Biological Design Argument?

[ngill09]

I don’t think conscious beings are at all analogous to inanimate objects, especially when we’re talking about purpose and meaning.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think conscious beings are at all analogous to inanimate objects, especially when we’re talking about purpose and meaning.

The short of it is that we have the capacity to love.
We are hardwired for relationships, be it through our senses which connect us to the world,
or through the images and words which not only allow us to understand, but to communicate with each other.
Only self-giving has worth; all else leads to eventual emptiness.
This is our nature and that of the Ground of our being.
Love is our purpose, but that of the universe.

Our creator who is Love itself, is revealed in what constitutes our true purpose and meaning - the following of Christ’s two commandments.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, it’s not the creator of the hammer that decides its purpose, it is the person who owns and controls the hammer. We own and control ourselves - our own bodies and minds, therefore we set our own purposes.

Totally untrue. The maker of the hammer knows that like any human invention, it can be used for its intended purpose or not. A knife can cut your food or another person. We do not stop making cars because we know some people will run another person down with it.

Man has an intended purpose and is pulled toward deviant purposes. I know from experience that a person can set a goal but not accomplish the goal. That statement is not meant to discourage anyone but it is true. My mother thought I was going to be a musician, I thought I was going to be a chemist, instead other things happened.

Peace,
Ed

 

[prodigalson2011]

I don’t think conscious beings are at all analogous to inanimate objects, especially when we’re talking about purpose and meaning.

This all depends on the presuppositions one carries into the question. Where we created by intent or chance? The theist affirms the former, and thus concludes that we are here for a reason. The skeptic affirms the latter, and thus the entire concept of purpose is necessarily relegated to the realm of the subjective.

For a theist, we are analogous to (created) inanimate objects inasmuch as we are also the products of a conscious will, having been made for a very specific reason. So the analogy is good so far as it goes, but it does only go so far. Unlike inanimate creations, we have been given a share in the nature of the creator, in the form of intellect and will. Having been given these capacities, we can also become, to a much more limited extent, creators; even to the point of creating our own subjective goals/temporal purposes.

And while we can, and should, use these gifts to find our own unique paths in life, the theist recognizes that he is not his own: all he has is a gift, and it has been given to him for a reason. Thus, for a Christian anyways, the individual will should always be directed towards and subservient to the divine will. The vast assembly of saints illustrate this perfectly. You won’t find a more diverse group of characters than St. Francis, St. Patrick, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Therese of Liesieux,etc. They all forged very different trails through life, but they were all oriented towards the same thing: holiness and the service of God through the service of their fellow men.

 

[rossum]

How does the material part affect spiritual development?

Through actions and speech. Our material part can act and speak.

How exactly does one part affect the other?

There is a size limit on posts here. How exactly did God create the planet Venus?

What causes them to exist?

Their causes.

Is the “you” an entity composed of two parts?

Five parts. And those parts can be further analysed into sub-parts.

How do we set our own purposes?

“I want to go to university and earn myself a degree.” Did you really have to ask that question?

Where do we obtain the power to do so?

From causes. I do not have the power to fly under my own efforts; a bird does. A bird has causes that give it wings and the power to fly. I have causes that give me arms so I do not have the power to fly unassisted.

How is this relevant to the biological design argument? If you want to learn about Buddhism I can point you to some useful websites.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But as Thomas Aquinas said:

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.”
“Nothing enters the intellect that was not first in the senses.”

He was correct. My point is that the senses are imperfect, so our model must itself be imperfect. Our internal model is not reality, but an imperfect model of that reality.

It is a common error to mistake the imperfect model for the reality.

You cannot set your own purpose.

Why not? If I decide I want to walk to the shop to buy some fruit, then I will walk to the shop and buy some fruit. I have set myself a purpose and I have acted on that purpose.

You can set your own goals, but goals are not purposes.

Please differentiate between your use of “goal” and “purpose” here. As far as I can see they are synonyms.

The hammer does not get to set its purpose. Its purpose is set by the person who created it.

A hammer is not intelligent. A hammer’s purpose is set by its owner, not by its maker. The hammer owner might use the hammer to smash some glass rather than hammer nails. A hammer can be used as a paperweight to stop paper blowing away.

There is nothing in science or philosophy that strongly argues a purposeless universe.

I do not argue so. People obviously have their own self-generated purposes. I do disagree with your single reified ‘Purpose’.

The universe was created by Her Theofelinity Herself, and in that universe She has placed Her obedient servants. She, in Her wisdom, has also placed in Her universe some modified apes, whose PURPOSE is to manufacture and open tins of catfood to feed Her Theoflelinity’s obedient servants.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

How does the material part affect spiritual development?

How does the spiritual part affect the material part? Or does it have no influence?

What causes them to exist?

Their causes.

Do you mean there are spiritual causes and material causes with nothing in common? That seems uneconomical.

Is the “you” an entity composed of two parts?

Five parts. And those parts can be further analysed into sub-parts.

How are all these parts related? By coincidence?

How do we set our own purposes?

“I want to go to university and earn myself a degree.” Did you really have to ask that question?

Desire does not explain the power to implement desire.

Where do we obtain the power to do so?

From causes. I do not have the power to fly under my own efforts; a bird does. A bird has causes that give it wings and the power to fly. I have causes that give me arms so I do not have the power to fly unassisted.

Then all our activity is due to material causes beyond our control?

How is this relevant to the biological design argument? If you want to learn about Buddhism I can point you to some useful websites.

You stated that each human being sets their own purposes without explaining **how **they can do so. This is directly relevant to design - biological or not.

 

[rossum]

You stated that each human being sets their own purposes without explaining **how **they can do so. This is directly relevant to design - biological or not.

You stated that biological organisms are designed without explaining how the designer(s) can do so. This is directly relevant to biological design.

Do you have any experimental evidence of a non-human designer moving DNA molecules around?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Why not? If I decide I want to walk to the shop to buy some fruit, then I will walk to the shop and buy some fruit. I have set myself a purpose and I have acted on that purpose.**

Again, this is to confuse purpose with goal. My purpose in life is not to walk to the shop and buy some fruit. That is merely an action with a motive. It does not explain why you are here in the first place. You cannot set your own purpose, since you did not beget yourself for any purpose. Why does something exist rather than nothing?

The universe may have goals, such as expanding indefinitely and creating galaxies of stars and planets. But that does not explain why the universe exists. The universe cannot set its own purpose. The purpose had to be set for it by its creator, as the hammer’s purpose is set for it by its creator …pounding. The goal of a hammer may be to build a house, or strike an enemy, or anything else. But these goals all grow out of the purpose designated for it by its creator … pounding.

What is the purpose for your being?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Please differentiate between your use of “goal” and “purpose” here. As far as I can see they are synonyms.

If I may intrude, a “goal” typically means a subjective end which an individual wishes to achieve, whereas a “purpose” is the end towards which something exists objectively. I’ll expand on that point in response to your next point.

A hammer is not intelligent. A hammer’s purpose is set by its owner, not by its maker. The hammer owner might use the hammer to smash some glass rather than hammer nails. A hammer can be used as a paperweight to stop paper blowing away.

To reply to this argument, I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

*A distinction is due: There is, first, intrinsic purpose. The dimensions, density, and other properties of a hammer are as such precisely because its creator had a specific purpose in mind. Ergo, this purpose is intrinsic to the hammer. Without this purpose, the hammer would [never have been created.] Then there are extrinsic purposes. These are ends towards which a thing may be directed after the fact of its creation.

The question is whether the universe and, consequently, human beings have a creator and thus an intrinsic purpose, above and beyond our individual whims.*

Thus, if human beings are the product of a higher intelligence in whose hands their fate ultimately rests, and who created them to enter into relationship with it, then that is the intrinsic purpose of the human being. Any other purposes (excluding those inherent in our biology) i.e. career objectives, personal desires, etc., are extrinsic. Extrinsic not in the sense that they come from outside of us, but in that they are not inherent or essential to our being. They are what we would term “goals.”

The universe was created by Her Theofelinity Herself, and in that universe She has placed Her obedient servants. She, in Her wisdom, has also placed in Her universe some modified apes, whose PURPOSE is to manufacture and open tins of catfood to feed Her Theoflelinity’s obedient servants.

rossum

I guess it’s better than the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[rossum]

Again, this is to confuse purpose with goal.

“Purpose” and “Goal” are synonyms, so of course they are confused.

You cannot set your own purpose, since you did not beget yourself for any purpose.

So, my purpose in life is to ensure that my parents get child benefit and tax credits. However I am no longer a child, so those purposes no longer apply. Does that render me purposeless?

The universe may have goals, such as expanding indefinitely and creating galaxies of stars and planets.

The universe is not intelligent.

But that does not explain why the universe exists.

The material universe exists because of its causes. The “All that exists” universe obviously exists, but equally obviously has no external cause.

What is the purpose for your being?

Whatever purpose I set for myself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If I may intrude, a “goal” typically means a subjective end which an individual wishes to achieve, whereas a “purpose” is the end towards which something exists objectively. I’ll expand on that point in response to your next point.

That has some philosophical problems.

To reply to this argument, I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

*A distinction is due: There is, first, intrinsic purpose. The dimensions, density, and other properties of a hammer are as such precisely because its creator had a specific purpose in mind. Ergo, this purpose is intrinsic to the hammer. Without this purpose, the hammer would [never have been created.] Then there are extrinsic purposes. These are ends towards which a thing may be directed after the fact of its creation.

The question is whether the universe and, consequently, human beings have a creator and thus an intrinsic purpose, above and beyond our individual whims.*

Does rossum have a purpose? Then we have two different things: rossum and purpose-of-rossum. Which came first? Obviously we cannot have purpose-of-rossum without there being a rossum to attach the purpose to. Hence rossum must exist before purpose-of-rossum. This allows the existence of rossum independent of purpose-of-rossum. So rossum does not require a purpose.

By multiplying entities, as with both X and purpose-of-X, you are multiplying your problems. Do all entities have a purpose? What about purpose-of-purpose-of-X? Does that have a purpose?

All these are pretty much standard problems with reified entities. All reification is incorrect.

Thus, if human beings are the product of a higher intelligence in whose hands their fate ultimately rests, and who created them to enter into relationship with it, then that is the intrinsic purpose of the human being.

Since I am Buddhist, your “if…” fails.

I guess it’s better than the flying spaghetti monster.

Heretic!! You shall be eternally confined to the Kitty-Litter™ Tray of doom!

rossum

 

[ngill09]

This all depends on the presuppositions one carries into the question. Where we created by intent or chance? The theist affirms the former, and thus concludes that we are here for a reason. The skeptic affirms the latter, and thus the entire concept of purpose is necessarily relegated to the realm of the subjective.

For a theist, we are analogous to (created) inanimate objects inasmuch as we are also the products of a conscious will, having been made for a very specific reason. So the analogy is good so far as it goes, but it does only go so far. Unlike inanimate creations, we have been given a share in the nature of the creator, in the form of intellect and will. Having been given these capacities, we can also become, to a much more limited extent, creators; even to the point of creating our own subjective goals/temporal purposes.

And while we can, and should, use these gifts to find our own unique paths in life, the theist recognizes that he is not his own: all he has is a gift, and it has been given to him for a reason. Thus, for a Christian anyways, the individual will should always be directed towards and subservient to the divine will. The vast assembly of saints illustrate this perfectly. You won’t find a more diverse group of characters than St. Francis, St. Patrick, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Therese of Liesieux,etc. They all forged very different trails through life, but they were all oriented towards the same thing: holiness and the service of God through the service of their fellow men.

I think the fact of our consciousness necessarily relegates our purpose to the subjective. That we were created for any particular purpose does not necessarily make that our purpose. Slaves in the pre-Civil War South, for instance, would have been bred to work on plantations, but it does not follow that working on plantations is their only “objective” purpose. The only way you can counter this analogy is to say that those slaves were actually bred by an even greater slavemaster (God) to serve Him.

For me, however, a slave who decides to escape slavery in order to save himself and his family from torture and misery, has not defied his purpose, he has created it.

 

[Aloysium]

Since I am Buddhist, your “if…” fails.

not in useless talk
but contemplating silence
we find peace and truth

it came to my mind,
no purpose, meaning, or goal
just some nonsense words

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Whatever purpose I set for myself.

You may have goals you decide upon. You can set these.

Your purpose for being you cannot set for yourself since your purpose was decided before you existed, just as the purpose of the hammer was decided before it existed, just as the purpose of the universe was decided before it existed. Since it has no mind, surely the purpose of the universe was not decided by itself before it existed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

"Purpose" and “Goal” are synonyms, so of course they are confused.

They may sound like synonyms, but they are not. Purposes are intelligently designed by an agent.

Goals are the specific ends toward which a purpose is directed.

Examples:

Purpose:
The universe was created to "declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Psalms 19:1

Goals:
The goals of the universe are to expand indefinitely, to produce galaxies of stars and planets, and to produce creatures capable of wanting to connect with their Creator.

Or, if you are not religious:

Purpose:
Football is played to exhibit winning athletic skills.
Goals:
Reaching the goalposts at each end of the field.

A goal is subservient to a purpose.

Our purpose may be to win a war:
Our goal may be to invade Normandy.
These are similar but not the same.
We might win the war without invading Normandy.

The purpose of a hammer is to pound.
The goal of the hammer may be to pound a nail or somebody’s head.

I was created for the purpose of glorifying God.
I choose for my goal instead the glorifying of Satan.
Purpose and goal are not the same.

 

[tonyrey]

You stated that biological organisms are designed without explaining how the designer(s) can do so. This is directly relevant to biological design.

Do you have any experimental evidence of a non-human designer moving DNA molecules around?

1. You have not explained how human beings set their own purposes.
2. Design does not entail moving DNA molecules around.
3. Design entails creating the universe and the laws of nature, directing the course of development and intervening when necessary to ensure the preservation of life.
4. Do you have any experimental evidence of the spontaneous appearance of the universe, the laws of nature and the emergence of life with rational beings?

 

[rossum]

You may have goals you decide upon. You can set these.

Your purpose for being you cannot set for yourself since your purpose was decided before you existed, just as the purpose of the hammer was decided before it existed, just as the purpose of the universe was decided before it existed. Since it has no mind, surely the purpose of the universe was not decided by itself before it existed.

So. What if the “purpose” of a baby is to allow its mother to claim child benefit? Does that baby (and the adult it grows into) have no other ‘purpose’?

If a toolmaker has a purpose for the hammer she makes, then the purpose belongs to the toolmaker, not to the hammer.

The baby-for-benefit can set his own purpose later in life.

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. You have not explained how human beings set their own purposes.

Did you set yourself a purpose to reply to my post? How did you do that? Why do you need me to explain the process when you are obviously capable of operating the process yourself?

1. Design does not entail moving DNA molecules around.

Design of biological organisms does. Humans in laboratories do it.

1. Design entails creating the universe and the laws of nature, directing the course of development and intervening when necessary to ensure the preservation of life.

Then you have no objection to either abiogenesis or evolution because the universe is designed for life to originate and evolve?

1. Do you have any experimental evidence of the spontaneous appearance of the universe, the laws of nature and the emergence of life with rational beings?

Yes. We can observe the universe around us. Hence either this universe had an origin or the universe is eternal. The answer to that question depends on how we define “universe”.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

If a toolmaker has a purpose for the hammer she makes, then the purpose belongs to the toolmaker, not to the hammer.

The purpose belongs to both the toolmaker and the hammer, or else why would the hammer exist?

So. What if the “purpose” of a baby is to allow its mother to claim child benefit? Does that baby (and the adult it grows into) have no other ‘purpose’?

The purpose of a baby is not to claim child benefits. The purpose of a baby is to glorify God.