Does Intelligent DEsign Belittle God?

[Charlemagne_II]

*“For thus says the Lord, the creator of the heavens, who is God, the designer and maker of the earth who established it, not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in.” - Isaiah *

---

Was Isaiah belittling God and Man?

 

[MindOverMatter]

*“For thus says the Lord, the creator of the heavens, who is God, the designer and maker of the earth who established it, not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in.” - Isaiah *

---

Was Isaiah belittling God and Man?

Do you believe that science should be looking for purpose in the universe? The above quote has nothing to do with “how” God designed the universe. I believe in design, but not in the same sense as Behe. There can be no scientific theory of God-design. There can only be philosophical inferences to a designer.
God designed a natural order that unravels its self, and this much seems evident. I think its important that we keep science as a method for understanding natural causes. Theres nothing wrong with methodological naturalism.

 

[Detales]

God cannot be belittled, except as a relative concept in the mind of a believer, and therefore that God id antropomorphic and not the God of Creation.

God, Creation, and Intelligence are not separate one from the other.

Life as we know it is not a manifestation apart from God. Life is a Force equatable with God which finds its expression in greater complexity and depth while in few numbers as it it unfolds. therefore to “search for Life” on exoplaents is a misnomer, We may search for life forms, but Life itselfe is omni-Present as God. That means there is no place where God in not.

Life, or God, unfolding is the ever present Cause and pressure behind the exploration of manifested forms that fit, or not, into harmonious action with the environments of the elements which they include and yet transcend. This is why forms evolve suddenly according to Divine ideas already present in the Plenum, you might say, of Divine Consciousness, or Emptiness as it appears to mortal mind.

Creationism, Darwinism, materialism, ID, all are false. God alone** IS** and allows you and me to appear to question Being as an evolution of Soul.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

*I think its important that we keep science as a method for understanding natural causes. Theres nothing wrong with methodological naturalism. *

I agree. We don’t have to consult the Bible every time we inquire into Nature. There is certainly an advantage to methodological naturalism, and I wouldn’t abandon it for a second. I don’t know who would.

However, when naturalism sees something it cannot explain other than by resorting to intelligent design, why is that opposed to methodological naturalism? Isn’t intelligent design found in nature? Do you recognize it in the sentences you are reading at this moment? If you do, how can you say intelligent design is against the methodoly of naturalism? All of science is based on the intelligent design of data that are observed and lead us to conclusions. The conclusion they lead us to suggest a master plan designed at the start of the universe that would lead ultimately to the emergence of intelligent beings able to understand the master plan.

There are those who do not want to admit that such a plan is possible. These are the atheists. For them it is a comfort to exclude God from everything scientific, and then to argue that, since science is the only useful knowledge, God must be a useless concept that the human race will have to outgrow. It is therefore important for atheistic scientists to deny any and all evidence of this master plan that pervades the universe.

I’m not saying that science can tell us an awful about the Designer, other than that he also created what he designed at the Big Bang. If this is what Father Coyne believes is the belittling of God, taking away from God the aspect of personality and limiting Him to a Force only, then why wouldn’t he have the same objection to Aquinas and his proofs for the existence of God? They also talk about God as Designer and First Cause, but not much else.

However, the contribution science can make is simply to affirm Intelligent Design and the power of the Creator, as so many other human endeavors have legitimately done, including music, architecture, art, mathematics, etc.

The attempt to demolish the sense of Intelligent Design that is growing in the scientific world is nothing more nor less than a bold feat of atheism in retreat. The belief that religion and science can have no points of intersection is a school of thought that has just come into being in the last 150 years. It probably reached its zenith about 50 years ago, but since then has been slowly but steadily losing ground. Ironically, many Catholics trained in atheist schools of science still defend the absolute divorce of science from God.

 

[itinerant1]

That means there is no place where God in not.

God alone** IS** and allows you and me to appear to question Being as an evolution of Soul.

While we correctly maintain that God is ubiquitious, we do not mean by that that God is literally “in” a “place” or all “places.” To assert that God can be in a place represents an idealized, anthropomorphic conception of God. God is spirit and only matter can occupy “place.” Furthermore, Soul does not evolve, only contingent material being is subject to the kinds of changes that comprise evolution.

To put matters bluntly, your statements smack of pantheism. Pantheism is a mundane, erroneous conception of the Supreme Being. You have not yet attained to a correct understanding of infinite, spiritual being as ontologically distinct from contingent material being.

 

[Detales]

“*While we correctly maintain that God is ubiquitious, we do not mean by that that God is literally “in” a “place” or all “places.” *” I’m sorry, I hope you didn’t infer that I thought that God is chopped up into bitty pieces that are everywhere.scattered. I don’t see how God could be localized, But it would seem to me that ubiquity would include “all places,” though not in the sense of a locable point, as if there was such thing.

And what is the difference between God and matter? They are seemingly seperate only for the purpse of education in the realm of the manifest. Pantheism, btw, is god allegedly in matter. what “we” are considering is God as matter inseperable from the substance of Self. The only way it is possible to have your anthropomorphic god is in the christianist view of a god and a separate creation. That implies a subject/object relationship of God and matter which is impossible as it would defeat Omnipresence.

I’m only proposing a transcending of the weak understanding inherent in the usual anthropomorphic christianist “God and His train set” mentality.

 

[itinerant1]

And what is the difference between God and matter? They are seemingly seperate only for the purpse of education in the realm of the manifest. Pantheism, btw, is god allegedly in matter. what “we” are considering is God as matter inseperable from the substance of Self.

Pantheistic theories takes variant forms. What you are adhering to is still a particular form of pantheism.

The only way it is possible to have your anthropomorphic god is in the christianist view of a god and a separate creation. That implies a subject/object relationship of God and matter which is impossible as it would defeat Omnipresence.

God as distinct from His creation implies a real ontological distinction but that in no way compromises His omnipresence because God’s power extends to every part of His creation, maintaining it in existence and governing its activities. Neither does this understanding of God entail anthropomorphism other than what may seem implied by the limitations of human language being used analogically to describe infinite, non-material, and unchangeable Being.

Therefore, your objections have been sufficiently met and I maintain my position as originally stated.

 

[Detales]

itinerant 1, When you first mentioner the Perrenial Philosophy, I thought I had encountered someon whe had a bit more depth beyond ordianry scholarly verifications. It saddens me to say “Bon chance.”

 

[liquidpele]

Please read the following article and comment.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

I’m especially concerned to know how Intelligent Design as a scientific concept could serve to belittle God.

Who is confused, the Cardinal or the Jesuit?

I think it doesn’t just belittle God, I think ID belittles us as well. I think that ID is basically saying “well, we don’t totally understand it, so must be God!” which both says that we are incapable of trying to understand it and that God is working “magic” to make things work instead of creating a universe that works on it’s own.

A wonderful presentation that explains my point of view regarding ID better than I can do is here:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365&ei=2ktZSunTEYGwqAPt1akx

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

I think it doesn’t just belittle God, I think ID belittles us as well. I think that ID is basically saying “well, we don’t totally understand it, so must be God!” which both says that we are incapable of trying to understand it and that God is working “magic” to make things work instead of creating a universe that works on it’s own.

Well, you are back to the twofold orders of truth thing, much abused by Aquinas. God is glorious and it does not belittle Him to acknowledge that He designed and created everything there is. To assume as you do, that there is no design or creation, is not only to belittle God, but to wipe Him out of existence. That also belittles us because it makes us an accident of no consequence in the history of the universe. :knight1:

 

[Detales]

Charlemage,

It looks like Liquid is alleging that you are someone who believes in the “god of the gaps.” It also looks to me that no matter how you slice it, ID has a magic god as alleged. I’m thinking it is far simpler than the whole creation/design/“god and his train set” theories. ID seems to have God all busy with a sort of drafting table and scratching His beard, thinking “I wonder if…” or “Maybe I could put that over there…” sorts of things. I mean, how exactly do you see this design happening, and did you ask the Source itself about all your speculations? All the ID stuff I’ve read superimposes the author’s sense of design on Divinity, reather than revealing anything about God. They are not even plowing the right field, as far as I can tell.

 

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design is unambiguously recognized whenever an archaeologist identifies an arrowhead found in the ground. Any other explanation is just an attempt to hide the truth.

See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, published by the New York Times, available online.

Sadly, it appears the noise being created over ID is about (A) it’s real, and (B) it might get kids in school thinking about God. Can’t have that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Intelligent Design is unambiguously recognized whenever an archaeologist identifies an arrowhead found in the ground. Any other explanation is just an attempt to hide the truth.

See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, published by the New York Times, available online.

Sadly, it appears the noise being created over ID is about (A) it’s real, and (B) it might get kids in school thinking about God. Can’t have that.

Peace,
Ed

And what about a mountain? Surely that’s designed? And the salt flats? The sailing stones? The sun? Lighting is just God right? If it doesn’t rain, obviously God is mad at us!

An arrowhead is made by people. We are very good at finding things that other people make, because it’s unlike what is found in nature. Comparing human made things with something designed by a creator is hilariously naive even if you believe in God.

Also, as I’ve said before, the very poor design is something you should probably be pretty pissed off at God over. The rate of birth defects and genetic diseases is quite high. Perhaps you can ask him why he designed aids or autism, or designed 99% of all species to go extinct over the last 4 billion years?

 

[liquidpele]

Charlemage,

It looks like Liquid is alleging that you are someone who believes in the “god of the gaps.” It also looks to me that no matter how you slice it, ID has a magic god as alleged. I’m thinking it is far simpler than the whole creation/design/“god and his train set” theories. ID seems to have God all busy with a sort of drafting table and scratching His beard, thinking “I wonder if…” or “Maybe I could put that over there…” sorts of things. I mean, how exactly do you see this design happening, and did you ask the Source itself about all your speculations? All the ID stuff I’ve read superimposes the author’s sense of design on Divinity, reather than revealing anything about God. They are not even plowing the right field, as far as I can tell.

Well said

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Detales

*ID seems to have God all busy with a sort of drafting table and scratching His beard, thinking “I wonder if…” or “Maybe I could put that over there…” sorts of things. I mean, how exactly do you see this design happening, and did you ask the Source itself about all your speculations? All the ID stuff I’ve read superimposes the author’s sense of design on Divinity, reather than revealing anything about God. They are not even plowing the right field, as far as I can tell. *

Was the universe designed to produce life, or is the universe and everything in it pure accident?

If the latter, when Dawkins proves it I’m sure he’ll get the Nobel. In the meantime, the only way to argue pure chance is atheism.

Prove that too!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*Also, as I’ve said before, the very poor design is something you should probably be pretty pissed off at God over. The rate of birth defects and genetic diseases is quite high. Perhaps you can ask him why he designed aids or autism, or designed 99% of all species to go extinct over the last 4 billion years? *

For once we agree … in both being agnostic. I don’t know. I’m not going to answer your questions in this life. I hope we both get the answers in the next one.

Maybe if Dawkins decides to approach God without a sneer, even he might get them. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

 

[itinerant1]

Well, you are back to the twofold orders of truth thing, much abused by Aquinas.

Of course, you did not mean what you said because such a reckless and blatantly false statement would only be made by someone who knows nothing about Aquinas.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

itinerant

I said:

Well, you are back to the twofold orders of truth thing, much abused by Aquinas.

You commented:

*Of course, you did not mean what you said because such a reckless and blatantly false statement would only be made by someone who knows nothing about Aquinas. *

Ah, I had to look twice at my quote to see what you meant. In the heat of writing, one sometimes selects a word that is close to, but not quite the same. Instead of saying “abused,” I should have said something like “stomped on,” since that is what the Dumb Ox did to Siger of Brabant.

Sorry to have misled you.

Now can we play nice again?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Detales

*ID seems to have God all busy with a sort of drafting table and scratching His beard, thinking “I wonder if…” or “Maybe I could put that over there…” sorts of things. I mean, how exactly do you see this design happening, and did you ask the Source itself about all your speculations? All the ID stuff I’ve read superimposes the author’s sense of design on Divinity, reather than revealing anything about God. They are not even plowing the right field, as far as I can tell. *

You know, we’ve gone over this ground already about ten times and I’m getting sick and tired of it. You can keep repeating this point, as I think you and others have been doing at the other thread, so I’m going to copy this answer and have it ready to paste for you next time. O.K.?

God does not have to be a subject of scientific inquiry for Intelligent Design to have legitimacy. If you find a knife sticking deep in the back of a dead man’s neck, you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to know that the man’s death was premeditated. You don’t have to know anything more about the knife than that it was planted there deliberately. You don’t have to know why it was planted, who planted it, or anything else to know that it was planted. It didn’t just accidentally fly out of the kitchen drawer and land six inches through the back of the dead man’s neck. The coroner’s report will read “Death by homicide.”

In the case of abiogenesis, the lab report should read, “Life by design.”

 

[reggieM]

We are very good at finding things that other people make, because it’s unlike what is found in nature.

That’s basically the intelligent design approach at work. You claim that something a person makes is “unlike what is found in nature”. You should, therefore, accept some measurements and analysis to explain what a “designed item” is and what gives indications of intelligence at work.