Design

[STT]

Yes, they are Consubstantial. The uniting we call the incarnation.

I meant how Jesus knows and doesn’t know at the same time.

 

[buffalo]

I meant how Jesus knows and doesn’t know at the same time.

Not being human he did not experience it Himself until He was born. In other words t=0 was His conception as a human. Then entering space and time the clock began running for this human experience.

 

[STT]

Not being human he did not experience it Himself until He was born. In other words t=0 was His conception as a human. Then entering space and time the clock began running for this human experience.

You didn’t get my point. Jesus should know everything because of His divine nature at the same time has limited knowledge because of His human nature. That seems contradictory.

 

[buffalo]

You didn’t get my point. Jesus should know everything because of His divine nature at the same time has limited knowledge because of His human nature. That seems contradictory.

This is the Mystery of the Trinity. He does. Notice I used the word experience. He entered the timeline.

BTW - this was one of the first heresies.
THE GREAT HERESIES by Hilaire Belloc Chapter Three The Arian Heresy

 

[thinkandmull]

In this discussion, is it POSSIBLE to distinguish between philosophy and science? There was a big bang, it was its own casual power, subsisting in itself. It exploded. We are here. THAT is science. WHY are we here. That is philosophy.

For the atheists: why is there not a need for the question WHY?

 

[rossum]

When your brain processes the arrowhead and knows it to be designed how does it know?

Knowledge of other arrowheads. Comparison with the local style of arrowhead. Knowledge of the technology available at the date and time – you don’t expect a cast bronze arrowhead in early stone age sediments. I am sure an archaeologist could give you more details of what they look for.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Because you say this does not make it all true.

Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double-blind test of the accuracy of any proposed design detection method from the DI. I am not aware of any such testing having been done. If you know of any such test, then I would be glad of the reference.

The DI has made claims of design detection methods. As far as I am aware, none of those methods has been tested to show that it works reliably.

rossum

 

[thinkandmull]

Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double-blind test of the accuracy of any proposed design detection method from the DI. I am not aware of any such testing having been done. If you know of any such test, then I would be glad of the reference.

The DI has made claims of design detection methods. As far as I am aware, none of those methods has been tested to show that it works reliably.

rossum

I don’t think that is possible. Some force or other can always be claimed as the source of the “design”. Why is there beauty in nature? To me the Fourth and Fifth ways of Aquinas are the same thing

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double-blind test of the accuracy of any proposed design detection method from the DI. I am not aware of any such testing having been done. If you know of any such test, then I would be glad of the reference.

rossum

Show me a scientific paper with a double blind test that shows that Chance, rather than Design, governs the universe.

 

[robsully]

Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double-blind test of the accuracy of any proposed design detection method from the DI. I am not aware of any such testing having been done. If you know of any such test, then I would be glad of the reference.

The DI has made claims of design detection methods. As far as I am aware, none of those methods has been tested to show that it works reliably.

rossum

Yes, I would be interested in seeing that paper as well.

 

[inocente]

For those who believe in God but do not believe in the Intelligent Design of the universe, the only other thing he can believe is that God created the universe not intending, but only hoping, that something would come of it. This may be how a human would create a universe, but, since God is not frivolous or ignorant of the future, it could not possibly be how God would create one.

So a Catholic is telling us that all the Catholics who don’t believe in ID are wrong, but all the non-Catholics who believe in ID are right.

And the evangelicals who fund intelligent design shout divide and conquer, divide and conquer!

 

[Bradski]

For those who believe in God but do not believe in the Intelligent Design of the universe, the only other thing he can believe is that God created the universe not intending, but only hoping, that something would come of it.

Really? I would have thought, and have been told by those who hold this view, that they believe that God set in motion the natural processes which resulted in what we have today.

Their argument was that it sells God short to think that He has to keep fine tuning the whole system: ‘Darn it, those eyeballs aren’t turning out as I wanted. Looks like I’ll have to short circuit the natural system to get them working. If only I could find out where I went wrong. I hope nobody notices that I screwed up’.

Much later…

‘Doh! Trust Behe to notice. And now he’s told everyone! Jeez, thanks, buddy…’

 

[inocente]

Show me a scientific paper with a double blind test that shows that Chance, rather than Design, governs the universe.

Read that back to yourself and you’ll see that it reads like you are an adherent to a cult of two goddesses.

Does any Catholic theologian capitalize the two abstractions to reify them into goddesses, or use invented words like idvolution? Serious question, can you show me the Church paper that uses capitalized Chance and capitalized Design? Or are these terms the invention of a couple of posters on CAF? How do you expect scientists to even know what you mean, let alone to have any duty towards you?

 

[tonyrey]

Really? I would have thought, and have been told by those who hold this view, that they believe that God set in motion the natural processes which resulted in what we have today.

Their argument was that it sells God short to think that He has to keep fine tuning the whole system: ‘Darn it, those eyeballs aren’t turning out as I wanted. Looks like I’ll have to short circuit the natural system to get them working. If only I could find out where I went wrong. I hope nobody notices that I screwed up’.

Much later…

‘Doh! Trust Behe to notice. And now he’s told everyone! Jeez, thanks, buddy…’

The onus is on those who believe the laws of nature can cater for every contingency to produce a feasible blueprint of a physical world devoid of disease, disasters and deformities. In the meantime an earthly Utopia remains an infantile fantasy…

 

[tonyrey]

Show me a scientific paper with a double blind test that shows that Chance, rather than Design, governs the universe.

Those who reject the element of Chance need to explain why unfortunate coincidences never cause disease, disasters and deformities - as if the laws of nature always cater favourably for every contingency!

According to the opponents of Design the origin and development of life on this planet are due solely to **purposeless **processes, a hypothesis promoted by the Nobel prize winner Jacques Monod in his book Chance and Necessity.

 

[tonyrey]

**Charlemagne III **

Monod ignored or failed to recognise the fact that his hypothesis is self-destructive. If it is ultimately the result of Chance and Necessity it is worthless. Mindless processes **devoid of insight **are hardly likely to provide a **rational **explanation of reality…

 

[rossum]

Show me a scientific paper with a double blind test that shows that Chance, rather than Design, governs the universe.

A great many papers on quantum mechanics do exactly that. Do some research on radioactive decay for example.

I note that you failed to show any supporting evidence for the DI’s claims.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Really? I would have thought, and have been told by those who hold this view, that they believe that God set in motion the natural processes which resulted in what we have today.

Their argument was that it sells God short to think that He has to keep fine tuning the whole system: ‘Darn it, those eyeballs aren’t turning out as I wanted. Looks like I’ll have to short circuit the natural system to get them working. If only I could find out where I went wrong. I hope nobody notices that I screwed up’.

Much later…

‘Doh! Trust Behe to notice. And now he’s told everyone! Jeez, thanks, buddy…’

Front loaded these processes. I leave open the possiblility because we mucked it up through original sin, He may have to intervene.

 

[rossum]

Front loaded these processes. I leave open the possiblility because we mucked it up through original sin, He may have to intervene.

“Mucked it up”? How. God already knew what would happen: omniscience and all that. Looks more like failure to plan correctly to me.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

“Mucked it up”? How. God already knew what would happen: omniscience and all that. Looks more like failure to plan correctly to me.

rossum

The perfect environment is called heaven. We don’t live there. God allows our free will choices and His perfect justice prevails. We choose.