How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[inocente]

Silly-putty logic.

That’s childish. Please either own up to your mistakes or make counter-arguments.

It remains that you were wrong in post #417 when you said “the environment of the universe as a whole is that it is suited to the development of life”, as the vast majority of the universe is either far too cold or far too hot for liquid water, and most of it is empty space, which has little chance of being an environment suited to the development of any other form of life.

inocente;13928229:

No one mentioned intelligence, the discussion is about “why Reason itself is a part of our human nature”. (And Charles, spuriously capitalizing words such as reason isn’t part of our human nature).

It certainly is part of our human nature. It is certainly not part of the nature of other animals to be curious about how the universe was formed, and how life even came to exist, or even whether the arrangement of atoms throughout the universe is part of God’s master plan.

I said that your habit of randomly capitalizing words such as “reason” is not part of human nature.

You were wrong in post #422 when you said that other species cannot reason, and you’ve been given examples of several which do. You were talking of reasoning, not intelligence or curiosity, but other species exhibit them as well.

You do believe in God’s master plan, don’t you?

Or do you believe that when God created hydrogen as the dominant element in the universe he was clueless as to how it would be used in creating the essential requirement for all life … water?

You talk about God as if he’s a human who had to go to school to find out how stuff works.

Anyone can create hydrogen, just put a free electron next to a proton. There’s nothing amazing, it’s just a lower energy state. Why get all excited about hydrogen atoms? You need protons to make any atoms at all, and for them you need quarks. Quarks are an absolutely essential requirement for water, get excited about them. Quarks, by your logic, dominate God’s master plan.

Who knew.

But you cannot say that water is essential to life, since you have no knowledge of any other possible universes, and even in this one you only know life on Earth, and have no knowledge of any forms of life elsewhere in this vast universe.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You talk about God as if he’s a human who had to go to school to find out how stuff works.

More silly-putty logic. Please stop your head from spinning.

We have to go to science school to find out how God works!
**
Paul Davies, Physicist:**

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too
convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if “a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics”.

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirty-something knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear’s porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”

So you would like me to prefer your strange logic to Fred Hoyle’s or Paul Davies’?

And what proof have you that any other universes exist? And what would that prove, since God would have created all of them for a purpose? Or do you think God just creates without a purpose?

Your posts get curiouser and curiouser.

As a Baptist, do you believe that God created this universe on the off chance that something interesting might happen, but without the foggiest notion of what that interesting thing might be? Or do you rather think God created this universe for the distinct purpose of creating Reasoning beings who would be capable of a relationship with him?

Huh?

 

[inocente]

How is Jesus related to the topic of materialism?

As stated. You said “Size and quantity are only significant for materialists who think everything is reducible to atomic particles” and I gave an example of Jesus talking of quantity - “You of little faith”. So your statement was wrong, size and quantity are not just significant for materialists.

btw for an example of those who, in your words, “think everything is reducible to atomic particles”, see post #434 in which Charles argues for the dominance of hydrogen atoms in God’s master plan .

It is implied in "Crows have demonstrated the reasoning powers of seven-year-old children." Crows are obviously intelligent but there is no evidence that they have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts.

The original statement (post #422) was “Every other species gets along just fine without it [reason]. Man alone has it, …”. Refuted, crows and many other species can reason.

There is a difference between a reason and a cause.

Not according to the OED: “Reason - A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event”.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for the development of life.

That shifts to a different argument, but it’s also incorrect since we have no way of knowing - there are many logically possible worlds with different laws in which life could develop. All we can really say is that we know life developed in a universe with partial order (our universe), and perhaps life could not develop in a completely orderly or totally order-less world.

*To reduce the power of reason to intelligence comparable to that of a crow fails to take into account the Christian belief that we are make in God’s image and likeness with moral insight and the capacity for love. *

Nope. The crows reasoned at the same level as seven-year-old humans. We rate human intelligence on scales such as IQ. Humans have much greater reasoning powers than crows, and you would need to show that it isn’t just a question of scale.

More importantly, you appear to be saying that people with low IQ or little moral insight or low capacity for love are not human, which would obviously be wrong.

Unlike crows and other intelligent animals…

There’s evidence that other species have emotional and moral intelligence, for example some morn the passing of loved ones.

Our current attitudes towards other species contain long-held prejudices which may well be wrong. It’s a lot easier to eat meat and utilize animals if we’ve been taught they don’t have thoughts, but there’s no evidence that’s true.

BTW This universe is only one of countless possible universes. For the non-believer there is no obvious reason why it need exist. Physical necessity is an inadequate explanation.

I would be wary of this line of thought. Some would say that theories of comparative religion which put monotheism above animism or ancestor worship, etc., were born out of wanting to justify colonialism. It’s a lot easier to invade a people and destroy their culture and religion if we’ve been taught we alone know the Truth™ and they need our guidance, but there’s no evidence for that.

 

[inocente]

Note that you are assuming that water is necessary for life. Non carbon based life is possible and would not need water to survive.

Agreed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As stated. You said “Size and quantity are only significant for materialists who think everything is reducible to atomic particles” and I gave an example of Jesus talking of quantity - “You of little faith”. So your statement was wrong, size and quantity are not just significant for materialists.

btw for an example of those who, in your words, “think everything is reducible to atomic particles”, see post #434 in which Charles argues for the dominance of hydrogen atoms in God’s master plan .

The original statement (post #422) was “Every other species gets along just fine without it [reason]. Man alone has it, …”. Refuted, crows and many other species can reason.

Not according to the OED: “Reason - A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event”.

That shifts to a different argument, but it’s also incorrect since we have no way of knowing - there are many logically possible worlds with different laws in which life could develop. All we can really say is that we know life developed in a universe with partial order (our universe), and perhaps life could not develop in a completely orderly or totally order-less world.

Nope. The crows reasoned at the same level as seven-year-old humans. We rate human intelligence on scales such as IQ. Humans have much greater reasoning powers than crows, and you would need to show that it isn’t just a question of scale.

More importantly, you appear to be saying that people with low IQ or little moral insight or low capacity for love are not human, which would obviously be wrong.

There’s evidence that other species have emotional and moral intelligence, for example some morn the passing of loved ones.

Our current attitudes towards other species contain long-held prejudices which may well be wrong. It’s a lot easier to eat meat and utilize animals if we’ve been taught they don’t have thoughts, but there’s no evidence that’s true.

I would be wary of this line of thought. Some would say that theories of comparative religion which put monotheism above animism or ancestor worship, etc., were born out of wanting to justify colonialism. It’s a lot easier to invade a people and destroy their culture and religion if we’ve been taught we alone know the Truth™ and they need our guidance, but there’s no evidence for that.

Now you see, this is the kind of inane post that makes me believe there is more than one person posting from inocente.

Rambling and incoherent thoughts that seem to have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

How is Jesus related to the topic of materialism?

A completely different context!

btw for an example of those who, in your words, “think everything is reducible to atomic particles”, see post #434 in which Charles argues for the dominance of hydrogen atoms in God’s master plan .

Not where persons are concerned…

It is implied in "Crows have demonstrated

• the reasoning powers of seven-year-old children." Crows are obviously intelligent but there is no evidence that they have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts.
  The original statement (post #422) was “Every other species gets along just fine without it [reason]. Man alone has it, …”. Refuted, crows and many other species can reason.

There is still n*o *evidence that they have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts.

There is a difference between a reason and a cause.

Not according to the OED: “Reason - A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event”.

Those terms are not always interchangeable.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for the development of life*.*

That shifts to a different argument, but it’s also incorrect since we have no way of knowing - there are many logically possible worlds with different laws in which life could develop. All we can really say is that we know life developed in a universe with partial order (our universe), and perhaps life could not develop in a completely orderly or totally order-less world.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for the development of life in this universe.**

To reduce the power of reason to intelligence comparable to that of a crow fails to take into account the Christian belief that we are make in God’s image and likeness with moral insight and the capacity for love.

Nope. The crows reasoned at the same level as seven-year-old humans. We rate human intelligence on scales such as IQ. Humans have much greater reasoning powers than crows, and you would need to show that it isn’t just a question of scale.

Christians don’t believe we are made in God’s image and likeness with moral insight and the capacity for love.

More importantly, you appear to be saying that people with low IQ or little moral insight or low capacity for love are not human, which would obviously be wrong.

Non sequitur*.

Unlike crows and other intelligent animals…

There’s evidence that other species have emotional and moral intelligence, for example some morn the passing of loved ones.

Our current attitudes towards other species contain long-held prejudices which may well be wrong. It’s a lot easier to eat meat and utilize animals if we’ve been taught they don’t have thoughts, but there’s no evidence that’s true.

Then why aren’t they held responsible for their behaviour?

BTW This universe is only one of countless possible universes. For the non-believer there is no obvious reason why it need exist. Physical necessity is an inadequate explanation.

I would be wary of this line of thought. Some would say that theories of comparative religion which put monotheism above animism or ancestor worship, etc., were born out of wanting to justify colonialism. It’s a lot easier to invade a people and destroy their culture and religion if we’ve been taught we alone know the Truth™ and they need our guidance, but there’s no evidence for that.

The genetic fallacy!

 

[inocente]

More silly-putty logic. Please stop your head from spinning.

For the second time, please either own up to your mistake or make a counter-argument rather than trying to hide behind childish insults.

*We have to go to science school to find out how God works!

Paul Davies, Physicist:*

Yikes. You talk about God’s master plan revolving around hydrogen atoms, and talk of God as if he’s a human with a chemistry set. You talk of Genesis 1:3 as if God has nothing to do with bringing spiritual light but is only concerned with photons in the visible spectrum. You invoke Fred Hoyle and Paul Davies as if they’re high priests.

Are you a materialist? Why do you keep deferring to scientists and trying to find jobs for God to do? Seriously, have you made any posts on this thread which go beyond the material?

And what proof have you that any other universes exist? And what would that prove, since God would have created all of them for a purpose? Or do you think God just creates without a purpose?

When philosophers talk of other possible worlds, they mean worlds which are logically possible, not worlds which physically exist. No wonder you’re confused if you can’t comprehend the difference between abstract and concrete, between the possible and the actual, between thought and material.

As a Baptist, do you believe that God created this universe on the off chance that something interesting might happen, but without the foggiest notion of what that interesting thing might be? Or do you rather think God created this universe for the distinct purpose of creating Reasoning beings who would be capable of a relationship with him?

Usually Catholics say they’re not either/or people. Look up false dichotomy.

Huh? *

Yes, your post could have been written by any prepubescent male, if you’re only interested in playing debating games then let’s stop now.

 

[inocente]

Now you see, this is the kind of inane post that makes me believe there is more than one person posting from inocente.

Rambling and incoherent thoughts that seem to have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

General Guidelines

• Always abide by the forum rules.

• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.

• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.

• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.

• Don't answer a question with a question. If you don't know the answer, say so.

• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.

• It is acceptable to question policies and practices

• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual's beliefs

• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

• If you aren't going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.

• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.

• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word "avowed." Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

What to look for in your post before you press submit

• Is the post civil and charitable?

• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?

• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3

 

[inocente]

Now you see, this is the kind of inane post that makes me believe there is more than one person posting from inocente.

Rambling and incoherent thoughts that seem to have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You spew hate and call yourself a Christian.

 

[inocente]

A completely different context!

Your post was the one-line “Size and quantity are only significant for materialists who think everything is reducible to atomic particles”.

Perhaps you meant to say quantity alone, to the exclusion of all qualities, which would have been closer to the mark.

Not where persons are concerned…

And in many other cases.

There is still no **evidence that they have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts.

Other than that experiment and others?

Those terms are not always interchangeable.

Your original question was “Is there any reason why elements exist?” and perhaps I was trying to be too subtle in asking you to explain if and why you think there must be a reason behind the known reasons. Do you think there’s a reason behind the known reasons? If so please say what you think it is.

The fundamental laws of nature are essential for the development of life in this universe.**

That’s circular, since the universe would not be this universe with other laws. But also it’s at best a speculative argument since we have of canceling any laws to find out.

*Christians don’t believe we are made in God’s image and likeness with moral insight and the capacity for love. *

Did you mean to write “Christians believe”…?

Non sequitur

Nope, it follows directly from your statement, whereas Christians do not (ought not) believe that people of very low intelligence are not also made in God’s image.

Then why aren’t they held responsible for their behaviour?

For the same reason that people of very low intelligence are not held responsible, and children are not held to the same standards of responsibility as adults.

The genetic fallacy!

I didn’t say it was false, just be wary of that line of reasoning.

Charles - it was Tony who, on this point, said “This universe is only one of countless possible universes”, so you could always ask him if the concept still confuses you .

 

[o_mlly]

Disabilities in people and animals, diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s, as well as other things which seem to be design flaws.

If he could not create the world without these things, he is not all powerful. Or would He want suffering in the world? Then He would be evil.

How can we reconcile these seemingly flaws of design with possible intelligent design by God?

God did create the world without flaws. He found all that He had created “very good.” (Gen 1:31). To his greatest creation – man, God did give “design license” allowing man to participate freely in perfecting His creation: “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Only a few constraints accompanied God’s license. But Adam ate the apple, Cain killed Abel and we all started eating meat. Man disabled himself.

Genesis Chapter 1:
28 God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.m
29* n God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
30and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food. And so it happened.
31God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good.*

 

[tonyrey]

Your post was the one-line “Size and quantity are only significant for materialists who think everything is reducible to atomic particles”.
Perhaps you meant to say quantity alone, to the exclusion of all qualities, which would have been closer to the mark.

“You of little faith” doesn’t refer to physical quantity.

And in many other cases.

?

Other than that experiment and others?

How has it proved crows have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts?

Your original question was “Is there any reason why elements exist?” and perhaps I was trying to be too subtle in asking you to explain if and why you think there must be a reason behind the known reasons. Do you think there’s a reason behind the known reasons? If so please say what you think it is.

You seem to be identifying a purpose with a physical cause.

That’s circular, since the universe would not be this universe with other laws. But also it’s at best a speculative argument since we have of canceling any laws to find out.

The universe could be fundamentally the same even if some of the laws changed - which is not impossible.

Did you mean to write “Christians believe”…?

That is the conclusion to which your argument about crows leads you. If all human attributes have a biological basis how are we made in God’s image?

Nope, it follows directly from your statement, whereas Christians do not (ought not) believe that people of very low intelligence are not also made in God’s image. For the same reason that people of very low intelligence are not held responsible, and children are not held to the same standards of responsibility as adults.

On the contrary. They are still members of the human race.

I didn’t say it was false, just be wary of that line of reasoning.

Why?

 

[inocente]

“You of little faith” doesn’t refer to physical quantity.

Never said it did.

?

??

*How has it proved crows have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts? *

The point was about reason.

You seem to be identifying a purpose with a physical cause.

A purpose is not a cause.

The universe could be fundamentally the same even if some of the laws changed - which is not impossible.

Then please give an example.

That is the conclusion to which your argument about crows leads you. If all human attributes have a biological basis how are we made in God’s image?

You are quantifying what cannot be quantified.

On the contrary. They are still members of the human race.

The very reason your argument was incorrect.

Why?

As stated.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You spew hate and call yourself a Christian.

Criticism is not hate. :tsktsk:

But since you think it is, I will no longer read or comment on any of your posts.

:sad_bye:

 

[tonyrey]

Never said it did.

?

??

???

The point was about reason.

The alleged reasoning of crows…

A purpose is not a cause

.
Is it a reason?

Then please give an example.

newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/

You are quantifying what cannot be quantified.

Please give an example of what cannot be quantified.

The very reason your argument was incorrect.

How?

As stated.

How has it been proved crows have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts?
If all human attributes have a biological basis how are we made in God’s image?

Returning to the topic, do you believe it is God’s plan that we are made in His image?

 

[inocente]

Criticism is not hate. :tsktsk:

But since you think it is, I will no longer read or comment on any of your posts.

:sad_bye:

No need for that, I’ve sent you a PM.

 

[inocente]

?

???

I like the poetry of content-free questions as an existential commentary on life, but fear we may instead now just be grunting at each other .

The alleged reasoning of crows…

The OED defines reasoning as “the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way”. Based on the evidence, do you have an alternative logical, sensible explanation?

Here’s the abstract and a link to the paper:

“Understanding causal regularities in the world is a key feature of human cognition. However, the extent to which non-human animals are capable of causal understanding is not well understood. Here, we used the Aesop’s fable paradigm – in which subjects drop stones into water to raise the water level and obtain an out of reach reward – to assess New Caledonian crows’ causal understanding of water displacement. We found that crows preferentially dropped stones into a water-filled tube instead of a sand-filled tube; they dropped sinking objects rather than floating objects; solid objects rather than hollow objects, and they dropped objects into a tube with a high water level rather than a low one. However, they failed two more challenging tasks which required them to attend to the width of the tube, and to counter-intuitive causal cues in a U-shaped apparatus. Our results indicate that New Caledonian crows possess a sophisticated, but incomplete, understanding of the causal properties of displacement, rivalling that of 5–7 year old children.” - journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092895

Is it a reason?

The reason a stone falls is not its purpose.

newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe/

:ehh: Untested speculations are ten a penny.

Please give an example of what cannot be quantified.

The example we started with will suffice: what it is to be human.

How?

This has already been said. Your original statement related the power of reason to being made in God’s image, which would exclude people who lack that power, which we agree is wrong.

*How has it been proved crows have rational insight and understanding of abstract concepts? *

See the paper linked above.

*If all human attributes have a biological basis how are we made in God’s image?

Returning to the topic, do you believe it is God’s plan that we are made in His image?*

Can’t see how biology would get in the way. God’s plan has nothing to do with what we know about our material make-up or else Paul is wrong to say “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor 13)

 

[tonyrey]

The OED defines reasoning as “the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way”. Based on the evidence, do you have an alternative logical, sensible explanation? Here’s the abstract and a link to the paper:

*“Understanding causal regularities in the world is a key feature of human cognition. However, the extent to which non-human animals are capable of causal understanding is not well understood. Here, we used the Aesop’s fable paradigm – in which subjects drop stones into water to raise the water level and obtain an out of reach reward – to assess New Caledonian crows’ causal understanding of water displacement. We found that crows preferentially dropped stones into a water-filled tube instead of a sand-filled tube; they dropped sinking objects rather than floating objects; solid objects rather than hollow objects, and they dropped objects into a tube with a high water level rather than a low one. However, they failed two more challenging tasks which required them to attend to the width of the tube, and to counter-intuitive causal cues in a U-shaped apparatus. Our results indicate that New Caledonian crows possess a sophisticated, but incomplete, understanding of the causal properties of displacement, rivalling that of 5–7 year old children.” *

“is not well understood” gives the game away! Their behaviour is probably the association of events with situations - without **insight **into the causes.

The reason a stone falls is not its purpose.

Do you always equate reasons with physical causes?

Untested speculations are ten a penny.

Scientific progress is based on openness to new ideas:

Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

**All scientific theories are provisional.

**

The example we started with will suffice: what it is to be human.
This has already been said. Your original statement related the power of reason to being made in God’s image, which would exclude people who lack that power, which we agree is wrong.

Children belong to the human race and are made in God’s image regardless of their IQ. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

See the paper linked above.

How do you think we differ from animals?

Can’t see how biology would get in the way. God’s plan has nothing to do with what we know about our material make-up or else Paul is wrong to say “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Cor 13)

Is there a sharp distinction between our material and spiritual makeup? What is God’s plan for our life on earth?

 

[inocente]

“is not well understood” gives the game away! Their behaviour is probably the association of events with situations - without **insight **into the causes.

Read it again, she’s talking of our understanding of their capabilities.

Do you always equate reasons with physical causes?

There is no physical reason why 1+1=2.

*Scientific progress is based on openness to new ideas:

All scientific theories are provisional.*

Tested theories, not untested speculations. Theories are provisional simply because all a posteriori knowledge is based on past experience and so is open to new evidence. Certainly not because every untested speculative notion no matter how wild is accepted.

There’s more than a million science papers at arxiv.org/, you’ll probably find some to support any point you want to make, except they may be untested. And most hypotheses, when tested, turn out to be wrong. Quoting scientists as if they are high priests with special insights will end in tears, because most of them are wrong most of the time. Ask any scientist, good science is never about appeals to authority.

Children belong to the human race and are made in God’s image regardless of their IQ. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

Which is exactly what I said, and why your statement was wrong.

How do you think we differ from animals?

But we are animals: species Homo sapiens, genus homo, family hominidae, suborder haplorhini, order primates, class mammalia, clade synapsida, phylum chordata.

Is there a sharp distinction between our material and spiritual makeup? What is God’s plan for our life on earth?

As I’ve never met a disembodied person or a philosophical zombie, I’d say there is no sharp distinction. As the CCC has it, the soul is the form of the body.

I see God’s plan more in terms of “do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth”. In other words we are active participants with a living God, not passive artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a long dead designer (which is how arguments for design strike me). How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?

 

[tonyrey]

Read it again, she’s talking of our understanding of their capabilities.

“our” begs the question.

There is no physical reason why 1+1=2.

Is there a physical reason for **everything **we think and do? Do we differ from animals in that respect?

Tested theories, not untested speculations. Theories are provisional simply because all a posteriori knowledge is based on past experience and so is open to new evidence. Certainly not because every untested speculative notion no matter how wild is accepted. There’s more than a million science papers at arxiv.org/, you’ll probably find some to support any point you want to make, except they may be untested. And most hypotheses, when tested, turn out to be wrong. Quoting scientists as if they are high priests with special insights will end in tears, because most of them are wrong most of the time. Ask any scientist, good science is never about appeals to authority.

There is** no** appeal to authority in this study. It is based on evidence for which there is no known explanation:

New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is “just right” for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos. If correct, this result stands against Einstein’s equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. “This finding was a real surprise to everyone,” says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a “preferred direction”, or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter. A decade ago, Webb used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyse the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very slightly smaller when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today. Now Webb’s colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analysed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth. The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space, and suggests that alpha varies in space rather than time. “I’d quietly hoped we’d simply find the same thing that Keck found,” King says. “This was a real shock.”

Moreover, the team’s analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet… Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha. If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry – and thus life – to occur. Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.

Do you reject their measurements? If so why? If not how do you explain the discrepancy with the view of the Establishment that the constants of nature are set in stone?

Which is exactly what I said, and why your statement was wrong.

But according to you there seems to be no essential difference between a human mind and an animal mind. It is only a question of the development of intelligence. Where does free will come into the picture?

But we are animals: species Homo sapiens, genus homo, family hominidae, suborder haplorhini, order primates, class mammalia, clade synapsida, phylum chordata.

No more than animals?

As I’ve never met a disembodied person or a philosophical zombie, I’d say there is no sharp distinction. As the CCC has it, the soul is the form of the body.

In that case precisely how are we made in God’s image?

I see God’s plan more in terms of “do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth”. In other words we are active participants with a living God, not passive artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a long dead designer (which is how arguments for design strike me). How does your take on design escape from being cast in stone?

So God has no plan for our life on earth, never intervenes or works miracles and is a passive Spectator of everything that happens on earth - which does indeed imply we are artifacts subject to a fate ordained by a Creator who takes not the slightest interest in human affairs and is concerned only with what happens in heaven?