William: For those who are neither theist or nontheist, if something affirms that the universe is designed then the next question to ask is;
"What was it designed for?"
The answers will give some indication as to the follow-up question;
"What is the nature of the designer{s}"
[
Replying to otseng in post #1396]
Yes, studying nature only provides a general revelation of YHWH and does not lead to any specifics about YHWH.
There is certainly enough information in the experience of nature from which the nature of any Creator(s) can be gained.
And it is always from the general that specifics can be ascertained.
General revelation leads only to Deism or Theism.
Deism is a branch of Theism.
To get to more specifics about YHWH would require special revelation.
In the sense that Nature cannot answer the question "What was it designed for?". However, it can provide us with hints toward answering that question, through examining the nature of nature.
Special revelation is a Christian theological term that refers to the belief that knowledge of YHWH and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures—a disclosure of YHWH's truth through means other than through reason.
I consider all theological script as information which may or may not assist with answer the questions "What was it designed for?" "What is the nature of the designer{s}"
I do not consider "supernatural" as a necessary term to use re the nature of the designer{s} as anything antecedent to nature, must be natural to nature.
Biblically speaking, reason is a
primary device of communication between YHWH and a human being, so any writ [Christian or otherwise] which supports that reason has to be left at the door in relation to an individuals communion with the designer{s} is suspect. Faith is what leads one to the door of reason [so has its place] but 'tis best not to rely on others stories of communion with The Creator(s) to the point where one simply settles for those stories rather than developing their own unique story.
I would also add to that comparative religion since religions makes claims and one would need to choose which one of the religions makes more sense.
Or one can take the pieces which constitute the whole scope of religions and from those, form a picture which shows altogether what no religion alone is able to show, that way avoiding confirmation bias.
I consider the main source of special revelation in Christianity is the Bible, which of course this thread argues for its truthfulness and reliability.
Christianity is a fractured entity in regard to the many different denominations and interpretations of the Bible and not the greatest example to be pointing to re truthfulness and reliability so it pays to be careful not to conflate and to test all things before declaring - with evidence - the truthfulness of anything.
Trusting the Bible is one thing. Understanding the nature of a Living Creator{s} a whole other thing.
Now with the Bible we have stories - especially in the OT - which speak of the Nature of YHWH.
I think it reasonable to compare those stories with nature itself - with the artifacts of nature which YHWH is claimed to have created, as an indication of the creator's nature.
If we are to trust the Bible on the subject of being within a created thing, we have to be able to reasonable show that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information re that.
All we have to go by re that, is the evidence of nature itself, and since we cannot even say for sure that nature is or isn't a simulation, we have a ways to go re that.
The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation. Otherwise bushes which speak and which appear to be burning but are not, and other miraculous happenings are not so easy to explain other than with the vague gap-filler word "supernatural" and since the Bible itself doesn't contain the word, it is best to examine what word the Bible does use, to which the word 'supernatural" is substituting, even if just to see if there is any true correlation.
