Evidence for Design?

[Al_Moritz]

It** is** a heresy to affirm that God never intervenes miraculously or answers prayers.

Of course it is. But what does this have to do with the point MindOverMatter and I were making?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course it is. But what does this have to do with the point MindOverMatter and I were making?

“a great **self-sufficient **process of development” is hardly consistent with divine Providence, the injunction to “Give us this day our daily bread” and the occurrence of miracles in answer to prayer.

 

[Al_Moritz]

“a great **self-sufficient **process of development” is hardly consistent with divine Providence, the injunction to “Give us this day our daily bread” and the occurrence of miracles in answer to prayer.

. . . sigh . . .

 

[tonyrey]

. . . sigh . . .

A sigh can signify anything from hope to despair - but it doesn’t address the issue!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A sigh can signify anything from hope to despair - but it doesn’t address the issue!

I think at some point you are going to have to accept that there is a difference between God answering a prayer and God doing a botched job of creation. There are many flaws in physical things and there are many things that can go wrong. This makes sense if we live in a naturally evolving system. There are many things about organisms that only makes sense (especially in respect of Gods moral intentions) in a naturally evolving reality. But it brings Gods moral competency into question if God directly designed the universe by fiat to be that way, and even worse, over millions of years!!! The existence of things such as disease and viruses does not make sense in terms of direct benevolent design, but it does make sense in terms of natural evolution, a process in which viruses and errors are potential or unavoidable by-products. This makes sense if for some reason God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that the universe should naturally evolve. God does not create the virus directly as a species; but rather it evolves by chance.

Give me a break…give me kit-kat.

Sorry, the kit-kat company said that they would pay me if I advertised for them!! I have to please my sponsors.

 

[grannymh]

Everything comes from God - including evil! But evil is an inevitable consequence of finitude and independence.

Emphasis mine.

The Catholic Church does not teach that “Everything comes from God - including evil!” I don’t care how that is white-washed.

 

[grannymh]

I think at some point you are going to have to accept that there is a difference between God answering a prayer and God doing a botched job of creation.

Hope you are sitting down.
I agree.

 

[reggieM]

True, but if you agree that it has happened at least once, then isn’t it more reasonable to think that if God is going to make a system of secondary causes with specific natures then surely he would allow these natures to express themselves without restriction or intervention?

You’re violating the ontological structure of reality with that. “Those natures” cannot express themselves by “becoming other natures”. It’s completely illogical.

Chance is not a process. It is not a natural law. You’re actually damaging your own position by claiming that development of natures by chance actually reveals a “system”. Chance is not a system. It’s luck. That’s what you’re defending. Bring it to specifics – what are the odds that a mammal turned into a whale? Or an ape-like animal, by lucky mutations, became a human being? It’s philosophically impossible.

Otherwise what is the point of creating physical laws, quarks, atoms, and all the other complex natures that comprise the physical if he is going to interfere with their natural ends?

For the same reason that laws that govern nature are not absolute. Those laws were created by God for a reason, and they have limits for a reason. They were created to reveal order. They have limits to reveal that there is a greater power at work in the universe than what physical laws can produce.

That’s why God works so many miracles. Physical healings, manifestations in physical nature, the countless examples of mystical phenomena. He is showing that nature does not rule the universe. Nor do natural laws.

Most importantly, the human person is not a slave to natural laws either. We transcend nature – we must rise above nature or we will die in our sins.

It seems to me that God created a system that he intended to evolve naturally according to its nature.

Again, that’s a direct contradiction of Darwinian claims. As I pointed out above, evolutionary theory claims that one nature, through chance mutations, actually becomes another nature.

There is no “system” of evolution. Appeals to luck are not different than saying that God just created all things from nothing.

This ID evolution thing seems that it might be heading in the direction of a heresy.

You’ve mentioned that before but you didn’t provide any detail. ID is scientific research. It doesn’t make any theological claims. It cannot, by its nature, be a heresy.

 

[reggieM]

But implying that God created an insufficient process that always needs a push here and there, that makes God an incompetent creator. And that indeed heads in the direction of a heresy.

ID says nothing like you’ve parodied it here.

But more importantly, we can take a look at what St. Thomas teaches …

Summa Theological Part 1, Q8

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated.

Notice again – God preserves all things in being, continually. God “intervenes” in nature continually. Nature cannot even function without God’s constant presence “touching all things by His power”. As I read your view, you’d criticize Thomistic thought as if natural processes were “insufficient”, and God had to “push them”.

So if we want to talk about heresy, we can take a look at evolutionary materialism (which is the mainstream theory as taught by the most prominent biologists and in textbooks).

 

[reggieM]

There are many flaws in physical things and there are many things that can go wrong.

Ok, if reality is flawed, then it is not fulfilling its purpose.
In order to identify even one flaw in physical things that does not fulfill the purpose that God intended for it – you would have to proclaim that you know God’s intention for creating that physical thing, and what purpose it should have had from the beginning of time.

Clearly, I don’t think you can do that.

Let’s ask about “things that can go wrong”. What makes you think they went “wrong”?

This makes sense if we live in a naturally evolving system.

It makes sense in the atheist view because they think that nature can evolve without God knowing about it, or without God’s will directing every aspect of the universe.

But to claim that you see “flaws” in the universe is really to put yourself in a position of immense authority over all of reality.

There are many things about organisms that only makes sense (especially in respect of Gods moral intentions) in a naturally evolving reality.

Let’s get into specifics – what are you talking about? Do you have a better plan for the universe than God has?

But it brings Gods moral competency into question if God directly designed the universe by fiat to be that way, and even worse, over millions of years!!!

You’re assuming that there is only one interpretation of the facts that is reasonable - namely, the evolutionary story.

The existence of things such as disease and viruses does not make sense in terms of direct benevolent design, but it does make sense in terms of natural evolution, a process in which viruses and errors are potential or unavoidable by-products.

The existence of evil and suffering does make sense because God brings a greater good from them than would otherwise exist without them. You cannot fully judge the value of anything until you assess it at it’s final end and how it fulfills its final purpose.

So we need to be careful about assuming that we know what is best for the design of the universe and that our design for the salvation of souls is better than God’s.

This makes sense if for some reason God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that the universe should naturally evolve. God does not create the virus directly as a species; but rather it evolves by chance.

This is where you’ll run into the heresy that Catholic-evolutionists like Kenneth Miller have fallen into - namely, the “ignorant and powerless god of evolution”.

So, we’d have a god who was “surprised” that a virus occurred.

God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that there is suffering in the universe.
He brings greater good from the evils that have occurred as a result of sin, than would otherwise have been brought forth.

Science cannot tell us “how” God created things.
Philosophy cannot tell us that either.

The only way we might be able to know how God creates things is by direct revelation.
So, we shouldn’t bother asking scientists for help on that – or asking philosophers.

We can ask God any day of the week, and any and every hour of the day also.
Perhaps he will reveal His secrets to us. But that’s the only way to know how He did it (and continually does it).

And no - evolution does not help us here at all. The science alone tells us that.

 

[reggieM]

I think at some point you are going to have to accept that there is a difference between God answering a prayer and God doing a botched job of creation.

In order for you to explain the difference, you would need to tell us:

What method does God use to answer prayers? What limits does He have? What parts of nature does God directly change in answer to prayer (some, none, much?). How much of nature has God already changed in answer to prayer? How much prayer does God directly answer every day? How many miracles does God work each day?

Interesting questions …

Now let’s ask about the “botched job”.

Which universe should I compare this one to in order to see a “better version”?
What is the purpose of God’s creation? What is the purpose of each thing God created? What effect do all the things that God created centuries ago have on us today?

What is the effect of sin on the universe?

What is the effect of your own personal sins, for example, on the universe, our society, and on future generations?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You’re violating the ontological structure of reality with that. “Those natures” cannot express themselves by “becoming other natures”. It’s completely illogical.

Why? Atoms rearrange and express various different holistic attributes or forms according to their new arrangement. What’s the problem?

Chance is not a process. It is not a natural law. You’re actually damaging your own position by claiming that development of natures by chance actually reveals a “system”.

I have not spoken of a system that expresses itself purely within the context of chance. That is not the theory of evolution. However, chance is a part of the natural process. Do you deny the existence of secondary causes? Do you deny that some things happen by chance, and others by necessity? Do you deny the laws of physics?

Chance is not a system. It’s luck. That’s what you’re defending.

I don’t think you even know what the theory of Evolution is, much less what I am defending.

Try to think up something a little more sophisticated than the straw-men you are presenting here. I am not impressed.

 

[reggieM]

Why? Atoms rearrange and express various different holistic attributes or forms according to their new arrangement. What’s the problem?

It depends on what you mean by forms and natures.

However, chance is a part of the natural process.

Again, chance is not a process. You cannot have a natural law that says “lucky mutations might happen”.

Do you deny the existence of secondary causes?

You’re subtly changing the argument to causality. What kinds of ends can be predicted by chance occurrences? Can you tell the difference between that and designed outcomes?

Do you deny that some things happen by chance, and others by necessity?

What part of evolution happens by necessity?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The existence of evil and suffering does make sense because God brings a greater good from them than would otherwise exist without them. You cannot fully judge the value of anything until you assess it at it’s final end and how it fulfils its final purpose.

God does not directly create natural or moral evil. He permits the potentiality of evil. There is a difference, and the difference can only be fulfilled by an evolution of secondary causes which involves chance.

So we need to be careful about assuming that we know what is best for the design of the universe and that our design for the salvation of souls is better than God’s.

I am not assuming anything, I know that God would not directly create a virus or a brain cancer; these things are errors that arise naturally within a system of secondary causes. There is a difference between permitting evil for a greater good, and doing evil for a greater good.

This is where you’ll run into the heresy that Catholic-evolutionists like Kenneth Miller have fallen into - namely, the “ignorant and powerless god of evolution”.

Are you really that desperate? God does not directly create species, and certainly not species of deadly viruses. This is not against Church teaching.

So, we’d have a god who was “surprised” that a virus occurred.

God is not surprised in the sense of gaining new temporal knowledge, but neither is he the direct cause of suffering and physical disease in general. We are not Pagans.

God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that there is suffering in the universe.

He permits the potentiality of physical and spiritual evil to occur. He does not create evil. It seems to me that you are the one in heresy.

Science cannot tell us “how” God created things.
Philosophy cannot tell us that either.

Before you was telling us that you can detect Gods design and plan in nature by the scientific method! have you now detracted that statement?

The only way we might be able to know how God creates things is by direct revelation.
So, we shouldn’t bother asking scientists for help on that – or asking philosophers.

Its a waste of time having a discussion with you. You are determined to have it your way or no-way, even to the point of contradicting your own philosophical position.

 

[Perplexity]

I’ve by far missed the conversation of the thread so far; but, since it keeps popping up I read the OP. Without a definition of design it’s hard to tell what’s being analyzed, and especially whether the same thing exemplifies in each of the alleged examples of design.

But, to post something contributory I’ll throw in some skeptical 2 cents. I apologize if this has already been addressed.

It seems to me that arguments from design assume that the designer, if it exists, is conscious. For instance, WLC’s commonly used fine-tuning argument is intended to show how intelligent God is. But, what aspect of the mind is required to explain design? I know of only two candidates, and they both seem implausible to me: (i) qualia, and (ii) intentionality.

Neither seem like necessary conditions which must be satisfied in order for something to be called a ‘designer.’ This is evident in that we see non-sentient things produce design all the time. You might say these things themselves are designed by us; but, that’s irrelevant to the point.

So, to cast doubt on whether design is evidence of a conscious designer as opposed to a non-conscious designer; I’d say the burden is upon the theist (in this case) to show us what aspect of the mind is required for a thing to be a designer. Until then, I don’t think we’d be irrational in at least suspending belief.

 

[Al_Moritz]

ID says nothing like you’ve parodied it here.

But more importantly, we can take a look at what St. Thomas teaches …

Summa Theological Part 1, Q8

I answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated.

Notice again – God preserves all things in being, continually.

Precisely what I have always emphasized too – if you had ever cared to follow my argument.

God “intervenes” in nature continually.

And this does not follow. Sustaining, continually preserving, the laws of nature to do their job as intended is not the same as constantly intervening in the sense of meddling in nature. After all, what are natural laws for if they cannot act naturally? And biological ID claims meddling in nature.

But since you continually refuse to recognize this distinction between sustaining of and meddling in creation, further discussion is not worthwhile.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Its a waste of time having a discussion with you. You are determined to have it your way or no-way, even to the point of contradicting your own philosophical position.

Seconded.

 

[Al_Moritz]

We are not Pagans.

A crucial point.

Atheists think that they have refuted theism when they correctly point to the fact that nature works “all by itself” in the sense of it not being meddled with (while incorrectly dismissing the rare theistic miracles). But what they have refuted is Paganism, not Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

Emphasis mine.

The Catholic Church does not teach that “Everything comes from God - including evil!” I don’t care how that is white-washed.

Then where does it come from -** ultimately**?!? .

 

[tonyrey]

The existence of evil and suffering does make sense because God brings a greater good from them than would otherwise exist without them. You cannot fully judge the value of anything until you assess it at it’s final end and how it fulfills its final purpose.

Irrefutable!.

God deemed it more fruitful and a greater good that there is suffering in the universe.
He brings greater good from the evils that have occurred as a result of sin, than would otherwise have been brought forth.

Irrefutable!.

Perhaps he will reveal His secrets to us. But that’s the only way to know how He did it (and continually does it).

Unless He is impotent rather than omnipotent, i.e. controlled by what He has created!