Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
reggieM said:
If the method originated from an unintelligent, irrational source – then whatever conclusions its method reaches are equally irrational and lacking knowledge.

The pursuit of truth requires freedom – and a distinction between truth and falsehood. Blind natural laws cannot provide that distinction since what is false does not truly exist – and nature can only act upon and “see” that which exists.
Click to expand...
👍 The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth! There are countless ways of being mistaken but only one that corresponds to reality…
 
reggieM said:
If nature is affected only by natural laws – as you’ve continually claimed – and not by God’s continual, active presence within nature, then no disasters would be prevented at all.

That’s a definitive answer. According to this view, science tells us that God has not prevented any disasters. Any disaster that is the predictable result of natural laws, necessarily must have happened according to the same consistent, knowable natural laws.

That is scientific determinism – that natural laws produce all of the outcomes in human life and the universe.
Click to expand...
With the inexorable consequence that **all **thoughts and decisions have natural causes and no one is responsible for his or her decisions or conclusions…

It is an outright rejection of:
  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.
Click to expand...
 
reggieM said:
If nature is affected only by natural laws – as you’ve continually claimed – and not by God’s continual, active presence within nature, then no disasters would be prevented at all.
Click to expand...
When did i claim that God is not continually sustaining natural laws in reality?
That’s a definitive answer. According to this view, science tells us that God has not prevented any disasters. Any disaster that is the predictable result of natural laws, necessarily must have happened according to the same consistent, knowable natural laws.
Click to expand...
That is scientific determinism – that natural laws produce all of the outcomes in human life and the universe.
Click to expand...
Science has nothing to say on whether or not God has stopped any disasters. Given the scientific method, any supposed preventions of disasters cannot be known or shown to be the work of an unmeasurable deity. It is simply the case that there is no “scientific evidence” that God has stopped any disasters; and there is scientific evidence that strongly suggests that disasters happen according to natural laws and not because of a deity.

If i wanted evidence of a deity, i would not go to the sciences to get it.
 
tonyrey said:
Their views are identical - apart from the reduction of God to a Sustainer rather than a loving Father…
Click to expand...
True!

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this reduction of God to the law maker and sustainer does enormous damage to the New Testament itself – it’s a direct contradiction:

“Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

But not what is scientifically impossible!! 😉
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
… there is scientific evidence that strongly suggests that disasters happen according to natural laws and not because of a deity.
Click to expand...
An excellent bit of Intelligent Design reasoning here (backwards and in reverse). 👍

The scientific evidence, according to your view, shows that it was “not because of a deity”.

So, you’ve ruled out evidence for God’s design on the basis of scientific findings.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Sustaining human beings in reality is what a loving Father does.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the claim was that He is a sustainer only of laws – not of individuals.

So, it’s the machine-god of Deism. There are laws and then they work absolutely – everything in nature is the result of fixed natural laws, as Darwin claimed.

Intelligence, reason, morality, conscience, free will – all are determined by laws.
 
Catholic Encyclopedia –
Naturalism:

(III) Finally, if the existence of a transcendent First Cause, or personal God, is admitted as the only satisfactory explanation of the world, Naturalism claims that the laws governing the activity and development of irrational and of rational beings are never interfered with. It denies the possibility, or at least the fact, of any transitory intervention of God in nature, and of any revelation and permanent supernatural order for man.
 
reggieM said:
So, it’s the machine-god of Deism. There are laws and then they work absolutely – everything in nature is the result of fixed natural laws, as Darwin claimed.

Intelligence, reason, morality, conscience, free will – all are determined by laws.
Click to expand...
Why are you so blatantly dishonest? You know full well that MoM and myself believe in free-will, which obviously is not governed by natural laws. Why are you flat-out lying, just to ‘score a point’?
 
reggieM said:
Catholic Encyclopedia –
Naturalism:

(III) Finally, if the existence of a transcendent First Cause, or personal God, is admitted as the only satisfactory explanation of the world, Naturalism claims that the laws governing the activity and development of irrational and of rational beings are never interfered with. It denies the possibility, or at least the fact, of any transitory intervention of God in nature, and of any revelation and permanent supernatural order for man.
Click to expand...
Why are you so blatantly dishonest? You know full well that MoM and myself believe in miracles, which obviously are not governed by natural laws, and that God directly guides the soul and works through the Church. You know full well that we do not believe in naturalism. Why are you flat-out lying, just to ‘score a point’?

I do not understand this behaviour coming from a Christian.
 
Al_Moritz said:
You know full well …
Click to expand...
Al, I was communicating with MoM, not with you. I didn’t comment on your views which are not the same as MoM’s.

For example, you accept that the mathematical fine tuning of the universe is not the product of natural laws – and is therefore evidence of design.

I don’t believe that MoM accepts that.

So, please don’t assume that I’m talking about you when I make general comments.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Why are you so blatantly dishonest? You know full well that MoM and myself believe in miracles, which obviously are not governed by natural laws, and that God directly guides the soul and works through the Church. You know full well that we do not believe in naturalism. Why are you flat-out lying, just to ‘score a point’?

I do not understand this behaviour coming from a Christian.
Click to expand...
The issue not whether miracles occur but the **frequency **of their occurrence… 🤷
 
Al_Moritz said:
I know full well that MoM and myself believe in miracles,
Click to expand...
It seems that you’re interpreting my questions probing someone else’s views as a personal attack against yourself. It’s not meant that way. I think MoM can speak for himself. If his views are not clearly formulated, I’m hoping to help refine them.

I don’t think some of your views are consistent, but I’m pretty sure that you don’t want understand my point of view, so I haven’t pursued that with you.

If you’re open to my views on this, and can discuss them without personal insults and accusations against me, then I’d enjoy the conversation.

But it doesn’t seem like you want to go down that path so I’ve just left you out of it.
 
reggieM said:
It seems that you’re interpreting my questions probing someone else’s views as a personal attack against yourself.
Click to expand...
  1. Yes, but you know MoMs views also, so you are just being blatantly dishonest.
  2. The way you formulate things it is a simple black-and-white affair – when you accept that God works through nature and natural laws then you are a naturalist right away. But you pretend that the options as you present them are the only ones. This is being blatantly dishonest – also with respect to my views.
 
reggieM said:
It seems that you’re interpreting my questions probing someone else’s views as a personal attack against yourself. It’s not meant that way. I think MoM can speak for himself. If his views are not clearly formulated, I’m hoping to help refine them.

I don’t think some of your views are consistent, but I’m pretty sure that you don’t want understand my point of view, so I haven’t pursued that with you.

If you’re open to my views on this, and can discuss them without personal insults and accusations against me, then I’d enjoy the conversation.

But it doesn’t seem like you want to go down that path so I’ve just left you out of it.
Click to expand...
👍 My question about the frequency of divine intervention has been persistently evaded…🤷
 
reggieM said:
Al, I was communicating with MoM, not with you. I didn’t comment on your views which are not the same as MoM’s.

For example, you accept that the mathematical fine tuning of the universe is not the product of natural laws – and is therefore evidence of design.

I don’t believe that MoM accepts that.

So, please don’t assume that I’m talking about you when I make general comments.
Click to expand...
:confused:

You are taking what i am saying out of context. Just because i don’t believe that there is scientific evidence of God (this is to say a valid scientific theory of God), does not mean that i don’t believe that the scientific data points to the existence of “fine tunning”. There are scientists, that have no emotional or philosophical investment in the idea of God, who would also agree that there is fine tuning in the physical values of the universe. However, what i don’t believe just like those scientists, is that you can make an inference to God based on fine tunning using the scientific method alone. I can however make a philosophical inference to a intelligent being that created the laws of nature so as to hold certain values which are necessary for the existence of our kind of Universe, including biological development. The strength of such an argument being that those values did not evolve but where a given fact at the time of the big-bang.
 
Al_Moritz said:
  1. Yes, but you know MoMs views also, so you are just being blatantly dishonest.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you’re taking it personally and that you’ve decided to attack me.

No, I don’t know your views – that’s why I’m probing them.

In fact, I’ve seen contradictions and inconsistencies in your views – and you’ve even changed your opinion in the course of the discussion (which is a good thing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top