Evidence for Design?

[inocente]

What does Newton have to do with St. Thomas observing gravity?

I’ve no idea but poster “grannymh” seems to think they’re connected . Here’s the history, perhaps you can help her.

I wanted to know what Thomas means by “We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result” (post #2402), and so as an example of a natural body I asked how a rock rolling down hill is acting "to obtain the best result”.

Poster "grannymh” kindly replied saying “The rock rolls down the hill because of the outside force of gravity and strong winds which can set it in motion” (#2416), so it was grannymh who brought Newton’s concept of the force of gravity into the conversation. I’ve no idea why she did, since for Aristotle (and so Thomas), bodies don’t move due to Newtonian forces but rather their “natural place” is the element called earth, at the center of the universe (the other elements being water, air, fire and the heavenly aether).

So I replied to grannymh saying I wanted to know what Thomas meant according to his physics rather than us imposing our later Newtonian or Einsteinian physics on him, since if we want to honor authors we should try to understand their values rather than imposing our own.

Now I’ve been friends with grannymh for a long time, and am pretty sure she would usually wholeheartedly agree, but as her reply was a bit ambiguous I charitably accused not just her but her entire nation of being culturally colorblind to see what she’d make of it (and for the benefit of LittleSoldier, this observation cannot be repeated often enough ).

Being “kind of culturally colorblind” …I bet I am in the minority of people who know the color of the top light in a traffic signal.

In Southern Italy green means you must give a five second blast on your horn at the car in front or you are a loser with no life to go to, while in Southern Spain it means “listen patiently to the radio until the guy in front has finished talking to his friend on the sidewalk, and next time he’ll do the same for you”.

 

[grannymh]

1. “around” is the key word - as if a spatial attribute settles the matter!
2. We **know **full well that matter does not think whereas we have the not insignificant power to think about matter.
3. “emergent property” is merely a cloak for ignorance. No one has ever reduced thoughts to electrical impulses.
4. If the mind is disturbed bodily functions are also disturbed. Correlation does not entail unidirectional causation.
5. Intangible thoughts are detected by the person is who thinking without the need for a scientific device.
6. The use of “mechanism” reveals the unsubstantiated assumption that every event has a mechanistic explanation - which neatly disposes of rationality and responsibility, thereby confirming the facts in my last post:
7. A “rational reason” for rejecting matter is that it takes reason to determine what is unreasonable!
8. The theory that reason consists of irrational events is self-destructive.
9. Since the demise of logical positivism materialism is exposed as an inadequate hypothesis.
10. How can the verification principle be explained scientifically?
11. The power of reason and self-control presuppose supernatural agency.
12. To derive thoughts from unthinking molecules is the height of absurdity.
13. The more absurd a hypothesis is - like solipsism - the easier it is to maintain.
14. What is the precise “mechanism” by which everything is **known **to have a mechanistic explanation?

The emergence theory is a biological attempt to account for the “experience” of intelligence and free will. This is also considered an epiphenomenon. Despite all the photos of “wired” heads, the fact remains that the physical brain needs to be stimulated to act. (The exceptions are medical, emotional or physical impediments, etc.)

The physical brain, itself, is an amazing designed piece of material equipment.

 

[inocente]

We are not! First of all, we are a “salad bowl” of different cultures. I would bet that we have more cultures in this one country than any other country in the world (and I’m not even mentioning agar and other cultures of that type).

I should also point out that the term “Americans” can be used to describe all inhabitants of North, Central, and South America. That is a lot of cultures!

Yes, but yankee imperialists have stolen the word, and let’s face it many of them think Canada is in Europe anyway.

I’m half joking but half serious. I’ve not been to the US for some time, but it used to be that there was nine minutes of local news, 45 seconds national news, and 15 seconds international news. Except in NY, where there was ten minutes local news and that was your lot. But if I’m out of date and Hollywood has now made sensitive portrayals of economic migrants (aka illegal aliens), and ordinary life on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul, without demonizing anyone, I’ll willingly eat my hat.

But I can see your point - you must also be a fan of Jon Stewart - and Americano tourists are always welcome here .

*I should also point out that the poster who is being derided in your post is, arguably (though weakly), *historically **or *scientifically *colorblind, not *culturally *colorblind. And I would even argue with that as she has stated that she has attempted to look through St. Thomas’ eyes, not Newton’s eyes and it isn’t up to you to decide that she can’t attempt to do so.

Yankee imperialists see post #2478

 

[inocente]

It baffles me as to why you are so sure it is far more cogent to believe “your mind arises from your brain”. Perhaps you also agree with Hume that thought is “a little agitation of the brain” which has no significance in the scheme of things. Persons are a much later unintended accretion, of course…

Because no one’s ever given a good reason on why it’s important for Christians to fight tooth and nail against what is blindingly obvious from common sense and all that we know (and technically, I should have said nervous system rather than brain).

I know little of Hume or the school of Philosophical Bafflement, but am eager to learn about the advantages of being baffled and how bafflement can be accomplished, provided it doesn’t deny the Tao of Pooh:

While Eeyore frets …
… and Piglet hesitates
… and Rabbit calculates
… and Owl pontificates
…Pooh just is.

 

[wanstronian]

1. “around” is the key word - as if a spatial attribute settles the matter!

Red herring. Is targeting semantics the best you can do?

1. We **know **full well that matter does not think whereas we have the not insignificant power to think about matter.

Strike#1! This is your standard argument, and it is the Argument from Ignorance. It’s also wrong - we are made from matter, and we have the ability to think. You’re equivocating. Matter, in certain configurations, can think. We’re proof of that. In the same way that a brick can’t provide shelter… but a collection of bricks, in a certain configuration, can.

1. “emergent property” is merely a cloak for ignorance. No one has ever reduced thoughts to electrical impulses.

Indeed - nobody claims to understand exactly how it works. However, what evidence there is suggests that it does work, somehow. It’s only superstitious wingnuts who have to introduce an unnecessary supernatural element to cover for their fear of not knowing. Rational people accept that not knowing something is okay. If it wasn’t for such honesty, science wouldn’t exist and we’d all still live in mud huts dying in our mid-thirties.

1. If the mind is disturbed bodily functions are also disturbed. Correlation does not entail unidirectional causation.

As the “mind” is merely an abstraction of the brain, and the brain controls most bodily fuctions, then it is to be expected that changes in brain structure or chemistry can cause change to bodily functions. Moreover, changes to body chemistry can affect both brain and body. No mystery there. It’s just biology.

1. Intangible thoughts are detected by the person is who thinking without the need for a scientific device.

Irrelevant to the comment I posted, which is that no extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected. If you can give me an example of a sign of intelligence which has incontrovertibly been traced to a non-corporeal source I’ll retract my statement.

1. The use of “mechanism” reveals the unsubstantiated assumption that every event has a mechanistic explanation - which neatly disposes of rationality and responsibility, thereby confirming the facts in my last post:

Actually what it reveals is your incapacity to understand a basic comment.

I don’t know if you’re equivocating on purpose - I suspect so given your long history of setting up Straw Men. But “mechanism” does not ineluctably mean “mechanistic.” Read the dictionary. And in the meantime allow me to rephrase for the benefit of your limited capacity to comprehend:

Nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible means, method, mechanism, process or paradigm by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.

1. A “rational reason” for rejecting matter is that it takes reason to determine what is unreasonable!

Non-sequitur. I don’t know what you think this proves.

1. The theory that reason consists of irrational events is self-destructive.

Strike#2! Argument from Ignorance again. I and other posters have addressed it dozens of times, and you still cling to it like a shipwreck victim. I believe you understand why your stance is fallacious, but to do the decent thing would mean opening your beliefs up to self-scrutiny, and we all know where that would lead!

1. Since the demise of logical positivism materialism is exposed as an inadequate hypothesis.

I disagree. And even if your assertion were true, materialism continues to work, consistently and predictably, and has been the most successful “hypothesis” for accurately describing our universe, for enhancing quality of life, for providing robust and objective answers to many of “life’s mysteries” (many of which were previously answered by arbitrarily inserting one or more gods into the equation).

How galling it must be that the thing you so despise is so wonderfully successful, and has benefited you personally so much!

1. How can the verification principle be explained scientifically?

Sorry, I don’t see how this is relevant. Can you explain the purpose of the question?

1. The power of reason and self-control presuppose supernatural agency.

No. You presuppose those things. Your opinion does not constitute fact. I’d really like to see you provide some sort of justification for your statement. But I know you can’t.

1. To derive thoughts from unthinking molecules is the height of absurdity.

Strike#3! Your third appeal to Ignorance.

1. The more absurd a hypothesis is - like solipsism - the easier it is to maintain.

Unless by “absurd” you’re referring to the placing of a hypothesis beyond the scope of investigation, I don’t follow. Of course, if that is what you mean then it explains the tenacity of religious faith.

1. What is the precise “mechanism” by which everything is **known **to have a mechanistic explanation?

I don’t know. Nor have I ever claimed to know. Why is this relevant?

Or is this just a resurrection of one of your other stupid arguments - that unless you get a precise, molecule-by-molecule scientific explanation of *everything *in the universe, you reserve the right to reject whatever part of it you like? Preferring instead to subscribe to stone-age superstitions that don’t even begin to provide an explanation? Why is it that the standards of evidence you demand, are so infinitely far in excess of those you are able to provide for your own absurd claims?

 

[wanstronian]

In the composite of human nature, rational thought and free will are not corporeal.

Rational thought and the illusion of free will are, as far as anybody can tell, the output of a functioning brain. Which makes them corporeal in origin.

 

[grannymh]

Rational thought and the illusion of free will are, as far as anybody can tell, the output of a functioning brain. Which makes them corporeal in origin.

In order to find the location of rational thought and volition, it isn’t necessarily the output which is being studied. Contemporary science is researching the (name removed by moderator)ut or stimulant of neural system activity which is necessary in order for the brain to act (setting legs in motion, etc.) or react (enjoyment, learning, etc.) The location of the (name removed by moderator)ut or stimulant is essential when studying the anatomical aspects of rational thought and volition.

The current difficulty is caused by scientists who lean toward Cartesian extreme dualism. The Catholic Church has a better logical explanation for the mind/body question. Catholicism does not view human nature as two separate natures. Rather it is the logical [reasonable] unique unification of both material and spiritual principles which is the single nature of the person. Catholicism considers this unity of two principles so profound that, in Catholic terminology, it is because of its spiritual principle, that matter [material anatomy] becomes a person.

 

[tonyrey]

Is targeting semantics the best you can do?

Spatial attributes are insignificant with regard to the nature of reality.

Where is a fact, a reason or a principle?

… we are made from matter, and we have the ability to think.

“we are made from matter” is an assumption.

You’re equivocating. Matter, in certain configurations, can think. We’re proof of that. In the same way that a brick can’t provide shelter… but a collection of bricks, in a certain configuration, can.

Your analogy** presupposes **intelligence!

No one has ever reduced thoughts to electrical impulses.

Indeed - nobody claims to understand exactly how it works. However, what evidence there is suggests that it does work, somehow.

It merely suggests that electrical impulses are produced by thoughts.

]As the “mind” is merely an abstraction of the brain…

One more assumption.

Moreover, changes to body chemistry can affect both brain and body. No mystery there. It’s just biology.

A further **assumption **that a person consists solely of brain and body.

Irrelevant to the comment I posted, which is that no extra-corporeal intelligence has ever been detected.

Yet another assumption - that intelligence is restricted to the body.

If you can give me an example of a sign of intelligence which has incontrovertibly been traced to a non-corporeal source I’ll retract my statement.

David Hume gives plenty of examples:

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it. That Nature does nothing in vain, is a maxim established in all the schools, merely from the contemplation of the works of Nature, without any religious purpose; and, from a firm conviction of its truth, an anatomist, who had observed a new organ or canal, would never be satisfied till he had also discovered its use and intention. One great foundation of the Copernican system is the maxim, That Nature acts by the simplest methods, and chooses the most proper means to any end; and astronomers often, without thinking of it, lay this strong foundation of piety and religion. The same thing is observable in other parts of philosophy: and thus all the sciences almost lead us insensibly to acknowledge a first intelligent Author; and their authority is often so much the greater, as they do not directly profess that intention.” - Dialogues

“Nature does nothing in vain” is an exaggeration but it doesn’t alter the fundamentally purposeful nature of life.

Actually what it reveals is your incapacity to understand a basic comment.

You still have failed to prove that every event has a mechanistic explanation .

But “mechanism” does not ineluctably mean “mechanistic.”

It certainly doesn’t mean “intelligent” or “purposeful”.

Nobody has ever been able to describe any plausible means, method, mechanism, process or paradigm by which intelligence might exist outside of matter.

There is no need to explain it in view of the inadequacy of materialism. Mind is a far more powerful source than inanimate, irrational and purposeless matter. Intelligence exists in its own right without the need for electrical impulses. A voltmeter won’t supply you with all the information you need to explain how you exist…

• and you are still assuming a person is a product.

1. A “rational reason” for rejecting matter is that it takes reason to determine what is unreasonable!

Non-sequitur.

False!

1. The theory that reason consists of irrational events is self-destructive.

Argument from Ignorance again.

Explain how irrational events can prove everything is irrational…

I disagree.

Without giving any reason…

And even if your assertion were true, materialism continues to work, consistently and predictably, and has been the most successful “hypothesis” for accurately describing our universe, for enhancing quality of life, for providing robust and objective answers to many of “life’s mysteries”…

“many” is not “all”.

Sorry, I don’t see how this is relevant.

It falsifies materialism because principles are intangible.

Can you explain the purpose of the question?

To obtain a** rational** answer.

I’d really like to see you provide some sort of justification for your statement.

Are you dominated by your biological processes? Or do you have a mind of your own?

Your third appeal to Ignorance.

Please explain the mechanism by which molecules produce thoughts.

Unless by “absurd” you’re referring to the placing of a hypothesis beyond the scope of investigation, I don’t follow.

Please explain the mechanism by which molecules produce thoughts.

1. What is the precise mechanism

by which everything is known to have a mechanistic explanation?I don’t know. Nor have I ever claimed to know. Why is this relevant?

You reject the supernatural in favour of natural mechanisms.

 

[tonyrey]

The emergence theory is a biological attempt to account for the “experience” of intelligence and free will. This is also considered an epiphenomenon. Despite all the photos of “wired” heads, the fact remains that the physical brain needs to be stimulated to act. (The exceptions are medical, emotional or physical impediments, etc.)

The physical brain, itself, is an amazing designed piece of material equipment.

Free will and biology don’t mix!

 

[grannymh]

Free will and biology don’t mix!

Free will and biology do mix even though one is spiritual and one is material.
Our incorruptible soul is what gives life to our corruptible anatomy. The spiritual soul’s rational thinking and volition are expressed through our physical being. Both can energize the body into some kind of action or no action.

Please note: the spiritual soul is a *both-and" situation. It gives life to our material bones, guts, and blood. And itself shares in the divine life through God’s grace.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think you’re being too harsh on him…

Perhaps I am but I learned about Descartes while studying animal behavior as a psychology major. Descartes evidently believed that the yelps and screams of the dogs he was “studying” were simple reflexes and he laughed while they suffered in agony. This is what I was taught and unfortunately I don’t have time to research it. But it’s my opinion that any * human being who cannot feel compassion for those who are suffering due to his* actions, even if those who are suffering are not human beings, is an IDIOT.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Obviously not, no need to shout although as I’ve said before, no Catholic I know in real life finds Catholicism anywhere near as tortuously convoluted as sometimes portrayed on CAF.

I don’t recall the name of the other thread, all I really wanted to know was why the CCC puts “form” in quote marks, but posters were guessing, no one knew. And it turned out that without knowing, they couldn’t agree on what the sentence means and so didn’t agree on very much at all about the soul. My point is that if the sentence is a reference to Aristotle/Thomas then those posters would need to understand what Aristotle means to know what the CCC means, and otherwise were just guessing or completely misinterpreting. Your Stanford link might be helpful to Catholics, I was just using this as an example of what can happen when people don’t at least try to see the world through the eyes of the original author.

Where is the shouting? I can’t find it. I see emphasis, not shouting.

NOW THIS IS SHOUTING!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Free will and biology don’t mix!

That is like saying applesauce and skyscrapers don’t mix. You’re comparing (in some way) two very different things. Free will is a gift from God and the ability to make our own choices. Biology is simply the study of life!

Your statement is a bit loopy. I’m an expert on loopy statements as I make them all the time so I can see them, too. Sorry. Your statement is very loopy; in fact, it’s way beyond loopy.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

NOW THIS IS SHOUTING!!!

Hey!! Why you shouting at me:bighanky:

 

[LittleSoldier]

Spatial attributes are insignificant with regard to the nature of reality.

David Hume gives plenty of examples:

“A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it. That Nature does nothing in vain, is a maxim established in all the schools, merely from the contemplation of the works of Nature, without any religious purpose; and, from a firm conviction of its truth, an anatomist, who had observed a new organ or canal, would never be satisfied till he had also discovered its use and intention. One great foundation of the Copernican system is the maxim, That Nature acts by the simplest methods, and chooses the most proper means to any end; and astronomers often, without thinking of it, lay this strong foundation of piety and religion. The same thing is observable in other parts of philosophy: and thus all the sciences almost lead us insensibly to acknowledge a first intelligent Author; and their authority is often so much the greater, as they do not directly profess that intention.” - Dialogues

This is a very non-morbid statement by Hume. I am surprised and impressed. Evidently Hume did not spend all his time wallowing in self-pity.

OK - I would play a game of backgammon with Hume and probably enjoy it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hey!! Why you shouting at me:bighanky:

B-but I wasn’t shouting at you! I was shouting at another poster who accused yet another poster of shouting.

I was merely providing an example of actual on-line shouting. And I did put a next to it.

Oh, please dry your eyes…don’t be sad! I promise I will never shout at you. 'Kay? :console:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

OK - I would play a game of backgammon with Hume and probably enjoy it.

How about chess. I would probably beat you and everybody on this forum…by design.

 

[tonyrey]

Free will and biology do mix even though one is spiritual and one is material.
Our incorruptible soul is what gives life to our corruptible anatomy. The spiritual soul’s rational thinking and volition are expressed through our physical being. Both can energize the body into some kind of action or no action.

Please note: the spiritual soul is a *both-and" situation. It gives life to our material bones, guts, and blood. And itself shares in the divine life through God’s grace.

My point is that biology cannot produce free will. The materialist is committed to the view that free will is only apparent… given that every event has a physical cause in his scheme of things. That is why rationality and responsibility must be illusions as far as he is concerned…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh, please dry your eyes…don’t be sad! I promise I will never shout at you. 'Kay? :console:

Okay…only if you promise to shout at me again.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My point is that biology cannot produce free will.

Why?