A trap for the intellect

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

You said it yourself in the beginning of this thread. God is everything.
Life would be just one evolution of matter and energy that succeeded in being able to contemplate and experience the universe(s). Gods plan must provide so many other possibilities as well, perhaps infinitely more.

Infinity is a concept that is impossible to comprehend and implies that there was never a time when God did not exist.

a reply to: charlyv

You said it yourself in the beginning of this thread. God is everything.

What I said was: ". . . . a trap for the mind I shall suggest; "god is everything". Can you escape from that thought?"

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Right, I understood the context but used your quote.
I think I escaped it fairly well, for my own satisfaction.

Thanks for an entertaining thread. I enjoyed everyone's viewpoint.

a reply to: charlyv

You're welcome.

I guess if there is a purpose in the concept of stepping out side the thought that god is every thing, is the similar idea of the forest and the trees.

Sometimes religious folk cannot see the trees anymore and see only the forest.

The trees being our fellow man.

The point being we can see both if we want to.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

What is paranormal or psychic about accessing memories and the state of the minor trance state we sometimes call day-dreams?

Everything about it is normal and easily accessible. It's why I called it a 'hack' by the most modern definition because I'd say it's a bit of a bypass of things we might be hung for talking about 200 years ago.

(I tend waffle on sometimes : )

Quite the opposite and I hope you don't mind my seemingly daft arsed questions... Someone will want to ask them though! As long as there's shoes to wear and thoughts to think at the end of the day me thinks... But I'm waffling.

I do understand this technique. I got it as soon as I read it. I've been trying to thumb at it and experimenting with me always being a 3rd person to the situation... So I cannot be passing any psychological vibes across because I'm not there.

There's noticeable effects by several people. Next week I'm going to inform them of the experiment and see what happens after that, a couple of them are prone to stress and we're talking about a young kid. We'll see...

NobodySpecial268 is now somebody special in my head because he/she revitalised a curiousity for life whilst demonstrating it can be done in a colour or a vibe I very much like and for that I'll be forever grateful.

Waffles?! I always liked them lent pancakes tbh!

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Yeah them trees are all different. Even the same species.

God, god's. No god. The energy for all of it is still there. There's still science, churches, cairns and ruins. They can't undo the journey even if they scatter the stones ya know?

I've kinda vibed with it all if that's the word for it... But I think that's because it's all human in origin as I understand it.

The trees are nothing without the fungus! Heavier elements are nothing without the lighter ones. Such is time... I guess?

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: charlyv

You're welcome.

I guess if there is a purpose in the concept of stepping out side the thought that god is every thing, is the similar idea of the forest and the trees.

Sometimes religious folk cannot see the trees anymore and see only the forest.

...

I got to thinking whether I could come up with one of the major religions that is actually purely pantheistic (teaching that God is everything rather than a single person as in monotheism), but I couldn't come up with one.

From your ealier commentary I got the impression that you got the impression that there are at least some denominations in Christendom that teach that, but I can't think of one. They all at least claim to be monotheistic (even though one could describe Trinitarianism as polytheism in disguise).

Christianity (mind you, I make a distinction between Christianity and Christendom), Islam and Judaism are all monotheistic. Hinduism is polytheistic. Buddhism is “in theory deistic” but it has become in practice polytheistic, as this little bit of history demonstrates (I was quoting Professor Albert S. Geden from the article below, I'll bold it):

...

Does Buddhism Satisfy Man’s Spiritual Need?

Man has an inborn need to worship God. That is why he has always had some form of religion. Can Buddhism satisfy man’s spiritual need? Can it answer his questions about how the universe came about, how life came to be upon earth, why wickedness exists and whether it will ever end?

Concerning the origin of the universe, Buddha said: “The origin of phenomenal existence is inconceivable, and the beginnings of beings obstructed by ignorance and ensnared by craving is not to be discovered.” Buddhist writings say that the universe evolved from the dispersed matter of a previous universe that wore out. In time Buddhists expect that the present one will dissolve and that out of it will arise another.

Zen Buddhist expert Daisetz T. Suzuki emphasized:

“To us Orientals . . . there is no God, no creator, no beginning of things, no ‘Word,’ no ‘Logos,’ no ‘nothing.’ Westerners would then exclaim, ‘It is all nonsense! It is absolutely unthinkable!’ Orientals would say, ‘You are right. As long as there is at all a “thinking” you cannot escape getting into the dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity.’” [Italics ours]

How do you feel about that? Do you wish to believe in something that is admittedly “nonsense” if a person uses his thinking ability? In your own experience have you found that thinking leads only to “dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity”? Are you more successful in coping with the problems of life when you refrain from thinking? Is it really enlightenment to say there is no Creator and to believe in an unprovable theory of evolution? Such a philosophy could never satisfy your spiritual needs. In fact, it failed to do so even for followers of Buddha in ancient times.

Professor Albert S. Geden explains:

“The human craving for an ideal or idealized object of love and homage was too strong. . . . The desire was met, and found its satisfaction, in the deification [after his death] of [Buddha] himself; . . . With him were reintroduced the Hindu deities, or the more important and popular of them. But they were always subordinated in attributes and power to the Buddha. And thus a system in theory deistic became a practical polytheism.”

Toward the beginning of the Common Era images of Buddha made their appearance. The simple places of Buddhist devotion were changed into elaborate temples. Some of these temples also contain images of the Hindu gods Vishnu, Siva and Ganesha. Buddha’s refusal to enlighten his followers about God left a vacuum that was filled by his own deification and by adopting gods and practices of other religions.

...

Source: Is Buddhism the Way to Enlightenment? (Awake!—1974)

a reply to: RAY1990

I'm glad you got it and knew it too.

I do understand this technique. I got it as soon as I read it. I've been trying to thumb at it and experimenting with me always being a 3rd person to the situation... So I cannot be passing any psychological vibes across because I'm not there.

I spose it is a matter of knowing what one is doing. Psycholgy aside, one is surrounding the person with one's own feelings. So something of one'self is being "passed on". I know the mom in the USA said she tried it on her kids and they would look her way or give her a hug. I guess the kids just felt like giving mom a hug. Which of course tells one something. Like the recipient knows who is doing what, at least at some level.

When one feels utterly alone and depressed, all one often needs is to know someone is there. That often makes all the difference. We all get isolated at times.

And with kids, well, all they want to do is get better and then off they go. Like when they graze their knee. Put a bandaid on the graze and they are gone off to play again in an instant. They don't really care otherwise.

Since you can work with this, and have an understanding that it is from our own memory that we are drawing feelings from. One can use other memories as a part of our bag of tricks: herbal remedies.

With troubled kids, they often get sleeping problems and problems waking up. The Chamomile tea is often used for these things as it calms. I have used my own memory of drinking the tea in addition to the other memory.

I like organic growing and have grown the German chamomile plant, I like the flowers. I also like the tea especially the smell. And used it medicinally.

So I know the plant, and it's remedying effects as a memory. One doesn't need to know the bio-chemistry, the body knows the tea and has that memory.

So what I did was to 'hold the child' in the feeling and then remember what I could about chamomile tea, the flowers and the scent. Just as a second memory. That kid fell asleep pretty quick. Used it on her mom too. I get the impression of flowers falling upon the person.

When one is used to working this way the scene of the child becomes interactive and one can see them begin to smile. That's when one's own intuition kicks in.

But really, I wouldn't be too concerned with psychology, it's one's own intentions that matter, in my mind anyway.

I'm getting on in years and spend time sitting on my front veranda watch the town's kids wandering past. I think there is room where one can quietly look after the kids who live in our street in this way. The sad ones now and again.

a reply to: whereislogic

Your impression of my impressions are correct : )

I got to thinking whether I could come up with one of the major religions that is actually purely pantheistic (teaching that God is everything rather than a single person as in monotheism), but I couldn't come up with one.

From your ealier commentary I got the impression that you got the impression that there are at least some denominations in Christendom that teach that, but I can't think of one. They all at least claim to be monotheistic (even though one could describe Trinitarianism as polytheism in disguise).

That is so in theory (orthodoxy) I would suggest too. Yet in practice the common denominator is people generally act as if it is their god(s) who is/are the creator(s) of everything and everyone. The creation (by man) of orthodoxy, creates at the same time heracy. Just the other day I encountered what I would call the medieval Inquisitor mind.

(smile) An exercise in futility (suicide?) is to say to the orthodox religious mind: "Your god did not create me."

On the other hand I also met a Sister of the church. When she speaks of her religious community I get the impression of an inward looking community where she lives within her faith and her God is in there. The Sister takes the name of her Saint, and if I am correct one might say the Sisters are subsequently a community of Saints.

Daisetz T. Suzuki reminds me of the non-human's point of view.

“To us Orientals . . . there is no God, no creator, no beginning of things, no ‘Word,’ no ‘Logos,’ no ‘nothing.’ Westerners would then exclaim, ‘It is all nonsense! It is absolutely unthinkable!’ Orientals would say, ‘You are right. As long as there is at all a “thinking” you cannot escape getting into the dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity.’” [Italics ours]

Of the origin of the universe the beginnings of things the Daoine Sidhe (fairy folk) have said to me; some things have always been. From my own observations it is humans who do all the thinking and intellectualization. I have not met any other Beings who live in created worlds of constructed thought as humans do.

I wonder if even a Zen Master could live entirely without thinking for the later half of a lifetime. Thinking seems to be an entrenched aspect of the living human.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

There is of course a difference between the teaching that God created everything and the teaching that God is everything.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

There is of course a difference between the teaching that God created everything and the teaching that God is everything.

I differ and lets go logic on that...

"God pushed over the first domino that led to everything being created as a direct result of the (domino) object before it."

Everything that was created can be traced to God. It may not BE God, but would not be there without God... So God is everything.

The Anthropic principle is based upon the same logic.

"The world is the way it is, because if it was not, you would not be here to observe it."

a reply to: whereislogic

There is of course a difference between the teaching that God created everything and the teaching that God is everything.

Well, yes there is a difference between the two statements.

I asked a Catholic Sister the statement as you wrote it and her reply was: is there a difference?

So I guess it is the interpretation of the book-learning, or when someone experiences their god directly themselves. I have no reason to doubt the Sister in what she says.

Come to think of it the new-age had their "universe" as a synonym for "god" and to them everything is one.

originally posted by: charlyv
...
Everything that was created can be traced to God. It may not BE God, but would not be there without God... So God is everything.

The fancy term for that kind of logical fallacy is a non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”). It does not follow from the fact that everything that was created by God would not have been there without God that God is everything. Besides, there's a bit of a contradiction in there, don't want to get into too many details about that one, but "not BE" and "is" are opposites (it's the same verb).

The Anthropic principle is based upon the same logic.

"The world is the way it is, because if it was not, you would not be here to observe it."

The anthropic principle is actually not exactly the same thing as the related opinions given by those who came up with the term, regarding the question why things in nature (in particular the forces of nature) are so well suited to support life on earth, a response to the fine-tuning argument. I.e. what you quoted is not actually a very accurate description of the anthropic principle itself. But this article has a useful question to ponder about that particular response to the fine-tuning argument:

...

What do you think? Which explanation best fits the fine-tuning observable in the cosmos? Purposeful design or mindless process?

‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

...

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

Continuing with that subject, cause this article quotes John Barrow and Frank Tipler from The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (hopefully I'm not skipping too much of the context):

‘Something Is Missing’—What? (Awake!—1996)

... Theories abound, but honest observers echo Margaret Geller’s astute observation that despite the glib talk, something fundamental seems to be missing in science’s current understanding of the cosmos.

Missing—The Willingness to Face Unpalatable Facts

Most scientists—and this includes most cosmologists—subscribe to the theory of evolution. They find talk unpalatable that gives intelligence and purpose a role in creation, and they shudder at the mere mention of God as Creator. They refuse even to consider such heresy. Psalm 10:4 speaks disparagingly of the supercilious person who “makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’” His creative deity is Chance. But as knowledge increases and chance and also coincidence collapse under the growing load, the scientist begins to turn more and more to such no-no’s as intelligence and design. Consider the following examples:

“A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence,” wrote astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, page 189.

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”—Disturbing the Universe, by Freeman Dyson, page 250.

“What features of the Universe were essential for the emergence of creatures such as ourselves, and is it through coincidence, or for some deeper reason, that our Universe has these features? . . . Is there some deeper plan that ensures that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?”—Cosmic Coincidences, by John Gribbin and Martin Rees, pages xiv, 4.

Fred Hoyle also comments on these properties, on page 220 of his book quoted above: “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”

“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, page vii.

God, Design, and the Constants of Physics

What are some of these fundamental constants of physics that are essential for life to exist in the universe? A report in The Orange County Register of January 8, 1995, listed a few of these constants. It stressed how fine-tuned these features must be, stating: “The quantitative values of many basic physical constants defining the universe—for example, the charge of an electron, or the fixed velocity of light, or the ratio of the strengths of fundamental forces in nature—are ravishingly precise, some to 120 decimal places. The development of a life-breeding universe is exceedingly sensitive to these specifications. Any tiny variation—a nanosecond here, an angstrom there—and the universe might well have been dead and barren.”

The author of this report then mentioned the usually unmentionable: “It seems more reasonable to assume that some mysterious bias lurks within the process, perhaps in the action of an intelligent and intentional power who fine-tuned the universe in preparation for our arrival.”

George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology, gave a longer list of these physical constants in his book The Symbiotic Universe. Among those listed were constants so fine-tuned that if they were off to the very slightest degree, no atoms, no stars, no universe, would have ever been possible. The details of these relationships are listed in the accompanying box. They must exist for physical life to be possible. They are complex and may not be understood by all readers, but they are recognized, along with many others, by astrophysicists trained in these areas.

As this list lengthened, Greenstein became overwhelmed. He said: “So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. . . . Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Sickened and horrified by the thought, Greenstein quickly recanted, recovered his scientifically religious orthodoxy, and proclaimed: “God is not an explanation.” No reason—it was just so unpalatable that he could not stomach the thought!

...

a reply to: charlyv

"The world is the way it is, because if it was not, you would not be here to observe it."

Defining God is often a fools errand if you want to apply it to everything because the human mind will always fall short.

Even if we know God we haven't seen it all. When we have I'm sure we'll reflect on memories.

The idea that God is math or the closest we'll get is via the math never alluded me though, it's practically the same as 'the domino effect' idea or even a big bang idea.

The sum of the calculations.

a reply to: RAY1990

Also, from the notion that God is everything that was created (i.e. everything that God created), arises the question, what was God before he created anything?

The Bible speaks about an eternal God, a God that already existed before He created the universe and everything in it. So if we're talking about a God that already existed before the universe along with the notion that God is everything that was created, what was God before He created anything? He can't have been everything that was created, at least not yet.

a reply to: whereislogic

Professor Greenstein carefully crafted a thought of the perfect cosmos. He trapped himself and paniced, then found refuge in another thought; his scientifically religious orthodoxy. LOL

He could have stepped sideways, but rather the good professor jumped from box to box.

Sickened and horrified by the thought, Greenstein quickly recanted, recovered his scientifically religious orthodoxy, and proclaimed: “God is not an explanation.” No reason—it was just so unpalatable that he could not stomach the thought!

Though I must admit this other passage is very human centric ; )

The author of this report then mentioned the usually unmentionable: “It seems more reasonable to assume that some mysterious bias lurks within the process, perhaps in the action of an intelligent and intentional power who fine-tuned the universe in preparation for our arrival.”

I'm really not well versed in anything religious/spiritual, so my comments may be pointless. Nevertheless!

That is so in theory (orthodoxy) I would suggest too. Yet in practice the common denominator is people generally act as if it is their god(s) who is/are the creator(s) of everything and everyone. The creation (by man) of orthodoxy, creates at the same time heracy

That's where it gets so dicey. It would be fantastic, if what ever religion/belief being held was considered more along the lines of a guideline, not the be all, end all. A moral or ethical guideline. Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek. Not used as an excuse to demonise or hurt others, just because it doesn't fit exactly in their religious/spiritual/personal view.

But then, I suppose, why would someone want or need to adhere to, or subscribe to, someone else's thoughts on a righteous way to live - I think the majority of people don't set out to willingly hurt or harm others. I could also just be too optimistic, haha.

“To us Orientals . . . there is no God, no creator, no beginning of things, no ‘Word,’ no ‘Logos,’ no ‘nothing.’ Westerners would then exclaim, ‘It is all nonsense! It is absolutely unthinkable!’ Orientals would say, ‘You are right. As long as there is at all a “thinking” you cannot escape getting into the dilemma or the bottomless abyss of absurdity.’”

I quite like that way of thinking. It can be very easy to think yourself into some terribly bad ways. Why is this happening? Have I caused a higher power to hate me? Why would God(s) do such a thing?
I don't know if perhaps it's a way to, I suppose, shift the burden of having to deal with any strife and hostility we might encounter? Sort of, take a backseat to what is actually happening to one's self, try to minimise suffering?
It can seem awfully bleak thinking that horrible things are happening to yourself, just because, and now you have to get through it. No special significance, just deal with it.

I think it's kind of liberating, to think that we are all here just by what ever coincidence or cosmic craziness. No rhyme or reason, it's all here just because. You get to create your own reason! Hopefully for the betterment of yourself and without malicious intent to others. I, again, like to think that's what most people want.

I feel like I've rambled on enough now!

a reply to: whereislogic

I've heard a few theories that mostly come from science, infusions of energy from a parallel universe or other dimensions is one. I'm sure I mentioned earlier here that from a young age I always figured eventually there'd be a singularity event when the last 2 black holes eat each other.

But entropy and 'dark matter' whatever that is apparently says the last one won't happen. It's said information is stored not forgotten though! Not sure how entropy applies to that I don't have a PhD.

The only thing my brain has managed to come up with after that is the idea of something beating the entropy by isolating itself from time and space. It doesn't seem I'm the first to think along those lines either, Arthur C Clark has a short story I vaguely remember along some similar lines and Dr Who has apparently played with concepts surrounding a repeating multiverse theory I think.

I naturally get lost at the "what happens when something encounters nothingness" and I know my thoughts on that are influenced by the likes of Genesis and other similar works of creation. Nothingness really doesn't like itself is where my mind goes... It's not like we'll find 'it' anyways really.

The way I described it earlier is like this:
If a being or intelligence beat the entropy or the end of the universe and managed to appear in nothingness it would spark a reaction of replication. The intelligence would be absolutely consumed as pure energy is slowly but surely reformed into another slightly more blurry picture.

More of a bad sci-fi horror plot than a theory or anything. If you did want to call it a theory though God would've been everything even if it only existed for the brief moment of the big bang... Everything else is a building experiment of rediscovery for the next ride of our lives.

what was God before he created anything?

God. I could waffle on and try to explain that but nobody seemingly does it effectively anyways. Quantify the eternal?

Chasing your tail will make you dizzy!

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: whereislogic

I've heard a few theories that mostly come from science, infusions of energy from a parallel universe or other dimensions is one.

Regarding the earlier remarks in the article that addresses the multiverse idea, concerning this being pure speculation, do you think it might be more appropiate to think of these ideas* referred to as "theories" as philosophical speculation rather than science? (or coming from science as you put it, because those who refer to themselves and eachother as "scientists" are proposing them, leaving the distinction between what is science and what is philosophy, or philosophical speculation, a bit fuzzy as they do so.) *: a synonym for "ideas" is "philosophies".

Remember that the word "science" comes from the Latin scientia, which means "knowledge". Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities (all synonyms) acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. So science really should be all about well-established* facts (*: by the evidence, including what has been observed in relation to the topic at hand).

Here's how Isaac Newton approached the pursuit of science/knowledge (these are also still synonyms), you can call it a scientific method:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

A little reminder regarding the term "scientist" (this relates to my earlier remark about "those who refer to themselves and eachother as scientists" and why I put it that way):

From wiki (the page for "scientist"):

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

I.e. they used to be called (natural) philosophers. One may wonder if failed philosophical speculations may have something to do with the name change to "scientists", as a marketing ploy (like sometimes companies will change the name of a product when the product has gotten bad publicity).

For those who want to know more about how inductive reasoning relates to science and the sciences (and this topic of purposeful design or mindless process), Michael Behe explains it well after 35 minutes in this presentation:

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

The country I live in has religious freedom, and the right to pursue your own truth. My personal truth isn’t someone else’s truth.

Gods isn’t everything because God gave us freewill. We choose to form our own thoughts. Some pursue spiritual evil, that is sin that is not God. And they become separated from God.

So your logic is wrong to begin with. There is no trap. Except the trap you think your smarter than the average cookie. And you need the attention of this thread.