Biological Design Argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bennierja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am glad my fears were unfounded. But I am still confused by your post that sparked the discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10695969&postcount=134
I take walks, look at the trees, the birds, swallow, breathe, eat and imagine all the other things that have physiologic function and I ask myself…if this was the result of some big bang, then why can’t we reproduce that bang and reproduce some semblance of what we experience in the world, in our own life. I haven’t seen that happen and so I have awe and believe it is supernatural.
Let me break it down for you…

I walk every day and sometimes I run. My eyes take in nature, I marvel at my own existence, I think…wow…how can all of this happened by chance…if it happened by chance then why is it that it cannot be reproduced by chance…since it can’t happen by chance then with awe I believe that the big bang occured supernaturally under direct guidance by a creator…

good enough for you…?
 
To elaborate:

I’ve not read anything by Dawkins, but I think he’d use that argument as a retort to the Irreducible Complexity argument. But we’re not talking about complexity, we’re talking about specificity. The theist claim is that the qualities of the universe are so specific that there must have been a designer who specifically created the universe with the qualities necessary for human life. My retort then aims not at the complexity of God, but at his specific qualities. As a Catholic, you do not truly believe in a supremely simple God. You believe in a specifically Triune God, composed of 3 persons. Not 2 persons. Not 4 persons. Not (the most simple) 1 person. To follow the logic that tonyrey has been using so far, I can imagine a God composed of any infinite combination of persons, therefore God being Triune is infinitely unlikely. Therefore, God must have an ultimately simple designer.

And it’s not just the Triune nature of God that’s specific. He specifically cares about human life, and in particular, (at least during a great part of history) the people of Israel. As described in the Old Testament and in the New, He has a very specific personality, at times very jealous and wrathful.

If the teleological argument is valid, we may conclude that a supremely basic and simple God exists. But that is not the God of Christianity.
 
To elaborate:

I’ve not read anything by Dawkins, but I think he’d use that argument as a retort to the Irreducible Complexity argument. But we’re not talking about complexity, we’re talking about specificity. The theist claim is that the qualities of the universe are so specific that there must have been a designer who specifically created the universe with the qualities necessary for human life. My retort then aims not at the complexity of God, but at his specific qualities. As a Catholic, you do not truly believe in a supremely simple God. You believe in a specifically Triune God, composed of 3 persons. Not 2 persons. Not 4 persons. Not (the most simple) 1 person. To follow the logic that tonyrey has been using so far, I can imagine a God composed of any infinite combination of persons, therefore God being Triune is infinitely unlikely. Therefore, God must have an ultimately simple designer.

And it’s not just the Triune nature of God that’s specific. He specifically cares about human life, and in particular, (at least during a great part of history) the people of Israel. As described in the Old Testament and in the New, He has a very specific personality, at times very jealous and wrathful.

.
If the teleological argument is valid, we may conclude that a supremely basic and simple God exists. But that is not the God of Christianity
Wow, tell me about these two choices in God…

A basic simple God vs an all powerful God…

how do they differ
if God is simple and basic then that God is not all powerful and if not then how is it God

tell me.
 
Wow, tell me about these two choices in God…

A basic simple God vs an all powerful God…

how do they differ
if God is simple and basic then that God is not all powerful and if not then how is it God

tell me.
Tell prodigalson2011:
This sounds alot like Dawkins’ fallacious “complex God” argument. To exactly what properties do you refer, and based on what alternatives do you postulate their probability?

This betrays a serious misunderstanding of Catholic theology and theism in general. God is the simplest of beings: he has no “parts” and, ergo, no complexity. Without complexity, the question of probability is moot.
 
Tell prodigalson2011:
I believe you are hijacking another person’s words in context and stating them as if your own thoughts then referring back to them in context which makes no sense.

Do you believe you are making sense?
 
TIf the teleological argument is valid, we may conclude that a supremely basic and simple God exists. But that is not the God of Christianity.
🍿

Ngill09 -

Are you saying that there is more than one God…or god??
 
  1. I do not “assume” there is only one data point, I observe only one data point. If you’ve seen another universe, I’d be happy to hear about it.
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.
  1. I do not “rule out the possibility of other universes”. I simply don’t see any reason to assume they exist or can exist.
Your opinion is not shared by many scientists, notably those who discuss the multiverse.
  1. Examples, please. And let’s stay within established science that can make testable predictions.
If everyone confined themselves to established science no discoveries would ever be made.
  1. Again, I’ve never assumed it’s the only possible one.
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.
5 and 6. This needs to be demonstrated. You can’t just assume that because you can imagine something that it is therefore possible. I can imagine pi to equal 5, that doesn’t mean it can.
Scientific progress is based on the principle that everything that is not self-contradictory should be taken into account. phys.org/news174921612.html
  1. Similarly, there’s no reason to assume they can change.
There is no reason to believe they 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.
Therefore the probability of the values in this universe is miniscule.
  1. 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.

I am referring to values of physical constants like G.
  1. I agree. But I don’t think the explanation can be found in the writings of ancient humans.
It can be found in the astounding success of modern science: a form of rational activity.
  1. I don’t see how proposing a designer whose properties would be similarly unlikely solves the problem.
The topic of this thread is Design: the nature of the Designer is an issue that can be discussed separately.
 
If bacteria had no urge to survive they wouldn’t adapt to their environment to preserve themselves.
The capacity to breed more successfully is not produced by the environment but by the developmental plasticity of living beings - which are not outdated Darwinist cogs in a universal machine.
amazon.com/Developmental-Plasticity-Evolution-Mary-West-Eberhard/dp/0195122356
Yet you believe in spiritual development…
.
Correct. An eternal soul is a complete bar to spiritual development. Anything which is eternal cannot change, and without change there can be no spiritual development.

You need to justify your assumptions.
You have not explained how spiritual development originated nor how it is related to SPEM?
Study Buddhism.

On a Philosophy forum that is not a valid response.
 
To elaborate:

I’ve not read anything by Dawkins, but I think he’d use that argument as a retort to the Irreducible Complexity argument. But we’re not talking about complexity, we’re talking about specificity. The theist claim is that the qualities of the universe are so specific that there must have been a designer who specifically created the universe with the qualities necessary for human life. My retort then aims not at the complexity of God, but at his specific qualities. As a Catholic, you do not truly believe in a supremely simple God. You believe in a specifically Triune God, composed of 3 persons. Not 2 persons. Not 4 persons. Not (the most simple) 1 person. To follow the logic that tonyrey has been using so far, I can imagine a God composed of any infinite combination of persons, therefore God being Triune is infinitely unlikely. Therefore, God must have an ultimately simple designer.

And it’s not just the Triune nature of God that’s specific. He specifically cares about human life, and in particular, (at least during a great part of history) the people of Israel. As described in the Old Testament and in the New, He has a very specific personality, at times very jealous and wrathful.

If the teleological argument is valid, we may conclude that a supremely basic and simple God exists. But that is not the God of Christianity.
You are straying far from the topic - which is Biological Design! You are very welcome to use your post as a starting point for a new thread if you wish.
 
  1. I agree. But I don’t think the explanation can be found in the writings of ancient humans.
It has occurred to me that if you agree the correspondence of physical constants to the conditions for life requires explanation you accept the possibility that they could have been different!

It is impossible to live reasonably if we impose on ourselves the arbitrary principle that we must stick to existing explanations as if they are written in stone. The provisional nature of scientific theories should encourage us to be open to different possibilities and flexible in our interpretation of events.
 
Tonyrey, if you don’t understand the difference between being agnostic about whether physical constants could be different and assuming that they cannot be different, there’s no point replying to you.

PorknPie, there are many proposed Gods. The Christian God, the Hindu Gods, the Deist God, etc. I doubt that more than one of them can exist at the same time - they’re mutually exclusive in general.
 
Tonyrey, if you don’t understand the difference between being agnostic about whether physical constants could be different and assuming that they cannot be different, there’s no point replying to you.
In practice it is impossible to be agnostic about possibilities even though you may claim otherwise. If Einstein had adopted your attitude he wouldn’t have thought of relativity. if we try to sit on the fence we’ll never get anywhere! It’s better to fall on the wrong side and find out we are mistaken than try to be uncommitted and deceive ourselves… 🙂
 
In practice it is impossible to be agnostic about possibilities even though you may claim otherwise. If Einstein had adopted your attitude he wouldn’t have thought of relativity. if we try to sit on the fence we’ll never get anywhere! It’s better to fall on the wrong side and find out we are mistaken than try to be uncommitted and deceive ourselves… 🙂
Today, possible worlds play a central role in many debates in philosophy, including especially debates over the Zombie Argument, and physicalism and supervenience in the philosophy of mind. Many debates in the philosophy of religion have been reawakened by the use of possible worlds.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world
 
So you don’t believe in the Trinity?
Yes. But the trinity does not consist of parts, but of persons. The distinctions are similar to levels of cognition within a human being, i.e. thought, awareness of thought, the awareness of the awareness of thought. These things are indivisible in that they flow naturally one to the other and are ultimately all part and parcel of the same substance.

In Catholic theology, the Trinity is viewed in a similar way: There is God’s awareness (Father), God’s thought (Son), and the relationship between the two (Holy Spirit). This is why Jesus is called “The Word.”

A discussion of the more intricate details of the hows, whys and musts of this doctrine would merit another thread all their own, so I’ll leave it at that.

The point is that the simplicity/indivisibility of God and the Trinity are not contradictory claims.
 
…My retort then aims not at the complexity of God, but at his specific qualities. As a Catholic, you do not truly believe in a supremely simple God. You believe in a specifically Triune God, composed of 3 persons… Not (the most simple) 1 person. To follow the logic that tonyrey has been using so far, I can imagine a God composed of any infinite combination of persons, therefore God being Triune is infinitely unlikely. Therefore, God must have an ultimately simple designer.
Actually, Catholics believe that God is a trinity of persons necessarily. To provide a simple example of what I mean, consider my explanation from the previous post. As God is perfect, he cannot have contradictory or incomplete thoughts. Ergo, there cannot be multiple “Words” (or Sons) of God. And, again, as he is perfect, there cannot be any conflicts of relationship between the two. This is, I know, a simple and unsatisfactory answer. So, for your consideration, I present some of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on the matter (I call specific attention to the last paragraph):

*As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God…

…The procession of the Word in God is called generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice; for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:–from a conjoined principle (as above described):–by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:–and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above (Question 14, Article 4). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son…

…There are two processions in God; the procession of the Word, and another. In evidence whereof we must observe that procession exists in God, only according to an action which does not tend to anything external, but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love…

…The procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object…

…[There can be only two processions in God because] the divine processions can be derived only from the actions which remain within the agent. In a nature which is intellectual, and in the divine nature these actions are two, the acts of intelligence and of will. The act of sensation, which also appears to be an operation within the agent, takes place outside the intellectual nature, nor can it be reckoned as wholly removed from the sphere of external actions; for the act of sensation is perfected by the action of the sensible object upon sense. It follows that no other procession is possible in God but the procession of the Word, and of Love."*
 
Continuing on from my previous post, I hope you now understand that God’s being a Trinity does not make Him more complex and that, further, as Aquinas has shown, as a purely intellectual being, He is so necessarily.

Moving on:
And it’s not just the Triune nature of God that’s specific. He specifically cares about human life, and in particular, (at least during a great part of history) the people of Israel. As described in the Old Testament and in the New, He has a very specific personality, at times very jealous and wrathful.

If the teleological argument is valid, we may conclude that a supremely basic and simple God exists. But that is not the God of Christianity.
He cares about human life in particular because He has given humans an intellectual soul that is capable of responding to Him; it is an obvious fact that humans are the only species of life who have any concept of God and, moreover, love of God.

His specific care about Israel must be understood in the light of Christ, as He was preparing this people to, in turn, prepare the way for His own entrance into history by taking on flesh. As every individual must live and grow within a specific geographical area and culture, so did Christ. Thus, it was necessary if God was to become man, the culture into which he was to be born must be conditioned intellectually and spiritually to His nature if His actions were to be comprehensible. He was establishing a context in which He could communicate to the rest of the world. Note how often He, the Apostles and the Evangelists all make reference to the Old Testament to explain His life and ministry.

Your last comment again betrays a very simplistic understanding of the religious worldview. Insofar as God is ultimately above our understanding, His representation in Scripture is necessarily anthropomorphized to either a) convey His nature to us in concepts we can comprehend, or b) to maintain a narrative dynamic. To address your specific examples, His jealousy has more to do with our dependence on Him and His love for us than it does with actual “jealousy.” This human emotion is used to illustrate the intensity of God’s love. Likewise, God’s “wrath” is an illustration of His incompatibility with sin and evil. It’s not that He literally gets “mad” like a human being would, it is that sin (which is an imperfection) cannot abide in Him. His “wrath” is just a temporal manifestation of His love, in the same way a loving parent disciplines their children.
 
The capacity to breed more successfully is not produced by the environment but by the developmental plasticity of living beings
The capacity involves the environment. What is successful in one environment may fail in another environment. The ability to breathe air is not an advantage if you live underwater.

rossum
 
In practice it is impossible to be agnostic about possibilities even though you may claim otherwise. If Einstein had adopted your attitude he wouldn’t have thought of relativity. if we try to sit on the fence we’ll never get anywhere! It’s better to fall on the wrong side and find out we are mistaken than try to be uncommitted and deceive ourselves… 🙂
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.
 
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.
Many believe that they exist for a purpose and yet many cannot prove or have not found that proof and believe that purpose of their existence without any proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top