[PatrickHenry]

Permit me to offer to Diamond, in connection with his not-yet-posted response to object #6 (which can be seen at post 202), what he said in connection with object #5:

Same answer as #4. Design. For the pretty much the same reasons. The pattern is contingent, that is, it indicates a choice of choosing certain things and ruling out others, and the pattern is highly improbable by chance.
181 posted on 03/07/2003 2:45 PM EST by Diamond

I really am interested to see if a consistent method employing consistent criteria can distinguish between natural and designed objects.

[general_re]

I really am interested to see if a consistent method employing consistent criteria can distinguish between natural and designed objects.

Well, that's more or less why we're here. At least, that's why Diamond and I are here - a discussion on metaphysics appears to have broken out among others ;)

[Diamond]

I really am interested to see if a consistent method employing consistent criteria can distinguish between natural and designed objects.

So am I:^).

I'm having real difficulty coming up with a coherent, consistent distinction between "designed" and "natural object". I'm not even sure if that is the proper distinction because one of the questions I have been wrestling with in trying to solve these problems is whether or not there even any such thing as a "non-natural object". Maybe things such as numbers, propositions, and thoughts, etc. are, but that possibility is not helping me very much with this test:^)

Cordially,