Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

I did realize you were trying to be funny

Me saying the mistake was made because the I is beside the E was my attempt at a childish humorous retort

Clearly it was far too sophisticated for you

Sarah x

Trusting soul that I am, I took it for granted you were telling the truth! My ignorance of the positions of the letters on the keyboard is evident for all to see. I may be mistaken but I believe my attention is on rather more important matters…

 

[atheistgirl]

Trusting soul that I am, I took it for granted you were telling the truth! My ignorance of the positions of the letters on the keyboard is evident for all to see. I may be mistaken but I believe my attention is on rather more important matters…

I’ve got a fit of the giggles now imagining you looking at your keyboard and going… ‘oh…’



I’ve got to go, so thanks for ending on a laugh and a smile

Sarah x

 

[LittleSoldier]

What is that old song with the line: I know there is no Heaven and I pray there is no hell?

I never liked it - except for that one line.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve got a fit of the giggles now imagining you looking at your keyboard and going… ‘oh…’



I’ve got to go, so thanks for ending on a laugh and a smile

Sarah x

It’s worth coming to this forum to cause and enjoy merriment! Giggles are infectious…

I don’t always look at the keys because I learned to touch type - but I’m losing confidence. I must discipline myself. :hammering:

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by buffalo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Where does this sense of morality come from?

From ourselves.

And it says it is wrong to inflict harm on another or violate their person. And inflicting eternal torture or misery on someone does just that. And for what reason? For refusing to love and worship a being she can’t believe in.

Our sense of morality tells us it is against human rights, compassion or any sense of justice to inflict pain and misery on someone, even for a short time, never mind for an eternity.

People get goal time for emotional and physical abuse and neglect.

Our morality tells us it is wrong to inflict such harm on another person.

But not for a Diety apparently?

Sarah x

The posts are flying like the owls in Harry Potter books.

Here I am back at post 635. Previously, we had been exploring existence as involving many kinds of things, the things which make our insides smile. Yet, existence can mean awful experiences that are beyond our understanding. Perhaps what makes these experiences unbearable is that “a short moment before” the existence had been beautiful. It is here that a recognition of our spiritual side can be comforting. Naturally, our friend, our family member, or a stranger we admire will live on in our memory. Nonetheless, in our grief, we can’t ignore the thought that maybe the person who is gone, is not really gone, but only out of sight. This person is worthy of lasting peace.

The idea that we are worthy of something more than present troubles is related to the basic concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Here is where I am headed. Buffalo asked: “Where does this sense of morality come from?” You answered: “From ourselves.” I would like to avoid the comments regarding a Deity. I would prefer to focus on ourselves since we have already accepted our existence in shades of many colors.

Morality or moral actions are centered on the fact that the Human Person is worthy of profound respect. We are not acting respectfully when we inflict harm on someone else. We are not acting respectfully when we hold back our talent to bring happiness to someone. We are not acting respectfully when we bring harm to ourselves through the misuse of drugs. Is this understandable?

Theists will say that the source of morality comes from God. I will never argue against that.

Yet, there are many non-theists whose actions reflect the highest standards of morality and love for their neighbor even if the neighbor is in Japan. This is because the base or foundation for moral acts is the human person herself or himself. Not only are we capable of moral actions toward others, we are worthy of moral actions from others.

The question continues to be: How does God fit into morality? To even begin finding an answer, we need to understand our own nature. In searching out our own nature, we cannot miss that there is some kind of non-material principle in human life, human existence, and human actions. When there is something non-material about us, the only source for that has to be a non-material Creator. We can name the non-material with the word spiritual. In any case, the non-material spiritual principle cannot evolve because definition wise, it doesn’t have material parts like our anatomy.

You must have comments. But in general, are you with me part way in the exploration of human life?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

If she believed in a life after death, where she would have an eternity to do things, she probably wouldn’t even get out of bed.

Sally sounds like a bit of a deadhead!

All she needs is to roll out and do some spiritual calisthenics!

 

[reggieM]

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: 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.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
   7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

Morality and responsibility require a sense of justice. That must extend beyond death.

 

[reggieM]

And a neuroscientist pulls everything intangible out of persons - and is left with nothing but mindless bodies!

Science attempts to exclude the non-natural. Is science equipped to create a boundary between the natural and then non-natural?

 

[grannymh]

atheistgirl

If she believed in a life after death, where she would have an eternity to do things, she probably wouldn’t even get out of bed.

Sally sounds like a bit of a deadhead!

All she needs is to roll out and do some spiritual calisthenics!

Sally simply has a misconception of what eternity includes. Why not offer some positive explanations? Like the design of heaven?

 

[grannymh]

Science attempts to exclude the non-natural. Is science equipped to create a boundary between the natural and then non-natural?

Actually there is a kind of boundary. It is called the material/physical world. The only object which is designed to include the union of *both * the natural *and *supernatural worlds is the perfectly designed human person.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

**Sally simply has a misconception of what eternity includes. Why not offer some positive explanations? Like the design of heaven? **

Sorry. I can’t describe a place I haven’t seen. No one has been able to describe it. You have to earn it to be even able to see it.

The most we can say is that it must include an encounter with God.

But of course, if you don’t want to believe in God, why would you want to believe in heaven?

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl

If she believed in a life after death, where she would have an eternity to do things, she probably wouldn’t even get out of bed.

Sally sounds like a bit of a deadhead!

Sally is actually a five foot nothing dynamo of activity

All she needs is to roll out and do some spiritual calisthenics!

granny

**Sally simply has a misconception of what eternity includes. Why not offer some positive explanations? Like the design of heaven? **

But of course, if you don’t want to believe in God, why would you want to believe in heaven?

Not a case of don’t wont to. More a case of just can’t, due to lack of evidence and rationality. This is her position, and she respects those who can and do find evidence and rationality in a Deity, Heaven, Eternal Life, Never ending Bliss and so on.
She’s just not one of those people.

*Granny I am with you so far but have comments - I will respond to your post but can’t right now, as I have just a minute one here today. Monday I hope to be able to give you a better reply.

Sarah x

 

[grannymh]

granny

**Sally simply has a misconception of what eternity includes. Why not offer some positive explanations? Like the design of heaven? **

Sorry. I can’t describe a place I haven’t seen. No one has been able to describe it. You have to earn it to be even able to see it.

The most we can say is that it must include an encounter with God.

But of course, if you don’t want to believe in God, why would you want to believe in heaven?

The Design of Heaven includes the Beatific Vision as you pointed out.

Heaven is so designed that we mortal ones are able to enter it. Once we are there, we will be able to see the true Design of God, "in heavenly glory, a gift of God which is a constitutive element of the happiness (or beatitude) of heaven. (CCC Glossary, Beatific Vision)

During the Last Supper Discourses, Jesus, Himself, indicated that He was the Designer. “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?” This is appropriate since Jesus follows with these words. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” (Gospel of John, Chapter 14)

The popular misconception of heaven is that heaven is an instant replay of earth minus the bad experiences. It is a place of ice cream cones which is how I pictured it when I was a child. That picture is still somewhere in my memory bank because I continue to consider ice cream as a health food. Heaven is looked at as earthly happiness without the glitches. We keep hearing that at funerals, e.g., “he or she is in a better place.”

We need to remind ourselves that heaven’s happiness does not come from nor is it depended on limited material things. It is far greater than a tummy full of ice cream.
We do have times of happiness on earth but they are not permanent. There have been times in Alaska when I was breathless with its beauty. That, too, is a form of fleeting happiness. What I am getting at is that heaven is designed as an immortal, eternal magnification of meager earthly happiness. We have a glimpse and our curiosity is ignited.

Of course, we can talk about heaven with curious people who do not believe in God. Once that conversation gets going, we can slip in the “Divine Cause”.

 

[tonyrey]

Science attempts to exclude the non-natural. Is science equipped to create a boundary between the natural and then non-natural?

“natural” is a nebulous term. No one has ever defined it precisely because its goal posts are frequently being moved to accommodate each new discovery which includes entities that cannot be observed with the senses! A more realistic term is “subnatural” which at least excludes living organisms but that would highlight the absurdity of rejecting the “supernatural” out of hand. If there are two dimensions of reality why not three - or more?

The tidy little scheme of “naturalism” would be exposed for what it is: an arbitrary derivation of **everything **from inanimate objects which are the most insignificant elements of existence for any rational being! Who in their right mind considers their mind to be a mere collection of mindless particles? Robots cannot even be classed as idiots…

 

[reggieM]

“natural” is a nebulous term. No one has ever defined it precisely because its goal posts are frequently being moved to accommodate each new discovery which includes entities that cannot be observed with the senses!

True. The term is used to protect a worldview – so the shifting definitions and boundaries are a form of manipulation. Science, supposedly, has the competency and authority to define what is and is not part of naturalism. Science makes claims about potential entities existing outside of our universe, but then also decides that there is no evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural at all.

 

[Sair]

“natural” is a nebulous term. No one has ever defined it precisely because its goal posts are frequently being moved to accommodate each new discovery which includes entities that cannot be observed with the senses! A more realistic term is “subnatural” which at least excludes living organisms but that would highlight the absurdity of rejecting the “supernatural” out of hand. If there are two dimensions of reality why not three - or more?

What, exactly, does ‘subnatural’ encompass, as a definition?

And what reason do we have, when our understanding of reality is so incomplete, to divide reality into two definite separate parts - one which we can investigate through scientific means, and one which we absolutely cannot thus investigate, by its very definition? This has been my argument all along - what is the sense in supposing that what exists is divided into two separate realms, when we don’t actually know about everything that exists, nor how it does so? If we, as natural, physical beings (and we are this, because our existence is demonstrably contingent upon physical matter and forces) can perceive something like a soul, for example (if we can - I’m still dubious upon that issue) what call to we have to claim that souls inhabit a separate realm of reality from bodies?

The tidy little scheme of “naturalism” would be exposed for what it is: an arbitrary derivation of **everything **from inanimate objects which are the most insignificant elements of existence for any rational being! Who in their right mind considers their mind to be a mere collection of mindless particles? Robots cannot even be classed as idiots…

Yet a human being who acted like a robot, as commonly understood, would more than likely be classed as an idiot - or, perhaps, if like an extraordinarily sophisticated robot, be diagnosed with some variety of autism spectrum disorder. The problem I see in your implied definition of ‘natural’ is that you assume all matter is necessarily inanimate, presumably if not enlivened by some supernatural essence. But matter is not, by definition, inanimate - particles of matter are at every moment subject to physical and chemical interactions and forces, depending upon their composition and situation amongst other particles. You apparently consider mind to be a whole and complete phenomenon that must act upon physical states, rather than an emergent phenomenon that relies upon physical states - yet it is not clear why you suppose this must be the case.

Yes, ‘natural’ is a contentious adjective, and there has never really been, at least as far as I know, a concrete definition of what constitutes a ‘natural’ phenomenon as distinct from any other kind of phenomenon. But I think that is indicative of the problems we face in any attempt to delimit reality. Given that, what I would ask is this - how is the designation of everything that exists as natural, somehow more arbitrary than pigeon-holing some aspects of reality as ‘supernatural’ and cut off from investigation along the lines of natural phenomena? Are we not meant to understand supernatural phenomena? Are we supposed to just accept them as mysterious and be satisfied? It seems to me that, since our understanding of reality is so imperfect anyway, it’s entirely premature to claim that we can definitely class some things as ‘natural’ and others as ‘supernatural’.

 

[grannymh]

What, exactly, does ‘subnatural’ encompass, as a definition?

And what reason do we have, when our understanding of reality is so incomplete, to divide reality into two definite separate parts - one which we can investigate through scientific means, and one which we absolutely cannot thus investigate, by its very definition?

I was corrected by a philosophical type that the correct domain for whatever scientist types work in is “natural science”. That made sense, so I try to use “natural science” in it natural meaning at various times.

In the days on CAF, (before the ban on evolution discussion) when it was possible to defend human nature in the natural science domain, I referred to the two different ways of exploring reality. The complete rationale has been cut out of respect for the ban.

The philosophical position that all reality is material is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding this philosophical view to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, the distinguishing uniqueness of the human species, which is its spiritual soul, was eliminated. Consequently, man became a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities.

By all means, the domain of natural science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial from inquiry as if it were non-existent. The choice of the single material explanation for the human species does not mean that other possibilities must be excluded from an independent analysis.

Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The above comes from the introduction to the thesis: “The possibility of two sole parents of the human species lies within the nature of the human species.” My non-theist discussion partner set the terms-- “If there is anything that we can show in the nature of the human species that is evidence for two sole parents then that is a foundation for the proposition.”

We were at the point of discussing whether or not I met the terms when a number of
off-line events prevented me from returning to the discussion. Time passed and I realized, through my beginning studies into certain areas of natural science, that it was possible to respect the recent discoveries in natural science and at the same time present a possibility for the Catholic doctrine of monogenism. This new approach is now being carried out off line.

It has always been my intention to respect the current ban on evolution discussion and I will continue to respect this ban.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[reggieM]

Science studies observable, material nature (and must somehow determine what that is).
It relies on the assumption that nature is governed by consistent, regular laws.
But it cannot be absolutely proven that the laws of nature always and everywhere are (or have been) consistent in every case.
This means that science can only arrive provide evidence leading to provisional conclusions. Those conclusions can only have more or less reasonableness, but not absolute certainty.

Here’s a Catholic anti-ID argument:

Since science is provisional, various findings can be falsified by future findings.
People who use science to prove the existence of God (and the truth of Catholicism), subject their belief to provisional conclusions that could be falsified.
Therefore, they sin against the Catholic Faith by relying on science as a proof for the existence of God.

… can you spot the errors in that argument?

 

[reggieM]

Given that, what I would ask is this - how is the designation of everything that exists as natural, somehow more arbitrary than pigeon-holing some aspects of reality as ‘supernatural’ and cut off from investigation along the lines of natural phenomena?

I think the idea was to use “observable” as the critierion for “natural”. But that doesn’t work for reasons we already saw.

Are we not meant to understand supernatural phenomena?

Good question. Supernatural phenomena are a part of “reality” – so we do need to understand them.

 

[grannymh]

Science studies observable, material nature (and must somehow determine what that is).
It relies on the assumption that nature is governed by consistent, regular laws.
But it cannot be absolutely proven that the laws of nature always and everywhere are (or have been) consistent in every case.
This means that science can only arrive provide evidence leading to provisional conclusions. Those conclusions can only have more or less reasonableness, but not absolute certainty.

Here’s a Catholic anti-ID argument:

Since science is provisional, various findings can be falsified by future findings.
People who use science to prove the existence of God (and the truth of Catholicism), subject their belief to provisional conclusions that could be falsified.
Therefore, they sin against the Catholic Faith by relying on science as a proof for the existence of God.

… can you spot the errors in that argument?

Yes.
Many errors.
As a start – The classification of “they” in the last sentence is missing as well as “people” in the second sentence.