King Follet Discourses

[Tarski]

But this entails dualism then doesn't it? The old problem of how we can know anything about what is "out there"? There are just so many problems with correspondence theories of truth- the other view is so simple when you understand it- it is Occams Razor to the max- We know what we experience, and it makes no sense to talk about anything else because it is speculation. Hypotheses ok, but then we extend knowledge. Period. Done. So simple!

And from my pov- subjective experience is "real"- it is just subjective. Simple, easy. Gimme a minute to check the links

I am always worried if by experience you mean something more metaphysically loaded than what I mean. I tend to not see the point of ephasizing the idea of subjectivity when I use the word. Usual is is "our" collective active in the world experience that matters.

The whole idea of subjective experience, especially as something just "given" that is pure, immediate and pre-theoretical is something quite questionable. It is just part of a theory itself.

What I put below in pink is just my tired brain groping for what I am trying to say. I recognize trouble with it and that it is muddled in places, but I put it out there unedited just as a catalyst for thought.

The idea of a subjective experience is just a construct we have found useful. There are no uninterpreted anythings, not even subjective experience or sense data. Even the ideas of sense data or raw feels, or subjective feeling are tentative theoretical items that I may find reason to jettison in the future.

In other words, it isn't so simple as to say we just know what we experience. Perhaps we don't.

Let us formulate it this way.

We are not in direct contact with anything, not even our subjective experience. In fact, just to talk that way, about being "in here" separated from the world, or to consider that we are in direct contact with this or that, is to still buy into the metaphysical baggage of mind/body dualism.

People can be wrong about what they experience.

A simple example; I may declare that I was just in pain one tenth of a second ago. But I may be wrong. My memory could be malfunctioning. I could be unconsciously confabulating.

One may say, I may have dreamed something unreal but I dreamed what I dreamed and that experience was surely what I think is was as a "seeming" or subjective event.

But no, there is no inner world safe from misinterpretation. We really do not know our own experience (inner seemings) perfectly any better than anything else and it is not something we know of without the intervention of conceptual constructs and so on.

I am just as epsitemically near or far from the shimmering subjective patch of pink in my visual field as I am from the chemical dye in the colored ice cube I think may be causing it. Well, there may be near or far, but certainly there is no metaphysical divide.

I guess part of what I am saying that there is no inner world which we have unmediated access to and which has a more primal ontological status than cars, cats or communism. In fact, the whole idea of 'subjective" in this philosophical sense is parasitic on Cartesian dualism. What we really have is our actions, words, behaviors etc, and it is all subject to error and all fully theory laden.

It is just more of what we have theories about. We have theories about our experience, about what an experience even is, what its ontological status is and how real it is, and the role it plays in knowledge.

So what I propose is to put everything into the roughly same metaphysical bin so when I say, there is an a dog on my porch, or I say there is NaCl in my water, or when I say I experience a frision of redness in my visual field, it is all concept laden, language infected, and theoretical in some sense. All of those statements can in principle be overturned or doubted.

Or does this strike you as crazy:

I experienced a black hole at the center of the galaxy by reading about it in a book but I experienced a patch of red by reading if off my retina. As I come to learn more I may decide that one or both of those things do or do not deserve to be called real. I may jettison them from my circle of accepted entities.

In both cases I employed concepts, theory, and imagination and there is nothing beyond dispute in any of it.

[Tarski]

This argument is ridiculous. The only argument you have here is that since the Creator of the Universe might have reproduced the life found here on earth from the designs He already had on hand, He isn't the designer. All this implies is that iit's Somebody else is the designer.

Who? In traditional Mormon theology, none of is was designed, there have always been trees, always been chickens, and always been mammals, and cells, and bones and eyes etc. It is not that God didn't design it, it is that no one did since there was never a time when it wasn't there available and sitting in a chain of copying or procreating.

Every biological being was procreated from a being like it and the spirit body was procreated by a god who has the same body plan.

I don't know who you think designed what and when.

You really should read the whole thread, especially Asbestosman's comments.

[mfbukowski]

What I put below in pink is just my tired brain groping for what I am trying to say. I recognize trouble with it and that it is muddled in places, but I put it out there unedited just as a catalyst for thought.

Thanks. Looks interesting, and I have a busy weekend. Exciting stuff.

[mfbukowski]

Ok turns out I have about a half hour before I have to go.

I am always worried if by experience you mean something more metaphysically loaded than what I mean. I tend to not see the point of ephasizing the idea of subjectivity when I use the word. Usual is is "our" collective active in the world experience that matters.

It is what matters to science- to social construction- to collective experience of the race. But to ME- to YOU as a human- we LIVE in the subjective- it is the only thing that matters to each of us individually. It is where we make choices, write poems, have experiences which verify science itself- TO US. If you had not experienced what you have you would not believe in science and math- witness those here who do not! Their personal experiences have been quite different than yours- your education, what you have read, the way you were raised- all combined to create you as you are- your very personality is the result of "subjective experience"- and that just totally "matters" in who you are! If you had been raised in a pre-literate third world village, we would probably not be having this discussion for many reasons.

The whole idea of subjective experience, especially as something just "given" that is pure, immediate and pre-theoretical is something quite questionable. It is just part of a theory itself.

It is questionable if this ever happens. I had a big discussion with John Williams who is into semiotics about if there can be pre-linguistic "experience" and I could not convince him that such a thing is possible. He believes as most into semiotics do, that language conditions every experience. I am not sure if this is what you are saying or what you are objecting to.

What I put below in pink is just my tired brain groping for what I am trying to say. I recognize trouble with it and that it is muddled in places, but I put it out there unedited just as a catalyst for thought.

No problem- I am just happy we appear to be communicating!

Everything below this was pink- it is just too hard to edit and leave it pink right now

The idea of a subjective experience is just a construct we have found useful. There are no uninterpreted anythings, not even subjective experience or sense data. Even the ideas of sense data or raw feels, or subjective feeling are tentative theoretical items that I may find reason to jettison in the future.

In other words, it isn't so simple as to say we just know what we experience. Perhaps we don't.

Yes- I am ok with the "perhaps"- but I would say perhaps we do. I think I can give examples, but I don't think anything important really hinges on it. More to come after I think about it.

Let us formulate it this way.

We are not in direct contact with anything, not even our subjective experience. In fact, just to talk that way, about being "in here" separated from the world, or to consider that we are in direct contact with this or that, is to still buy into the metaphysical baggage of mind/body dualism.

People can be wrong about what they experience.

But how would you know that with no world out there to confirm it? It can't be stated that way- more like People can have experiences the outcome of which are not what they expected.

A simple example; I may declare that I was just in pain one tenth of a second ago. But I may be wrong. My memory could be malfunctioning. I could be unconsciously confabulating.

But what are the practical consequences of this action? Why does it matter? The fact is, people jump off of bridges because they make such mistakes- and yes they do make them. That is the state of the world- we are wrong about the world- but that doesn't imply dualism. The mistake can be in your head as easily as in the world- in experience as much as out there.

One may say, I may have dreamed something unreal but I dreamed what I dreamed and that experience was surely what I think is was as a "seeming" or subjective event.

Yes- it happens that way- so what? What is wrong with that? Remember there is no out there anymore- all that matters is the consequences of mistakes. And people make them, and suffer them.

But no, there is no inner world safe from misinterpretation.

No such outer world either! The quest for certainty itself is an illusion. Look at my siggy! What works works!

We really do not know our own experience (inner seemings) perfectly any better than anything else and it is not something we know of without the intervention of conceptual constructs and so on.

yes, but we can know nothing BETTER either!

I am just as epsitemically near or far from the shimmering subjective patch of pink in my visual field as I am from the chemical dye in the colored ice cube I think may be causing it. Well, there may be near or far, but certainly there is no metaphysical divide.

I guess part of what I am saying that there is no inner world which we have unmediated access to and which has a more primal ontological status than cars, cats or communism. In fact, the whole idea of 'subjective" in this philosophical sense is parasitic on Cartesian dualism. What we really have is our actions, words, behaviors etc, and it is all subject to error and all fully theory laden.

It doesnt matter- I have to go- more later.

[Stargazer]

Who? In traditional Mormon theology, none of is was designed, there have always been trees, always been chickens, and always been mammals, and cells, and bones and eyes etc. It is not that God didn't design it, it is that no one did since there was never a time when it wasn't there available and sitting in a chain of copying or procreating.

Every biological being was procreated from a being like it and the spirit body was procreated by a god who has the same body plan.

I don't know who you think designed what and when.

You really should read the whole thread, especially Asbestosman's comments.

I don't think traditional Mormon theology concerns itself with the ultimate orgin of things in that sense. I do think that whatever is said in the KFD and whatever other LDS "theologians" have said about ultimate origins are, if being generated by men with a true vision from the Almighty, like what is said about the Tao. It is said that "the Tao which can be explained is not the true Tao." When they talk, we listen and maybe catch a few glints of what they know, because they simply cannot approach a description of the truth that comes even vaguely close to explaining the reality. As Paul said, we see as through a glass, darkly. And it's glass that is so dark that it can be used to protect one's vision from heliarc welding. We can only gain any kind of real understanding from our own experience, which we will be powerless to explain to another.

Please don't take this wrong, or take it personally, but your first paragraph above is so full of crap that it cannot even be estimated with any degree of accuracy how much crap it's full of. Your words may, on their face, mean something. In fact they may mean something quite interesting and arguable, and we could pleasantly wile away hours and hours talking about them. But because you don't know what you're talking about, and the only thing I can offer in its place is more crap of approximately the same degree of crapitude, our entire discussion would be so meaningless and misdirected that we might as well be trapped in Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot. For eternity. Simply because nobody knows enough about it to shed any light on it, and the only way out is to argue endlessly about the dead horse of Intelligent Design vs the dead horse of Darwinism.

Face it, Tarski, we don't know. We cannot even frame the question that would elicit an answer we could understand. You escape the problem by denying there is a Creator and you have faith (and hope) that this is so; I escape it by affirming that there is a Creator and have faith (and hope) that this is so. I happen to have had multiple experiences of the Spirit that convince me that if I wait on God for explanations, the explanations will be forthcoming, and I will understand them when they are given. You cannot get into my head, so we're at an impasse on that. And there we are.

I've probably made utterly no sense, though I know what it is I wanted to say. I'm so tired of these Evolution vs ID discussions. I think I will stay out of them from now on.

Astronomy and computer programming is so much more restful than this crap.

[mfbukowski]

OK-

Time for a slightly more measured response to your bottom line rather than hurrying through line by line:

So what I propose is to put everything into the roughly same metaphysical bin so when I say, there is an a dog on my porch, or I say there is NaCl in my water, or when I say I experience a frision of redness in my visual field, it is all concept laden, language infected, and theoretical in some sense. All of those statements can in principle be overturned or doubted.

Absolutely on the money. Any statement is verifiable only by "what works." Any statement. That is the definition of truth (of course it is more complex- but that is the one-minute summary)

Or does this strike you as crazy:

I experienced a black hole at the center of the galaxy by reading about it in a book but I experienced a patch of red by reading if off my retina. As I come to learn more I may decide that one or both of those things do or do not deserve to be called real. I may jettison them from my circle of accepted entities.

In both cases I employed concepts, theory, and imagination and there is nothing beyond dispute in any of it.

Not sure what you mean by "beyond dispute"- but the way I see it is that there is subjective experience "inside us"- though there is a blur there- and there is collective experience- what we all see and observe casually, and more precisely (science)

But all these experiences - these concepts theories and perceptions are conditioned by language and reality as it is socially constructed by all of us together. Some experience is personal, some social- but all is ultimately linguistic, and the propositions thereof are verified by their consequences when- as you put it- the "universe kicks". I hope that helps.

[asbestosman]

It's harmless, I tell you. The world hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket because a large number of people believe God created the Universe and everything in it! I believe it, but it hasn't turned me into a drooling mind-controlled robot. The stock market continues to rise... er... well, anyway, the welfare rolls continue to swell, and things go on the way they have always done.

You realize I believe in God and I still concede Tarski's point in this thread.

No, Tarski can't disprove the existence of God. He can't even prove that life wasn't designed by God. All he's doing in this thread is demonstrating that the design argument as put forth by Mordecai and the guys at the Discovery Institute is incompatible with the King Follet Discourse. That's it. He didn't say that proves there's no God. He didn't say that proves life must have evolved without a designer. He's simply pointing out a logical problem for Mormons who support Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute.

[volgadon]

No it can't! LOL

What in the world are you talking about. This is nonsense.

Before you so flippantly dismiss something as nonsense, you might profit from seeing an example of a different POV. Take a look at Exodus 31:1-11 ad 35:25-36:8.

[flooger]

I do agree that the LDS view of ID must definitely differ from a "non LDS" view of ID, and this because of certain beliefs unique to the LDS faith. So, if an LDS person would claim that they believe in ID in exactly the same way as a non LDS person does, I would not agree with this statement. However, I think that the OP shows a definite lack of understanding as to the meaining of the word "design". A design does not have to be totally unique to be a design. Anybody who designs for a living would know this. For example, a design was created for the current honda accord model. Likewise, a different design was created by a different party for the current nissan altima model. These two cars are extremely similar overall (both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, a gasoline powered engine, very similar mechanical systems, etc.). However, each car had a unique design that was created by different designers. Do the talented designers at nissan not receive any credit for their design just because somebody else designed a honda accord before them?

[Stargazer]

You realize I believe in God and I still concede Tarski's point in this thread.

No, Tarski can't disprove the existence of God. He can't even prove that life wasn't designed by God. All he's doing in this thread is demonstrating that the design argument as put forth by Mordecai and the guys at the Discovery Institute is incompatible with the King Follet Discourse. That's it. He didn't say that proves there's no God. He didn't say that proves life must have evolved without a designer. He's simply pointing out a logical problem for Mormons who support Intelligent Design as promoted by the Discovery Institute.

That's OK, I know who you are.

But if the Discovery Institute did not exist and we were discussing Intelligent Design from the point of view that I myself have, namely that God created the whole shooting match and left us with complete coverage for plausible deniability, then Mordecai might be arguing pretty much the same point without whatever baggage the DI has, and Tarski might be just answering his arguments rather than shadowboxing with the DI via Mordecai. I just got tired of what amounted to accusations of impurity with respect to whatever contamination ID has acquired from DI. Debate the facts, don't debate the personalities and yet that seems to be what was happening. "Yeah, Darwin's a dirty scumbag, so his ideas are junk, too." vs "DI has a bunch of rat-faced Creationists on board, what do they know?"

All I am trying to say is that it bloody looks like the Creator is either nonexistent or else hiding in plain sight. Tarski goes with the former, and Mordecai the latter, why can't they argue the facts? I know, I know, because Mordecai's is placing things into evidence that the DI likes or even sourced, and since it has no credibility with Tarski.... well, there we go.

Alfred Wegener couldn't come up with a mechanism behind the idea of continental drift, and was a freaking meterologist to boot, so he got short shrift with the geological community. Ooops, guess what, the state of the art advances and wouldn't you know it, he was right after all. For all we know something will be discovered in ten years that throws the entire Darwinist community into a tizzy because it directly contradicts what is now considered settled fact, like hwat happened with the Phlogiston Theory, way back when.

Ah, well.

Edited to add: Yes, I understand that the problem this time is with the contradiction between LDS doctrine as stated in the KFD and DI's ID, but Joseph said a lot of things that indicated he was giving a very vague precis of what he did know, and left a lot of stuff out that couldn't be said to that audience, and he was very clear on that point. So, as I was trying ineffectually to say earlier, we wade in a sea of crap trying to understand what the hell is going on in this mess, and we have no basis of understanding to enable us to speak intelligently about it, even though we think we do. The REALITY that we will learn in the future will make all this sound and fury signify absolutely nothing. So, let's at least given each other the benefit of the doubt of our positions.

[asbestosman]

Do the talented designers at nissan not receive any credit for their design just because somebody else designed a honda accord before them?

Of course they do. There are meaningful differences between each, not simply superficial differences such as the color of paint (which while important to a consumer, isn't a functional difference). Again, this is irrelevant to our discussion here because the sort of differences which exist from person to person are things like the color of our hair or our fingerprints. The cars are different in significant ways which require a designer such as what engine it uses, the shape and weight of the body, and other such things.

Here's the thing. In order to show that design can be inferred (not simply allowed, but validly inferred) through the differences we see between people, we need to establish that such variation could not conceivably be explained by random variation. We can do this in the case of cars from Honda and Nissan. Can we do so for our bodies? Do our bodies have significant improvements or trade offs from the body of flesh and bone which God has, or will all our bodies have the same capabilities after the resurrection if we are righteous?

[asbestosman]

Edited to add: Yes, I understand that the problem this time is with the contradiction between LDS doctrine as stated in the KFD and DI's ID, but Joseph said a lot of things that indicated he was giving a very vague precis of what he did know, and left a lot of stuff out that couldn't be said to that audience, and he was very clear on that point.

While I'm not completely sure about the doctrinal status of KFD (it's not in the canon), there are other scriptures that lead me to similar conclusions such as God having a body of flesh and bone, and eternal marriage which also imply that our bodies weren't designed by God. Now granted, maybe there is a first god and bodies were designed. I don't think I can say for sure from a doctrinal point of view.

So, let's at least given each other the benefit of the doubt of our positions.

I can certainly give people the benefit of the doubt about whether they think something was designed by God or not. However, what I'm doing is saying that if one holds position X, it undermines position Y. I don't think I can give logical consequences the benefit of the doubt the way I can opinions. I can, however, accept that I may be mistaken. I've tried to explain how one might demonstrate that I'm mistaken (by pointing out significant, functional differences between individuals which indicate design keeping in mind any implications this has for resurrected bodies).

[flooger]

Of course they do. There are meaningful differences between each, not simply superficial differences such as the color of paint (which while important to a consumer, isn't a functional difference). Again, this is irrelevant to our discussion here because the sort of differences which exist from person to person are things like the color of our hair or our fingerprints. The cars are different in significant ways which require a designer such as what engine it uses, the shape and weight of the body, and other such things.

Here's the thing. In order to show that design can be inferred (not simply allowed, but validly inferred) through the differences we see between people, we need to establish that such variation could not conceivably be explained by random variation. We can do this in the case of cars from Honda and Nissan. Can we do so for our bodies? Do our bodies have significant improvements or trade offs from the body of flesh and bone which God has, or will all our bodies have the same capabilities after the resurrection if we are righteous?

Fair enough. But what i was trying to point out is that the designs of these cars were still designs in their own right. Just because somebody else designed other cars before these particular cars, and becuase other cars existed before these cars existed, it doesn't mean that these cars were not designed. It seemed to me that the OP was pointing out that because our Heavenly Father's Father designed worlds and humans, that our own Father couldn't design anything himself, he could only take the original plans off the shelf and build from those plans. Next year somebody else will design their own car. Granted, the cars vs. humans analogy is not definitely not perfect. Mostly, i'm just taking a different view of the definition of "design" than the OP took.

[Mordecai]

What you are describing is not design. A designer does not copy older designs - he creates new ones.

I disagree. A designer is quite likely to copy older designs. It would still result in a positive identification of intelligent design using Intelligent Design methodology.

[asbestosman]

I disagree. A designer is quite likely to copy older designs. It would still result in a positive identification of intelligent design using Intelligent Design methodology.

Assuming of course that the initial design was actually designed by someone. If it simply always existed, then ID would be giving a false positive since nobody designed it.

ID might be able to point to design if someone copies a snowflake, as long as the copied snowflake can be shown to 1) be a copy and 2) too improbable to be a copy through chance. However, this doesn't save the ID from being undermined if one accepts the KFD. If you accept the design of one thing as having always existed, then you can accept the design of robots who copy the design as having always existed. Thus you undermine the idea that copying a design must have required intelligence when the design itself did not require intelligence to exist.

In fact if one accepts timeless designs then pointing to variation will not save design inference. To point to a variation and say this must have been designed while excepting the existence of complicated and unlikely design as timeless and uncreated is to engage in special pleading. It doesn't matter if the variation is functional or not.

Just thought I'd throw that out there and correct a mistake I made previously here about how variation might be able to overcome issues with design inference in the face of timeless design. It can't.

[Lachoneus]

A designer does not copy older designs - he creates new ones.

My uncle and son-in-law are both landscape designers, my aunt is an interior decorator and my son is a graphic designer for Johnson and Johnson. All of them disagree with you.

[Tarski]

That's OK, I know who you are.

This caught my eye. What does it mean?

Please tell me that you think Asbestosman is a sockpuppet because that would a whole bunch of funny.

[Stargazer]

You realize I believe in God and I still concede Tarski's point in this thread.

That's OK, I know who you are.

This caught my eye. What does it mean?

Please tell me that you think Asbestosman is a sockpuppet because that would a whole bunch of funny.

What? You didn't know that I knew that Asbestosman is YOUR sockpuppet? Not so amused now, are you?

Now, THAT would have been a whole bunch of funny.

But, as it turns out, I was only acknowledging my understanding that Asbestosman is a believer. Nothing more.

[Mordecai]

Assuming of course that the initial design was actually designed by someone. If it simply always existed, then ID would be giving a false positive since nobody designed it.

My theory is that the human form and all of its functions exist outside of the physical world as idea, not unlike the Eternal ideas of justice or mercy, but in order for it to be expressed in the physical world, intelligence must act. Since ID doesn't try to find intelligent design in ideas but in the physical world, it's not getting a false positive.

[asbestosman]

My theory is that the human form and all of its functions exist outside of the physical world as idea, not unlike the Eternal ideas of justice or mercy, but in order for it to be expressed in the physical world, intelligence must act. Since ID doesn't try to find intelligent design in ideas but in the physical world, it's not getting a false positive.

When were those ideas first expressed in the physical world, or was there a first?

[mfbukowski]

My theory is that the human form and all of its functions exist outside of the physical world as idea, not unlike the Eternal ideas of justice or mercy, but in order for it to be expressed in the physical world, intelligence must act. Since ID doesn't try to find intelligent design in ideas but in the physical world, it's not getting a false positive.

This is Platonism and is ultimately incompatible with Mormonism imo. Works well for Catholics though. Eternal unchangeable forms or patterns or designs do not fit well with a God who progresses and changes himself by being a Father who hears and answers prayers.

I am sure you could come up with a theory that would unify it all, but I would wager it would have inconsistencies. But at least you are trying.

[Mordecai]

This is Platonism and is ultimately incompatible with Mormonism imo. Works well for Catholics though. Eternal unchangeable forms or patterns or designs do not fit well with a God who progresses and changes himself by being a Father who hears and answers prayers.

I am sure you could come up with a theory that would unify it all, but I would wager it would have inconsistencies. But at least you are trying.

We have unchanging laws that God can't break. Those laws aren't tangible, are they? They are ideas or information that must be as they are. I think it's similar with creation, where some things must be as they are, based on something like laws, such as justice and mercy.

I'm not promoting Catholicism here. I don't think God is only a spirit, but I do think there are laws and ideas that are Eternal in nature that God doesn't create. He only expresses them.

Regardless, our own scriptures say that God created man:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/3/15-16#15

[asbestosman]

I think it's similar with creation, where some things must be as they are, based on something like laws, such as justice and mercy.

What meaning does justice or mercy have (or injustice and cruelty have) without the existence of something intelligent to act and be acted upon? Mercy and justice are not in and of themselves intelligent, are they?

[Tarski]

But, as it turns out, I was only acknowledging my understanding that Asbestosman is a believer. Nothing more.

Well, it would have been funny. Oh well.

[erichard]

Lets get our story straight shall we?

...

Intelligent design opposes Mormon theology. (shocking but true)

...

Hi Tarski,

I did not read the entire thread so far, but would like to comment. You do make a good point. One, however, I have thought of but not talked of. I am sure others have thought of it too.

Non Mormons usually believe in an immaterial, uncreated God outside of time and space that creates the universe out of nothing, having "blank check" powers.

Why would such a God need to "intelligently design" anything? He can create it out of nothing any way he wants?

The God of Mormonism deals with eternal elements and intelligences with eternal natures. He has power over all powers that exist in the universe, so he has all power. He does not have powers that do not exist: such as the power to create out of nothing.

He has a goal, and He goes about it perfectly. He has all knowledge, so there is no need to experiment.

For instance, on our earth He provides physical bodies for eternal intelligences using the eternal elements that exist. All truth and all options are taken into account, and the intelligence ends up with a body perfectly suited for it's mortal life.

We can be sure that in previous creations, other exalted Gods used the same eternal elements, and the same complete knowledge of truth to create bodies for that previous mortal earth that were essentially the same as on our earth.

The design is eternal because whenever a being with all knowledge and all power creates bodies for similar intelligences they will be similar bodies.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Richard