Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[tonyrey]

Complexity is an inherent property because if it didn’t exist the parts wouldn’t be related to one another. There is no obvious reason why the initial chaos became orderly. Complexity need not exist and requires an explanation like the existence of the universe. “Physical necessity” is a false creator…
It doesn’t follow that nothing was created for a purpose.

To deny we are purposeful beings is to contradict oneself. It presupposes there is no reason for that conclusion! In other words it is the result of purposeless events. So the problem remains. How can mindless processes lead to insight and understanding?

 

[Bradski]

The flaw in your argument is that there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design.

We’ve just spent quite a few posts determining that God has designed literally everything. Not most things. Not just the pleasant things. Everything.

If you want to claim that the nomatose worm was an unintended consequence of God’s actions, then be my guest. He wouldn’t have wanted it to exist but, hey, what could He do…

Then you can describe the means by which we determine which parts of existence are specifcally designed and which are unintended. My guess is that we’ll end up with things like whiskers on kittens on one side of the ledger and ebola on the other.

 

[Bradski]

So, would you now introduce a corollary to your former observation, that is: If there is evidence of purpose then there is evidence of design. If true then the contra-positive must also be true: If there is no evidence of design then there is no evidence of purpose. Show me such a thing.

Not evidence of purpose, but evidence of purpose other than that which is intrinsic to the object itself.

A leaf is there simply to convert sunlight into energy that the plant can then use. It’s not there so squitrrels can make a nest. It’s not designed to convert sunlight because design requires forethought (we need something to facilitate the process of photosynthesis, so how about something like…a leaf). It evolved that ability - it wasn’t dsignd with that ability in mind.

But as part of a nest, it becomes an object which exhibits intentionalty. It bears the hallmark of design.

So as nothing in the natural world has been designed, it follows that there is no purpose (other than that which is intrinsic to the object itself).

So the rain hasn’t been designd to water plants. Trees have not been designed for us to build shelters. We haven’t been designed to write music and watch football and drink beer (two out of three I shall be doing shortly). But surely WE have purpose…

Yeah, it’s to make more copies of ourselves.

 

[vz71]

So if we go with the idea that there is no design because the leaf is just there to convert sunlight into food, don’t you fall back to questioning why there is a leaf at all?
Why there needs to be a tree?
Why there is earth to grow in?
Why should there be sunlight?

The fact that there is anything at all tells us someone created.

 

[o_mlly]

Not evidence of purpose, but evidence of purpose other than that which is intrinsic to the object itself.

A leaf is there simply to convert sunlight into energy that the plant can then use. It’s not there so squitrrels can make a nest. It’s not designed to convert sunlight because design requires forethought (we need something to facilitate the process of photosynthesis, so how about something like…a leaf). It evolved that ability - it wasn’t dsignd with that ability in mind.

But as part of a nest, it becomes an object which exhibits intentionalty. It bears the hallmark of design.

So as nothing in the natural world has been designed, it follows that there is no purpose (other than that which is intrinsic to the object itself).

So the rain hasn’t been designd to water plants. Trees have not been designed for us to build shelters. We haven’t been designed to write music and watch football and drink beer (two out of three I shall be doing shortly). But surely WE have purpose…

Yeah, it’s to make more copies of ourselves.

Whoa there, kimo-sabi (sp?)!

Writing that evidence of purpose is evidence of design except where design is so obvious that we just dismiss that universal fact as merely an annoying snag to your observation, will just not do.

The intrinsic finality of all beings as ends to themselves is absolute evidence of purpose and, according to your observation, evidence of design. Now, if a thing is designed then there is a designer. Take it from there.

 

[inocente]

So if we go with the idea that there is no design because the leaf is just there to convert sunlight into food, don’t you fall back to questioning why there is a leaf at all?
Why there needs to be a tree?
Why there is earth to grow in?
Why should there be sunlight?

The fact that there is anything at all tells us someone created.

If you’ve been following the conversation about why is there a worm that burrows into children’s eyes, one intelligent design fan on the thread says God definitely designed it, another intelligent design fan says God definitely didn’t.

Design fans can’t even agree on that. The worm evolved of course. The bible only talks of a Creator, never once of a designer.

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in your argument is that there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design.

We’ve just spent quite a few posts determining that God has designed literally everything. Not most things. Not just the pleasant things. Everything.

Brad, you have ignored my point that there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design. God designs the universe with its natural laws well aware they cannot cater for every contingency and sometimes lead to unfortunate coincidences. The only solution would be to intervene to prevent them but to do so would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable system. An accident-free, physical world is a fantasy. No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of such a paradise. If you can do so you will make history! The nomatose worm is a permitted consequence of God’s activity like natural disasters and tragedies on a far greater scale. I believe the immense value of life on earth far outweighs its disadvantages. Like Schopenhauer would you prefer this planet to be similar to the moon without evil - and without animate creatures? If not why not? It would suggest you believe the price is worth paying - unless you can offer a coherent alternative…

 

[tonyrey]

So if we go with the idea that there is no design because the leaf is just there to convert sunlight into food, don’t you fall back to questioning why there is a leaf at all?
Why there needs to be a tree?
Why there is earth to grow in?
Why should there be sunlight?

The fact that there is anything at all tells us someone created.

Unless one rejects the fact of contingency!

 

[tonyrey]

Whoa there, kimo-sabi (sp?)!

Writing that evidence of purpose is evidence of design except where design is so obvious that we just dismiss that universal fact as merely an annoying snag to your observation, will just not do.

The intrinsic finality of all beings as ends to themselves is absolute evidence of purpose and, according to your observation, evidence of design. Now, if a thing is designed then there is a designer. Take it from there.

Irrefutable logic!

 

[tonyrey]

An explanation is required…

The existence of an orderly universe with natural laws requires an explanation because there is no obvious reason for chaos to develop into a coherent, intelligible system.

The power of reason itself requires explanation.

No alternative explanations have been offered…

 

[vz71]

If you’ve been following the conversation about why is there a worm that burrows into children’s eyes, one intelligent design fan on the thread says God definitely designed it, another intelligent design fan says God definitely didn’t.

Design fans can’t even agree on that. The worm evolved of course. The bible only talks of a Creator, never once of a designer.

A likely reason the atheist wants to discuss design instead of creation.

 

[Bradski]

Whoa there, kimo-sabi (sp?)!

Writing that evidence of purpose is evidence of design except where design is so obvious that we just dismiss that universal fact as merely an annoying snag to your observation, will just not do.

The intrinsic finality of all beings as ends to themselves is absolute evidence of purpose and, according to your observation, evidence of design. Now, if a thing is designed then there is a designer. Take it from there.

So you say that the nomatose worm was designed for a purpose. Tony thinks it’s an unintended consequence. An unfortunate glitch in the system. An unforeseen (by God?) happenstance.

I’m now waiting for him to tell me how we can tell the difference between that which has been specifically designed and that which…whoops…was an accidentical byproduct. I know he’s not going to be able to do that. We’re simply back to nominating earthquakes and ebola as accidents and puppies and sunsets as designed.

But your problem is coming to terms with what you claim.

Here’s a thought. God designed pain receptors which are a great way of leting us know if we’re being harmed. Now run your tongue past your front 4 teeth until you get to the pointy ones either side. Those are your canines and God designed those for tearing flesh. Not a nice medium rare fillet, but in 99.99999% of the time, living flesh. Put those two facts together and the amount of pain that has been caused over billions of years is literally unimaginable.

God, instead of designing things so that every living creature was a vegetarian (hey, He’s God, He can do anything), specifically designed it so that there’s a food chain and everyone has tomeat everyone else.

Was that the purpose you meant? Because that’s all the majority of creatures are for. That is their purpose. To become food for those further up the food chain.

Incidentally, kemosabe is a derivation of the Spanish ‘Quien no sabe’ or ‘Who knows’ as the Lone Ranger wears a mask and who knows who he actually is. Though I prefer the Far Side cartoon where an old and retired Lone Ranger is told that it means ‘Horses rear end’.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The bible only talks of a Creator, never once of a designer.

Read Genesis 1.

God is clearly creating a designed universe, a universe that is intended toward certain goals reached by the 7th day.

Or do you believe God is a mindless Creator?

 

[Bradski]

Read Genesis 1.

God is clearly creating a designed universe, a universe that is intended toward certain goals reached by the 7th day.

Or do you believe God is a mindless Creator?

I created my son. I am ultimately responsible (along with Mrs Bradski) for his existence. I didn’t design him. I have limited control as to what he does. I had no idea how he would turn out. I always used to worry about how it would turn out because bringing something into existence in no way means that you have any control as to how it develops.

Does God have any control over the way things have turned out? Tony thinks He is lacking in some areas. Eyeball worms and earthquakes for example.

Omnipotent seems to mean different things to different people.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I created my son. I am ultimately responsible (along with Mrs Bradski) for his existence. I didn’t design him.

You did not design him to exist?

You did not design him to share the genetic and cultural heritage of Mr. and Mrs. Bradski?

You didn’t plan for him to be an American citizen and enjoy the fruits of the American system?

You didn’t design him with the intent of planning for every opportunity to be healthy, wise, and happy?

All this shows a plan in your mind, reasons for creating a child that go beyond the sheer physical pleasure of the act that results in offspring.

I guess you could say that some people have sex without a plan. I doubt you are one of them.

I also doubt that God creates without a plan. What would be the point of creating a whole universe if you don’t have a plan for it.

Sort of like creating a building without a building plan.

 

[o_mlly]

So you say that the nomatose worm was designed for a purpose. …

Both the comatose and non-comatose nematodes possess intrinsic finality, as do all creatures.

The atheist mythology often presents the poor nematode as the enemy of mankind with the emotionally laden image as that evil thing that blinded the little child. However, the little fella is more correctly portrayed as creation’s janitor. To wit:
apsnet.org/edcenter/K-12/NewsViews/Pages/Nematodes.aspx
Fortunately, most species of nematodes have no effect, or have a beneficial effect, on humans and their endeavours. Many species of nematodes are ‘free-living’, living in soil, sea and freshwater. These feed on bacteria, fungi, protozoans and even other nematodes, and play a very important role in nutrient cycling and release of nutrients for plant growth. Other nematodes attack insects, and help to control insect pests. In fact, some nematodes which attack insect pests are reared commercially and released for the control of certain insect pests as a biological insecticide. A nematode released to control the Sirex wood wasp has been credited with saving the forestry industry up to 80 million US dollars per year in Australia.

… We’re simply back to nominating earthquakes and ebola as accidents and puppies and sunsets as designed.

There you go again. Earthquakes, too, have a purpose: regenerate earth.

But your problem is coming to terms with what you claim.

And what claim do you think I made whose terms I have not met?

Here’s a thought. God designed pain receptors which are a great way of leting us know if we’re being harmed. Now run your tongue past your front 4 teeth until you get to the pointy ones either side. Those are your canines and God designed those for tearing flesh. Not a nice medium rare fillet, but in 99.99999% of the time, living flesh. Put those two facts together and the amount of pain that has been caused over billions of years is literally unimaginable.

I feel your pain but, sorry Mr. Cow, I’m still hungry. I know you must have a point besides “canines are pointy”; what is it?

God, instead of designing things so that every living creature was a vegetarian (hey, He’s God, He can do anything), specifically designed it so that there’s a food chain and everyone has tomeat everyone else.

What? Have you not also sympathy for plant pain?

Was that the purpose you meant? Because that’s all the majority of creatures are for. That is their purpose. To become food for those further up the food chain.

No, not just the majority, but rather all creatures exist as an end in themselves, not merely as instruments of other creatures.

Incidentally, kemosabe is a derivation of the Spanish ‘Quien no sabe’ or ‘Who knows’ as the Lone Ranger wears a mask and who knows who he actually is. Though I prefer the Far Side cartoon where an old and retired Lone Ranger is told that it means ‘Horses rear end’.

As a fan of Larson, I especially like, his book “’There’s a hair in my dirt!’ A worm’s story.”

 

[inocente]

Read Genesis 1.

God is clearly creating a designed universe, a universe that is intended toward certain goals reached by the 7th day.

Or do you believe God is a mindless Creator?

God creates, and does so without a computer-aided design package or a drawing board or even a white beard.

But there’s not much point asking me questions when design fans can’t even agree what God did and didn’t design. Vonsalza says the worm that burrows into eyes is designed, while tonyrey says it’s an exception.

2,000 years and you still haven’t agreed God’s job description. I guess in your defense you did have to wait 1,600 years for the KJV, and then another 400 years for the Discovery Institute.

I’ll do my best to help you design fans come to some sort of agreement. Let’s take some examples, and start with one which you, Tony and Vonsalza can hopefully agree. Did God design fluffy little kittens?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ll do my best to help you design fans come to some sort of agreement. Let’s take some examples, and start with one which you, Tony and Vonsalza can hopefully agree. Did God design fluffy little kittens?

What are we to make of a God who says he has made us in his image and likeness?

That we can design, but he cannot?

 

[tonyrey]

I created my son. I am ultimately responsible (along with Mrs Bradski) for his existence. I didn’t design him. I have limited control as to what he does. I had no idea how he would turn out. I always used to worry about how it would turn out because bringing something into existence in no way means that you have any control as to how it develops.

Does God have any control over the way things have turned out? Tony thinks He is lacking in some areas. Eyeball worms and earthquakes for example.

Omnipotent seems to mean different things to different people.

False deduction! God has complete control but omnipotence doesn’t entail inconsistency. The Creator can prevent all misfortunes but to do so would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable universe. Constant intervention would disrupt the effects of not only human decisions but also animal instincts. It would amount to putting a spanner in the works whenever the machine of nature fails to satisfy the conflicting needs of countless individuals. To make piecemeal improvements is a far different proposition from designing an immensely complex evolutionary universe. To demand a perfect system is not only unrealistic but also highly presumptuous in its implicit claim to know how to create a superior universe to the one we inhabit. It savours of intellectual pride…

 

[tonyrey]

What are we to make of a God who says he has made us in his image and likeness?

That we can design, but he cannot?

Regardless of God’s existence the real question is “What are we to make of those who claim to know how to improve the universe from start to finish?”