Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

The issue is whether God intervenes** in addition to natural processes** - to which the answer is surely in the affirmative unless He cannot or doesn’t wish to do so, thereby casting doubt on His omnipotence or benevolence. Discussion of the natural mechanisms is neither necessary nor legitimate on this forum.

Natural processes were created by God. They could not have been created by nature since they act on nature and prior to nature.

God cannot be limited by the processes He created. Those processes cannot function at all without His constant participation.

The term “intervene” gives the impression that God is outside of the nature He created.

 

[tonyrey]

Natural processes were created by God. They could not have been created by nature since they act on nature and prior to nature.

God cannot be limited by the processes He created. Those processes cannot function at all without His constant participation.

The term “intervene” gives the impression that God is outside of the nature He created.

God intervenes from within, Reggie! The point is consistency: a spate of miracles would wreck the system.

The truth is between the two extremes - as so often - of constant intervention and no intervention at all. What is the point of creating and sustaining laws if they are continually suspended?

Calvin believed that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God - which is clearly absurd. He would be directly responsible for every disaster…

 

[reggieM]

God intervenes from within, Reggie! The point is consistency: a spate of miracles would wreck the system.

Interesting point, Tony. But I think we don’t really see a system in its purest form. We see something that moves towards entropy – decay, collapse. However, there is order within that system, generally.

The natural laws, as we call them, are not absolute. But the fact that they exist points to a creator of the laws. The fact that they operate points to an operator.

Because of our damaged universe existing in time (which is an imperfect condition), God has created the appearance of His absence.

The truth is between the two extremes - as so often - of constant intervention and no intervention at all.

True.

What is the point of creating and sustaining laws if they are continually suspended?

In order to show that the universe was both the product of a perfect mind, and a product that had been damaged by sin – we would have to see great laws and processes at work, and also at the same time, these laws which work only generally, and not absolutely.

We pray that God will protect us from these damaged laws, very often.

God is the administrator of justice and mercy – a situation which is created by his human beings. Sin requires justice. Love and sacrifice brings mercy.

The laws have to reflect both of those things.

God is inside so can’t intervene from the outside. But as you say, He can intervene from the inside – so inner-intervene.

 

[tonyrey]

God is “in” everything we consider evil and repugnant: the mind of the person who tortures a child, the virus that causes suffering and the rock that crushes some one to death. But how could it be otherwise? Persons and things in themselves are not evil but they** cause **evil consequences - either wittingly or unwittingly.

 

[reggieM]

Calvin believed that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God - which is clearly absurd. He would be directly responsible for every disaster…

The way Calvin thought about it was absurd also. As if God is giving commands to raindrops all day long.

God creates and sustains laws and processes. They can’t function without Him.

How should a believer view God’s “responsibility” about various things? Death? Any kind of accident?

Notice I address that to believers.

Admittedly, the very same questions and answers could be very different for those who do not believe that God exists (because the mind has to start with certain first principles).

 

[karaleigh]

Why would He deliberately conceal the evidence of His wisdom and love?

We have to study the natures of the world to understand what exactly is written in the bible. In it’s condensed form, the scriptures hold many truths. The truths to all the sciences are there, but we must study each science to well understand the integrity of the Holy Scriptures. Below are some example by biblical scholars who shared the idea to this need…

Ezra.7 [10] …set his heart to study the law of the LORD…to teach his statutes and ordinances…, Neh.8 [13] …in order to study the words of the law, Ecclesiastes12 [9]…the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging proverbs…, [12]* …making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh,* Sir.39[1]…study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies…

God Bless

 

[reggieM]

God is “in” everything we consider evil and repugnant: the mind of the person who tortures a child, the virus that causes suffering and the rock that crushes some one to death. But how could it be otherwise? Persons and things in themselves are not evil but they** cause **evil consequences - either wittingly or unwittingly.

Exactly.

The mind … is something very good. A virus is an entity. A rock is a thing.

 

[tonyrey]

Because of our damaged universe existing in time (which is an imperfect condition), God has created the appearance of His absence.

I believe all created beings are necessarily imperfect because they are finite.

In order to show that the universe was both the product of a perfect mind, and a product that had been damaged by sin – we would have to see great laws and processes at work, and also at the same time, these laws which work only generally, and not absolutely.

I don’t believe we can attribute **all **physical evil to sin. It is an inevitable concomitant of
physical existence.

God is the administrator of justice and mercy – a situation which is created by his human beings. Sin requires justice. Love and sacrifice brings mercy.

The laws have to reflect both of those things.

I believe there is a form of “physical justice”. A tree cannot grow straight if its growth is impeded by a larger tree.

God is inside so can’t intervene from the outside. But as you say, He can intervene from the inside – so inner-intervene.

But, alas, inner-intervention is constrained by the need for consistency - as in the case of the gift of free will. A universe which is independent in some respects must be out of direct control by God in direct proportion to its independence - which explains all the disasters in the world.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly.

The mind … is something very good. A virus is an entity. A rock is a thing.

Everything is good in itself! When it interferes with something else - wittingly or unwittingly - it causes evil, i.e. negative consequences. So out of good comes evil - willynilly.

Only God is perfect in every respect:

"Gloria in excelsis Deo - laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te… "

 

[tonyrey]

We have to study the natures of the world to understand what exactly is written in the bible. In it’s condensed form, the scriptures hold many truths. The truths to all the sciences are there, but we must study each science to well understand the integrity of the Holy Scriptures. Below are some example by biblical scholars who shared the idea to this need…

Ezra.7 [10] …set his heart to study the law of the LORD…to teach his statutes and ordinances…, Neh.8 [13] …in order to study the words of the law, Ecclesiastes12 [9]…the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging proverbs…, [12]* …making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh,* Sir.39[1]…study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies…

God Bless

Precisely! God bless.

 

[grannymh]

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

For the complete story – Paragraphs 355 - 421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition highlighted by paragraph 401, beginning with the first sentence and ending with the last sentence.

 

[grannymh]

I prefer to put my faith in Catholic teaching rather than in the Darwinian fairy-tale.
I wonder if all of the other Catholics on this thread will support your view that the Church teaching on original sin is a “folk tale”? That would be interesting.

Since this is a public message board, may I have the post citation. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

God is “in” everything we consider evil and repugnant: the mind of the person who tortures a child, the virus that causes suffering and the rock that crushes some one to death. But how could it be otherwise? Persons and things in themselves are not evil but they** cause **evil consequences - either wittingly or unwittingly.

This sounds something like a kind of slam against God. Surely, there is a better way to express one’s feelings.

Suggestion for source material can be found in post 827 above.

 

[reggieM]

I believe all created beings are necessarily imperfect because they are finite.{/quote]

Agreed.

I don’t believe we can attribute **all **

 

[grannymh]

Exactly.

The mind … is something very good. A virus is an entity. A rock is a thing.

Have any of the ID people studied “The Mystery of Creation” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition? The words “uphold and sustain” are a far better explanation of God in the world than what is contained in post 820 which you just replied to above.

 

[grannymh]

Because of our damaged universe existing in time (which is an imperfect condition), God has created the appearance of His absence.

Say what?

 

[reggieM]

We have to study the natures of the world to understand what exactly is written in the bible. In it’s condensed form, the scriptures hold many truths. The truths to all the sciences are there, but we must study each science to well understand the integrity of the Holy Scriptures. Below are some example by biblical scholars who shared the idea to this need…

Ezra.7 [10] …set his heart to study the law of the LORD…to teach his statutes and ordinances…, Neh.8 [13] …in order to study the words of the law, Ecclesiastes12 [9]…the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging proverbs…, [12]* …making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh,* Sir.39[1]…study of the law of the Most High will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies…

God Bless

The first chapters in the Book of Wisdom give me some insights and answers on these questions.

[the Lord] is found by those who do not test him, and manifests himself to those who do not disbelieve him.

For perverse counsels separate people from God, and his power, put to the proof, rebukes the foolhardy;… For the spirit of the LORD fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows whatever is said.

Do not court death by your erring way of life, nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands. Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.

For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:

“Brief and troubled is our lifetime; there is no remedy for our dying …
For by mere chance were we born, and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been;" These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
And they did not know the hidden counsels of God …
For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us.
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.

And the classic design argument in chapter 13:

Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God,
and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is,
and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

Instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air,
or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water,
or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.

Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods,
let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these;
for the original source of beauty fashioned them.

Or if they were struck by their might and energy,
let them realize from these things how much more powerful is the one who made them.

For from the greatness and the beauty of created things
their original author, by analogy, is seen.

For they have gone astray perhaps,
though they seek God and wish to find him.
For they search busily among his works,
but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.

But again, not even these are pardonable.
For if they so far succeeded in knowledge
that they could speculate about the world,
how did they not more quickly find its Lord?

 

[Perplexity]

The claim might be, for example, computers can create purposeful, intentional design.
Computers are non-sentient, and thus things they produce are designed.
But the design (purpose, plan, intention) does not originate with the computer. It does not originate with the software or the electronics either – but rather with the intelligent agency that comes first.

Ah, I see the distinction. I’m not necessarily talking about the ultimate origins of the design, just whether there can be any production of design by non-sentient things.

We should work within the limits of what the argument attempts to prove. If we have “some designer”, then this is necessarily a non-material entity. Material processes and matter cannot produce design (intention, purpose, plan). They have no sight for the future in order to intend a purpose.

This presupposes the understanding of design in question. Why must design involve mind-dependent things like intention, purpose, or plan? If you can satisfactorily answer this, then we might have some evidence for theism here.

So, the argument from design is weighed against the false idea that nature can produce the design we can observe. An intelligence is required to create design.

I haven’t seen any reason to agree with this. What do you mean by nature?

Of course, this argument does not prove that the intelligence is the Blessed Trinity. The argument from First Cause or Necessary Being does not prove that either. But there are other arguments to support the existence of the Trinity.

Sure, the atheist just doesn’t think they’re sound, or if they’re inductive, strong.

One does not need to prove every attribute of God’s nature with one argument. In this case, the existence of design does prove that the existence of a non-natural intelligence is necessary.

Some design arguments attempt to show that; but, as I’ve pointed out until we’re shown why a mind is required to explain design, the existence of design doesn’t evince intelligence or non-intelligence (since it could be either), and thus doesn’t constitute evidence for theism.

1. We observe highly complex fine-tuned functions in various aspects of life and the universe.

1. We have never observed non-sentient beings producing such functions.

1. We have, however, observed that intelligence can produce such functions.

1. In fact, the only known source for such functions is conscious, intentional intelligence.

1. Therefore, when we observe highly complex fine-tuned functions in the universe, the most reasonable explanation is that intelligent design was involved in their origin.

Hume uses this kind of reasoning against theism since the only intelligences we’ve seen produce such design are embodied. Therefore, we have good inductive reason to suppose this designer is embodied etc. While I disagree with his argument, I do think it puts the theist in an awkward position.

What you’d need to show is that a non-sentient thing can create highly complex fine-tuned functions.

Well, it’s obviously possible. To show this I need only be able to conceive of that scenario as actually happening and know of no contradictions or absurdities that would thereby result (which I’m doing right now). I think you’re asking me to show that this actually happens. For that, I’d need a clearer idea of what a “highly complex fine-tuned function” is.

 

[tonyrey]

God is “in” everything we consider evil and repugnant: the mind of the person who tortures a child, the virus that causes suffering and the rock that crushes some one to death. But how could it be otherwise? Persons and things in themselves are not evil but they* cause ***

 

[tonyrey]

I believe all created beings are necessarily imperfect because they are finite.{/quote]
Agreed.

physical evil to sin. It is an inevitable concomitant of physical existence.
Why can’t we attribute it all to sin?The universe existed before original sin

I believe there is a form of “physical justice”. A tree cannot grow straight if its growth is impeded by a larger tree.

I’d look at a crooked tree in more artistic terms, rather than geometric. I don’t know if justice would really work if there was no true responsibility present either. I specified “physical justice” to distinguish it from morality. Perhaps a better analogy would be that physical events are “law-abiding”! (The laws being the laws of nature. )

A universe which is independent in some respects

must be out of direct control by God in direct proportion to its independence - which explains all the disasters in the world.
I guess it depends on how we view the control that God can have. The fact that people can reject God does say something about how creatures can distance themselves. God remains in control but also He allows a sense of independence.
If a person can reject God for all eternity it must be more than a sense! The horrific reality of evil is evidence that God relinquishes control to the precise extent that His creatures inflict unnecessary suffering on others. But their reign of terror is terminated by death and divine justice has the last word. Deo Gratias.

[/QUOTE]