Evidence against Design?

[tonyrey]

Primarily Occam’s razor. If natural processes are sufficient, then there is no need to complicate things with a superfluous entity. The rotation of the Earth adequately explains why the Sun moves across the sky each day. There is no need to posit Apollo in his chariot doing the moving.

Design can be evidenced when a natural explanation is insufficient. The victim did not stick the knife into his own back. Someone else must have done it.

Are natural processes sufficient to explain spiritual development?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve always found curious the idea the existence of evil in the world disallows God’s presence. Evil, death, disease, war and poverty only intruded God’s perfect creation of the Garden of Eden after Man’s fall consonant with the terrible gift of free will. Enforced loving and obeying God would mean nothing without the corollary ability to follow Satan and NOT love and obey God. All the bad things in the world are the fault of Satan and a compliant mankind and not that of God. God, to whom time means nothing, will set matters right on judgement day.

Apropos to this question of “grand design” is the Creation on the Web" website’s" critique of Stephen Hawking"s book “The Grand Design”.The specious nature of this attack on intelligent design of the universe in favor of the “big bang” is shown in many aspects. How could anything create itself before it exists? Gravity is the force of attraction arising between objects by virtue of their masses. Before any matter existed no gravity existed.How then could it have operated before it existed? Had any law of physics caused the universe to create itself then the law must have existed before the universe began. That is to say before time began. Therefore the the law must be outside of time. How could that be? Scientific laws do not create anything but only describe things that already exist or processes that are observable and repeatable. They cannot cause anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline it describes.

Welcome to the forum, Robert!
Moral evil appeared when man chose evil but natural (physical) evil - unsurprisingly - has natural causes:

CCC 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.

 

[inocente]

Evidence against Design?

Philosophers will point out that your question is meaningless until you define what you mean by Design.

It could be that anything which gives the appearance of design turns out not to be designed on closer inspection, in which case absolutely everything is evidence against design.

For instance it used to be thought that the universe was designed with the Earth at its center. We now know that’s false and that all the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and therefore evidence against design.

So you need to define what you mean by Design with the capital D.

 

[tonyrey]

Philosophers will point out that your question is meaningless until you define what you mean by Design.

It could be that anything which gives the appearance of design turns out not to be designed on closer inspection, in which case absolutely everything is evidence against design.

For instance it used to be thought that the universe was designed with the Earth at its center. We now know that’s false and that all the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and therefore evidence against design.

So you need to define what you mean by Design with the capital D.

It is begging the question - and incompatible with Christian belief that God created everything - to assert that the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and nothing but blind forces.

 

[rossum]

It is begging the question - and incompatible with Christian belief that God created everything - to assert that the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and nothing but blind forces.

What problem do you have with gravity?

rossum

 

[inocente]

It is begging the question - and incompatible with Christian belief that God created everything - to assert that the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and nothing but blind forces.

Irrelevant, since you yourself ruled the putative designer off-topic - “I think we have enough information to reach some conclusions about the source of Design - but that takes us away from the topic” (post #27).

Everything about the positions and shapes of stars is known beyond any reasonable doubt to be the product of blind forces, so already more than 99.99% of nature is evidence against design. But that’s not my point, what I’m saying is that stars were once thought to be perfectly designed with the Earth at their center, now we know that’s false. So if we made a mistake on that scale, it’s probable that whatever else looks as though it’s designed won’t turn out to be on closer inspection.

 

[da_nolo]

1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.
2. The most significant negative aspect of reality is evil.
3. Physical evil is negative because it harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
4. Physical evil has physical causes which are essential for life.
5. Physical evil is inevitable in a physical universe.
6. Moral evil is negative because it interferes with personal development and fulfilment.
7. Moral evil also harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
8. Moral evil presupposes free will. (Kant: “Ought implies can”.)
9. Free will presupposes the power of reason.
10. Free will also presupposes the power to be unreasonable.

A. I don’t know what the heck you are getting at.
is this one of those things where you try to set up an argument against, but becomes an argument for???

B. below is not numbered according to number system provided.

1.evidence against Design (God) consists of the negative aspects of reality. in actuality - the ‘negative’ is considered towards things that are of personal opinion (as you put “evil”). In some manner this seems to oppose Design, however design may not be dependent on the such. how could anyone define design - for that matter - when our own conception of design is limited and that design is in fact of its own (or in other words - it exists beyond our knowledge)?

1. the word negative in itself refers to what there is without. as does “evil” however, these things could not be of opinion. so a perspective w/o may exist. still what is with out may not tarnish the possibility with. furthermore there still exists the possibility of being of with AND without or uninfluenced by matters of morals or design though a indirect result of it (i.e. chaos). these things are of ‘neutral’ behavior at best.
2. evil in itself is not physical, but may produce a physical outcome. such is true w/ many aspects through out the universe. (i.e. gravity). in other words an act may not be evil w/o intent or purpose or some other factor which may ‘rule’ as evil. so there is no separate ‘kinds’ of evil.
3. once more must dive into what is neutral. destruction is a neutral (sometimes result from evil). if there is a separation of the two then the manner in which we react would may be independent to evil. therefore it may not essential. however, w/o sadness we may not understand happiness. w/o evil could we understand good/God?

 

[tonyrey]

It is begging the question - and incompatible with Christian belief that God created everything - to assert that the trillions of stars are the product of blind forces and nothing but blind forces

It is certainly relevant from a Christian point of view - even without considering the source of Design - which rejects the theory that everything is the product of blind forces.

Everything about the positions and shapes of stars is known beyond any reasonable doubt to be the product of blind forces, so already more than 99.99% of nature is evidence against design.

An invalid conclusion based on the assumption that blind forces are sufficient to account for every event in the universe -** including the existence of persons**.

But that’s not my point, what I’m saying is that stars were once thought to be perfectly designed with the Earth at their center, now we know that’s false. So if we made a mistake on that scale, it’s probable that whatever else looks as though it’s designed won’t turn out to be on closer inspection.

A scientific error is irrelevant with respect to the fundamental nature of reality - which is a metaphysical issue.

 

[da_nolo]

Irrelevant, since you yourself ruled the putative designer off-topic - “I think we have enough information to reach some conclusions about the source of Design - but that takes us away from the topic” (post #27).

Everything about the positions and shapes of stars is known beyond any reasonable doubt to be the product of blind forces, so already more than 99.99% of nature is evidence against design. But that’s not my point, what I’m saying is that stars were once thought to be perfectly designed with the Earth at their center, now we know that’s false. So if we made a mistake on that scale, it’s probable that whatever else looks as though it’s designed won’t turn out to be on closer inspection.

everything in the universe (including chaos) has some sort of ‘law’ to it. law is design.

 

[da_nolo]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7313

the Trinity?

 

[grannymh]

An invalid conclusion based on the assumption that blind forces are sufficient to account for every event in the universe -** including the existence of persons**.

This is an invalid assumption because of the lack of evidence leading to the universal ''every event".

Wind can be considered a blind force since in itself, it is not rational. Last night, the wind or some natural force formed an amazing design of clouds semi-covering the bright moon. Design existed in the sky last night.

Design is a many splendored thing. The human person, called by God to share in happiness eternal, is designed in such a way that sharing in the spiritual life of God, with one foot on a banana peel, is possible.

 

[inocente]

It is certainly relevant from a Christian point of view - even without considering the source of Design - which rejects the theory that everything is the product of blind forces.

Christians follow Christ, not Design, scripture says nothing about an entity named Design.

That’s also excellent evidence against Design, thanks for pointing it out.

Everything about the positions and shapes of stars is known beyond any reasonable doubt to be the product of blind forces, so already more than 99.99% of nature is evidence against design.
tonyrey;9612632:

An invalid conclusion based on the assumption that blind forces are sufficient to account for every event

in the universe -** including the existence of persons**.

I said nothing about any of that, could we stick to the subject? Your OP is about evidence. If you think the positions and shapes of stars are evidence for Design then please present it, otherwise it remains true that the position and shape of stars is evidence against Design.

But that’s not my point, what I’m saying is that stars were once thought to be perfectly designed with the Earth at their center, now we know that’s false. So if we made a mistake on that scale, it’s probable that whatever else looks as though it’s designed won’t turn out to be on closer inspection.
tonyrey;9612632:

A scientific error is irrelevant with respect to the fundamental nature of reality - which is a metaphysical issue.

I wasn’t referring to a scientific error, but to the Galileo affair, where centuries ago the Church accepted that any religious belief that the stars and planets are perfect and that the universe was designed with the Earth at is center is wrong.

Are you now saying the thread was mistitled, and is actually about metaphysical speculations rather than evidence?

 

[inocente]

everything in the universe (including chaos) has some sort of ‘law’ to it. law is design.

Yes, the laws of nature are designed by humans to describe part of nature. Your opinion may be that those laws reflect an underlying design, fine, but your opinion isn’t evidence.

 

[buffalo]

**A plan born in the Father’s heart **
759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ."151 This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Alliance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."152

 

[inocente]

Wind can be considered a blind force since in itself, it is not rational. Last night, the wind or some natural force formed an amazing design of clouds semi-covering the bright moon. Design existed in the sky last night.

And no doubt we’ve all seen faces in clouds. There’s a mountain in front of our house where, as the Sun goes down, a face appears (and it looks roughly like a traditional portrait of Jesus, beard and all).

We tend to see patterns all over the place, but they are not evidence for design, they are evidence that we mistakenly perceive design where it doesn’t exist, and the more we learn about nature and ourselves, the more we realize that.

Although we had the same kind of clouds last night and agreed, it was pretty cool.

 

[buffalo]

And no doubt we’ve all seen faces in clouds. There’s a mountain in front of our house where, as the Sun goes down, a face appears (and it looks roughly like a traditional portrait of Jesus, beard and all).

We tend to see patterns all over the place, but they are not evidence for design, they are evidence that we mistakenly perceive design where it doesn’t exist, and the more we learn about nature and ourselves, the more we realize that.

Although we had the same kind of clouds last night and agreed, it was pretty cool.

Designs always contain patterns. Natural patterns do not contain languages, symbols, maps or codes.

Designs always come from a mind.

 

[grannymh]

And no doubt we’ve all seen faces in clouds. There’s a mountain in front of our house where, as the Sun goes down, a face appears (and it looks roughly like a traditional portrait of Jesus, beard and all).

We tend to see patterns all over the place, but they are not evidence for design, they are evidence that we mistakenly perceive design where it doesn’t exist, and the more we learn about nature and ourselves, the more we realize that.

Although we had the same kind of clouds last night and agreed, it was pretty cool.

I simply said, somewhat poetically, that design exists because patterns exist. Clouds that form faces are forming patterns or designs. I don’t recall implying evidence of a designer or evidence for design the theory.

Glad we can enjoy the same, pretty cool clouds, without getting entangled with some kind of philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

**A plan born in the Father’s heart **
759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ."151 This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Alliance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."152

God is supposed to have no plan or purpose!

 

[tonyrey]

Designs always contain patterns. Natural patterns do not contain languages, symbols, maps or codes.

Designs always come from a mind.

God is supposed not to play any part in what occurs in the universe!

 

[tonyrey]

everything in the universe (including chaos) has some sort of ‘law’ to it. law is design.

Otherwise the laws of nature just happen to exist for no reason or purpose!