Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

As John Stuart Mill remarked, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied…

                             Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit discriminatory? Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit discriminatory?

It’s only discriminatory for those who regard persons as nothing more than animals. In certain respects - such as cleanliness - pigs are more advanced than some members of the human race…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

@ Buffalo

okay, so its obviously the teaching of the church, but is it infallible Dogma?

My friend you, do you depend on others doing your work for you all the time? Buffalo has taken the time and a great deal of trouble to answer your questions. The teachings he gave you that are not infallible must still be held with a Catholic assent of the mind, they are Magisterial teachings you will find in the various catechisms and must be held as true, and defenced as true and lived by in thought, prayer, and action. Now, if that is not infallible, it is as close as you can get to it.

Polygenism has been condemned by the Church, Pius XII I think. Look up my posts, somewhere a month or so I disgussed it. You look it up. You asked the question.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And, ultimately, that is the point - without a frame of reference, without any evidence whatsoever of the actual existence of any designer, short of the bare assertion that complex systems “must” be the result of design, there is no way to compare. Unless there arises such evidence, independently of the assumption of design that gets attached to complex systems, or unless it can be explained by the design proponents exactly how the world would be different from what it is were it not designed, then as you say, we have no epistemological method for establishing design over undirected physical processes. At least we have seen the latter in action!

Well, take a look at this. Episode 9, but they are all important because they illustrate the astronomical odds against an uncaused, undesigned universe. Is it absolute proof? You might say it is not absolute but you have a better chance of winning the Mega Lottery 100 months in a row than that the conclusions are wrong. The universe had an absolute beginning, it demonstrates unmistakeable design througout and therefore was caused by a super intelligent being, and this being we call God.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well I’ll be darned. How did I miss these compelling arguements against evolution all this time share? I mean, time?
Because it’s just so heavy man. I mean, like wow. So opened my eyes to all the things I was trippin over before like facts. What a waste of my time! I found other time savers just like that when hurricane Sandy came. I prayed. Yep. Sure is a timesaver to pray instead of actually doing something like going out there! That’s for the others to do. Not me! I believe!

 

[tonyrey]

Well I’ll be darned. How did I miss these compelling arguements against evolution all this time share? I mean, time?
Because it’s just so heavy man. I mean, like wow. So opened my eyes to all the things I was trippin over before like facts. What a waste of my time! I found other time savers just like that when hurricane Sandy came. I prayed. Yep. Sure is a timesaver to pray instead of actually doing something like going out there! That’s for the others to do. Not me! I believe!

In what? (“Who” obviously doesn’t count in your scheme of things…)

 

[tonyrey]

It’s quite true that Dawkins holds the opinion that “why” questions, such as “why are we here?” and so forth, are not meaningful in the sense in which many people ask them - that is, they are really asking, “Who made us? What are our creator’s intentions for us? What ultimate purpose do we have, or ultimate goals to achieve?”

“opinion” is not a valid basis for any conclusion… On what **rational **ground is his opinion based?

In a sense, these kinds of questions are simply a reflection of human hubris - and it’s a very real and likely possibility that they could all be answered in the negative.

To affirm that “these kinds of questions” (NB unwarranted pejorative terminology) are a reflection of human hubris is itself a reflection of human hubris! It implies one has privileged insight into the nature of reality…

At the end of the day, the answers are not a matter of human choice.

A platitude which applies to every opinion…

What’s more, all those who have claimed to possess true answers to these questions cannot all be right.

Including Mr Dawkins - and his disciples!

And what, precisely, is “meaning in the metaphysical sense” anyway?

On a philosophy forum such a question is somewhat out of place…

Presumably it is a meaning that goes beyond the purposes and associations we create for ourselves…

The issue is how we create purposes and associations? “for ourselves” is certainly a reflection of human hubris. It seems to imply this power is self-endowed.

…and beyond the explanations for our existence that involve natural processes.

The issue is whether “natural processes” are self-explanatory. What is the rational basis of that dogma?

This kind of meaning might also not exist except as a concept in human imagination.

“might” is an invalid basis for a rational conclusion.

In that sense, it is no more ‘real’, and certainly of no more value, in a metaphysical sense, than meanings with a more concrete basis in real-world dealings.

“a more concrete basis in real-world dealings” is a further assumption that this material world is the only type of existence.

If anything, since it is comparatively lacking in empirical grounding, it may well be of less value than entirely mundane meanings and purposes.

How can meanings and purposes be mundane? Are they scientifically observable? Or figments of the imagination in a “real-world”?

So yes, the fact of the matter is that I agree with Dawkins (and that after serious consideration, not in the way that Catholics are expected to agree with the Pope, for example) in that the kinds of “why” questions religions claim to answer are not meaningful - at least, not in the sense of actually telling us anything about the purpose of existence, if existence even has the kind of purpose those asking the questions would like to believe.

That statement is a reflection of hubris in presuming that your view is superior - and immune to rejecting questions you don’t wish to believe. .

The fact that people ask them anyway - and often assume that their holy books provide them with answers - does tell us something, but it’s something about the psychological make-up of the people involved, not about ultimate truth, if there even is such a thing.

An excellent example of an ad hominem that could with equal facility be applied to the psychological make-up of person making that statement.

If there is no ultimate truth how does one determine what is true? And how does one determine whether truth is ultimate or not?

 

[StrawberryJam]

In what? (“Who” obviously doesn’t count in your scheme of things…)

I believe in doing something practical. One of those things requires one to accept evolution which is a banned topic. The other is getting your hands dirty and going there and offering your service for others in need.
But, by all means help these people with all your prayers. Pretend you did something.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe in doing something practical.

Do you include personal, moral and spiritual development as “practical”?

One of those things requires one to accept evolution which is a banned topic.

Atheistic evolution?

The other is getting your hands dirty and going there and offering your service for others in need.

But, by all means help these people with all your prayers. Pretend you did something.

The implication that prayer is pretence is hardly consistent with “catholic leanings”…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I believe in doing something practical. One of those things requires one to accept evolution which is a banned topic. The other is getting your hands dirty and going there and offering your service for others in need.
But, by all means help these people with all your prayers. Pretend you did something.

Not to turn this into a personal battle, but the fact is that religious people by and large do more volunteer and relief work and give more to charity than nonbelievers, so leave your strawmen and ad hominems at home, please.

 

[wanstronian]

Not to turn this into a personal battle, but the fact is that religious people by and large do more volunteer and relief work and give more to charity than nonbelievers, so leave your strawmen and ad hominems at home, please.

This is probably true (although not because religious people are any more moral or caring than irreligious); however non-religious volunteer work is no-strings-attached - it doesn’t come with a healthy serving of proselytising. Nor does non-religious work exclude target demographics that fall outside an archaic and indefensible definition of “moral.” Nor does it ever seek to blame the tragedy on the victims.

(p.s. SJ’s post did not contain an ad hominem.)

 

[tonyrey]

This is probably true (although not because religious people are any more moral or caring than irreligious); however non-religious volunteer work is no-strings-attached - it doesn’t come with a healthy serving of proselytising. Nor does non-religious work exclude target demographics that fall outside an archaic and indefensible definition of “moral.” Nor does it ever seek to blame the tragedy on the victims.

On what is the unspecified modern, defensible definition of morality is based?

 

[prodigalson2011]

This is probably true (although not because religious people are any more moral or caring than irreligious); however non-religious volunteer work is no-strings-attached - it doesn’t come with a healthy serving of proselytising. Nor does non-religious work exclude target demographics that fall outside an archaic and indefensible definition of “moral.” Nor does it ever seek to blame the tragedy on the victims.

(p.s. SJ’s post did not contain an ad hominem.)

a) Not all, and probably not even most, religious outreach involves proselytizing, and even if it did, that in no way diminishes the good it does. Further, you are quite wrong. My favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, established a relief fund for Haiti for the stated purpose of proving that atheists “could be good.” In other words, it was a PR/recruiting campaign for the New Atheists. And I daresay many other nonbelievers, though not all, take away a smug sense of moral superiority from their efforts made, not by obligation, but “the compassion of their own hearts,” failing to see how prideful egoistic and self-contradictory such an attitude is. In fact, is this not the exact sentiment you and SJ have expressed? So don’t pretend you have some kind of ethical leg up on people of faith.

b) We exclude NO demographic. I can only assume you meant this to refer to the “condom controversy” in Africa. Well, here’s a fun fact for you: despite all the loud mouthed slander and defamation issued against the Church, the fact is, and has been confirmed by completely independent secular research organizations, that those areas where the Church has the most influence have astronomically lower rates of AIDS infection, while places where condoms are widely distributed are still being decimated by this epidemic. This is not archaic morality, it’s common sense and truth. Since the advent of condoms in our own culture, both the number of common STDs and the rates of infection have risen astronomically. Condoms are not a solution, they are part of the problem.

 

[Bradski]

The universe had an absolute beginning, it demonstrates unmistakeable design througout and therefore was caused by a super intelligent being, and this being we call God.

OK, you win. Can we go home now.

 

[tonyrey]

a) Not all, and probably not even most, religious outreach involves proselytizing, and even if it did, that in no way diminishes the good it does. Further, you are quite wrong. My favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, established a relief fund for Haiti for the stated purpose of proving that atheists “could be good.” In other words, it was a PR/recruiting campaign for the New Atheists. And I daresay many other nonbelievers, though not all, take away a smug sense of moral superiority from their efforts made, not by obligation, but “the compassion of their own hearts,” failing to see how prideful egoistic and self-contradictory such an attitude is. In fact, is this not the exact sentiment you and SJ have expressed? So don’t pretend you have some kind of ethical leg up on people of faith.

b) We exclude NO demographic. I can only assume you meant this to refer to the “condom controversy” in Africa. Well, here’s a fun fact for you: despite all the loud mouthed slander and defamation issued against the Church, the fact is, and has been confirmed by completely independent secular research organizations, that those areas where the Church has the most influence have astronomically lower rates of AIDS infection, while places where condoms are widely distributed are still being decimated by this epidemic. This is not archaic morality, it’s common sense and truth. Since the advent of condoms in our own culture, both the number of common STDs and the rates of infection have risen astronomically. Condoms are not a solution, they are part of the problem.

A powerful counter-attack against the unspecified “modern, defensible morality”.

 

[wanstronian]

On what is the unspecified modern, defensible definition of morality is based?

Great question - why don’t you start a thread instead of torpedoing this one, the title of which is “Conclusive evidence for Design!” and in which, ironically considering it’s your thread, you provide none!

 

[wanstronian]

a) Not all, and probably not even most, religious outreach involves proselytizing, and even if it did, that in no way diminishes the good it does. Further, you are quite wrong. My favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, established a relief fund for Haiti for the stated purpose of proving that atheists “could be good.” In other words, it was a PR/recruiting campaign for the New Atheists. And I daresay many other nonbelievers, though not all, take away a smug sense of moral superiority from their efforts made, not by obligation, but “the compassion of their own hearts,” failing to see how prideful egoistic and self-contradictory such an attitude is. In fact, is this not the exact sentiment you and SJ have expressed? So don’t pretend you have some kind of ethical leg up on people of faith.

It is you who are wrong! I take no sense of “atheistic pride” in any charitable efforts I make, and I imagine I’m typical (although I don’t know). I just want to help - assumedly like the vast majority of Christians. Interesting that you mention Haiti - that was precisely the situation I was thinking about when I mentioned blaming the victims for their own misfortune. Now I know Pat Robertson is something of an extremist wing nut, but I didn’t hear any condemnation of his bigoted views by “mainstream” Christians!

When recent surveys in the US have shown that most Christians think that atheists are no more moral than rapists, I think Dawkins et al can be forgiven for wanting to demonstrate that our bad reputation is undeserved. This is not the same thing as wanting to recruit atheists. On that score we have no worries - religiosity is falling globally anyway.

I contest your assertion that proselytizing doesn’t diminish the good work. Okay, religious aid might save preople from dying through illness, but it could could do so equally well without subsequently indoctrinating those people into the relevant mythology - a mythology which causes demonstrable damage.

I don’t believe I have an ethical leg up on the religious - not at all. The difference is that I know that my ethics don’t come from a magic book.

b) We exclude NO demographic. I can only assume you meant this to refer to the “condom controversy” in Africa. Well, here’s a fun fact for you: despite all the loud mouthed slander and defamation issued against the Church, the fact is, and has been confirmed by completely independent secular research organizations, that those areas where the Church has the most influence have astronomically lower rates of AIDS infection, while places where condoms are widely distributed are still being decimated by this epidemic. This is not archaic morality, it’s common sense and truth. Since the advent of condoms in our own culture, both the number of common STDs and the rates of infection have risen astronomically. Condoms are not a solution, they are part of the problem.

I wasn’t thinking only of this, but let’s go with it. How do you suppose that using a sealed, sterile physical barrier causes an **increase **in infection? Lies, damn lies, and statistics, is what’s going on here. The CC thinks the solution to AIDS is to prevent people from having sex. Well, it’s a solution I suppose, and probably makes sense to a sex-obsessed institution like the CC.

Unfortunately I think you’re equating correlation with causation when it comes to condom use. A much more plausible explanation is that the increase in STDs is caused by an increase in people having more sex. Condoms are one way to mitigate some of the effects of this change in our culture. Without them, it stands to reason, infection rates would be far higher. Or do you subscribe to the view that if condoms aren’t available, people will stop having sex for pleasure?

 

[JDaniel]

This is a distinct possibility. Free will is a paradox, by the standards of logic and reason. By that I mean that, just as it would be a paradox for there to be no antecedent cause for any phenomenon in the universe, so it would be a paradox for there to be no antecedent cause for the human will.

Will causes behavior; it would be paradoxical for us to say that nothing causes behavior. But this same logic can further ask, "what causes will? Free will is tantamount to saying that there is no antecedent cause for will (Voltaire, to the contrary, observes, “we can do as we will, but not will as we will”). Thus, if will is the antecedent cause for human behavior, what is the antecedent cause for will?

If free will is an uncaused cause, it becomes something God-like – the prime mover of our actions. It cannot itself be explained causally, and thus is acausal.

But a need for causality has been enlisted even in proofs for the existence of God – the universe must have a cause. Just so, the determinist reasons that not only must behavior have a cause, but will itself must have a cause.

Portofino:

This is not the dilemma you envision. Many people forget that “chance” is a cause. A different kind of cause to be sure, but, nonetheless a cause. Chance is the juxtaposition of two or more (primary) caused flowings of events that find themselves in some affinity with one another, in some way.

Your (and Voltaire’s) idea for a cause of what is willed is nothing more than that. We are creatures with souls and therefore, minds. Our minds are fed by our senses. Our senses are fed by external and sometimes internal events not caused by us - although one, or more, could be. The cause of what first strikes our senses > minds is nothing more than event-flows put together by chance, which include events caused by the primary causes (exclusive of chance). Our minds, then, as they are want to do, juxtapose these event-flows and occasionally we are presented with choices of some sort. These are the morsels of food that feed our wills. Thus, they are not uncaused causes. But, they are not precisely primary caused causes either.

Consider the causes of willings. The primary causes - which are the causes of willing when made affine - are efficacious, material, formal, and final. In order to act on our will we must become one or other of such primary causes. Usually, we become sub-agents - particularly with everyday secondary (caused) events. But, often we become more than merely secondary efficient causes. We may act to commit an ‘evil’. And when we do, our bodies and minds envelope more than merely our ‘thoughts’. Our actions are often projected and are in this way incorporated. So, we become formal, material and final causes, as well as the efficient cause - when we sin.

Now, the will might also juxtapose two or more event-flows that are not in affinity with each other. Our minds may have sensed both events - at the same or different times - then place them together by our very own ability to reify. This may result in sinful actions as described above.

God bless,
jd

 

[wanstronian]

Well, take a look at this. Episode 9, but they are all important because they illustrate the astronomical odds against an uncaused, undesigned universe. Is it absolute proof? You might say it is not absolute but you have a better chance of winning the Mega Lottery 100 months in a row than that the conclusions are wrong. The universe had an absolute beginning, it demonstrates unmistakeable design througout and therefore was caused by a super intelligent being, and this being we call God.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

The odds are astronomical… but by basic logic, not quite as astronomical as an all-powerful super-being that created the universe. Just because it’s easier to say “God did it,” that doesn’t make it a simpler explanation. Just a more simplistic one.

 

[JDaniel]

*Non-theist: natural selection cannot explain all of the order in the universe, nor the experience of purpose and meaning – there are things that science does not yet know, especially as regards the most fundamental questions of why the universe exists in the state that it does (why there is gravity; time; space; matter and energy); design is a hypothesis – and, like any hypothesis, is a possibility, until definitively disproven – but cannot be regarded as an established fact, nor as the only possible explanation; in fact, a designer would introduce still more questions, such as, “what is the cause or origin of the designer itself?”

That, indeed, is another parting of ways – the theist who believes in design is content to say, “the universe is designed” and does not seem to believe that the question, “what is the antecedent cause of the designer?” is a relevant question.

Portofino:

It isn’t. It’s the come back of a lazy man, that is, a lazy thinker.

Indeed, the very idea of studying or seeking to explain the origin of the designer, would be considered practically blasphemous! The designer cannot itself be studied – it is supernatural, outside of nature.

Not in the least. It is answered by Catholic Philosophy, including by St. Thomas, quite adequately.

I cannot blame the scientist for not being satisfied with this explanation… If supernatural explanations were invoked at any point during the history of science, scientific knowledge would not have come as far as it has (for example, “what is the cause of thunder”? “What is the cause of epilepsy?”) Demons were thought to cause epilepsy, at one point; and the gods were presumed to cause thunder.

Yet almost every single scientific so-called finding is the result of the same kind of dialectical induction used to prove to ourselves that a Creator of everything exists. The difference is, many scientists consider themselves to be god-like, whereas, Catholic philosophers (and many Catholic scientists) consider themselves to be merely human.

God bless,
jd

 

[prodigalson2011]

It is you who are wrong! I take no sense of “atheistic pride” in any charitable efforts I make, and I imagine I’m typical (although I don’t know). I just want to help - assumedly like the vast majority of Christians. Interesting that you mention Haiti - that was precisely the situation I was thinking about when I mentioned blaming the victims for their own misfortune. Now I know Pat Robertson is something of an extremist wing nut, but I didn’t hear any condemnation of his bigoted views by “mainstream” Christians!

Strange, because I did. But, since when does the mainstream media give voice to mainstream Christians? No, they’re more in the business of trying to make us all look like Pat Robertson.

And I have personally heard numerous atheists say such things. And if you yourself take no such pride, why then did you feel it necessary to say that when atheists do it “there are no strings attached.” That sounds like someone trying to trumpet their moral superiority to me.

When recent surveys in the US have shown that most Christians think that atheists are no more moral than rapists, I think Dawkins et al can be forgiven for wanting to demonstrate that our bad reputation is undeserved. This is not the same thing as wanting to recruit atheists. On that score we have no worries - religiosity is falling globally anyway.

I’ll grant that first point, but Dawkins is nevertheless an undeniable proselytizer. And I think you’re quite wrong on that second point – religiosity is declining in the European West, but growing by leaps and bounds elsewhere, and those cultures where religiosity is declining are declining altogether as their populations are rapidly decreasing and falling below the replacement rate, and they are rapidly being overtaken by Muslims.

I contest your assertion that proselytizing doesn’t diminish the good work. Okay, religious aid might save preople from dying through illness, but it could could do so equally well without subsequently indoctrinating those people into the relevant mythology - a mythology which causes demonstrable damage.

Yes, Judeo-Christian tradition causes so much damage. I mean… democracy, hospitals, universities, the abolition of slavery. Egads. What a horrific legacy. Joseph Stalin was onto something much better.

I don’t believe I have an ethical leg up on the religious - not at all. The difference is that I know that my ethics don’t come from a magic book.

No, they come from having been raised in a society whose values were formed by centuries of Judeo-Christian thought and philosophy.

I wasn’t thinking only of this, but let’s go with it. How do you suppose that using a sealed, sterile physical barrier causes an **increase **in infection? Lies, damn lies, and statistics, is what’s going on here. The CC thinks the solution to AIDS is to prevent people from having sex. Well, it’s a solution I suppose, and probably makes sense to a sex-obsessed institution like the CC.

Quite easily: a) they don’t always work b) they make people more likely to engage in sex with multiple partners by providing an illusory “safety”… the list could go on. And the Catholic Church is sex obsessed? Nay, sir, I believe it’s secular Western culture that’s obsessed with sex. It’s the new god of the modern world. For proof, watch TV or listen to the radio for more than 5 minutes.

But don’t take it from me or the Pope–this Harvard AIDS expert says the Pope is right:

*A leading AIDS expert from Harvard University has come out in support of comments made by Pope Benedict XVI suggesting that the distribution of contraception actually spreads rather than prevents AIDS…

“There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates,” he explained. “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Read more at christianpost.com/news/harvard-aids-expert-supports-pope-s-contraception-comments-37602/#iAA0IkqtjZwTVibk.99*

Unfortunately I think you’re equating correlation with causation when it comes to condom use. A much more plausible explanation is that the increase in STDs is caused by an increase in people having more sex. Condoms are one way to mitigate some of the effects of this change in our culture. Without them, it stands to reason, infection rates would be far higher. Or do you subscribe to the view that if condoms aren’t available, people will stop having sex for pleasure?

Let’s think about that for a second… hmm… why are people having more sex? Oh, yeah, maybe because they are being sold the lie of “safe sex” (i.e. contraception). I subscribe to the FACT, not the view, that before condoms and pills were introduced into our culture, when traditional moral values still held sway in society at large, the rates of illegitimate births, STDs and other sexual problems were a fraction of a fraction of what they are now. History speaks for itself; it doesn’t need my opinion.