Design

[Aloysium]

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. . .

Science tells us what happens, what things do basically.
It doesn’t say what things are other than the doing that makes them happen.
The subatomic goes into the making of the atomic, whose activity causes the transformations we observe, including life.

At the basis of everything is its existence.
It isn’t a quality possessed by matter, but rather it lies at its foundation.
Things, what the universe does, must be as part of what thy do.

The question as to what lies at the Ground of this being, who or what brings it all into existence demands an answer.
It would seem self-evident that the ubiquitous underlying act by which all this is, must be rational since there is order to everything.
One has to al least be a pantheist.

And, when you get beyond the measureable and consider such phenomena as courage, this capacity of thought which we are here exhibiting, our having knowledge and being able to act, that’s when one begins to conceive of deities.

Jumping a number of steps, we can understand that rather than many there must be one all-powerful entity/identity who is transcendent to all that is, being its Source.
That source is either internal, our true self, or other.

Ultimately we are finite, and connected to everything else, through our perceptions, our feelings and thoughts and by our actions.
What we do is relate. Everything of which we are composed is directed to that end.
Perfect relationality is love - a giving of oneself to the other for its good.
The ultimate relationship is with the Source of everything.

Of course there is a “Designer” and this is as certain as is an ordered, rational universe.

 

[o_mlly]

Science tells us what happens, what things do basically.
It doesn’t say what things are other than the doing that makes them happen.
The subatomic goes into the making of the atomic, whose activity causes the transformations we observe, including life.
…

But something else is necessary for life. Under the first principle of sufficient reason, the activity of dead atoms cannot transform themselves into living things.

The properties of an effect must be present in one or more of its causes for a thing cannot give what it does not already possess. If we were to pull ourselves apart with tweezers we would have a pile of trillions of atoms none of which is alive. Since we do not have spare souls to give, as the poet Gibran wrote, our children may come through us but they do not come from us. The scientist can observe the atoms but not the soul, the original dark matter to science.

 

[Bradski]

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?!?

No, I have it on good authority that the bad stuff is not designed but is simply a misfortune:

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

There you go. The universe is way too complex for God to programme out these little glitches like disease and famine. I would have thought that He wouldn’t have had those sort of problems, but apparently…

…designing a universe is not so simple as you seem to think.

So it’s not only more complex than I can imagine, it’s too complex for God to handle. I’ll let you and Tony sort this out. Let me know when you get a consensus. Which might be difficult because on one hand (Vonsalza) you have God designing things like ebola and leukaemia, which we can undoubtedly describe (being mere mortals and not knowing the mind of God) as being ‘a very bad idea indeed’ and God is responsible or (Tony), He is not omnipotent.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Under the first principle of sufficient reason, the activity of dead atoms cannot transform themselves into living things.

The properties of an effect must be present in one or more of its causes for a thing cannot give what it does not already possess. If we were to pull ourselves apart with tweezers we would have a pile of trillions of atoms none of which is alive. Since we do not have spare souls to give, as the poet Gibran wrote, our children may come through us but they do not come from us. The scientist can observe the atoms but not the soul, the original dark matter to science.

Agreed.

Wanting to add my :twocents: to elaborate on my, hopefully not too idiosyncratic, view of science:

“Dead” is not a term I would apply to anything in existence.
A loose definition of “alive” could be used to describe the entire universe, in which everything is what it is, where and when it is.
I would say that atoms are a form of being, a system greater than their constituent parts.
The subatomic is arranged by that higher form, which exhibits its particular qualities because of those parts.
Collections of atoms, molecules, have greater capacities, which I don’t know would qualify as higher forms of being.
For example, there is a tetrahedral structure to Carbon which allows for the construction of complex organic molecules such as enzymes and DNA.
It is the shape of these large molecules, the particular configuration of positive and negative charges, that enables very specific processes necessary for all life.
Extrapolating from our self-awareness, we can understand more “primitive” creatures as simpler versions of what we are.
A single-cell creature is a system greater than the activity of its constituent molecules and would have its particular “soul” making it what it is as a whole in itself.
By the point you get to us, the cellular components are brought together by the human spirit, thereby creating a person, who has the capacity to engage in the sciences, philosophy and to love.
There are sciences, in the broadest sense of the word, devoted to each level of this hierarchy of creation, the most fundamental being theology, rationally exploring the nature of our relationship with the Ground of our being.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, I have it on good authority that the bad stuff is not designed but is simply a misfortune:

I respect Tony and his opinion. He is obviously a little closer on the spectrum to “open theism” than I am, ergo we won’t see eye-to-eye on the matter. If a forum ever opens specifically on that matter and he opines, I’d be happy to spar with him a little. And then buy him a beer afterward, if it occurred irl (as I’d be happy to buy you a beer irl).

I think the existence of some philosophical diversity on the matter may be somewhat indicative of the notion that “there exists things I don’t like” doesn’t necessitate the non-existence of any sort of God.

Moreover (as we’ve discussed ad nauseam) “there exists things I don’t like” does not provide any irrefutable theological conclusions beyond “Ergo, if there is an all-mighty God, He/It permits these things”.

As to “why?”, mine is as good as yours.

 

[tonyrey]

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

There is still no explanation of how misfortunes could be prevented without defeating the purpose of designing an orderly universes. It seems predictability counts for nothing in your ideal scheme of things - but then fantasy is always an easy way out…

 

[tonyrey]

No, I have it on good authority that the bad stuff is not designed but is simply a misfortune:

To be precise, misfortunes are not designed but **permitted **as an inevitable consequence of creating a vast, immensely complex universe in which countless events are occurring at every moment.to an incalculable number of creatures…

There you go. The universe is way too complex for God to programme out these little glitches like disease and famine. I would have thought that He wouldn’t have had those sort of problems, but apparently…

The opinion of a person who has no experience whatsoever of designing a universe and cannot present a feasible blueprint of a superior one is worthless…

So it’s not only more complex than I can imagine, it’s too complex for God to handle.

Non sequitur. God is well aware of the drawbacks of the universe and knows every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. It is a sign of ignorance to think there is **no price **to pay for the gift of life.

I’ll let you and Tony sort this out. Let me know when you get a consensus. Which might be difficult because on one hand (Vonsalza) you have God designing things like ebola and leukaemia, which we can undoubtedly describe (being mere mortals and not knowing the mind of God) as being ‘a very bad idea indeed’ and God is responsible or (Tony), He is not omnipotent.

Another non sequitur.The defects of the universe are due to the physical limitations of a immensely complex universe - not to divine inadequacy. A perfect world is an infantile fantasy:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or** the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures:** and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[tonyrey]

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

It is Brad who sounds like Trump:

“I thought it would be easier…”

 

[tonyrey]

I respect Tony and his opinion. He is obviously a little closer on the spectrum to “open theism” than I am, ergo we won’t see eye-to-eye on the matter. If a forum ever opens specifically on that matter and he opines, I’d be happy to spar with him a little. And then buy him a beer afterward, if it occurred irl (as I’d be happy to buy you a beer irl).

I think the existence of some philosophical diversity on the matter may be somewhat indicative of the notion that “there exists things I don’t like” doesn’t necessitate the non-existence of any sort of God.

Moreover (as we’ve discussed ad nauseam) “there exists things I don’t like” does not provide any irrefutable theological conclusions beyond “Ergo, if there is an all-mighty God, He/It permits these things”.

As to “why?”, mine is as good as yours.

In the absence of a feasible blueprint of a planet devoid of accidents and misfortunes it is reasonable to believe it is a human illusion.

 

[Aloysium]

In the absence of a feasible blueprint of a planet devoid of accidents and misfortunes it is reasonable to believe it is a human illusion.

This would be an aspect to the age-old question of why there is evil if all creation springs from a loving God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. At the basis of discussions such as these, one sees fundamental, irreconcilable differences in the relationships we have with reality, and are the reality of one’s being in the world. I’m going to try to present my version of the Christian approach.

Yesterday, another funeral. This time another young member of the extended family died under tragic circumstances. Enough tears for everyone, especially for those closest, to witness their sadness, the sadness of all humanity. Tears for all those hugs that will never again be in this life, left a bit more empty. And, yet more full, experiencing the love, the bonds that unite us, comforting one another.

To know or even conceive of the goodness that transcends the events that fill our lives, giving them meaning, I understand to be the most important aspect of our relationship with Existence. Everything else is secondary. The uncaringness of nature appears only when we seek from it, Love. This reflection of God’s power and infinite creativity, His glory, measured in the billions upon billions, from which we are shaped to be given life, is not where we find the Heart. As the physical ground of our being, it must be determined. That said, all this is necessarily maintained in existence and exists because it is permitted. And, bad things are allowed to happen when they do not interfere with God’s Divine plan and ultimately lead to a greater good - those acts of love, which bring us closer to becoming Love itself.

As to evil persons, the fact is that we are all eternal beings and we are all children of God. There is a great reward awaiting Abel, beyond our few years here. And as for Cain, when the warnings and urgings that he see what he is becoming and change before it’s too late fail, our Father removes the stain of guilt through the sacrifice of His son. A sacrifice asked of Isaac and Abraham, revealed in Jesus who takes up all our sins, dies and is resurrected, that we might all find eternal life.

 

[inocente]

I respect Tony and his opinion. He is obviously a little closer on the spectrum to “open theism” than I am, ergo we won’t see eye-to-eye on the matter. If a forum ever opens specifically on that matter and he opines, I’d be happy to spar with him a little. And then buy him a beer afterward, if it occurred irl (as I’d be happy to buy you a beer irl).

I think the existence of some philosophical diversity on the matter may be somewhat indicative of the notion that “there exists things I don’t like” doesn’t necessitate the non-existence of any sort of God.

Moreover (as we’ve discussed ad nauseam) “there exists things I don’t like” does not provide any irrefutable theological conclusions beyond “Ergo, if there is an all-mighty God, He/It permits these things”.

As to “why?”, mine is as good as yours.

Philosophical diversity? Tony’s intelligent designer designs good but permits evil. Yours designs good and designs evil. Very different deities.

You both seem to agree that famine, disease and the suffering of others down the ages is just a question of taste, “things I don’t like”. Sounds like moral relativism. Another design fan told me different, the intelligent designer designs suffering for the greater good. Sounds like utilitarianism.

Another design fan likened me to an atheist for not bowing down to the Discovery Institute, the epicenter of this theological chaos.

Worst. Apologetics. Ever.

 

[Vonsalza]

Philosophical diversity? Tony’s intelligent designer designs good but permits evil. Yours designs good and designs evil. Very different deities.

As to my position on whether God “designs” evil:

1. His plan obviously included evil since the sacrificial lamb of God is co-eternal. “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was God and the Word was with God.” The “Word”, here, is Christ.
2. God appears to have created man with the capability of sin, even if they had to be “tricked” into it.

A decent lay explanation would be that God placed one non-sinful “domino” in place that was capable of falling toward sin. With a little outside-encouragement from a snake, it did just that.

To say that “the domino falling toward evil of its own choice” was as explicitly designed by the God as the creation of the domino itself, I disagree. There is a critical degree of separation, even if you don’t want to recognize it.

You both seem to agree that famine, disease and the suffering of others down the ages is just a question of taste, “things I don’t like”. Sounds like moral relativism. Another design fan told me different, the intelligent designer designs suffering for the greater good. Sounds like utilitarianism.

You seem to imply here that a Catholic must be consistently one or the other. I see no reason to believe in this false dichotomy.

Moreover, your personal views display a similar type of “error”. You’ve been more than happy to submit to Divine Fiat concerning the adultery of the harlot at risk of stoning in the Gospels. However, you eschew similar Fiat when it comes to marriage between homosexuals.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is a critical degree of separation, even if you don’t want to recognize it.

Just to be clear in case it was missed; that “degree of separation” is the human will.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . His plan obviously included evil since the sacrificial lamb of God is co-eternal. “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was God and the Word was with God.” The “Word”, here, is Christ. . . God appears to have created man with the capability of sin . . .

Peter 1:18 - For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Ephesians 1:4 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

Revelation 13:8 - All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

As to how the scope of this existence is anything but bovine bliss:

Romans 8:18 - I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Amen” to all.

Merely suggesting that the “perfect sacrifice” existentially predates the need for the sacrifice.

You might offer that He did not exist in that specific context, but rather another.

And that is fine with me.

As to how the scope of this existence is anything but bovine bliss:

I’m sure you meant divine. But that’s hilarious. “Cow bliss”.

 

[Aloysium]

“Amen” to all.
Merely suggesting that the “perfect sacrifice” existentially predates the need for the sacrifice.
You might offer that He did not exist in that specific context, but rather another.
And that is fine with me.
I’m sure you meant divine. But that’s hilarious. “Cow bliss”.

Actually, I did mean bovine; perhaps the wording wasn’t clear. I wanted to communicate that rather than complacently being at peace, unchallenged, we are meant to be Divine, to commune with God, and through us all creation. That is what this universe is designed to allow.

I was providing support for what I understand to be your view that evil was a known outcome of creating beings with free will and that the cure was provided for “before” the beginning.

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually, I did mean bovine; perhaps the wording wasn’t clear. I wanted to communicate that rather than complacently being at peace, unchallenged, we are meant to be Divine, to commune with God, and through us all creation. That is what this universe is designed to allow.

I was providing support for what I understand to be your view that evil was a known outcome of creating beings with free will and that the cure was provided for “before” the beginning.

Ah, then your rhetoric was over my consistently low-set head.

Re-read, clever.

 

[Bradski]

Moreover (as we’ve discussed ad nauseam) “there exists things I don’t like” does not provide any irrefutable theological conclusions beyond “Ergo, if there is an all-mighty God, He/It permits these things”.

It’s not things that I don’t like. It’s things about which there would be universal agreement that they were evil. God gets to permit them but in the same situation, if we were to do the same, then we would consider it an abhorrent act. Well, God doesn’t get a free pass on this.

Let’s say that the day before Bryant massacred 35 men, women, children and babies in Tasmania a few years back someone knew he was going to do it. And they knew without any shadow of doubt that he was serious.

If it was in his power, does he incarcerate the guy to prevent the murders or does he say: ‘No, I need him to exercise his free will. The act then comitted will be worthy of punishment.’

Would that be the statement of a sane person? Would you consider the guy at fault in any way? Quite frankly, I don’t think that you would be able to find anyone at all who wouldn’t think he was criminally culpable. And equally deserving punishment.

Now just change the ‘h’ in ‘he’ to upper case.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s not things that I don’t like. It’s things about which there would be universal agreement that they were evil. God gets to permit them but in the same situation, if we were to do the same, then we would consider it an abhorrent act. Well, God doesn’t get a free pass on this.

Let’s say that the day before Bryant massacred 35 men, women, children and babies in Tasmania a few years back someone knew he was going to do it. And they knew without any shadow of doubt that he was serious.

If it was in his power, does he incarcerate the guy to prevent the murders or does he say: ‘No, I need him to exercise his free will. The act then comitted will be worthy of punishment.’

Would that be the statement of a sane person? Would you consider the guy at fault in any way? Quite frankly, I don’t think that you would be able to find anyone at all who wouldn’t think he was criminally culpable. And equally deserving punishment.

Now just change the ‘h’ in ‘he’ to upper case.

Let’s say that the day before my 6 year old child planned to drive our car and massacre 35 men, women, children and babies in Tasmania a few years back, I knew he was going to do it. And I knew without any shadow of doubt that he was serious.

It was in my power to wrap the child in duck tape and throw him in the closet forever to prevent the murders. Or do I say: 'No, I need him to exercise his free will. I will teach him the error of his intention. Free will, I will teach him, is not a license to do evil but a freedom to do good."

Would that be the statement of a sane father? Would you consider the father at fault in any way? Quite frankly, I don’t think that you would be able to find anyone at all who would think he was criminally culpable. And equally deserving punishment.

Now just change the ‘f’ in ‘father’ to upper case.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let’s say that the day before my 6 year old child planned to drive our car and massacre 35 men, women, children and babies in Tasmania a few years back, I knew he was going to do it. And I knew without any shadow of doubt that he was serious.

It was in my power to wrap the child in duck tape and throw him in the closet forever to prevent the murders. Or do I say: 'No, I need him to exercise his free will. I will teach him the error of his intention. Free will, I will teach him, is not a license to do evil but a freedom to do good."

Would that be the statement of a sane father? Would you consider the father at fault in any way? Quite frankly, I don’t think that you would be able to find anyone at all who would think he was criminally culpable. And equally deserving punishment.

Now just change the ‘f’ in ‘father’ to upper case.

You are mistaken if you think that no one will agree with Bradski. I agree with him.

The question is: “when will you teach that 6 years old that the killing of those in Tasmania is wrong? Before he commits the act, or afterwards?” Because the “upper case” father does not teach anyone. He only sits above the clouds, observes what happens below, and punishes the person after the act is committed. (Provided, of course that the person does not repent. If he repents, then all his deeds are erased.)

Yes, Bradski is right. Not just a “father” (upper or lower case), but anyone, who has both the knowledge of the impending deed, and has the power to stop it is equally culpable. Because to actively committing a deed, or passively allowing it is equally wrong. The lame attempt to whitewash God for passively allowing evil is unacceptable.