Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
One description I have seen is that God is such a good designer, that He designed the universe in such a way that it would self-assemble. No, not like Ikea. In God’s self assembly, the pieces get themselves out of the box, find their own Allen key and fit themselves together. Now that is real self assembly.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I had written at the end of chapter 7 about homochirality in my article on the origin of life for Talkorigins:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as “tinkerer” who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.
Remember that in Genesis, God does not directly create living organisms, they are created indirectly: “let the waters bring forth”, “let the earth bring forth”. Genesis is describing an indirect process.
Click to expand...
rossum
Click to expand...
Excellent 👍
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yes, as I had written at the end of chapter 7 about homochirality in my article on the origin of life for Talkorigins:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as “tinkerer” who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.

Excellent 👍
Click to expand...
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty.

Did God know what Adam would look like?
 
buffalo said:
Well then you would have to concede God created Adam and Eve directly.
Click to expand...
I affirm that without conceding ‘biological design’. God gave directly a soul to humanoids and thus created Adam and Eve, just like He gives a soul to every human fetus in the mother’s womb, thus creating a human being.

Again, you confuse biology with metaphysics.
 
Al_Moritz said:
1. Don’t you believe God creates the necessary material, foresees the outcome, controls significant events and guides development rather than leaving everything
Click to expand...
It would be more to the point if you answered my questions but it seems you are reluctant to commit yourself lest you weaken your position…
Click to expand...
 
Al_Moritz said:
I affirm that without conceding ‘biological design’. God gave directly a soul to humanoids and thus created Adam and Eve, just like He gives a soul to every human fetus in the mother’s womb, thus creating a human being.

Again, you confuse biology with metaphysics.
Click to expand...
It seems rather arbitrary - and uneconomical - to regard God as creating human beings by two unrelated methods: (a) set the process of development in motion, leave it unattended for billions of years and then (b) suddenly plonk souls into biological machines. :eek:
 
tonyrey said:
It would be more to the point if you answered my questions but it seems you are reluctant to commit yourself lest you weaken your position…
Click to expand...
I have answered most of your questions, directly or indirectly, during the course of this thread.

I have reached a point where I have to assume that you are simply unable to understand my positions, and repetition of explanations will not change that.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that’s how I see it. I have a lot of patience, but at some point it does wear thin nonetheless.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I have answered most of your questions, directly or indirectly, during the course of this thread.

I have reached a point where I have to assume that you are simply unable to understand my positions, and repetition of explanations will not change that.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that’s how I see it. I have a lot of patience, but at some point it does wear thin nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I leave others to draw their own conclusions… 🤷
 
tonyrey said:
It seems rather arbitrary - and uneconomical - to regard God as creating human beings by two unrelated methods: (a) set the process of development in motion, leave it unattended for billions of years and then (b) suddenly plonk souls into biological machines. :eek:
Click to expand...
…leave it unattended for billions of years …

This is a typical example of a strawman that I have already answered in this thread – but nevvermind, I won’t repeat my answer. You can look it up if you wish.
 
Al_Moritz said:
…leave it unattended for billions of years …

This is a typical example of a strawman that I have already answered in this thread – but nevvermind, I won’t repeat my answer. You can look it up if you wish.
Click to expand...
Please specify the precise post.
 
tonyrey said:
You will find discussions of the subject in "The Existence of God"by Richard Swinburne - and “God and Design” edited by Neil Mason. (with online extracts)
amazon.co.uk/God-Design-Teleological-Argument-Science/dp/0415263441#reader_0415263441
Click to expand...
That is probably a substantial part of the problem right there. Swinburne has what Edward Feser, a prominent defender of classical metaphysics, calls “a theistic personalist view of God”, which differs from the personal God of classical metaphysics upon which the Catholic Church draws (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas is one the foremost Doctors of the Church).

I think you need to study classical metaphysics, and you can start by reading Feser’s Aquinas, available at Amazon:

amazon.co.uk/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851686908

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/1851686908

Again, no wonder MindOverMatter agrees so much easier with my positions – he knows and values classical metaphysics.

My love for classical metaphysics is also a reason why, from a philosophical perspective, I had such an easy time to shift from an ID position to full-blown evolution.
 
Al_Moritz said:
I think you need to study classical metaphysics, and you can start by reading Feser’s Aquinas, available at Amazon:
Click to expand...
I probably began my study of metaphysics before you were born and have specialised in the philosophy of religion rather than science!
 
buffalo said:
Agreed, God knew what Adam would look like.

Did Adam look as God planned?

(note: in your link you use the word plan/ned 12 times) Planning infers design.
Click to expand...
Did I not refer a few posts ago to God as a cosmic Designer?
 
tonyrey said:
I probably began my study of metaphysics before you were born and have specialised in the philosophy of religion rather than science!
Click to expand...
Then you should not have such a problem understanding my positions.
 
Does the image on the Shroud of Turin give evidence of Design?
What method would you use to determine whether the evidence was strong or weak – or non-existent?
Would science be able to assist in giving evidence for Design that may be present in the image on the Shroud?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top