Design

[tonyrey]

I’m sure it gives them so much comfort to know that.

It has inspired, does inspire and will always inspire countless men, women and children with courage and hope that God shares our agony and will console us in heaven - whereas atheism offers nothing but bitterness, despair and desolation.

“By their fruits you shall know them…”

 

[tonyrey]

The misinterpretation and misuse of religion does not imply religion is false. Christians, Hindus, Jews and Moslems believe God answers prayers.

Buddhists seem to have a go-it-alone attitude to life on earth which is virtually regarded as a curse instead of a blessing.

 

[tonyrey]

“Would you prefer we never existed?” That is the key question the sceptic never answers!

They die of hunger as the result of human greed, selfishness, ignorance and indifference. We are all responsible to some extent. The world has enough resources to feed everyone…

“Would you prefer that no one had ever existed?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Scepticism amounts to pessimism, cynicism and defeatism which often cause people to commit suicide especially when they get older or beome afflicted with an incurable disease…

And let’s face it, the suicide rate for atheists is higher than for theists.

How comforting then is atheism?

Please make a case for the comforts of atheism.

 

[o_mlly]

…If you discovered that an alien race was actually controlling our existence, deciding who lived and who died, causing pain and anguish because it served some unknowable ‘greater good’, wouldn’t you be horrified?

Although One Being gave us our existence, that Being does not control our existence. You are the Master of your fate and Commander of your soul, the one-legged Henley tells us. And he’s right.

Indeed, free will is a dangerous gift. Without free will there would be no evil in the world but then neither would there be any saints. There would be only robots.

 

[Bradski]

They die of hunger as the result of human greed, selfishness, ignorance and indifference.

Ah yes. i keep forgetting. God is only responsible for the good things in life.

Although I did ask you quite a few posts ago how we can tell the difference between what is ordained and what isn’t. Is it still famines and ebola that are just bad luck and kittens and icecream are by divine fiat?

 

[Vonsalza]

I think this is getting close to a discussion on the impact of “free will” on divine determinism.

I don’t have any particularly profound revelations on the matter, but I would caution those that advocate for the absolute, unfettered agency of the human individual that such a thing probably doesn’t exist.

I’m born in with a propensity to sin. My “free will” cannot change that. I was born into a certain socioeconomic caste and culture. My “free will” does not change my starting place, accompanied by the many additional challenges I may face to achieve the exact same goals as someone more fortunately born.

For the Christian, do we have some element of moral choice in our life? Of course.

But is God also the Master of Creation, weaving all things to ultimately fulfill His will? Also, Of course.

The righteous do often suffer unto death. The immoral do often prosper until death.

While we may live in a fallen world due to the sin of man, that consequential scheme was also put into place by the Almighty Himself. To suggest otherwise is akin to suggesting the existence of a God that is bound by something more authoritative than He.

As I understand it, there’s no such bird.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

.Although I did ask you quite a few posts ago how we can tell the difference between what is ordained and what isn’t. Is it still famines and ebola that are just bad luck and kittens and icecream are by divine fiat?

The mystery of evil has always been a mystery in want of a solution.

But, as with the existence of God and whether we have immortals souls, the question will not be finally answered until we are finally done asking.

The hopeful Christian believes that moment will reveal everything it is important to know.

The hopeless atheist believes that moment will reveal nothing.

 

[inocente]

What Good News from the Discovery Institute?

That there appears to be an intelligent design behind the universe?

I didn’t know that the Discovery Institute had addressed the problem of evil. …]

Would Newton, Wald, and Darwin qualify as Satanists for saying such things?

You seem to love argument by quotation. I guess it’s easy and lends an air of authority, but for instance your quote from Darwin in his forties in misleading as it fails to mention his later change of heart. In his journals he laments the death of his wife, who remained a Christian, and looks back fondly on her concern for his now agnostic soul. But even without reading his journals, just a quick look at the Wikipedia article tells us:

“Though “very unwilling to give up my belief”, he found that “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” He noted how “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered”, and how Paley’s teleological argument had difficulties with the problem of evil.”

If someone quoted you from back when you were an atheist and failed to mention your later change of heart, that would also be misleading.

 

[inocente]

I agree with you that God does not “design famines for the greater good”.
I understand that you have heard some say this absurdity, but I never have, anywhere actually.
What is claimed is that God transforms our suffering, the outcome of our damaged relationship with Him, into joy. Through His grace, we can find our eternal home in Him.

From the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-10):
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

John 16:19-22 - Aware that they wanted to ask Him, Jesus said to them, “Are you asking one another why I said, ‘In a little while you will not see Me, and then after a little while you will see Me’? Truly, truly, I tell you, you will weep and wail while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman has pain in childbirth because her time has come; but when she brings forth her child, she forgets her anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.

The reasoning is convoluted in that:

• it muddies the meaning of design as it is being used by posters on this thread
• it exhibits a misunderstanding and is a misrepresention of what people are trying to assert.
• by referencing ID and the Discovery Institute it turns the argument into a strawman

I’m being told that for tens of thousands of years, the intelligent designer has designed famines for the greater good.

From there, I deduced that “if it’s for the greater good, we ought not meddle”.

That’s 10 words. Your post was 351 words. You took 351 words to tell me my 10 word argument is convoluted .

Re your specific objections: some design fans claim the universe is 6,000 years old, others agree with CMAP that it’s 13.8 billion years old. Some say everything was designed in a week, others that the universe existed for over 9 billion years before the Earth was formed. Some say life evolved, others that the species were the result of spontaneous generation. Some say everything was designed, others not, still others that there’s a second designer called Chance. And so on and so on. Sorry if I can’t keep up with all their differing meanings of the word ‘design’.

- God’s being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolvent does not imply that famines are good or that He wills “material harm in order to draw a superior spiritual good out of it.” It is only you who has expressed this from what I have been reading. If this is incorrect, please link the post where this is said.

The quotes are from post #698.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You seem to love argument by quotation. I guess it’s easy and lends an air of authority, but for instance your quote from Darwin in his forties in misleading as it fails to mention his later change of heart. In his journals he laments the death of his wife, who remained a Christian, and looks back fondly on her concern for his now agnostic soul. But even without reading his journals, just a quick look at the Wikipedia article tells us:

“Though “very unwilling to give up my belief”, he found that “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” He noted how “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered”, and how Paley’s teleological argument had difficulties with the problem of evil.”

If someone quoted you from back when you were an atheist and failed to mention your later change of heart, that would also be misleading.

“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).

So I guess you know that all the later posthumous editions of Origins delete this passage? Do you ever wonder why? Whom do you suppose Darwin means by Creator?

 

[tonyrey]

“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).

So I guess you know that all the later posthumous editions of Origins delete this passage? Do you ever wonder why? Whom do you suppose Darwin means by Creator?

Like so many others he had second thoughts towards the end of his days on earth. The prospect of death helps us to see life in its true perspective: it is either a gift from God or an accident…

 

[tonyrey]

They die of hunger as the result of human

A non sequitur which is also false! God is ultimately responsible for** everything** but He permits evil because it is inevitable in a physical universe - unless you can suggest a feasible alternative…

Although I did ask you quite a few posts ago how we can tell the difference between what is ordained and what isn’t. Is it still famines and ebola that are just bad luck and kittens and icecream are by divine fiat?

For a start God doesn’t make ice cream! Famines and ebola are indeed misfortunes in an immensely complex system where countless living organisms are pursuing different goals. Variety is the spice of life but like all other advantages it has its drawbacks. Designing a universe is not so simple as you seem to think. It is very easy to criticise but to create is a far different proposition…

Your response also ignores the fact that millions of people and animals die of hunger as the result of human greed, selfishness, ignorance and indifference. Is the Creator also to blame for producing homo sapiens? Would it be better if none of us had seen the light of day? Or compelled to make the right decisions?

 

[tonyrey]

And let’s face it, the suicide rate for atheists is higher than for theists.

How comforting then is atheism?

Please make a case for the comforts of atheism.

I can think only of the absolute independence which makes people absolute masters of themselves and ultimately answerable to no one but themselves - although the source of their power remains unexplained. They prefer “splendid isolation” which leads to total oblivion - as if another life would be a curse rather than a blessing. In reality it amounts to a death wish not only for oneself but for everyone else as well…

 

[Bradski]

Famines and ebola are indeed misfortunes in an immensely complex system…

So that’s a ‘yes’ then.

Good stuff - designed.
Bad stuff - Oops, accident (didn’t see that coming - gee, this universe-design-thingy is harder than I thought).

You make God sound like Trump:

“I thought it would be easier…” independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-president-harder-than-thought-white-house-first-100-days-legislation-healthcare-a7708166.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I can think only of the absolute independence which makes people absolute masters of themselves and ultimately answerable to no one but themselves - although the source of their power remains unexplained. They prefer “splendid isolation” which leads to total oblivion - as if another life would be a curse rather than a blessing. In reality it amounts to a death wish not only for oneself but for everyone else as well….

Albigensians all!

We thought the Dominicans had settled their hash seven centuries ago.

 

[inocente]

“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).

So I guess you know that all the later posthumous editions of Origins delete this passage? Do you ever wonder why? Whom do you suppose Darwin means by Creator?

That’s in the first edition. Not sure what you’re claiming, you seem to now be agreeing with Darwin that everything evolved.

 

[inocente]

“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).

So I guess you know that all the later posthumous editions of Origins delete this passage? Do you ever wonder why? Whom do you suppose Darwin means by Creator?

Don’t know what you mean in your second para, as a couple of minutes research shows “breathed by the Creator” was missing from the first edition 1859, added to the second edition 1860, and retained for all later editions. So I guess you’ve got a reprint of the first edition.

A couple more minutes research gets opinions on why he added it. SparkNotes’ take is “perhaps to appease his opponents”. Another view is that he wanted to keep biology separate from religion. A third view is that:

“Darwin harkens back to the first chapter of Genesis with his “breathed by the Creator,” but his Creator is immediately relegated to the background with the invocation of “the fixed law of gravity.” The fixity of gravity is implicitly contrasted with continuing processes, those things which have a beginning, and hence are subject to change in time. The change is emphasized by the shift in tense from “have been” to “are being” which asserts the continuity of change. The continuing flux of life is thus a permanent condition, much like gravity, and all that was necessary was for the Creator to put a few laws into motion, and then rest.” - victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwinth1.html

Didn’t spot anyone with your take.

 

[Vonsalza]

Good stuff - designed.
Bad stuff - Oops, accident (didn’t see that coming - gee, this universe-design-thingy is harder than I thought).

More like;
Bad stuff - designed too, even though I personally don’t like it. But God wouldn’t do anything I don’t like, right? RIGHT?!?

You make God sound like Trump:

“I thought it would be easier…” independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-president-harder-than-thought-white-house-first-100-days-legislation-healthcare-a7708166.html

As respectfully as I can, the conflation of God and Trump is a conclusion from your personal perspective - one unambiguously subject to your very individualized subjectivity.

 

[o_mlly]

The initial premise of all scientists is, “We know nothing. In our darkness, let us observe something and comment thereon.”
From the darkness of science, all observations of nature can never reach the certain conclusion that the universe is the work of an Intelligent Designer. Since science never proves anything but only fails to disprove, the possibility of an Intelligent Designer to the scientist must remain possible but is never certain.

The initial premise of theologians is agreed to revelations, “We know some things. In light of these things, let us observe other things and comment thereon.” From the light of revelation, all observations in nature irrefutable confirm that the Creator is intelligent and the universe has design.