Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Between 1925-1980 Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote seventy-three books. Perhaps the best of these was Peace of Soul (1949). In the chapter titled “Is God Hard to Find?” he remarks: “All that any animal wants is to have its immediate wants granted; this is never the case with man. Man is animated by an urge, and unquenchable desire to enlarge his vision and to know the ultimate meaning of things. If he were only an animal, he would never use symbols, for what are these but attempts to transcend the visible? No, he is a “metaphysical animal,” a being ever longing for answers to the last question. The natural tendency of the intellect toward truth and of the will toward love would alone signify that there is in man a natural desire for God…. As the stomach yearns for food and the eye for light and the ear for harmony, so the soul craves God…. Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one’s ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride. An atheist may be moral in the popular acceptance of the term, but he is not humble…. Yet ever since the days of Adam man has been hiding from God and saying, ‘God is hard to find.’ The truth is that in each heart, there is a secret garden which God made uniquely for Himself. That garden is locked like a safety-deposit vault: it has two keys. God has one key; hence the the soul cannot let in anyone else but God. The human heart has the other key; hence not even God can get in without man’s consent…. We pretend to look for our key, to have mislaid it, to have given up the search; but all the while it is in our hand, if we would only see it. The reason we are not happy as saints is because we do not wish to be saints.”

In my view the atheist has kept his key in his pocket, for the usual reasons.

It is ironic and significant that Hume used his power of reason to reach all his conclusions and then dismissed it as “this little agitation of the brain”!

As so often Shakespeare’s words (in Hamlet) are appropriate:

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

To which Horatio replies:

"“Heaven will direct it.”

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I agree that might be the case - but then by the same token you’d also have an argument against the existence of miracles then.

On the contrary. Miracles don’t occur in such abundance that we are forced to believe…

 

[tonyrey]

But…wouldn’t that be good?
Bzzzzp! Wrong (sorry). The Church normally requires two miracles for a saint to be canonized. The Church never says that any particular (deceased) person is not in heaven. No miracle is required for sainthood. One must only be in heaven to be a saint (or be one of those rare “saints on earth”).

I don’t think anyone spells out the precise meaning of every word they write. It should be abundantly clear that I am referring to canonised saints and that there are many saints who have not been canonised. The fact remains that the Church does** not** teach that miracles are extremely rare events…

Why indeed? I think it has to do with our sinful nature which we can’t help but have since Adam sinned (thanks a lot, Adam). And it has to do with free will. And suffering can teach us. And in Purgatory suffering actually purges imperfections from us so that we are perfect and can enter heaven. Suffering isn’t all bad. Jesus’ suffering was immense but it (and His Resurrection) opened the gates of heaven and that is *very *good. Martyrs can suffer a lot but then they zoom straight to heaven and that’s good, too. When we repent and atone we suffer but it ends in our sins being forgiven. When God permits my suffering He is giving me something I can sacrifice and a small bit of understanding of Jesus’ Passion and of others’ suffering so that perhaps I can help them. I remember having Morton’s neuromas in both feet. It causes a burning pain and when it gets bad people pull their shoes off and rub their toes. I had had one surgery which failed and I was in a psych unit of a hospital because I was trying to learn to get through panic attacks without medication (I failed). Some of the nurses were laughing at me and saying “Her feet? How stupid! Her *feet *hurt? So what’s the big deal - she complains about every little pain!” The surgeon told me that if a person with severe Morton’s neuroma (like mine) was crossing the street and a semi was barreling down on him at 100 mph and that burning pain started, the person would stop walking and pull his shoes off to rub his toes and get smashed by the truck. He knew how bad the pain was. The nurses didn’t know because none had experienced it and didn’t think I had any credibility (they also thought I was faking my panic attacks so that I would get attention).

You have my sympathy and prayers. Suffering is certainly due to sin but it is also an inevitable consequence of being sentient and sensitive…

 

[tonyrey]

When I read this post I began to think that there is no God at all.

I have pointed out that Hume’s view is unbalanced.

What does the way the universe is have to do with love, an emotion?

Love is not just an emotion but an expression of the entire personality without which no life has any meaning whatsoever.

We may see beauty in the universe but that may be just because we are part of it and our sensory systems are wired that way.

Beauty is the result of harmony and created by love.

Besides, there are some really ugly, disgusting things in this universe - like that Horla or whatever it was called on Star Trek (yeah I know it’s fictional). Not only did the humans find the Horla to be horrendously hideously ugly, the Horla thought the same of them (although she thought Spock was the best-looking of the group).

It is unrealistic to think there could be no negative aspects of life like ugliness.

How could the universe be far simpler and less complex than it is?

Nothing is necessary! The universe could consist of one atom.

What does moral truth have to do with a nova or a black hole?

Nothing - but it is infinitely more significant. When we are the victims of malice and injustice we realise nothing is more important than love…

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve come to the conclusion that we are entangled in a semantic morass. What does “direct” mean, anyway? You can mean it in one way and I in another. I understand that omniscience is not the same as causing whatever one knows will happen to happen. But God is also omnipotent and has direct control over the universe(s). Even if a physical system is immensely complex to us it certainly is not complex to an omniscient Being, especially the Being who created the whole physical system.

Direct action is intervention which necessitates **suspending **the laws of nature.

Hume, eh? OK, this is somewhat off topic but I have to share this. This is part of a conversation between Socrates and Hume, both after they have died (obviously):

Socrates: David Hume! Is that you?
Hume: I…I think so.
Socrates: You’re not certain?
Hume: I always was skeptical of that little word, “certain.”
Socrates: In fact, you were even skeptical of that other little word, “I.”
Hume: True. I denied the existence of a substantial self.
Socrates: Whom am I addressing, then? Or should I say "*Hume am I addressing? Is it at least a Humean being? A secular Humeanist, perhaps?
Hume: I suppose you are Socrates, and this is my Purgatory, and I am to be tortured with puns.
Socrates: How perceptive you are!

It goes on of course; in fact, it goes on for a whole book and if you don’t recognize Kreeft’s Socrates I’d be surprised. My knowledge of philosophy is very poor and even Kreeft had great difficulty, along with his fellow students, with their attempts to find out where Hume went wrong. I am struggling with the book and am still very close to the beginning (the book proper begins with the conversation posted above). So I’m going to ask that we stay away from Hume at this point. Kreeft says that Hume was logical and defined his terms and was clear. I disagree. He’s about as hazy as a philosopher can be, IMHO.
Well, I’m not going to wager that Pascal is wrong D) but I am thinking about a woman in labor, going through agonizing pain but knowing that her baby (who is being monitored and is healthy) will soon be born even though it might be another twenty hours of pain and she’s already knocked her husband unconscious because he said something unfunny as she was going “ooh, ooh, ooh” in her Lamaze breathing technique and she slugged him and she has begged for pain meds so her doctor winked at the nurses and proceeded to inject her with sterile water (ha ha) and she is not dilating and she is hurting so much but she wants that baby and loves that baby but how much pain can one person take and why aren’t they doing a C-section and here comes another contraction and nobody is within hitting range anymore…and she screams. Does Jesus identify with her in her pain? I think He does. Does He have compassion for her? Oh yes! Does He love her? He gave His life for her so I would say “yes.” Is He in agony with her? This is where I get stuck. I don’t know. If He *loves *her enough to give His own life for her then He really does love her but he also has known from the beginning of time everything that is going to happen to her and to her children and grandchildren and great-great-great-great grandchildren. He knows what agony is as He went through much more agony than the rest of all the people who have ever existed have gone through and that was just during His Agony in the Garden. Her agony is so little compared to His but then I suppose it helped Jesus to receive strength from his Father. If I loved that woman in labor I would want to take her pain for her so I guess Jesus may be in agony. I just don’t know at this point.

Is having compassion for someone the same as being in agony? I was looking at it from a physical perspective but compassion is more of an emotion. So are you saying that Jesus is in agony because He has compassion for us? Would you please explain this a bit more and please, leave Hume out until I am able to understand him a bit better (thanks)?

I’m also wondering about a woman in painful labor who is going to die during that labor and who has a mortal sin on her soul. Jesus, being omniscient, knows and has always known that she would not choose God and she will be spending eternity in hell. If He is in agony with her while she is suffering in labor wouldn’t He also be in agony with her when she is in hell? So wouldn’t Jesus always be in agony? If He really, really loves this woman wouldn’t He suffer with her as she is damned and as she suffers in hell?

*Kreeft, Peter, *Socrates Meets Hume,*2010,Ignatius Press,San Francisco,p.15

Jesus is only in agony when He knows** the innocent** are suffering through no fault of their own - as He did on the Cross. He also knows that the suffering of those who are in hell is self-inflicted because they choose to be independent, reject His love, be like gods who owe allegiance to no one and have absolute power in their own kingdom.

 

[inocente]

Aquinas pointed out:

“When diverse things are coordinated the scheme depends on their directed unification, as the order of battle of a whole army hangs on the plan of the commander-in-chief. The arrangement of diverse things cannot be dictated their own private and divergent natures; of themselves they are diverse and exhibit no tendency to make a pattern. It follows that the order of many among themselves either a matter of chance or it must be resolved into one first planner who has a purpose in mind. What comes about always or in the great majority of cases is not the result of accident. Therefore the whole of this world has but one planner or governor.”

Not one of his better arguments imho. Surely Thomas must have seen starlings forming those magnificent mass-formation swirls, or even the crowd in a piazza on market day forming patterns, without any planner or governor. Appearances can deceive.

The flaw in Hume’s view of the universe is his assumption that there is a preponderance of evil in nature - which is disproved by the fact that the vast majority of living beings are not diseased or deformed. There is conflict but there is also co-operation in nature. If harmony were not fundamental life would have become extinct rather than have survived for billions of years!

From your quotes he also makes the big assumption that good and evil are not just human concepts.

 

[inocente]

I agree that both sides do a lot of rationalizing – both sides, also atheists, as you say. In that context, I have found that trying to discuss cosmological fine-tuning with atheists is usually (not always) just as hopeless and futile as trying to discuss evolution with creationists. Many atheists do not even allow for discussing the philosophical implications of cosmological fine-tuning, but stop much earlier: they deny that it is real at all – contra the leading atheist and agnostic cosmologists that take cosmological fine-tuning very seriously as an issue that needs to be addressed. It shows that many atheists are just as selective about accepting findings of science that do not support their wold view as are many theists – despite their self-professed ‘rationality’, ‘love for science’ and alleged ‘scientific world view’.

You’ll probably find my take on fine-tuning a bit atheistic then. To me, both the atheist universe-from-nothing and the theist fine-tuning are turtles all the way down, they just move the problem around.

Fine-tuning uses current physics to argue that there must be a designer, but in physics theories come in the form of math not vague terms like “designer”. Fine-tuning depends on our current state of knowledge, or rather our current ignorance. In your article you write “remarkably, the attractive nuclear force actually balances the electrical repulsion of the protons”, but to me that means there must be an undiscovered symmetry, and once it’s found we’ll say “oh yeah, that was bound to happen”. There’s so much we don’t yet know - we can’t even get the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics to talk to each other.

A couple of hundred years ago, when no one knew how unimaginably big the universe is, when it was thought that the universe and the species were created in their current state, the design argument was top dog. It was simple and made obvious good sense. That original argument got beaten up by new knowledge and now in its guise of fine-tuning is a lot more complicated, and a lot less all embracing and obvious.

You’re the scientist, you know the problem of diminishing returns: at first an experiment produces a marked effect, but each time procedures are tightened to eliminate noise the effect diminishes, when if it were real it would have been amplified. Imho the same thing has happened to the design argument, and it’s due for a well-earned retirement in the round receptacle.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You’ll probably find my take on fine-tuning a bit atheistic then. To me, both the atheist universe-from-nothing and the theist fine-tuning are turtles all the way down, they just move the problem around.

Fine-tuning uses current physics to argue that there must be a designer, but in physics theories come in the form of math not vague terms like “designer”. Fine-tuning depends on our current state of knowledge, or rather our current ignorance. In your article you write “remarkably, the attractive nuclear force actually balances the electrical repulsion of the protons”, but to me that means there must be an undiscovered symmetry, and once it’s found we’ll say “oh yeah, that was bound to happen”. There’s so much we don’t yet know - we can’t even get the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics to talk to each other.

A couple of hundred years ago, when no one knew how unimaginably big the universe is, when it was thought that the universe and the species were created in their current state, the design argument was top dog. It was simple and made obvious good sense. That original argument got beaten up by new knowledge and now in its guise of fine-tuning is a lot more complicated, and a lot less all embracing and obvious.

You’re the scientist, you know the problem of diminishing returns: at first an experiment produces a marked effect, but each time procedures are tightened to eliminate noise the effect diminishes, when if it were real it would have been amplified. Imho the same thing has happened to the design argument, and it’s due for a well-earned retirement in the round receptacle.

I am not certain if you read my article in its entirety: I answer that objection. And no, don’t search for that answer to ‘save some time’: You will not understand my arguments in full if you do not read the article in its entirety, and carefully.

Again, as I said above:

In my article I lay out cosmological fine-tuning in detail, and I answer all seemingly good objections against the design argument flowing forth from it, and also the most common bad ones. I am not interested in discussing objections here which I have already answered exhaustively and in detail in my article.

 

[tonyrey]

Not one of his better arguments imho. Surely Thomas must have seen starlings forming those magnificent mass-formation swirls, or even the crowd in a piazza on market day forming patterns, without any planner or governor. Appearances can deceive.

You have** not** refuted his argument.

From your quotes he also makes the big assumption that good and evil are not just human concepts.

He explains why elsewhere in the Summa. One does not usually attempt to prove everything at once…

 

[inocente]

You have** not** refuted his argument.

Yes I did. Another example is that molecules of diverse elements form long chain molecules all on their own. There are examples all over the shop.

He explains why elsewhere in the Summa. One does not usually attempt to prove everything at once…

Both you and my reply were referring to Hume not Thomas.

 

[inocente]

I am not certain if you read my article in its entirety: I answer that objection. And no, don’t search for that answer to ‘save some time’: You will not understand my arguments in full if you do not read the article in its entirety, and carefully.

Your article isn’t at all difficult for me to understand, you’d have to get way, way, way more technical before I’d have any trouble. And I did read it, actually reread it as you linked it some time back on another thread.

Perhaps you didn’t read my post in its entirely as I gave a number of objections, not just one, and I don’t think you answer any of them in your article: that fine-tuning arguments shift the problem, are too vague to be scientific, rely on gaps in knowledge (you do refer to god-of-the-gaps, but not in that context), or that the design argument has been badly battered by what has been learned in the last two hundred years, or that diminishing returns imply a basic flaw.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your article isn’t at all difficult for me to understand, you’d have to get way, way, way more technical before I’d have any trouble. And I did read it, actually reread it as you linked it some time back on another thread.

Perhaps you didn’t read my post in its entirely as I gave a number of objections, not just one, and I don’t think you answer any of them in your article: that fine-tuning arguments shift the problem, are too vague to be scientific, rely on gaps in knowledge (you do refer to god-of-the-gaps, but not in that context), or that the design argument has been badly battered by what has been learned in the last two hundred years, or that diminishing returns imply a basic flaw.

" that fine-tuning arguments shift the problem, are too vague to be scientific"

While fine-tuning is a scientific finding, the design argument from fine-tuning is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one. See the heading of my article.

“rely on gaps in knowledge (you do refer to god-of-the-gaps, but not in that context)”

I have answered that objection – in that context. Read again.

“or that the design argument has been badly battered by what has been learned in the last two hundred years,”

Evolution is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument, and the evolutionary argument from Cosmological Natural Selection does not work, see my article. So yes, I do answer also this argument in my article, by implication.

“or that diminishing returns imply a basic flaw.”

Irrelevant to the design argument, since even if fine-tuning turned out to be just the way it “has to be”, this would not solve the problem, see my article.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you’re going to fight science, you need science. Where is your science? You have not in anyway proved how evolution is false. There is an incredible amount of proof of evolution. You have not stated how its all wrong or false. You have not presented any scientific evidence against it. I’m waiting to see some. Saying “God did it” is not science.

Show me literal scientific studies against evolution.

Evolution is a banned topic. Please do not discuss it. Also, science cannot “prove” that anything is true or false. There is absolutely no scientific proof of anything - there are hypotheses and theories, based on scientific studies with the possibility of chance being responsible for any obtained results.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier -

You mentioned weak faith, a crisis of faith.

This is not on topic, but I’ll make a quick recommendation and then go away.

I just finished reading the best book I ever read. The title is deceivingly simple “The Gift of Faith” by Fr. Tadeusz Dajczer. It’s about 200 pages long. After reading this book, I must say that my eyes were opened (at least partly) and I’m not as blind as I was before. The parables of Jesus make more sense. Suffering makes more sense. LOTH makes more sense, the Mass makes more sense. Even Mary’s role (past and current) makes more sense. Everything makes more sense. Perhaps you would benefit from reading this book. And it has nothing of ID or evolution or deep philosophy in it. It’s easy to read but also profound.

It seems that my response to every statement on every page is "Yup, that’s obviously true. And the implications are at the same time frightening and beautiful. And loving.

The book is not expensive, I think I got it for about $11 on Amazon.

Thank you. It’s a real problem for me and I appreciate your help. I’ll read the book. I hate going from what feels like such a strong belief in and love for God to a lack of faith.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t think anyone spells out the precise meaning of every word they write. It should be abundantly clear that I am referring to canonised saints and that there are many saints who have not been canonised. The fact remains that the Church does** not** teach that miracles are extremely rare events…

I’m sorry; I was in a strange mood last night, probably because of another thread I’m posting in. My pain level has dropped dramatically and I think that feeling better physically is making me a bit uh, loopy. I also have a very dry sense of humor. I was trying to be a bit funny (really!) and I failed miserably. In my defense, however, I have had posts dissected and slaughtered and even had someone write a whole post on a spelling error I had in my signature and that poster stated that *he *was very careful about his signature (which was one sentence with no changes in fonts, colors, or sizes and no picture) because he knew how important it is because it shows up in every post. It was a (failed) attempt to humiliate me.

It wasn’t clear to me that you meant canonized saints. If it had been clear to me I wouldn’t have responded with that game show scenario.

So, I’m sorry. But I believe I have already posted that the “two miracles” procedure is not always followed. The Pope does not have to follow this procedure. I did state that I did not know if this is Church teaching but received no responses to my post. It is my understanding that the Pope has the authority to bypass normal procedure. It is my understanding that the Pope can declare any deceased person a canonized saint.

If you want to engage in a discussion with me, you’ll have to understand that I never mean any offense (unless someone viciously attacks the Church and/or God), wish that we were communicating in person instead of using computers which make our posts sterile and many times misunderstood, and that I like you. If I try to use sound effects or if I make a remark about canonized saints it’s not done in an attempt to be sarcastic and insulting. That’s what’s wrong with computers - my remarks can be taken in many different ways.

You have my sympathy and prayers. Suffering is certainly due to sin but it is also an inevitable consequence of being sentient and sensitive…

Thank you for your prayers - I think we can all use them. But I am confused about how sentience can cause suffering.

This world is broken - every last bit of it, with the exception of the few saints on earth walking around and the presence of God. The sky, the dirt, the insects, the rocks, the birds, and
the people are tainted. It was tainted when Adam sinned and we continue to taint it. If Adam had not sinned and if nobody else had, we would still be in the Garden of Eden.

Of course God knew all this would happen when He created the universe(s).

You know, the whole concept of suffering seems (to me) to be far removed from “Evidence for Design.” It would make a good thread and probably has already been discussed many times.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have pointed out that Hume’s view is unbalanced.

Tony, I’m not arguing with you! I’m extremely confused now - I didn’t mean to insult you or to complain. All I did was write what I was feeling when I read the post. What I felt is not your fault. As for Hume, I’ve posted about Kreeft’s problems with understanding him. I’d like to say that Kreeft pointed out Hume’s mistake in the book I referenced. If he did I haven’t found it. All I know is that Kreeft has said that Hume was a very important philosopher who should be respected and that he spent a spring break with other philosophy students -]in Palm Springs, girl watching and soaking up sun/-] trying and failing to understand where Hume went wrong.

Love is not just an emotion but an expression of the entire personality without which no life has any meaning whatsoever.

I find the English word “love” to be absolutely inadequate. How could one word express all the meanings of “love” and how do we know which one to choose? I rarely know what a person means when the word “love” is used - especially when using a computer.

Beauty is the result of harmony and created by love.
It is unrealistic to think there could be no negative aspects of life like ugliness.

I like that you are defining your terms. That helps me. Thank you. Ugliness is so subjective. I doubt that two people in the world would agree on what is ugly.

Nothing is necessary! The universe could consist of one atom.

It certainly could but then where would we be? Or the stars or the planets or the animals, waterfalls, grass, oceans, and on and on and on…

Nothing - but it is infinitely more significant. When we are the victims of malice and injustice we realise nothing is more important than love…

Oh how I wish it were that simple! I have been the victim of malice and injustice and my primary thought is revenge (of course I am a sinner).
OK, I am beginning to understand a bit better. Please let me reflect on this a bit.

 

[grannymh]

If you’re going to fight science, you need science. Where is your science? You have not in anyway proved how evolution is false. There is an incredible amount of proof of evolution. You have not stated how its all wrong or false. You have not presented any scientific evidence against it. I’m waiting to see some. Saying “God did it” is not science.

Show me literal scientific studies against evolution.

I am not an advocate of ID and I am not a creationist.

I know enough about published research to know that the tired question “Show me literal scientific studies against evolution?” is a non-professional way of dealing with actual published research.

The questions should be – Does the evidence warrant the conclusion? and Does the evidence warrant the interpretations?. Or, the questions should be --Can the conclusion be inferred by the evidence? and Can the interpretations be inferred by the evidence? Obviously, one has to understand *both *the evidence and the methods before one can ask those questions.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry; I was in a strange mood last night, probably because of another thread I’m posting in. My pain level has dropped dramatically and I think that feeling better physically is making me a bit uh, loopy. I also have a very dry sense of humor. I was trying to be a bit funny (really!) and I failed miserably. In my defense, however, I have had posts dissected and slaughtered and even had someone write a whole post on a spelling error I had in my signature and that poster stated that *he *was very careful about his signature (which was one sentence with no changes in fonts, colors, or sizes and no picture) because he knew how important it is because it shows up in every post. It was a (failed) attempt to humiliate me.

I didn’t mean to criticise you! I was just pointing out inconsistency in Hume’s reasoning. On the one hand he says:

“The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature”

and the other:

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker… And thus all the sciences almost lead us insensibly to acknowledge a first intelligent Author…” !

If you want to engage in a discussion with me, you’ll have to understand that I never mean any offense (unless someone viciously attacks the Church and/or God), wish that we were communicating in person instead of using computers which make our posts sterile and many times misunderstood, and that I like you. If I try to use sound effects or if I make a remark about canonized saints it’s not done in an attempt to be sarcastic and insulting. That’s what’s wrong with computers - my remarks can be taken in many different ways.

I’m sure I understand you well enough by now to know you mean no offence.

Thank you for your prayers - I think we can all use them. But I am confused about how sentience can cause suffering.

It’s impossible to confine sentience to feelings of pleasure. Even if there were only degrees of pleasure the contrast between immense pleasure and slight pleasure would be painful and frustrating! Pain is also a defence mechanism which protects the body.

This world is broken - every last bit of it, with the exception of the few saints on earth walking around and the presence of God. The sky, the dirt, the insects, the rocks, the birds, and the people are tainted. It was tainted when Adam sinned and we continue to taint it. If Adam had not sinned and if nobody else had, we would still be in the Garden of Eden.

Of course God knew all this would happen when He created the universe(s).

He also knows life is so immensely precious it is worth creating!

You know, the whole concept of suffering seems (to me) to be far removed from “Evidence for Design.” It would make a good thread and probably has already been discussed many times.

I have toyed with the idea several times but it’s very difficult to discuss Design without answering the objections to it. The pros and cons are so interwoven I wouldn’t know where to draw the line…

 

[tonyrey]

I have pointed out that Hume’s view is unbalanced

I’m pleased to say I specialised in that topic!

I find the English word “love” to be absolutely inadequate. How could one word express all the meanings of “love” and how do we know which one to choose? I rarely know what a person means when the word “love” is used - especially when using a computer.

I mean Christian love.

Beauty is the result of harmony and created by love.
It is unrealistic to think there could be no negative aspects of life like ugliness.

I like that you are defining your terms. That helps me. Thank you. Ugliness is so subjective. I doubt that two people in the world would agree on what is ugly.

How about a horribly deformed person or animal?

Nothing is necessary! The universe could consist of one atom.

It certainly could but then where would we be? Or the stars or the planets or the animals, waterfalls, grass, oceans, and on and on and on…

Nowhere! That’s my point. King Lear said:

“O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.”

There is no obvious reason why anything should - or need - exist. That is why everything needs(!) an explanation - unless we are to abandon the search for meaning and purpose (which is the fatal flaw in the rejection of Ultimate Reality).

Nothing - but it is infinitely more significant. When we are the victims of malice and injustice we realise nothing is more important than love…

Oh how I wish it were that simple! I have been the victim of malice and injustice and my primary thought is revenge (of course I am a sinner).

It’s a natural reaction but Jesus showed us it’s possible to be supernatural…

OK, I am beginning to understand a bit better. Please let me reflect on this a bit.

There’s no need to hurry!

 

[PumpkinSeed]

I am not an advocate of ID and I am not a creationist.

I know enough about published research to know that the tired question “Show me literal scientific studies against evolution?” is a non-professional way of dealing with actual published research.

The questions should be – Does the evidence warrant the conclusion? and Does the evidence warrant the interpretations?. Or, the questions should be --Can the conclusion be inferred by the evidence? and Can the interpretations be inferred by the evidence? Obviously, one has to understand *both *the evidence and the methods before one can ask those questions.

That has already been asked, so I went right to it. I want to see these studies.