Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[JesuisSean]

PROOF of the existence of God would do the trick.

outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

Unfortunately, the day has not yet arrived for proof to be accepted. The standard stupidity act of today, is to Reject Before Inspect.

Sorry if the fonts seemed a tad small at the website.
I have made adjustments to get around the problem.

Cause → Firefox 14.0.1 has an MS Sans Serif font bug. Firefox 15 [Beta] has fixed the bug.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Only persons are capable of reasoning.
2. Only persons have insight into the nature of reality.
3. Only persons can control themselves, their instincts and their environment.
4. Only persons can create art, music, science, philosophy and literature.
5. Only persons can destroy life on this planet.
6. Only persons are morally responsible for their actions and intentions.
7. Only persons are capable of unselfish love.
8. Only persons are capable of spiritual development.
9. Persons cannot be explained as sets of impersonal particles.
10. Personal existence is the highest form of existence in the universe.

1. Personal existence is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
   82.The immense value of life is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
2. The beauty of nature is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
3. Our capacity for love is supernatural because it transcends nature.
4. Our capacity for love is created out of love.
5. Life without love is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
6. Love is essentially valuable, purposeful and meaningful.
7. Purposeful love cannot be explained without Design.
8. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all overwhelming evidence of Design inspired by infinite and supernatural love.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Personal existence is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
2. The immense value of life is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
3. Creative power in art and music is compelling evidence is inspired by love. *
4. The beauty of nature is compelling evidence that it is inspired by love.
5. Our capacity for love is supernatural because it transcends nature.
6. Our capacity for love is created out of love.
7. Life without love is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
8. Love is essentially valuable, purposeful and meaningful.
9. Purposeful love cannot be explained without Design.
10. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all overwhelming evidence of Design inspired by infinite and supernatural love.

(* Previously omitted)

 

[tonyrey]

1. Personal existence alone is evidence that it is created and inspired by love.
2. The immense value of life is evidence that it is created and inspired by love.
3. Creative power in art and music is evidence it is created and inspired by love.
4. The beauty of nature is evidence it is created and inspired by love.
5. Our capacity for love is supernatural because it transcends nature.
6. Our capacity for love is created and inspired by love.
7. Life without love is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
8. Love is essentially valuable, purposeful and meaningful.
9. Purposeful love cannot be explained without Design.
10. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all evidence of Design.
11. Christians believe God creates the universe with infinite love.
12. God’s purpose is to share the immense value of existence.
13. God creates the universe to sustain life and rational existence.
14. The only alternative to belief in Design is belief in non-Design.
15. Non-Design implies life is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless…
16. Non-Design does not correspond to the facts.
17. No rational person lives as if life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
18. No rational person lives as if love and reasoning are illusions.
19. Even the negative aspects of life presuppose life’s positive value and significance.
20. There is overwhelming evidence for Design in every aspect of existence.

The next thread will deal with the negative aspects of life to counter the objection that this thread presents an unbalanced view of reality…

 

[tonyrey]

1. Things exist.
2. There is no obvious explanation for their existence.
3. They need not exist.
4. It is unreasonable not to search for an explanation.
5. But what is an “explanation”?
6. An explanation increases our understanding.
7. What do we understand to begin with?
8. Nothing!
9. But if we understand nothing we cannot understand anything!
10. If we cannot understand anything we are wasting our time and energy!
11. To believe we understand nothing is self-contradictory.
12. If we cannot understand anything we cannot understand that we understand nothing!
13. Therefore we understand something!
14. How do we understand something?
15. By using our power of understanding!
16. How can we be sure our power of understanding is reliable?
17. We have just proved our power of understanding is fundamental.
18. The success of science is evidence that our power of understanding is reliable.
19. What else can we prove?
20. That we exist.
21. How do we exist?
22. We don’t understand how we exist!
23. Then how can we be sure we exist?
24. Because our power of understanding cannot exist by itself.
25. How can we be sure our power of understanding cannot exist by itself?
26. Because we have no experience of anything that exists by itself.
27. We also know we are responsible for the success of science.
28. What are we?
29. We don’t know!
30. Don’t we know anything about ourselves?
31. We know we exist.
32. There is no evidence the brain knows it exists.
33. The brain cannot control itself because its activity is determined by physical events.
34. But we can control ourselves and our environment.
35. The brain has no insight into the past, present or future.
36. But we are capable of hindsight, insight and foresight.
37. Our body is subject to the laws of nature but we transcend the laws of nature.
38. All our knowledge is based on our intangible thoughts, intuitions, feelings, decisions and sensations.
39. Our intangible mind is our primary datum and sole certainty.
40. Physical reality is not the sole reality.
41. We infer that physical events occur from our sensations.
42. Our interpretation of physical events depends largely on our beliefs and values.
43. What occurs in our mind is far more important than physical events.
44. If we couldn’t control our mind we would be robots.
45. If we were robots our conclusions about reality would be unreliable.
46. The success of science proves our conclusions are usually reliable.
47. We can control our mind to a considerable extent.
48. Our power to control our mind cannot be explained by science.
49. Therefore science is an inadequate explanation of reality.
50. The most adequate explanation of reality recognises the power of the mind.
51. Materialism rejects the power of the mind.
52. Materialism derives the mind from matter.
53. Materialism generally presupposes atomism.
54. Atomism claims persons are composed solely of atomic particles.
55. Atomism is a fragmentation of reality.
56. Atomism is restricted to analysis and excludes synthesis.
57. Atomism is restricted to the past and lacks a comprehensive view of reality.
58. Atomism substitutes causes for reasons.
59. Atomism deprives reality of value, purpose and meaning.
60. Atomism and materialism are self-refuting.
61. Reasoning is necessarily purposeful.
62. Reasoning is necessarily independent.
63. Reasoning is essential for personal fulfilment.
64. Reasoning is the most valuable and significant feature of human existence.
65. Reasoning cannot be derived from purposeless processes.
66. Reasoning reveals the limitations of sense perception.
67. Reasoning reveals the absurdity of materialism.
68. Reasoning presupposes the existence of intangible facts and principles.
69. Reasoning presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.
70. Reasoning presupposes Design.
71. Only persons are capable of reasoning.
72. Only persons have insight into the nature of reality.
73. Only persons can control themselves, their instincts and their environment.
74. Only persons can create art, music, science, philosophy and literature.
75. Only persons can destroy life on this planet.
76. Only persons are morally responsible for their actions and intentions.
77. Only persons are capable of unselfish love.
78. Only persons are capable of spiritual development.
79. Persons cannot be explained as sets of impersonal particles.
80. Personal existence is the highest form of existence in the universe.
81. Personal existence is compelling evidence that it is created and inspired by love.
    82.The immense value of life is compelling evidence that it is created and inspired by love.
82. Human creative power is compelling evidence is created and inspired by love.
83. The beauty of nature is compelling evidence that it is created and inspired by love.
84. Our capacity for love is created and inspired by love.
85. Our capacity for love is supernatural because it transcends nature.
86. Life without love is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
87. Love is essentially valuable, purposeful and meaningful.
88. Purpose presupposes Design.
89. Love cannot be explained without Design.
90. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all evidence of Design.
91. Christians believe God creates the universe with infinite love.
92. God’s purpose is to share the immense value of existence.
93. God creates the universe to sustain life and rational existence.
94. The only logical alternative to belief in Design is belief in non-Design.
95. Non-Design implies life is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
96. Non-Design does not correspond to the facts.
97. No rational person lives as if life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
98. No rational person lives as if love and reasoning are illusions.
99. Even the negative aspects of life presuppose life’s positive value and significance.
100. There is overwhelming evidence in every aspect of existence for Design inspired by infinite and supernatural love .

 

[Sister_Terese]

Wow… All that just to say that belief in a Creator/Designer is a reasonable conclusion!

 

[tonyrey]

Wow… All that just to say that belief in a Creator/Designer is a reasonable conclusion!

Even that is not enough to convince a hardened sceptic!

 

[ReapReason]

Even that is not enough to convince a hardened sceptic!

Scientism is a great hiding place for atheists.

 

[grannymh]

Wow… All that just to say that belief in a Creator/Designer is a reasonable conclusion!

It would be a double Wow, if someone could figure out how a designer leads to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.

 

[tonyrey]

Scientism is a great hiding place for atheists.

:thumbsup:Faith in the power of science to replace religion is stultifying when it comes to questions of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

The archaic meaning of the word - prove to be of unsound mind and hence not responsible - is still appropriate in this case!

 

[tonyrey]

It would be a double Wow, if someone could figure out how a designer leads to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.

**The link between Plato and Medieval Metaphysics is clearly articulated by the Scholastic John Duns Scotus Erivgena’s masterwork *On the Divisions of Nature.***Erivgena correctly identifies God and specifically the Logos as the locus of Platonic ideas and the Stoic logio spermatikoi. He cites as his authority Richard of St. Victor’s De Trinitate.

The Christian understanding of the soul is deeply indebted to Plotinus. It is predicated on what Plotinus identifies as emanation or *beaming *which in turn informs his understanding of *here *and there. Here contains souls and bodies because many bodies, including the perceptible universe itself, are alive or ensouled and their souls have spontaneously descended from and can return to there. Soul depends on Intellect which in turn depends on the ONE or GOOD. The ONE himself is *beyond being *because attribution of being or any other predicate would make him more than ONE.

Consequently, it is easy to see how Plato’s Form of the GOOD and understanding of the Nous and ONE corresponds to John’s Logos **when combined with Plotinus’ construct of the soul juxtaposed with *here-there ***with the ONE being *beyond being *is transformed into the Being/being of Christian Medieval Metaphysics wherein Being implants in all [human] beings a spark of its essence which we call the soul. Thus the “heavenly sparks” of the myth of the Heavenly Anthropos become the soul for Plotinus and the eventual gathering of the sparks and their return to the source is the Gnostic understanding of the resurrection we will share with Jesus when our soul returns to its source.

What is interesting to me in all of this is that orthodox Christianity, to become credible outside Palestine in the greater Greco-Roman world, embraced Platonic philosophy and made much of it its own **especially **Plato’s understanding of dualism that was the source of the dualism of the hypostatic union of the body and soul of Jesus; that is, Jesus as one being both fully human and fully divine. **Subsequently, the neo-Platonism of Plotinus informed Christian theologians including Origin, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, John Chrysostom, Ephrem, Ambrose, and Jerome. **

socialjusticespeaks.org/id32.html

The birth and development of Christianity didn’t occur in an intellectual vacuum! Right from the start Jesus appealed to reason as well as conscience:

“Solomon in all his glory…”

There are three reasons accounting for such a strong approval of Numenius by the early Christians. First, Numenius shows respect for the Jewish tradition (frs. 1a-c, 8, 9); he speaks of the religion of the Jews claiming that their God is incorporeal (Against Celsus I.15; fr. 1b), he interprets allegorically the statements of Moses and the prophets (ibid. IV.51; fr. 1c), while he famously states that Plato is like Moses speaking Attic Greek (fr. 8), and even alludes to Jesus (fr. 10a). Such attention to the Jewish tradition is important for the early Christian theologians and apologists who want to establish the superiority of the Jewish-Christian tradition. Secondly, Numenius’ doctrine of three gods can be read as analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. To the extent that Numenius is an exegete of Plato, Christians feel entitled to claim that Plato in the 2nd Letter foreshadows the doctrine of the Trinity, and use this argument to convince the pagans that Christianity is not something new but was anticipated in the best parts of the pagan philosophical tradition (Eusebius, Prep. Ev. XI.praef. 3, XI.20.1–3; see Kritikos 2007, 407–9). Origen in particular was inspired by Numenius’ distinction between the first god and the immediate agent of creation, a second god, a distinction which preserves God’s immutability (Origen, Against Celsus VII.42–44, Commentary on John I.6.35; Kritikos 2007, 409–416). Finally, Numenius is valuable for the argument which Eusebius makes in his Preparatio Evangelica that the pagan philosophers disagree with each other and do not stick to what Eusebius considers the best part of Greek philosophy, which is Plato’s philosophy.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/numenius/

 

[grannymh]

It would be a double Wow, if someone could figure out how a designer leads to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.

Considering that not all Christians believe the same doctrines that Catholics do. And many forms of religion recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet among prophets, but these religions do not believe in all seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

With the overwhelming evidence for Design–and I do recognize design–it seems to me that ID itself stops short of Catholicism. Personally, that is not a big deal. A lot of philosophies stop short of Catholicism. Please continue…

 

[tonyrey]

It would be a double Wow, if someone could figure out how a designer leads to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.

An eminent Father of the Church wrote:

Certain partakers with us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear and read that Plato had conceptions concerning God, in which they recognize considerable agreement with the truth of our religion…

Then, as to Plato’s saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;”[5] as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not,—a truth which Plato zealously held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, who is sent me unto you.**”
**

The City of God by St Augustine of Hippo

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_VIII/Chapter_11

 

[tonyrey]

Considering that not all Christians believe the same doctrines that Catholics do. And many forms of religion recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet among prophets, but these religions do not believe in all seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

With the overwhelming evidence for Design–and I do recognize design–it seems to me that ID itself stops short of Catholicism. Personally, that is not a big deal. A lot of philosophies stop short of Catholicism. Please continue…

Design does not claim to replace but to provide a rational foundation for Revelation. This tradition dates back to the first Christian apologists, notably St Ireneaus in the 2nd century.

 

[grannymh]

Design does not claim to replace but to provide a rational foundation for Revelation. This tradition dates back to the first Christian apologists, notably St Ireneaus in the 2nd century.

When it comes to the 21st century, one can look back at the ancients and see philosophical foundations. However, these foundations are not enough. It is the Catholic Church which is built on these and other important foundations. The rock of Peter. Not only that, the Catholic Church has the complete means to bring humans into a strong, personal relationship with the God Who calls us all to share in His divine life through knowledge and love.

Philosophy can be seen as a stepping stone or a bridge to Catholicism. Regardless of the philosophy of Design or the philosophy of Plato or the philosophy of the Early Church Fathers, or the philosophy of the Moderns, one should not stand still on the bridge.

 

[grannymh]

There is no doubt that “design” is one of the many universal truths found in our wide, wonderful world. The desire for an explanation of design lies deep within man’s intellective spiritual soul ever since the children of Adam, the real founder of the human species, were old enough to leave home.

One of the first things these descendents, our first ancestors, noticed was that design, weather for example, seemed to have some other explanation than Joe or Mary or any human did it. Do not be confused by the acclamation that Thor did it. Thor may have been the temporary explanation proposed by the uneducated scientists of that period. That is not the point when it comes to universal truths. The real value of Thor is that the first peoples had the innate capacity to seek something beyond the natural environment. In other words, our first ancestors born in Adam’s family, could recognize the possibility of the supernatural.

Today, we depend on computers for an explanation of the weather. We recognize the design in weather patterns and thus can predict future weather with a bit of accuracy.
Still, we are presented with the same old question – where did the design for rain and snow come from? There is plenty of overwhelming evidence that their design includes wetness. But that is a natural science answer. There is still the idea that there is something beyond the natural. Something supernatural. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer concept can point to a real, supernatural, personal Creator Who, in addition to creating the designs found on earth, wants us to live with Him in forever happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

When it comes to the 21st century, one can look back at the ancients and see philosophical foundations. However, these foundations are not enough. It is the Catholic Church which is built on these and other important foundations. The rock of Peter. Not only that, the Catholic Church has the complete means to bring humans into a strong, personal relationship with the God Who calls us all to share in His divine life through knowledge and love.

Philosophy can be seen as a stepping stone or a bridge to Catholicism. Regardless of the philosophy of Design or the philosophy of Plato or the philosophy of the Early Church Fathers, or the philosophy of the Moderns, one should not stand still on the bridge.

Without the teaching of Jesus we would still be in the dark.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no doubt that “design” is one of the many universal truths found in our wide, wonderful world. The desire for an explanation of design lies deep within man’s intellective spiritual soul ever since the children of Adam, the real founder of the human species, were old enough to leave home.

One of the first things these descendents, our first ancestors, noticed was that design, weather for example, seemed to have some other explanation than Joe or Mary or any human did it. Do not be confused by the acclamation that Thor did it. Thor may have been the temporary explanation proposed by the uneducated scientists of that period. That is not the point when it comes to universal truths. The real value of Thor is that the first peoples had the innate capacity to seek something beyond the natural environment. In other words, our first ancestors born in Adam’s family, could recognize the possibility of the supernatural.

Today, we depend on computers for an explanation of the weather. We recognize the design in weather patterns and thus can predict future weather with a bit of accuracy.
Still, we are presented with the same old question – where did the design for rain and snow come from? There is plenty of overwhelming evidence that their design includes wetness. But that is a natural science answer. There is still the idea that there is something beyond the natural. Something supernatural. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer concept can point to a real, personal Creator Who wants us to live with Him in forever happiness.

It is an irrefutable fact that personal existence is the highest form of reality of which we are aware and must be taken into account in any reasonable interpretation of the value, meaning and purpose of life - as opposed to the irrational hypothesis that we are mere sparks in the dark which have appeared for no reason whatsoever and will disappear like everything else into an eternal void…

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would be a double Wow, if someone could figure out how a designer leads to Jesus Christ and Catholicism.

This site does a remarkable job of synthesizing the evidence towards Christianity, though not specifically to Catholicism, in a HUGE number of ways:

reasons.org

This page from the site specifically addresses the possibility of origin of life from purely naturalistic beginnings and responds to the implications of Miller-Urey experiment :

reasons.org/articles/origin-of-life-predictions-face-off-evolution-vs.-biblical-creation

And this debate demonstrates the intelligence of Hugh Ross the University of Toronto’s astrophysicist who founded the above site:

premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={C236F35E-3804-4F1E-BD40-90E657EC93A5}

 

[tonyrey]

This site does a remarkable job of synthesizing the evidence towards Christianity, though not specifically to Catholicism, in a HUGE number of ways:

reasons.org

This page from the site specifically addresses the possibility of origin of life from purely naturalistic beginnings and responds to the implications of Miller-Urey experiment :

reasons.org/articles/origin-of-life-predictions-face-off-evolution-vs.-biblical-creation

And this debate demonstrates the intelligence of Hugh Ross the University of Toronto’s astrophysicist who founded the above site:

premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={C236F35E-3804-4F1E-BD40-90E657EC93A5}

Welcome to the forum, Peter.

Thanks for the excellent references.

It’s a happy coincidence your post came shortly after mine about Plato!