Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobber90 said:
hylemorphic dualism

‘hylemorphic dualism is non-reductionist, and regards human beings, like all material substances, as composites of form and matter.’

‘The relationship between soul and body is therefore not like that of two billiard balls, one of them ghostly, which have to find a way somehow to knock into one another. It is more like the relationship between the shape of a triangle drawn on paper and the ink which has taken on the shape – two aspects of one thing, rather than two things. (an ink triangle is real, a triangle is a logical concept, here represented) Or it is like the relationship between the meaning of a word and the letters that make up the word (the mind is simply there by convention, like a symbol?), or the relationship between the pictorial content of a painting and the splotches of color that make up the painting.’ (the mind is imagined?)

This is simple enough to follow, but I don’t think a material substance (eg a human) is a composite of form (mind) and matter (brain), because I don’t think ‘form’ is objectively real. Yes the matter is real, but isn’t the ‘form’ of something just a subjective opinion? The argument is this: ‘it is false to say that a tree is “nothing but” a collection of roots, trunk, leaves, sap’. But I don’t think it is false to say that.

How on earth does a form change a material substance, in the way that the mind is supposed to move the body? Does changing the meaning of a word change the letters? Does calling a tree a bush make it not a tree? It seems like this sort of hylemorphic dualism gets us nowhere. As this is a tangential matter, I’m happy to leave it as a mystery.
Click to expand...
In the Catholic sense, Aristotle’s hylomorphism is not related to Cartesian dualism.

While I have seen the word “composite” used in reference to the unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual word as one human nature, I prefer the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s description-- “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body…” Emphasis mine.
( Please refer to CCC 362 - 366.)

Here the “form” is not a subjective opinion but rather it is more like the objective animating principle. The difference between such a principle found in animals and that in the human person is that the animating principle (or form) of human nature is spiritual.
 
inocente said:
Science works because it doesn’t get hung-up on metaphysics.
Click to expand...
Metaphysics works because it it doesn’t get hung-up on - and caged in by - physics!
Bland assertions, pathetically and emphatically not even wrong.
Click to expand...
A bland assertion without one jot of justification or explanation! As usual the topic is disappearing out of sight… 🤷
 
buffalo said:
You really think innocente will give a real answer to these? :nope:
Click to expand...
reggieM said:
Once he discovers that the text actually came from a guy who works in a house in Maryland, then he won’t ever need to answer any of them. 😉
Click to expand...
tonyrey said:
As usual the topic is disappearing out of sight… 🤷
Click to expand...
I did reply, having a bit more integrity than some, to that quote from the amazon page on Abel, the guy you first decided was on-topic, then decided was off-topic, but now force me to refer to again, so do you think you could make up your minds whether you want him off-topic or on-topic, and then stick to your decision? :rolleyes:

Or is it unreasonable to expect ID fans not to make snide remarks and dither about? :rolleyes:
tonyrey said:
inocente;8932018:
reggieM;8928218:
… a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
.

Bland assertions, pathetically and emphatically not even wrong.A bland assertion without one jot of justification or explanation!
Click to expand...
He could have said God but didn’t, could have said agent but didn’t, instead he sticks quote signs around “agent”, either because he can’t decide or because he’s a coward. Then he does the same thing with “intentional choices of mind”, then he doesn’t even have the courage or acuity to say “choose” without having to put it in quote signs.

Yeah, bland alright. He might be a sad little Walter Mitty but he sure knows his audience.
 
inocente said:
He could have said God but didn’t, could have said agent but didn’t, instead he sticks quote signs around “agent”, either because he can’t decide or because he’s a coward.
Click to expand...
The Design Argument is not intended to prove the existence of God… 🤷
 
tonyrey said:
The Design Argument is not intended to prove the existence of God… 🤷
Click to expand...
Its intended to prove structural design, like that of an architect and builder. But if mutation, chance, environment, and natural selection, can account for structural design, then why should we choose design?🤷
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its intended to prove structural design, like that of an architect and builder. But if mutation, chance, environment, and natural selection, can account for structural design, then why should we choose design?🤷
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to choose God. 👍

The more I read CAF posts, the more I think that Catholics need to examine their own perspective on God as Creator.

Small comment which I cannot resist. I am amazed to know that someone else is old enough to know Walter Mitty.:rotfl:
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its intended to prove structural design, like that of an architect and builder. But if mutation, chance, environment, and natural selection, can account for structural design, then why should we choose design?🤷
Click to expand...
Not structural design but **the most comprehensive design that exists:

**Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination…
 
tonyrey said:
They presuppose that apart from sustaining the universe in existence God has left it to run under its own steam regardless of any dead ends it may encounter or regardless of the amount of suffering caused by misfortunes and human beings. The rarity of miracles is a direct contradiction of the teaching of Jesus…
Click to expand...
It is highly significant that no one has questioned the truth of these statements - yet. I’m fascinated to know what objections will be raised…
 
tonyrey said:
Not structural design but **the most comprehensive design that exists:

**Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination…
Click to expand...
Whats that got to do with scientific knowledge?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
So you think God should be a falsifiable scientific theory?
Click to expand...
Please read my lips.
From Post 1357
“In my humble opinion, it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to choose God.”

Please note that it is acceptable for a Catholic to choose God, which, by the way, is what Jesus Christ recommended without referencing a “falsifiable scientific theory.”

A further bit of information is that it is acceptable for anyone to choose God.

If you wish, I can take the proposition further and add that it is a good idea to choose God.

I could also add that it is perfectly acceptable that you tell your family and friends that it is perfectly acceptable for them to choose God without having to deal with a “falsifiabe scientific theory.”
 
Al_Moritz said:
Previously I had defended the idea that the Catholic Church might still settle on theological polygenism, given certain remarks in the Church document Communion and Stewardship, but given above elegant solution I have given up on that idea, since it simply has become unnecessary. Again, both theological monogenism and biological polygenism are possible at the same time, given the metaphysics of human nature.
Click to expand...
I’m very glad to see that you’re willing to change your views when you encounter new arguments. That is admirable.

Personally, I don’t agree that “God gave a soul to two humanoid creatures out of this population, making them human”. I don’t find that an “elegant” solution at all, but merely an attempt to preserve Darwinian claims – and how could Mr. Feser reject ID for God’s “meddling” while claiming that God, somehow, inserted a human soul into animals. :confused:

All of that said – that view is far better than the idea that the Church would have to accept polygenism, merely because Darwinian theory proposes that animals became human at some unknowable point in history.
 
tonyrey said:
A far simpler solution is that all living beings have souls and God alone decides which are in His image…
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree – far simpler and more coherent, in my opinion.

There’s no reason or need for us to try to salvage Darwinian speculations by claiming that humans evolved from apelike ancestors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top