Biological Design Argument?

[tonyrey]

Claiming to know something when you have nothing to base that on is the real detriment to acquiring true knowledge. Being open to all possibilities, but accepting none as necessarily true until evidence has been provided, is what being open-minded is all about.

You are going to one extreme to the other! Science is not based on necessary truths but provisional theories and the most adequate explanations.

You have not responded to the following points:

                            1. Observation is not the sole basis of scientific, let alone  philosophical, investigation and explanation. To assume this is the sole  universe is to see it in false perspective, giving it an absoluteness  that it does not possess. it is a form of scientific Fundamentalism that  limits one's horizons and capacity for creative thought. The greatest  scientists have not hesitated to use their imagination and ask  themselves how the universe could have developed differently and why it  has developed the way it has. Without the contemplation of possibilities  intellectual progress is impossible.

I do not “rule out the possibility of other universes”. I simply don’t see any reason to assume they exist or can exist.

1. Your opinion is not shared by many scientists, notably those who discuss the multiverse.
2. If everyone confined themselves to established science no discoveries would ever be made.

                         Again, I've never assumed it's the only possible one.

1. For all intents and purposes you proceed as if it is. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that other universes are not worth considering.
2. Scientific progress is based on the principle that everything that is not self-contradictory should be taken into account. phys.org/news174921612.html

6.There is no reason to believe constants can change now - although one contributor to this thread thinks there is evidence that they do - but there is equally no reason to believe they could not have been different at the outset.

You can’t just imagine up data points and call your inferences valid. I can’t just say "I can imagine a blade of grass of any length from 0 to 1,000,000,000 feet long, therefore the probability of a blade of grass being less than a foot long is 1 in a billion.

1. I am referring to values of physical constants like G.

But I don’t think the explanation can be found in the writings of ancient humans.

1. It can be found in the astounding success of modern science: a form of rational activity.

 

[rossum]

“involves” does not exclude developmental plasticity. Living beings are not cogs in a machine.

DNA is a chemical, and follows the rules of chemistry.

You do realise that evolution can cover a lot more than living organisms? Any population of imperfect replicators reproducing in a situation involving resource constraints will evolve. It is extremely easy to set this situation up in a computer program.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

DNA is a chemical, and follows the rules of chemistry.

You do realise that evolution can cover a lot more than living organisms? Any population of imperfect replicators reproducing in a situation involving resource constraints will evolve. It is extremely easy to set this situation up in a computer program.

rossum

Do you believe living organisms are simply machines? If so why? If not why not?

 

[rossum]

Do you believe living organisms are simply machines?

No. However, parts of living organisms are indeed machines. For instance the elbow joint is an example of a lever.

If so why? If not why not?

Scripture tells me so.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

No. However, parts of living organisms are indeed machines. For instance the elbow joint is an example of a lever.

What else do living organisms consist of - apart from molecules?

Scripture tells me so.

How would you prove every detail of Buddhist scripture is true?

 

[rossum]

What else do living organisms consist of - apart from molecules?

Not all living organisms have molecules – gods for instance. Humans comprise five aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness. Molecules make up the first: form – our physical body.

How would you prove every detail of Buddhist scripture is true?

How would you prove every detail of Christian scripture is true? Remember that parts of Christian scripture have more than one interpretation among Christians. The same is true among Buddhists for parts of Buddhist scriptures.

For the Buddhist scriptures, the Kalama sutta suffices. That also suffices for the places where Christian scripture echoes Buddhist scripture.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Not all living organisms have molecules – gods for instance. Humans comprise five aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness. Molecules make up the first: form – our physical body.

I thought spiritual development doesn’t fit into a scheme of molecular structures.

How would you prove every detail of Christian scripture is true? Remember that parts of Christian scripture have more than one interpretation among Christians. The same is true among Buddhists for parts of Buddhist scriptures.

For the Buddhist scriptures, the Kalama sutta suffices. That also suffices for the places where Christian scripture echoes Buddhist scripture.

Do you interpret the scriptures by yourself or do you rely on a particular authority?

 

[buffalo]

That, I am afraid, is a fallacious assumption. As I show in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org, life probably arose as an initially very simple system:

%between%

With no outside information (name removed by moderator)ut?

 

[rossum]

I thought spiritual development doesn’t fit into a scheme of molecular structures.

It is the other way round. The molecular structures fit into the scheme of spiritual development.

Do you interpret the scriptures by yourself or do you rely on a particular authority?

I accept advice from authorities, but in the end I have to decide for myself what works and what does not work for me. People are different, and methods that work for one person may not work for another.

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

No. However, parts of living organisms are indeed machines. For instance the elbow joint is an example of a lever.

Scripture tells me so.

rossum

Which scripture are you referring to? The Vulgate, the Greek, or the Hebrew? Or maybe it is the English version translated from the Vulgate (Latin), or the English version translated from the Greek, or the English version translated from the Hebrew?

 

[nmgauss]

This is why Jesus is called “The Word.”

According to Karen Armstrong, Logos and Word mean the same thing, namely reason. How does reason figure in Jesus?

If God is reason, then how does love enter into our relationship with God?

There are four Gospels, and they differ. When you cite the Gospel according to John without comparing it to those of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, aren’t you being partial?

 

[tonyrey]

It is the other way round. The molecular structures fit into the scheme of spiritual development.

:clapping: I entirely agree with you. The “scheme of spiritual development” is the outstanding feature of personal existence - described by John Keats as an opportunity for “soul-making” - and the basis of the concept of Design…

I accept advice from authorities, but in the end I have to decide for myself what works and what does not work for me. People are different, and methods that work for one person may not work for another.

Your view is close to Catholic teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience but it is based on compassion rather than love - both of which are far superior to the “moral principles = human conventions” hypothesis.

 

[rossum]

Which scripture are you referring to?

Look at the top right of my posts. I am Buddhist, so I am referring to the Tripitaka.

rossum

 

[rossum]

With no outside information (name removed by moderator)ut?

The material world contains information on the physical and chemical behaviour of materials. That information is available.

rossum

 

[prodigalson2011]

According to Karen Armstrong, Logos and Word mean the same thing, namely reason. How does reason figure in Jesus?

“Through him all things were made.” The universe is a rational, ordered creation. With what does one order things? With the mind; with reason.

If God is reason, then how does love enter into our relationship with God?

This question assumes that the faculties of love and reason are mutually exclusive, which is patently false. Can a person not be rational and loving at the same time? The obvious answer is yes, they can.

There are four Gospels, and they differ. When you cite the Gospel according to John without comparing it to those of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, aren’t you being partial?

They differ in content and context, not conclusion. You say this as though they contradict one another. They do not. The Gospel of John focuses on the philosophical/theological dimensions of Christ, where another may focus on his relationship to the Jewish people and OT prophecy, etc. So no, I am not being partial, in any biased sense. No more so than one is biased in using a road map rather than a climate map to plot a course.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

How would you prove every detail of Christian scripture is true? Remember that parts of Christian scripture have more than one interpretation among Christians.

Every detail does not need to be proven true. The difference in interpretations results from the Reformation mainly, which introduced the idea that every man is infallibly right in how he interprets scripture. This is of course an absurd proposition, since the Holy Spirit cannot go around seeding false and contradictory truths among the thousands of churches.

There is a central authority in the Catholic Church for interpreting Scripture so far as important doctrines are concerned, as opposed to unimportant details. Is there a central authority claimed by any Buddhist outfit for the infallible interpretation of Buddhist scriptures?

That is, do you have a Buddhist Magisterium?

 

[rossum]

Is there a central authority claimed by any Buddhist outfit for the infallible interpretation of Buddhist scriptures?

That is, do you have a Buddhist Magisterium?

No. Buddhism is more like Christianity as a whole. Different denominations have their own authorities. The Dalai Lama is the head of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism. He has no special authority over practitioners of Soto Zen, though he has respect. Just as the Patriarch of Constantinople has no special authority over Catholics, though he has their respect.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

** The Dalai Lama is the head of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism.**

What or who is the source of his authority? Is the Dalai Lama elected as head?

 

[rossum]

rossum

** The Dalai Lama is the head of the dGelug-pa sect of Tibetan Buddhism.**

What or who is the source of his authority? Is the Dalai Lama elected as head?

He is selected, from various signs, as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

He is selected, from various signs, as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama.

Who decides he is the reincarnation, and where does their authority to decide originate?