Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente said:
Yes, not a designer.

I suspect that what is being called Chance is what is usually called nature - the orderly processes that are intelligible.

(And that what is being called Design is what is usually called magic - the spontaneous appearance of entire species out of thin air.)
Click to expand...
Anything that has purpose has design. The universe has revealed purpose therefore designed.
 
The second person of the Trinity, Word of God, the Logos or Divine reason who created the order of the universe, became incarnate in Jesus Christ, that may know Love in its full splendour, communing with God.

I can’t imagine a more perfect a design, a deeper commitment to and involvement with us, we who have betrayed Him.
 
Aloysium said:
The second person of the Trinity, Word of God, the Logos or Divine reason who created the order of the universe, became incarnate in Jesus Christ, that may know Love in its full splendour, communing with God.

I can’t imagine a more perfect a design, a deeper commitment to and involvement with us, we who have betrayed Him.
Click to expand...
The Catholic understanding is so beautiful, rich and hopeful I fail to understand why there is so much resistance to it.
 
Even Darwin was compelled to use language to indicate design when he talked about Natural Selection.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
 
rossum said:
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
Click to expand...
Still waiting…
 
robsully said:
Still waiting…
Click to expand...
Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double blind test of the accuracy proposed by chance as the explanation for the appearance of design in the universe.

Still waiting. 😉
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Show me a scientific paper with the results of a double blind test of the accuracy proposed by chance as the explanation for the appearance of design in the universe.

Still waiting. 😉
Click to expand...
I have not made any claims, so there is little to no requirement to supply any burden of proof.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Even Darwin was compelled to use language to indicate design when he talked about Natural Selection.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
Click to expand...
Even Dawkins and rossum recognize design when they see it. That is because it was cognized.
 
robsully said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Why it would take you a very long time would require my knowing more about you than you know about yourself and also something of God’s plan for you. You are being cryptic in your posts, revealing next to nothing. Still, I think I could give it a good shot, but i don’t even know if you believe in God.

Why it would take a long time to come up with a scientific paper that would meet Rossum’s standards requires an understanding of how design detection methods fit within the biases of modern scientific thought. I haven’t personally delved into the matter sufficiently to discuss the approach of the Discovery Institute, and it would take an inordinate amount of time to do so adequately. It is important to note that while posters are talking about design, it is not necessarily the DI version. If you are interested, read the critiques and do go to the sources themselves; you may be wasting your time here.

Why empiricism cannot come up with a designer is because He is behind the Light that shines on creation. The specific frequencies that modern science reveals cannot reflect on the Source. If that analogy doesn’t work for you, how about the one that talks about looking for something under the light of the lamp although the object lies in the darkness, because that’s the only light you have. You will not find it will you?

There’s more I could respond to your “Why?”, but I need to know why you want or need the answer.
 
Aloysium said:
Why it would take you a very long time would require my knowing more about you than you know about yourself and also something of God’s plan for you. You are being cryptic in your posts, revealing next to nothing. Still, I think I could give it a good shot, but i don’t even know if you believe in God.

Why it would take a long time to come up with a scientific paper that would meet Rossum’s standards requires an understanding of how design detection methods fit within the biases of modern scientific thought. I haven’t personally delved into the matter sufficiently to discuss the approach of the Discovery Institute, and it would take an inordinate amount of time to do so adequately. It is important to note that while posters are talking about design, it is not necessarily the DI version. If you are interested, read the critiques and do go to the sources themselves; you may be wasting your time here.

Why empiricism cannot come up with a designer is because He is behind the Light that shines on creation. The specific frequencies that modern science reveals cannot reflect on the Source. If that analogy doesn’t work for you, how about the one that talks about looking for something under the light of the lamp although the object lies in the darkness, because that’s the only light you have. You will not find it will you?

There’s more I could respond to your “Why?”, but I need to know why you want or need the answer.
Click to expand...
I will reply in reverse order of asking.

Why. If I am to worship a God(s) I feel I should be giving my life to something real. How can I tell the Christian God is any different than Ra, Buddha, Zeus Thor ect.ect. .

If empiricism cannot come up with a designer is it for the reasons you offer? Or is it because He doesn’t exist? How can one tell the difference?

For those that want to make claims that there is a Designer, requesting proof of such claims should not be unwarranted.

And lastly “cryptic” to some maybe intellectually honest to others.
 
robsully said:
For those that want to make claims that there is a Designer, requesting proof of such claims should not be unwarranted.
Click to expand...
for those of you (like yourself presumably) who want to make a claim there is no Designer, it should be possible to explain how it all happened without being designed. :rolleyes:

You do make that claim, don’t you? :confused:
 
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.” C.S. Lewis
 
Charlemagne_III said:
for those of you (like yourself presumably) who want to make a claim there is no Designer, it should be possible to explain how it all happened without being designed. :rolleyes:

You do make that claim, don’t you? :confused:
Click to expand...
I have not made that claim. I have nothing to prove.

But you have claimed there is a designer, now the burden of proof is on you.
 
robsully said:
I have not made that claim. I have nothing to prove.

But you have claimed there is a designer, now the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
Any explanation is better than none! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing. If one cannot disprove Design one needs to offer an alternative. Otherwise there is no point in being on a Philosophy forum…
 
buffalo said:
The Catholic understanding is so beautiful, rich and hopeful I fail to understand why there is so much resistance to it.
Click to expand...
The pessimists think it is too good to be true! For them love is an insignificant feature of life…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top