Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

1. If the laws of nature were

Please explain how my belief in divine Providence entails that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. He does far more in my view than in your view because He is not restricted by His own laws. He has the power to intervene and He does so on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence.

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

1. God can work miracles whenever He wants, and I have asserted before that He does.

You have asserted that He does so on very rare occasions even when His children are in desperate need of His help and in spite of His power to do so… Only a diabolical monster would watch and do absolutely nothing when His creatures are being maimed and crushed to death.

I refuse to believe that He has to work miracles – when the laws of nature allegedly do not suffice to bring about the ends He envisioned with respect to the development of the natural world and He allegedly has to intervene.

It is undeniable that the blind laws of nature do not suffice to bring about the development and happiness of all His creatures.

It is not God but the blind laws of nature that are not almighty - although you believe they are in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Why is there so much unnecessary suffering in the world? There is only one possible answer: the world is not directly controlled by God and it is blind natural laws that are undeniably the cause.

Would you leave anyone at their mercy without intervening when possible and necessary?

 

[LittleSoldier]

There are no instructions on a DNA molecule, as there is no intelligence to read, interpret or carry out those instructions. What there is in DNA molecules are templates for forming molecules. The machinery of the cell is not intelligent, so code or instructions can not be used. It is exactly the same for a Carbon atom, it has a number of bonds it can form, which bonds are formed are determined by the environment it is in. Some elements are called catalists because they force chemical reactions to go certain ways and not others, do you think they are following instructions to do so? DNA can be seen as a very large and complex catalist which forces chemicals within the cell to conform to a certain pattern(DNA is an acid)creating specific proteins, there are no instructions, no intelligence, no code, there is only chemical reactions. Information and codes are simply constructs to model what is going on in those chemical reactions. They are our maps, they are not the territory being described.

There are instructions on a sequence of DNA molecules. These instructions are translated and then carried out. There is no intelligence in a blueprint but there are certainly instructions there. There is no intelligence in Morse code but there are certainly instructions there. There is no intelligence in the little booklet that comes with a rice cooker but it certainly contains instructions. Your statement that “the machinery of the cell is not intelligent, so code or instructions can not be used” is illogical. Since when is intelligence required for the use of codes or instructions?

I think we all know that DNA is an acid (deoxyribonucleic acid to be exact). I don’t know why that is important to you.

Both DNA and RNA contain instructions. That is the reason they exist. This is very elemental biology. They don’t need to be “intelligent” in order to contain instructions.

And BTW, there is no intelligence in a map but it certainly provides instructions. Isn’t that why people use maps (at least road maps) - to obtain the instructions that will allow them to reach their destinations? Otherwise they are just large pieces of paper which are very difficult to fold back to the way they were originally folded, especially when one is trying to drive at the same time, and which are sometimes interesting enough to thumb-tack to the wall as a kind of art.

Do you limit life to chemical reactions and nothing more?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please explain how my belief in divine Providence entails that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. He does far more in my view than in your view because He is not restricted by His own laws. He has the power to intervene and He does so on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence.

How do you know He intervenes “on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence?” If there is official Church teaching on this, please post it. Also, God’s omnipotence and omniscience (and omnibenevolence) do not depend on any human being’s acceptance of them.

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

I don’t see those teachings being rejected at all!

You have asserted that He does so on very rare occasions even when His children are in desperate need of His help and in spite of His power to do so… Only a diabolical monster would watch and do absolutely nothing when His creatures are being maimed and crushed to death.

Here you are again using the term “diabolical monster.” God could have stopped that tsunami but He let innocent people, including babies and children so young that they couldn’t possibly sin, drown! If God allows something bad to happen it is just as evil as causing it in the first place. So God must be a diabolical monster - according to your reasoning.

It is undeniable that the blind laws of nature do not suffice to bring about the development and happiness of all His creatures.

Untrue. It is not undeniable that what you term the “blind laws of nature” do not suffice to bring about the development of all God’s creatures. Those laws can also be enough to bring about the happiness of some of God’s creatures, although more is probably needed for human beings.

Why is there so much unnecessary suffering in the world? There is only one possible answer: the world is not directly controlled by God and it is blind natural laws that are undeniably the cause.

That is *not *the only possible answer. Please think about this a little more. If the world is not directly controlled by God then God is not omnipotent. That goes against Church teaching. There are other answers to your question.

Didn’t God part the waters of the sea in order to allow the Jews to escape? Didn’t Jesus walk on water and calm the ocean during a storm? Didn’t He increase a few fish into enough to feed an amazingly large number of people (with leftovers, too!)? Didn’t He change water into wine? Didn’t He raise Lazarus from the dead? Wasn’t Jesus Himself resurrected from the dead?

The world is under the direct control of God.

Would you leave anyone at their mercy without intervening when possible and necessary?

The reference is to God - not to any mere human being, especially one who is not omniscient and omnipotent. A normal person can’t stop a tsunami. Not ever Superman could stop a tsunami. God can. But He didn’t. Why not?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I should clarify that in the past many people have chosen to reject the belief that the sun will move tomorrow (not the principle of induction) because they thought the end of the world was nigh. Others did so because they were solipsists or idealists who didn’t believe there is anything to induce!

I had an uncle who joined a cult. One day the leader informed his followers that the sun would not rise the next day. So the whole cult drove out to the desert (I know; don’t ask me why they did this!). And the day after that they all drove home.

It was the end of the world scenario. I have no idea how the cult leader kept his followers (and most of their money) but he did. For all I know the cult is out there in the desert right now, waiting for the sun to not rise tomorrow.

My uncle used to be Catholic.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

Why do you always need to blatantly lie about my positions?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I don’t see those teachings being rejected at all!

Oh, thank you. At least you see that.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How do you know He intervenes “on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence?” If there is official Church teaching on this, please post it. Also, God’s omnipotence and omniscience (and omnibenevolence) do not depend on any human being’s acceptance of them.
I don’t see those teachings being rejected at all!
Here you are again using the term “diabolical monster.” God could have stopped that tsunami but He let innocent people, including babies and children so young that they couldn’t possibly sin, drown! If God allows something bad to happen it is just as evil as causing it in the first place. So God must be a diabolical monster - according to your reasoning.
Untrue. It is not undeniable that what you term the “blind laws of nature” do not suffice to bring about the development of all God’s creatures. Those laws can also be enough to bring about the happiness of some of God’s creatures, although more is probably needed for human beings.
That is *not *the only possible answer. Please think about this a little more. If the world is not directly controlled by God then God is not omnipotent. That goes against Church teaching. There are other answers to your question.

Didn’t God part the waters of the sea in order to allow the Jews to escape? Didn’t Jesus walk on water and calm the ocean during a storm? Didn’t He increase a few fish into enough to feed an amazingly large number of people (with leftovers, too!)? Didn’t He change water into wine? Didn’t He raise Lazarus from the dead? Wasn’t Jesus Himself resurrected from the dead?

The world is under the direct control of God.
The reference is to God - not to any mere human being, especially one who is not omniscient and omnipotent. A normal person can’t stop a tsunami. Not ever Superman could stop a tsunami. God can. But He didn’t. Why not?

Thank you for your great answers.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.

Inanimate objects have the urge to survive? Please define “inanimate objects” and give some examples. Thank you.

1. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

10.If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.

I think numbers 9 and 10 should be combined into one as they seem to be very similar objections.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why do you always need to blatantly lie about my positions?

It’s known as a “Straw Man Addiction.” Unfortunately there is no known cure.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you for your great answers.

You are very welcome.

To be honest, sometimes I agree completely with that poster and at other times I don’t understand his position. I can’t “place” it. When I think I understand I then read something that spins everything around.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Tony, I don’t understand your position so I’m going to state what I think it is and then I hope you correct me where I am wrong. I’m putting my beliefs in red after yours. hope this is OK with you:

(1) You believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I agree.

(2) You believe that God *always *intervenes when humans are suffering and He does so in order to alleviate their suffering (because He loves us). I have a problem with this. As humans we don’t know what real suffering is and we don’t know if the suffering we undergo could actually be less suffering than what would happen if God stopped our present suffering. For example, if I am in a car accident and am in absolute agony it might be better for me to be in that absolute agony than to have been knocked unconscious and killed in that accident while I had a mortal sin on my soul and would therefore be damned to hell. God’s allowing or causing my present suffering could be looked upon as an act of love.

(3) Natural law is not under God’s direct control - or - Natural law is not under God’s control at all. All natural law is always under God’s control. That is one reason He is omnipotent. The only things God cannot do are those which go against His nature. No natural law goes against God’s naturel

(4) Jesus is and will be in agony until the end of the world (which is the Second Coming?) because He identifies with us and we are suffering. I don’t even know what to say here. I am requesting official Church teaching,

(5) I’m sure there is more but I’m getting a headache. Yep, I’m getting a headache but it’s not your fault.

 

[FaithBuild18]

No one has ever explained the increase in complexity.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Anyway, I don’t view any of the listed points as a form of “evidence” for design. I choose design as a maxim, and then perform science from there. People get science backwards. You don’t start with pure science and then move forward. You start with a maxim, or some sort of underlying philosophy, and then you move on to science, and then you move forward. Why I choose design as a maxim need not be scientifically testable, and in fact is impossible to scientifically validate.

But I will say I am proud of my maxim as I become more focused in my studies of the molecular and atomic world. There are striking parallels between “nature” made structures, specifically proteins and metabolic machinery, and man-made creation. I have atheist friends and colleagues whose minds are blown out of the water when we observe how “smart” things without brains are. The chemistry that viruses operate on is absolutely phenomenal. I’ve never been ridiculed for believing in intelligent design in my multiple years in science, other than by liberal arts professors who have never spent a day in a laboratory. In fact, discussions like this never come up in real** science. Just on Discovery channel or in books written by liberals.

On a personal note, just strolling through life helps me believe even more in a master architect. There is so much redundancy in structure in the universe, between silly little stupid things, like the branches of trees and the arteries in our arms, or the “legs” of a kinesin and the legs of a bipedal human. Surely an atheist can say, “Well of course, these things work**, that’s why we see them.” And yeah, I can see it that way too. But I just chose to believe there’s something more out there, and besides, this isn’t a scientific issue. Why people try to substitute science for everything in life is absurd…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s known as a “Straw Man Addiction.” Unfortunately there is no known cure.

Well…i can be at the very least comforted by the idea that i am not the only one who knows about this troublesome virus.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Anyway, I don’t view any of the listed points as a form of “evidence” for design. I choose design as a maxim, and then perform science from there. People get science backwards. You don’t start with pure science and then move forward. You start with a maxim, or some sort of underlying philosophy, and then you move on to science, and then you move forward. Why I choose design as a maxim need not be scientifically testable, and in fact is impossible to scientifically validate.

But I will say I am proud of my maxim as I become more focused in my studies of the molecular and atomic world. There are striking parallels between “nature” made structures, specifically proteins and metabolic machinery, and man-made creation. I have atheist friends and colleagues whose minds are blown out of the water when we observe how “smart” things without brains are. The chemistry that viruses operate on is absolutely phenomenal. I’ve never been ridiculed for believing in intelligent design in my multiple years in science, other than by liberal arts professors who have never spent a day in a laboratory. In fact, discussions like this never come up in real** science. Just on Discovery channel or in books written by liberals.

On a personal note, just strolling through life helps me believe even more in a master architect. There is so much redundancy in structure in the universe, between silly little stupid things, like the branches of trees and the arteries in our arms, or the “legs” of a kinesin and the legs of a bipedal human. Surely an atheist can say, “Well of course, these things work**, that’s why we see them.” And yeah, I can see it that way too. But I just chose to believe there’s something more out there, and besides, this isn’t a scientific issue. Why people try to substitute science for everything in life is absurd…

I agree that starting with science is backward although I have to admit that I never thought of it until I read your post. I wish I had started with God’s design (obviously an intelligent design although I am pretty much lacking in knowledge of ID as a formal way of looking at that design) and His creation of all universes (if there is more than one) and this world. I know God created everything - that’s where I should have started but I didn’t. I studied basic undergraduate biology and psychology as an agnostic/atheist. I became a revert while in graduate school. Now I am starting over and I’ve realized that God’s role in the universe is the most basic and best starting point. We know what God tells us is true. We think that perhaps science provides evidence to back up what God has already told us. Nobody has to even think about science as a method of explaining anything. One can accept God on faith, try to live a good life, and it works!

There is only one road to heaven but there are many ways to make our way down that road - skipping, dancing, dragging our heels, falling down, tripping, falling over into ditches, becoming side-tracked, just straight simple walking with one foot in front of the other, in a wheelchair…what’s important is that we get to heaven and help others as much as we can.

Science has its place but it’s a method of trying to explain natural phenomena that has been developed by man - fallible, sinning, often silly human beings who think they can build a tower of science tall enough to reach God. It’s useful for helping humanity and the world. It’s important. In a way it’s a gift from God, just like every other method we use to explain why things are as they are. And it’s also very, very limited.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You have failed to refute every single one of my statements…

You have still failed to refute **any **of my statements…

Well, I did address most of your statements with my answers. Are you really unable to see that?

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s known as a “Straw Man Addiction.” Unfortunately there is no known cure.

Aah, I see.

 

[tonyrey]

]Please explain how my belief in divine Providence entails that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. He does far more in my view than in your view because He is not restricted by His own laws. He has the power to intervene and He does so on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence.

I don’t know: I specified “in my view”.

If there is official Church teaching on this, please post it.

Do you believe only that which is taught by the Church or do you have some personal opinions of your own?

Also, God’s omnipotence and omniscience (and omnibenevolence) do not depend on any human being’s acceptance of them.

Did I state that they do?

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

I don’t see those teachings being rejected at all!

They are rejected if miracles are thought to be very rare.

You have asserted that He does so on very rare occasions

even when His children are in desperate need of His help and in spite of His power to do so… Only a diabolical monster would watch and do absolutely nothing when His creatures are being maimed and crushed to death. Here you are again using the term “diabolical monster.” God could have stopped that tsunami but He !

Do you know how many people were saved by God in that disaster and in all the other earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, avalanches and other cataclysms?

If God allows something bad to happen it is just as evil as causing it in the first place. So God must be a diabolical monster - according to your reasoning.

God permits evil because it is a lesser evil than depriving us of our free will by compelling us to believe that He exists by working a miracle to protect **everyone **from injury or death from natural causes.

It is undeniable that the blind laws of nature do not suffice to bring about the development and happiness of all His creatures.

Untrue. It is not undeniable that what you term the “blind laws of nature” do not suffice to bring about the development of all God’s creatures

What about all the “babies and children so young that they couldn’t possibly sin”?

. Those laws can also be enough to bring about the happiness of some of God’s creatures, although more is probably needed for human beings.

“some” is not “all”.

Why is there so much unnecessary suffering in the world? There is only one possible answer: the world is not directly controlled by God and it is blind natural laws that are undeniably the cause.
That is *not *the only possible answer. Please think about this a little more. If the world is not directly controlled by God then God is not omnipotent.

A false deduction. The world is controlled by God through the laws of nature He creates and suspends whenever He chooses.

That goes against Church teaching. There are other answers to your question.
Didn’t God part the waters of the sea in order to allow the Jews to escape? Didn’t Jesus walk on water and calm the ocean during a storm? Didn’t He increase a few fish into enough to feed an amazingly large number of people (with leftovers, too!)? Didn’t He change water into wine? Didn’t He raise Lazarus from the dead? Wasn’t Jesus Himself resurrected from the dead? The world is under the direct control of God.

The world is under the direct control of God when He works a miracle. Normally however He controls the world** through natural laws.**

Would you leave anyone at their mercy without intervening when possible and necessary?

The reference is to God - not to any mere human being, especially one who is not omniscient and omnipotent. A normal person can’t stop a tsunami. Not ever Superman could stop a tsunami. God can. But He didn’t. Why not?

For the reason I have given:

God permits evil because it is a lesser evil than depriving us of our free will by compelling us to believe that He exists by working a miracle to protect **everyone **from injury or death from natural causes.

Jesus said “Fear not those who kill the** body.**…”

Why doyou think God permitted "babies and children so young that they couldn’t possibly sin to drown?

 

[tonyrey]

*You have failed to refute every single one of my statements…

“most” is not “all”. Nor can I see how you have answered the others. It will be clearer and more helpful if you give a specific answer to each point. That is the normal way to have a discussion…

 

[tonyrey]

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

1. Do you deny that you have stated or implied that miracles are rare and God does not usually intervene because the laws of nature are “self-sufficient”?
2. You have also failed to answer my question about how often God works miracles - presumably because you don’t wish to commit yourself.
3. If I have made false statements the onus is on you to explain which statements they are and why they are false.
4. If you cannot do that please withdraw your unjustified and gratuitous accusation.

 

[tonyrey]

• The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

My point is that the urge to survive does not exist in inanimate objects yet they are supposed to have acquired that urge **entirely **as a result of becoming more complex! Inanimate = without life.

9. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

10.If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.

I think numbers 9 and 10 should be combined into one as they seem o be very similar objections.

Not all those who believe in a Creator are Christians who believe in divine Providence and miracles.