Design

[tonyrey]

… In a designed universe the concept of design is useless because everything is designed from the most complex living organism to a simple hydrogen atom. Design does not allow us to make any useful distinctions since everything is designed.
Only in a non-designed universe does design allow us to make useful distinctions between the designed and the non-designed. The non-designed category is absent in a designed universe.

Incorrect! There is an element of Chance with the framework of Design. Anomalies and **dysteleological **side effects are inevitable in an immensely complex system with an immense number of events occurring at every moment. Misfortunes are not intended but permitted because every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing. An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy

The element of free will also leads to unintended consequences. Much of the evil in the world is due to human malice, injustice, ignorance, carelessness and selfishness.

 

[rossum]

There is an element of Chance with the framework of Design.

Then we do not have a designed universe, we have a part designed, part undesigned universe. As a corollary we also have they there can be no “designer of all”, merely a “designer of part”. I suspect that a number of Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) theologians would disagree with you on that.

The element of free will also leads to unintended consequences.

Then the designer is not omniscient, because for an omniscient designer all consequences are intended.

It seems to me that you are getting into some deep theological waters here. If God is creator/designer of all, then there can be no undesigned elements in creation. If you assert the presence of undesigned elements, then those undesigned elements were not created/designed by God.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Be very careful of this question. An ultimate explanation would include an explanation for the origin of God.

Currently what you have is the equivalent of the cosmologists’ multiverse: “The multiverse caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of the multiverse.”

That equates almost exactly to: “God caused our current universe and we do not have an explanation for the origin of God.”

Just as cosmologists have no explanation for the origin of the multiverse, so theologians have no explanation for the origin of God. Neither is an ultimate explanation.

rossum

God is the uncaused cause, an unconditioned reality.

 

[buffalo]

I think that neatly sums up ID for me. A packaged religion, nice graphics, good brand name, convenient for today’s fast food consumer. An appeal to magic. In this case, that DNA appeared spontaneously (didn’t it evolve from RNA?), that the species appeared spontaneously (T Rex alongside humans?), that deleterious mutations appeared spontaneously (but presumably not beneficial mutations?) due to one action by one member of one species…

Doesn’t sound plausible to me, and I can’t help remembering that while the real science helps cure diseases, helps understand and protect habitats, etc., ID is just empty calories, a meme concerned only for its own survival. And as it’s subject to empirical evidence it lasts only as long as no one can be bothered to refute it. I seem to remember some of Behe’s claims lasted only a few days before being easily and comprehensively debunked. The version of ID linked in the OP is so silly I thought at first it was a send up of ID.

Imho any faith based on ID is built on sandy ground. So thanks for the offer, but nope.

btw idevolution is a brand that “has been turning houses into homes for 8 years”.

IDvolution

ID=Intelligently Designed

volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.

 

[buffalo]

:twocents:

God acts in each and every moment, bringing the beginning, the end and everything in between into existence from His eternal Now - within, outside of and overarching all time. Whatever is meant by Design, would include His involvement in each moment, each now, from the existential centre on which they are grounded.

As everyone here, contributing their vision of the world demonstrates, ours is the capacity to imagine. Imagination, experience, consciousness, whatever one may call the reality of our being right here, it is has a structure that can be described in physical, psychological and spiritual terms. The shape of our being in existence is relational, self-other. As participants in creation, we dream universes. We are not things as too often those who misuse science would describe us.

It is very tricky entering into the details of our creation. The way modern science approaches it is reminiscent of the steady state universe. At the beginning of time, things were different. There are reasons why we’ve been provided with the headlines only. Who we are is truly known in transcendence and can only be alluded to through this linear mode of knowing that we here employ. Science oversteps the limits of its capabilities when it attempts to do more than point to the mystery of our existence. If one stops to actually consider what is being asserted by material evolutionists, in the context of the simplicity of every-day life, one will realize its absurdness.

aka Providence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Only in a non-designed universe does design allow us to make useful distinctions between the designed and the non-designed. The non-designed category is absent in a designed universe.

rossum

Everything is designed, and it was designed right from the start or human life would not be likely.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed! The fatal flaw in materialism is its atomistic approach and obsession with analysis at the expense of synthesis. The mind is reduced to brain activity and the self is regarded as an illusion! All our thoughts and decisions are supposed to be the product of physical events like natural selection. It is no wonder Design is regarded as a fantasy when we ourselves are regarded as impotent and impersonal cogs in the machine of nature and incapable of directing our own behaviour. Persons don’t even exist in the scientific scheme of things.

An evolved brain cannot ascertain truth. It is not interested in truth but survival.

 

[buffalo]

Agreed, but the question about the origin of human reson does not do so. All we need to know is how to use that reason to help attain enlightenment. Buddhism is a very practical religion:
One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labour. The ascetic proudly replied that, now at last, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labour, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!

Of course, but do not delay removing the arrow by asking irrelevant questions.

rossum

I would argue the etymology of the word religion would not include Buddhism.

 

[buffalo]

Though ID is a god-of-the-gaps theology - only some things are designed. God didn’t design mud, rocks or anything which is explained naturally, God only designed things not yet explained (or which the ID fan doesn’t realize have been explained).

Whoah. Natural explanations do not negate a macro supernatural explanation.

 

[buffalo]

Ask me in nirvana.

rossum

Will you know anything at all in Nirvana?

 

[buffalo]

Assuming the conclusion.

rossum

We do not observe things popping into existence. We always look for a cause.

 

[buffalo]

That is philosophical materialism. I am not a philosophical materialist.

According to philosophical materialism. I am more of a methodological materialist. When dealing with the material I use materialist methods. I do not sacrifice a chicken to my RS232 interface lead to get it to work, I use a soldering iron.

Exactly, I am not a philosophical materialist.

How many chickens does one have to sacrifice to Tlaloc to cure cholera? Alternatively should we use the material methods of modern medicine, developed using methodological materialism?

rossum

Vast areas of opportunity are lost through methodological naturalism. Ask the millions of appendixes that have been removed due to errant belief. Contrast this to approaching medicine from a design perspective. Understanding the body is designed to heal is leading to advances.

 

[buffalo]

Correct. If God is as described, then every grain of sand is individually designed. This makes it impossible to test any design detector. Since everything in the universe is designed there is no undesigned thing with which to test the design detector. A battery, a switch and a green bulb would do as well. There is no need to connect the red bulb since it will never be activated.

In a created universe everything is designed, so design is not a useful description; it is merely a synonym for “exists”. In a non-created universe some things are designed and some things are not, so design becomes a useful concept.

rossum

Right, which makes an absolute design detector machine problematic for it exists inside its own circle. That is why ID the science is about probabilities. Blind unguided chance suffers too since it is on the opposite end of probabilities.

To break out of this circle we need information from outside the circle. We know this as Revelation. God told us.

 

[rossum]

God is the uncaused cause, an unconditioned reality.

As I said, you do not have an ultimate explanation. Your partial explanation goes as far as God and then stops. Exactly like the cosmologists’ partial explanation which goes as far as the multiverse and then stops.

Neither explanation is ultimate because they omit the explanation of the final element in the sequence.

As a separate point, no cause is unconditioned, because any cause is conditional on there being an effect. If there in no effect, then there can be no cause. That is a discussion for another thread though.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Not exactly. ID is a designer of the gaps untheology. ID was designed (!) to get round the legal prohibition on teaching religion in US public schools. So the designer is never God (except when talking to church audiences).

For any believer that God created the universe, then everything in that created universe must be designed.

rossum

ID started with the ancients. It is not new.

 

[buffalo]

As I said, you do not have an ultimate explanation. Your partial explanation goes as far as God and then stops. Exactly like the cosmologists’ partial explanation which goes as far as the multiverse and then stops.

Neither explanation is ultimate because they omit the explanation of the final element in the sequence.

As a separate point, no cause is unconditioned, because any cause is conditional on there being an effect. If there in no effect, then there can be no cause. That is a discussion for another thread though.

rossum

Another thread. You are missing some key points.

 

[rossum]

Everything is designed, and it was designed right from the start or human life would not be likely.

Then design is not a very useful concept. It becomes a mere synonym of “exists”. “X exists” is synonymous with “X is designed”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Will you know anything at all in Nirvana?

The Buddha did. He lived in nirvana for 45 years between enlightenment and death while he was preaching. Nirvana is not heaven, you do not have to die to attain it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We do not observe things popping into existence. We always look for a cause.

Always? When was the last time you looked for the cause of God? You might also have a look at parts of quantum mechanics where “cause” is somewhat fuzzy. As with a lot of QM, macroscopic concepts do not always translate well to the area of QM.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The Buddha did. He lived in nirvana for 45 years between enlightenment and death while he was preaching. Nirvana is not heaven, you do not have to die to attain it.

rossum

As I understand in Nirvana you have no sense of self.