T
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Tony – thanks for your interesting thoughts on this.
As in the Book of Solomon (2:24) – But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Yes, but could we say that the fall of Satan occurred before the universe existed?
As in the Book of Solomon (2:24) – But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thanks for an interesting reply.
It does go back to your initial point about the meaning of design.
Design can have several meanings. One would be something like “coordinated pattern” or “ordered arrangement of parts”. So, a snowflake would show some design.
The other would be “plan, purpose, intent”. At a crime scene, police determined that the crime was done “by design”. It was a plan, for a purpose.
Those two definitions get jumbled up usually and the same word will be used to argue different things.
But if it can be shown that the second meaning (purpose, intent, plan) can be observed in life, nature or the universe – and not have been created by non-sentient agency, then intelligence is the only known cause of such things.
The only causal forces that we know of are:
- Natural/physical laws
- Chance
- Intelligence
Design arguments which point to ordered processes in nature (like natural laws) are similar. Natural laws are ordered to ends. They cannot have been produced by nature. Since they are regular, they cannot have been produced by chance (within this universe) either.
This would be just the ordinary term meaning “physical processes” or “natural laws and processes working on matter”.
We’d first have to establish that rationality itself cannot be a product of nature. Rationality requires freedom, and natural laws are determined.
The design argument has to work alongside of several other arguments.
It’s like when you create a syllogism, you may need a prior syllogism to prove your premises.
The design argument (of the Dembski/Behe kind) is aimed against materialism. It’s not really an argument for theism on its own. It’s the very first step to move from the most primitive kind of atheistic-materialism to the idea that there must be an intelligence at work in the development of the universe.
Yes, you’re right – it’s important to know what the target is.
We can start with things that we know are obviously designed and which show that kind of highly complex fine-tuning. Computer software, the works of Shakespeare or Mozart, or Chartres Cathedral.
We can observe the characteristics of design for a functional purpose in those things. We know there is intent, plan and meaning – a foresight to the future.
We can also tell the difference with a lesser intelligence – like with a beaver dam. That we can observe being different from a pile of logs in the stream.
Function would be something like an informational circuit.
There is information, a sender, a decoder and a receiver.
The information makes that circuit – fulfilling a function.
How could that happen by chance? Both sender and receiver need to know the language of the information. There has to be foresight involved in that communication.
Expectation about the future and foresight require planning. Planning requires rationality – the ability to project a concept to future needs.
So, an information circuit would be an example of a highly-complex, finely-tuned functional system. That can only be generated through intelligence.
Now, are there any such informational systems to be found in nature?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thanks for your contributions, Reggie. I’ve been impressed by your defence of Design!
I think it’s a tall order to attribute all suffering and death in the world to the devil (and original sin). It makes one wonder why God would permit him to cause so much havoc in nature when animals have done nothing to deserve their afflictions. A far more likely explanation, in my view, is that misfortunes are an inevitable feature of an immensely complex physical system. Since death is an integral part of the biocycle and pain is a necessary defence mechanism they are not intrinsically evil. But premature deaths and pointless suffering are not willed by our loving Father who cares for all His creatures. They are permitted because accidents are an integral part of physical existence. It is absurd to think life is a free lunch without any costs - or exceptions to the norm!
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s interesting. It could work out to be the same as the idea that suffering and death came from sin because God would have to allow that kind of physical universe.
Why God allows sinful beings to create havoc is part of justice also.
For example, the archangel Lucifer was a great being of goodness and perfections. The fact of his goodness required, by justice, some reward of independence and autonomy. So God gave him some time – but his era is limited to the final judgement.
It’s the same as why bad people receive good things on earth. Many of them are in sin and will receive no future reward. Their merits for eternity are gone – destroyed by unrepentant sin.
However, they still do some good things mixed with evil. Those good things they do have to be rewarded, by God’s justice.
Since they cannot receive their reward in eternity – God grants them blessings on this earth.
On the other hand, the good who will receive the eternal award often suffer on this earth.
In just the opposite way, the good almost always have some sins to expiate. So, rather than suffering in the hereafter, God allows them to suffer on earth. Thus, they gain the merits of eternal happiness in the next life.
Your view is interesting though – it might be another way of saying that suffering and evil are necessary in the finite, imperfect world that we have.
S
Sair
Guest
Um…isn’t that a bit of a cowardly approach? To manifest only to those who are already convinced?
T
tonyrey
Guest
When disbelief is wilful there is no point in manifesting oneself:
None are so blind as those who** will **not see…
It is unwise to underrate the importance of having an open mind…
S
Sair
Guest
Open-mindedness is all very well, but it’s best when accompanied by some discernment…When disbelief is wilful there is no point in manifesting oneself:
None are so blind as those who** will **not see…
It is unwise to underrate the importance of having an open mind…
And isn’t your god meant to be all-powerful, anyway? Didn’t he ‘harden hearts’ in order to demonstrate his power in ages past? Why so mild-mannered now?
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
If you’re seeking some understanding about the ways of God, that’s a good thing.
A person who is seeking God must have a **willingness **to find Him. God respects that willingness and even the lack of it. If a person has decided that God does not exist, then God does not force the person to believe. If a person is willing, then God will manifest Himself.
You’ve chosen to portray this as “cowardly”. But clearly, you preserve things in your life that you consider sacred – not out of cowardice but out of love for those things.
In Catholic thought, for example, we believe that marriage is sacred. Thus, we should protect it from sins that will corrupt its sacredness. This is not cowardice, obviously.
We consider life itself to be sacred – and thus we should preserve and protect it.
Through revelation, God is teaching those who are willing to find him. As any good teacher knows, it’s best to draw students closer to the topic by helping them on the path of discovery themselves.
God draws those who are sincerely seeking His goodness and love. We are called to follow the “still, small voice” of conscience.
That reveals God’s humility and meekness. His peace and strength are manifested by this hiddeness (as we seek and find Him) also.
R
reggieM
Guest
But I think your comparison doesn’t fit. In one case, you’re referring to God’s commands to those who believe in Him. You’re comparing that to God’s actions with those who have turned against Him.
R
reggieM
Guest
It seems like you’re viewing God’s power as if it is a mechanism.
More importantly, wouldn’t you agree that humanity has grown in knowledge and insight over the past 4,000 years? If so, wouldn’t you expect God to communicate, teach and direct people differently now?
R
reggieM
Guest
My previous replies were not very thorough. You could ask if God changed His ways, then how could He be unchangable, etc.? But God is the same – His light shines perfectly and fully for all. But the **windows of the soul **need to be clean enough to see His light. By that we mean, one must have a pure intent and a sincere heart in order to recognize spiritual truths.
On the Pharaoh – you’ve mentioned that a couple of times so it seems like it could be an obstacle for you in learning about God and the Catholic Faith.
But it’s in the nature of the spiritual laws that govern us that hardness of heart occurs.
Sin causes hardness of heart. Sin turns a person away from God. Sins cloud the intellect (lust, greed, gluttony) and pride causes one’s heart to turn away from moral goodness and love and towards self.
What makes hearts grow softer? This is through the conscience which brings a person to recognize their own sinfulness. This makes a person capable of loving. When a person repents, their heart grows softer.
By sin, hearts grow hard. Pharaoh’s sins against the people had as a necessary consequence of making his heart harder.
It would be true to say, therefore “God hardened his heart” because through the spiritual law, sin caused Pharoah’s heart to harden.
The next question might be if God directly caused this hardening or just indirectly through the law of “sin hardens the heart”.
But that doesn’t have much relevance. Pharoah’s heart necessarily was hardened – through sin. If God “directly” hardened it, that added nothing to the ordinary consequences of sin anyway – sin causes hardness of heart. We can say “God hardens the hearts of all sinners” because by justice, that is the nature of sin. If a person chooses sin, then through justice, he receives the consequence of sin.
R
reggieM
Guest
Through the many posts on this thread I conclude that the Argument from Design is irrefutable. There has been no reasonable challenge to it thus far.
The argument has several facets.
The existence of natural laws and rationality itself – require design.
The mathematical precision of the constants and forces of the universe which enable earth and life to exist are evidence of an intelligent design.
Characteristics of human life – intelligence, reasoning, memory, language, artistic and scientific achievements cannot be explained by blind, irrational processes.
The failure of natural law and chance to explain the biodiversity on planet earth.
The fact that purpose exists at all – necessarily requires a rational, purposeful design.
B
buffalo
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Reggie, you have left me speechless - or wordless! But I’m not complaining.
There is only one point I can think of in addition to your answers to Sair but even that has been implied in your question as to whether humanity has grown in knowledge and insight over the past 4,000 years. The Jewish concept of God was not as developed as ours because they were unaware of the teaching of Jesus…
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
No, no, Buffalo! DNA is bestowed by the blind Goddess who doesn’t know whether I’m an evil fellow! That is a far more convenient state of affairs…
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
You are wrong to say that it does not have any relevance. God does not will that anybodies heart is hardened against him. You only think that, because you take those passages in scripture literally and out of context.
That which opposes love or good is naturally hardened against it. Its like if you avoid the pleasure of something, its a matter of necessity that you will not experience the pleasure of it. Its not an artificial process that God could prevent if he wanted to. Its something that naturally arises when human beings freely refuse to accept that they have done wrong when they “know” they have done wrong. In other-words we harden our own hearts against God; but it is always possible that we can repent.
There is no justice in artificially hardening somebodies heart against the truth.
IF God were to do that, he would be directly responsible for them never repenting or changing their minds. Whereas if a person hardens his or her own heart against God this will not mean that he or she will necessarily be ignorant of God forever, because denial is a free act of knowledge. God is always calling us to repentance, and insofar as that is true and that God gives us freewill, it is necessarily false that God hardens peoples hearts directly as an expression of his will. When scripture says that God hardened his heart, it is purely a poetic expression; much like Shakespeare’s style of poetry. Its true in a sense, but also false in the sense that is most important given the context freewill and love.
If its something that necessarily occurs then it is not something that God creates or is directly responsible for except in an indirect and purely ontological sense.
- Status