was ACTUALLY A RESOLUTION, to ALL human being created problems.

Thee answer to that question/problem, by the way, was a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD one. That is; IF ANY one is Truly CURIOS to also KNOW 'it'.

Is that your perspective on all dualities; points of view, or does your perspective just apply to points of view that are based on cosmic dualities?

I am STILL trying to work out the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between YOUR 'cosmic duality' from 'your' 'terrestrial duality' or what you call, "dualities that are terrestrial in nature".

[owl of Minerva]

The problem is not mine per se. You should go into conflict resolution and stem the tide before there is another war.

[Eodnhoj7]

In 1802 William Paley in his book ‘Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity’ used the watchmaker analogy as evidence of a designer. For Hume, who had died 26 years prior, existence of an intelligent designer would require explanation, every bit as much as the existence of the world and unlike the watch there were no witnesses. His argument focuses on sense experience as opposed to internal logic and rationality. For Richard Dawkins in 1986 the watchmaker was blind and his design was unconscious and automatic, without foresight or purpose. Pilo 220 B.C. had raised the problem of animal and human suffering allowed by an infinite power when only what it wills is executed.

The conflict lies between that which can be comprehended by sense experience, or by internal logic and rationality, and what is beyond the province of either. Between finite intelligence and infinite intelligence, if it exists, there is a gap that some claim can be bridged. The Rishis; sages, who when enlightened, supposedly realized supreme truth and eternal knowledge and is thought to have consequently made it out of the plane of TIME, thus achieving what Gilgamesh did not; immortality. Human intelligence used pi to calculate the duration of the universe based on its multiples. Short of immortality a lot can be achieved by humans.

The Sumerians were advanced enough to have composed the Gilgamesh Epic in the 2nd millennium B.C. which is interpreted as just a story; a myth. If it is a parable, then the wild man, the snake and all involved were intended to be aspects of Gilgamesh’s own psyche. Although his psychic evolution redeemed, humanized him, it fell short of his desire for immortality.

The watch has evolved since 1802 from mechanical to A.I. with the ability to change automatically in sync with different time zones. It may, or it may not, have reached the apex of watch evolution. Even A.I. evolves.

If like Gilgamesh humans evolve to uniting animal, human and god they may find redemption if not immortality. If as the Rishis they become enlightened they could, unlike Gilgamesh, achieve immortality and the Design versus Evolution argument would be a non-issue. Other than that resolution it is likely to continue.

Evolution is design as evolution is the reformulation of x within a new form; the reformulation of x is the same thing as design.

They could be seen as two parts of the one equation, complementary rather than polarized, as they frequently are perceived to be.

Yep.