Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
He wasn’t paid at all! His Dialogues weren’t published until after his death, probably because he knew his scepticism would be ill-received in what used to be a Christian country. He is widely regarded as the greatest British philosopher: I’m grateful to him because my thesis largely consisted of a critique of his (and Antony Flew’s) objections to Design. It’s always easier to attack than defend - although I hope my onslaught has left considerable in the minds of the sceptics about their negativity… 😉
Click to expand...
You just like Hume because he was English. Brits of the “higher classes” stick together and when y’all decide y’all don’t like a particular group you banish them to Australia or force them to run away to Holland, then treat them miserably when they become homesick for England so that they feel forced to hire a falling-apart merchant ship (like the Mayflower) and try to get across the Atlantic to a place where they may be allowed to practice their religion freely and maybe even be tolerated by the natives (but probably not).*

Considerable what in the minds of the skeptics about their negativity? Is there a word missing there? :confused:

Was this your Master’s thesis? Was it actually published? I found a horrible mistake in mine the night before my Orals and I hoped against hope that nobody else would have found it but of course one did and I saw my thesis crumble before my eyes. I still got the degree but my thesis was awful, but I guess that’s one of the reasons we write Master’s theses - so that we realize how easily they can be torn apart and that is a very good learning experience in itself.
BTW His style is 18th century and takes getting used to but it strikes me as sincere.
His gloominess is understandable considering his scepticism and the fact that he lived in bleak Scotland before they had modern facilities like central heating and electricity - and modern medicine…
Click to expand...
I think I’ve read everything Dickens ever wrote so it will just take me awhile to get back into the swing of things. Dickens can be remarkably morbid as can Dostoevsky. I’m reading an anthology of ghost stories by M.R. James right now and his writing is many times morbid even though he lived in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think that what was considered the modern world back in the 18th century was pretty much bleak all the time - even in London where the sky was black as night 24 hours a day because of the pollution.

*I think that what I wrote there is the most off-topic bit I have ever written. I’ll have to give myself an award.

BTW, in veterinary medicine “flew” refers to the lip folds present in many breeds (and mixes of breeds) of dogs. So Antony Flew could have been called “Antony dog lip folds” - just thought you might like to know that. 🙂
 
I’m sorry my posts are so weird today (they’re even weirder than normal). Too much medication. I try to understand what others are writing and my mind takes off on a tangent and won’t come back.

I promise I will try to do a better job of remaining on topic. 😦

😃

See? It just went off on another tangent!!
 
tonyrey said:
My remark referred to Hume who you just had been discussing!
Click to expand...
Oh! I’m sorry! I think I must have read the post backward! 😊
I will try to understand Hume and not to be too harsh on him.

Descartes, however, was an idiot.
 
LittleSoldier said:
*He wasn’t paid at all! His Dialogues weren’t published until after his death, probably because he knew his scepticism would be ill-received in what used to be a Christian country. He is widely regarded as the greatest British philosopher: I’m grateful to him because my thesis largely consisted of a critique of his (and Antony Flew’s) objections to Design. It’s always easier to attack than defend - although I hope my onslaught has left considerable in the minds of the sceptics about their negativity… *
Click to expand...
I’m not particularly fond of Hume; he wasn’t English but Scottish; I’m half Irish, and not particularly fond of the English. If Hume had been in power he would have banned all organised religion which he constantly attacked in his writings and I’m grateful to him solely because he provided a target for my critique of scepticism about Design…
Considerable what in the minds of the skeptics about their negativity? Is there a word missing there? :confused:
Click to expand...
Doubt or misgivings!
Was this your Master’s thesis? Was it actually published? I found a horrible mistake in mine the night before my Orals and I hoped against hope that nobody else would have found it but of course one did and I saw my thesis crumble before my eyes. I still got the degree but my thesis was awful, but I guess that’s one of the reasons we write Master’s theses - so that we realize how easily they can be torn apart and that is a very good learning experience in itself.
Click to expand...
It’s an unpublished Ph.D.
I think I’ve read everything Dickens ever wrote so it will just take me awhile to get back into the swing of things. Dickens can be remarkably morbid as can Dostoevsky. I’m reading an anthology of ghost stories by M.R. James right now and his writing is many times morbid even though he lived in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think that what was considered the modern world back in the 18th century was pretty much bleak all the time - even in London where the sky was black as night 24 hours a day because of the pollution.
Click to expand...
*I think that what I wrote there is the most off-topic bit I have ever written. I’ll have to give myself an award.
Click to expand...
BTW, in veterinary medicine “flew” refers to the lip folds present in many breeds (and mixes of breeds) of dogs. So Antony Flew could have been called “Antony dog lip folds” - just thought you might like to know that. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s good to know you’re enjoying yourself on this thread! That’s more evidence for Design… 😉
Click to expand...
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because he performed experiments on dogs (he was not only a philosopher but a psychologist) that were very painful for the dogs and when they yelped and screamed from the pain he laughed. He thought they couldn’t feel any pain and that the noises they made were reflex actions.

My border got her fur caught in a gate and she screamed until a neighbor came running to help (I tried to help but I had temporarily blinded myself by walking into the part of the gate that goes down over the post to keep it closed). It was just her fur that was caught but I’ve never heard anything so awful as her screaming. Descartes didn’t put dogs’ fur in gates as far as I know; he did much worse and laughed at his subjects.

Ever since I learned that I have had serious problems with Descartes. He may have made some great contributions but his lack of empathy for his subjects shows idiocy in my opinion. 😦
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
How about chess. I would probably beat you and everybody on this forum…by design.
Click to expand...
A lizard could beat me at chess. I have no idea how to play although I admit I don’t call the pieces “horses” and “castles.” I’d like to learn how to play someday.
 
LittleSoldier said:
Free will - which is essential for Design - infringes the law of conservation of (physical) energy.
Click to expand...
It’s not an original idea but it does highlight the supernatural power needed to control and direct natural events according to our wishes and decisions. Otherwise we would not be directors but unwilling slaves and impotent spectators transported in no particular direction by the blind Goddess until we disappear forever into the eternal darkness!
Click to expand...
 
wanstronian said:
I think the most obvious reason is that we can see matter all around us, but we have zero evidence, or even any plausible reason, to suspect that intelligence is not an emergent property of that matter. Our brains are made of matter. If you damage the brain, intelligence and other functions of “mind” are affected. It’s a very tight correlation. No extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair point - matter is certainly more prevalent

Though it is hardly settled whether the mind can be reduced to matter. As even atheists like Raymond Tallis point out:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves
Added to which, nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible mechanism by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.
Click to expand...
Well, it might just be a fundamental property that just exists - just like matter/energy might eternally exist despite us having a explanation for their existence.
The truth is, nobody know what happened or existed “before” the Big Bang. Speculate all you like, but be aware that speculation is all it is.
Click to expand...
Of course not - but we do know that something had to exist
 
tonyrey said:
My point is that biology cannot produce free will. The materialist is committed to the view that free will is only apparent… given that every event has a physical cause in his scheme of things. That is why rationality and responsibility must be illusions as far as he is concerned… 😉
Click to expand...
Which brings me back to the point that the best evidence for Design is human nature.

The design of human nature exists independently of a person’s philosophy. It doesn’t make any difference if someone considers free will an illusion, that person still has free will because it is a function or ability of her or his spiritual soul. That person still exercises free will as taught by the Catholic Church regardless of what she or he calls it.

Since a person cannot alter her or his own human nature, the claim that the spiritual soul emerges somehow from the material anatomy or has its base within the material anatomy is a false claim. The Catholic Church recognizes true human nature as an unique unification of both spirit and matter. A true God, i.e., a transcendent, personal, Pure Spirit is the only one Who could design human nature and cause it to exist because of His direct, immediate creation of the spiritual soul.

For some fascinating reading about human nature, please start with paragraph 355 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Continue reading all the way to paragraph 421. These paragraphs answer a lot of questions. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
razredge said:
That’s a fair point - matter is certainly more prevalent

Though it is hardly settled whether the mind can be reduced to matter. As even atheists like Raymond Tallis point out:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves

Well, it might just be a fundamental property that just exists - just like matter/energy might eternally exist despite us having a explanation for their existence.

Of course not - but we do know that something had to exist
Click to expand...
👍 With three provisos:
  1. We have no way of knowing whether matter is more prevalent given that minds are intangible.
  2. Prevalence is not necessarily an indication of primacy.
  3. Rational existence presupposes the superior power of the mind.
 
grannymh said:
Which brings me back to the point that the best evidence for Design is human nature.

The design of human nature exists independently of a person’s philosophy. It doesn’t make any difference if someone considers free will an illusion, that person still has free will because it is a function or ability of her or his spiritual soul. That person still exercises free will as taught by the Catholic Church regardless of what she or he calls it.

Since a person cannot alter her or his own human nature, the claim that the spiritual soul emerges somehow from the material anatomy or has its base within the material anatomy is a false claim. The Catholic Church recognizes true human nature as an unique unification of both spirit and matter. A true God, i.e., a transcendent, personal, Pure Spirit is the only one Who could design human nature and cause it to exist because of His direct, immediate creation of the spiritual soul.

For some fascinating reading about human nature, please start with paragraph 355 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Continue reading all the way to paragraph 421. These paragraphs answer a lot of questions. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
👍 You have made the same fundamental point I made from a philosophical point of view to razredge a few minutes ago! (#3) 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
It’s good to know you’re enjoying yourself on this thread! That’s more evidence for Design…
Click to expand...
My cryptic comment means that our intellectual, emotional, aesthetic and spiritual activity give us excitement, enjoyment and fulfilment which are not only unnecessary for survival but also scientifically inexplicable…
 
grannymh said:
In order to find the location of rational thought and volition, it isn’t necessarily the output which is being studied. Contemporary science is researching the (name removed by moderator)ut or stimulant of neural system activity which is necessary in order for the brain to act (setting legs in motion, etc.) or react (enjoyment, learning, etc.) The location of the (name removed by moderator)ut or stimulant is essential when studying the anatomical aspects of rational thought and volition.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The brain doesn’t function in isolation - it’s affected by chemical (name removed by moderator)uts, by sense (name removed by moderator)uts, and so on. But these are physical (name removed by moderator)uts, and there is no plausible reason to suspect the existence of non-physical factors.
The current difficulty is caused by scientists who lean toward Cartesian extreme dualism.
Click to expand...
Are there any such scientists? I’ve only just done a quick Wikipedia scan of the subject, but my understanding is that most of the scientists in the field recognise that the “mind” is just an abstract output of the functioning of the brain, and that “dualism” is an illusion. I don’t follow the field closely though, so I might be out of touch on this subject.
The Catholic Church has a better logical explanation for the mind/body question. Catholicism does not view human nature as two separate natures. Rather it is the logical [reasonable] unique unification of both material and spiritual principles which is the single nature of the person. Catholicism considers this unity of two principles so profound that, in Catholic terminology, it is because of its spiritual principle, that matter [material anatomy] becomes a person.
Click to expand...
How can it be a better logical explanation when it requires the arbitrary addition of an extra-corporeal spirit which cannot be demonstrated to exist? Of course, if you presuppose the existence of this vaguely-defined “spirit” then the “explanation” seems prima facie logical, but this is demonstrably a false logic because it relies on an unproven and irrational premise which doesn’t stand up to the barest scrutiny.

No, the logical and rational approach is to admit that we don’t know the precise mechanism, but to resist the temptation to add unnecessary and obfuscating supernatural fluff which, ultimately, only gets in the way of discovering the truth.

Where would we be today if, throughout history, every time we were faced with a phenomenen that we didn’t understand, we just inserted a convenient supernatural explanation and stopped thinking about it?
 
wanstronian said:
Agreed. The brain doesn’t function in isolation - it’s affected by chemical (name removed by moderator)uts, by sense (name removed by moderator)uts, and so on. But these are physical (name removed by moderator)uts, and there is no plausible reason to suspect the existence of non-physical factors.
Click to expand...
From the Catholic philosophical point of view, there is a difference between the mind which operates from the spiritual principle and the brain which operates from the physical priniciple.
Are there any such scientists? I’ve only just done a quick Wikipedia scan of the subject, but my understanding is that most of the scientists in the field recognise that the “mind” is just an abstract output of the functioning of the brain, and that “dualism” is an illusion. I don’t follow the field closely though, so I might be out of touch on this subject.
Click to expand...
I was totally surprised when reading a major research paper on the source of volition [free will] that Rene Descartes philosophical work was footnoted. I am traveling so I don’t have the research citation handy. However, I suggest that one look up “brain mapping” in awake brain surgery to get an idea of the research area. Brain mapping is a very good example of the benefit of science.

Dualism refers to two natures such as the rational [spiritual soul] and the corporeal [anatomy made of matter]. The philosophers following Descartes emphasized the difference to the point of actual philosophical separation. Eventually, the rational/spiritual principle was eliminated leaving materialism as the basis of human life. Those who have studied the philosophical history following Descartes have proposed that Communism can be traced back to the influence of Descartes.

Obviously, the material/physical world is the proper domain of natural science. What has happened is that interpreters of natural science have concluded that because scientific advances are prominent in contemporary life that this means that the spiritual realm no longer exists.

From my point of view, the difficulty of evidence for Design is that the evidence is limited to the domain of natural science. Positing the existence of an intelligent designer without addressing human nature, both body *and *soul, is simply incomplete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top