Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

1. Many beings have hindsight, insight and foresight
2. Inanimate objects lack hindsight, insight and foresight
3. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can produce hindsight, insight and foresight
4. Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight

 

[tonyrey]

When it comes to a belief in the Catholic doctrine of two (Adam & Eve) sole parents of the human species (monogenism) – Divine Revelation trumps.

God bless you!

 

[grannymh]

It is time for Catholic ID advocates to step out in faith and go beyond the reasoning of – “Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight.” a familiar reasoning found in post 1544 and so many, many posts.

Catholic ID advocates should be able to step beyond the foundation of design and place their trust in the real Creator and not some kind of non-specified intelligent agent. Why the big push to prove design in an already designed material world while ignoring the spiritual world?

Catholic ID advocates need to re-think the purpose of human life which began with two humans specifically designed by a personal God.

Catholic ID advocates should be sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

[tonyrey]

It is time for Catholic ID advocates to step out in faith and go beyond the reasoning of – “Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight.” a familiar reasoning found in post 1544 and so many, many posts.

Catholic ID advocates should be able to step beyond the foundation of design and place their trust in the real Creator and not some kind of non-specified intelligent agent. Why the big push to prove design in an already designed material world while ignoring the spiritual world?

Catholic ID advocates need to re-think the purpose of human life which began with two humans specifically designed by a personal God.

Catholic ID advocates should be sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.

I understand and sympathise with your concern but this is a Philosophy forum not intended specifically for evangelisation. I often refer to the teaching of Jesus in support of the reasons for my beliefs but we are all entitled to use our own judgment regarding the extent to which we relate specific topics to Catholic doctrines.

The issue of two humans specifically designed by a personal God should be discussed either under Sacred Scripture - or in another thread dedicated to that topic - because it is not relevant or of interest to those who do not accept Catholic teaching or even the existence of God. The primary purpose of this thread is to give reasons for belief in Design rather than a discussion of a specialized area regarding the Catholic doctrines about founders of humanity.

 

[inocente]

1. Many beings have hindsight, insight and foresight
2. Inanimate objects lack hindsight, insight and foresight
3. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can produce hindsight, insight and foresight
4. Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight

1. Many beings have a trunk, big ears and make trumpeting sounds
2. Inanimate objects lack a trunk, big ears and trumpeting sounds
3. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can produce a trunk, big ears and trumpeting sounds
4. Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have a trunk, big ears and make trumpeting sounds

 

[inocente]

1. Many beings have hindsight, insight and foresight
2. Inanimate objects lack hindsight, insight and foresight
3. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can produce hindsight, insight and foresight
4. Therefore inanimate objects do not explain the existence of beings who have hindsight, insight and foresight

1. Many stars have tremendous gravity
2. Animate objects lack tremendous gravity
3. There is no evidence that animate objects can produce tremendous gravity
4. Therefore animate objects do not explain the existence of stars

 

[grannymh]

I understand and sympathise with your concern but this is a Philosophy forum not intended specifically for evangelisation. I often refer to the teaching of Jesus in support of the reasons for my beliefs but we are all entitled to use our own judgment regarding the extent to which we relate specific topics to Catholic doctrines.

The issue of two humans specifically designed by a personal God should be discussed either under Sacred Scripture - or in another thread dedicated to that topic - because it is not relevant or of interest to those who do not accept Catholic teaching or even the existence of God. The primary purpose of this thread is to give reasons for belief in Design rather than a discussion of a specialized area regarding the Catholic doctrines about founders of humanity.

Jesus Christ was never limited by any forum.

And neither should Catholic ID advocates limit themselves to the material world.
The greatest evidence for purposeful design is human nature.

Naturally, everyone should use their own judgment as to how they view Catholicism.

The last line in post 1 is “What are your views?”
This is my view.
As a Catholic when it comes to evidence for design, I am going to go the distance.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is peerless.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus Christ was never limited by any forum.

And neither should Catholic ID advocates limit themselves to the material world.
The greatest evidence for purposeful design is human nature.

Naturally, everyone should use their own judgment as to how they view Catholicism.

The last line in post 1 is “What are your views?”
This is my view.
As a Catholic when it comes to evidence for design, I am going to go the distance.

Good for you, granny! We all have our own approach based on our speciality…

 

[grannymh]

The last line in post 1 is “What are your views?”
This is my view.
As a Catholic when it comes to evidence for design, I am going to go the distance.

Going the distance, in my humble opinion, means that Catholic ID advocates continue to seek answers from the design found in the natural world. If nature is designed, why stop with an intelligent agent? Obviously, this “agent” is some kind of force above the natural, .i.e., supernatural which means a transcendent, Pure Spirit.

There is nothing which says that Catholic ID advocates cannot evangelize. If there is such a prohibition, then Catholic ID advocates need to get some backbone.

Read about St. Paul running the race. Put oneself in the audience during Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (Acts, Chapter 17) Paul starts out with “I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God’.” When the rubber hits the road, the intelligent designer is an “unknown god”. Not only does Paul talk about God fixing the ordered seasons, another example of design, he says: “He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.” This leads to the good news of the Resurrection.

Sharing the good news of Jesus Christ can be as simple as a comment that evidence of material design is also evidence of a real Creator Who loves us as the pinnacle of His creation. One can go from the amazing human eyeball to the human herself who has “eyes” of a spiritual soul which can know, in a personal way, the Creator of both material eyes and spiritual souls.

And, depending on the conversation, one can add that God is not distant. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone Who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (John 3: 16-17)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If nature is designed, why stop with an intelligent agent? Obviously, this “agent” is some kind of force above the natural, .i.e., supernatural which means a transcendent, Pure Spirit.

There is nothing which says that Catholic ID advocates cannot evangelize. If there is such a prohibition, then Catholic ID advocates need to get some backbone.

Because they know that as soon as they admit that such a being is spiritual it ceases to be a scientific theory in any true sense of the word.

 

[grannymh]

Because they know that as soon as they admit that such a being is spiritual it ceases to be a scientific theory.

So what?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So what?

ID theory at most can only suggest the existence of a physical designer since the immaterial is not a measurable scientific concept.

 

[tonyrey]

Going the distance, in my humble opinion, means that Catholic ID advocates continue to seek answers from the design found in the natural world. If nature is designed, why stop with an intelligent agent? Obviously, this “agent” is some kind of force above the natural, .i.e., supernatural which means a transcendent, Pure Spirit.

There is nothing which says that Catholic ID advocates cannot evangelize. If there is such a prohibition, then Catholic ID advocates need to get some backbone.

Read about St. Paul running the race. Put oneself in the audience during Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (Acts, Chapter 17) Paul starts out with “I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God’.” When the rubber hits the road, the intelligent designer is an “unknown god”. Not only does Paul talk about God fixing the ordered seasons, another example of design, he says: “He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.” This leads to the good news of the Resurrection.

Sharing the good news of Jesus Christ can be as simple as a comment that evidence of material design is also evidence of a real Creator Who loves us as the pinnacle of His creation. One can go from the amazing human eyeball to the human herself who has “eyes” of a spiritual soul which can know, in a personal way, the Creator of both material eyes and spiritual souls.

And, depending on the conversation, one can add that God is not distant. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone Who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.” (John 3: 16-17)

I think you must have missed this post:

1. In reality every moment of existence is a miracle

1. God not only sustains but constantly cares for His creatures as individuals

1. It is impossible for the laws of nature to minimise suffering **on an individual basis **

1. Therefore God constantly minimises suffering by suspending the laws of nature

1. To deny that God does so is to reject the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father

1. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”

1. The belief that the Christian God is a remote, unmoved spectator of events is absurd

1. Therefore Christianity vindicates belief in Design based on philosophical and scientific facts

 

[grannymh]

ID theory at most can only suggest the existence of a physical designer since the immaterial is not a measurable scientific concept.

That kind of reasoning did not stop St. Paul (Acts, Chapter 17) And isn’t there another time when St. Paul referred to nature and then went on to preach the good news of Jesus Christ?

Somebody once said, off line, that the ID theory was getting the foot in the door. My point is that there is more to Catholicism than a squashed foot. However, I am not talking about a Staples/Barnes debate. I am talking about a casual conversation where one plants a seed and then shuts one’s mouth. It isn’t always necessary to use “evidence” as a way to bash a certain scientific theory. A good scientist would check the evidence a second time to see what else it inferred.

 

[tonyrey]

Sharing the good news of Jesus Christ can be as simple as a comment that evidence of material design is also evidence of a real Creator Who loves us as the pinnacle of His creation.

Before we reach that stage with the non-believer we have to establish other facts:

1. If an object serves no useful purpose it is unlikely to have been designed.

1. Even if an object serves no useful purpose it may be necessary for the existence of another object which does serve a useful purpose, e.g. the elements necessary for life.

1. The greater the number of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the co-ordination of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the stability of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. The greater the efficiency of factors required for serving a useful purpose the greater the probability of design.

1. Persons not only** assign** purposes they also **create **purposes.

1. So it is absurd to attribute all purposes to **physical **causes.

1. Biological organisms also behave purposefully.

1. Biological organisms are composed of inanimate objects.

1. Inanimate objects are essential for the purposeful activity of biological organisms.

1. So inanimate objects **serve **useful purposes.

1. The fact that inanimate objects **serve **useful purposes is overwhelming evidence that inanimate objects exist in order to serve those purposes.

1. Purposeful activity presupposes intelligent activity.

1. There is no evidence that inanimate objects can create intelligent activity

1. So it is reasonable to believe intelligent, purposeful activity is a fundamental reality.

 

[grannymh]

I think you must have missed this post:

1. In reality every moment of existence is a miracle
2. God not only sustains but constantly cares for His creatures as individuals
3. It is impossible for the laws of nature to minimise suffering **on an individual basis **
4. Therefore God constantly minimises suffering by suspending the laws of nature
5. To deny that God does so is to reject the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father
6. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”
7. The belief that the Christian God is a remote, unmoved spectator of events is absurd
8. Therefore Christianity vindicates belief in Design based on philosophical and scientific facts

Yes, I did see this interesting post.

When it got to point 3, “laws of nature” shifted my mind into science and I am apt to slip because the two founders of humanity can be approached both theologically and scientifically. As for point 8, I thought it was a given that people who have a Christian faith can believe in Design. I tend to sidestep some of the issues of Design because I am more interested in human design and in Catholics taking the basic concepts farther into the spiritual world.

RE: Post 1558.

I realize that all those steps are important.

My reply is that I cherry pick the steps to use with my defense of human nature.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Before we reach that stage with the non-believer we have to establish other facts:

And any science-informed non-believer will giggle and laugh at biological ID. Instead of getting non-believers interested in God, it is bound to turn them off. It is the perfect anti-apologetics.

Thank you for alienating non-believers even further from God. Good job!

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[buffalo]

And any science-informed non-believer will giggle and laugh at biological ID. Instead of getting non-believers interested in God, it is bound to turn them off. It is the perfect anti-apologetics.

Thank you for alienating non-believers even further from God. Good job!

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

What a sad post. Do not search for the truth for it will turn off seekers? Design deniers can do better than this argument.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Biological ID people appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything, and as the creator of natural causes which they treat as the Enemy rather than as beautifully singing the glory of God. Instead they believe that God is only active when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology which stands outside classical Catholic tradition, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

What a sad post. Do not search for the truth for it will turn off seekers? Design deniers can do better than this argument.

It is precisely your post that is the sad one.