Overwhelming evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thus, at their core level, the belief in an almighty but unknowable God is functionally identical to cosmology’s silly Big Bang theory. Neither is verifiable.
Are you saying that the evidence does not point to the standard Big-Bang theory?

If so, what verifiable hypothesis do you have that provides a better model than the Big-bang theory?
 
Absolutely! It just shows that God planted the seeds for life everywhere!
I was tempted to agree with you but then I reflected:
  1. We cannot possibly know whether God intends intelligent life to be abundant in the universe.
  2. Size or frequency have nothing to do with significance.
  3. Even if we are the only rational beings in the whole of Creation there is no valid reason to believe we exist for no reason or purpose.
  4. That is the insurmountable stumbling block for the non-Design theory.
  5. We can’t get blood out of a stone, let alone persons from particles!
  6. It would be the greatest miracle ever performed - without an adequate explanation… 😉
 
He did. …that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21) Our ultimate purpose is union with God.
👍 Not with purposeless particles!
 
Christ taught Capitalism and unfairness? On what basis do you ascribe to this opinion?
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:21-23

The first Christians were hardly unfair capitalists!
44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,** they were taking their meals** together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people.
Acts 2:44

No further evidence is needed…
 
Are you saying that the evidence does not point to the standard Big-Bang theory?

If so, what verifiable hypothesis do you have that provides a better model than the Big-bang theory?
👍 “verifiable” in the key word…
 
Thank you for your appreciative comments. Do you have a more compelling explanation?
They’re heart warming. I like lots of Christianity, and some of the explanations you’ve given here are nice. They’re sweet. I don’t, however, understand much of the logic, especially the ones that make weird assumptions about God having perfect love, and so therefore he must have designed the Earth, or moral arguments which state why it’d be nice for the world to be designed, and don’t give evidence towards it being designed.
 
Sister Terese,
Your arguments from non-accident are intuitive, and reminiscent of the feelings that guided my own thoughts a half-century ago. IMO yours are correct.

However, you might consider rethinking your belief that the only possible first cause is that which is taught by Catholicism or any other contemporary religion. The belief that an unknowable, unverifiable, non-physical creator suddenly decided to create the universe is, after all, functionally identical to the notion that a mysterious “physical singularity” suddenly appeared out of nowhere and exploded, thus forming the universe.

Thus, at their core level, the belief in an almighty but unknowable God is functionally identical to cosmology’s silly Big Bang theory. Neither is verifiable.
How could a** metaphysical** explanation - for which there is overwhelming and verifiable evidence - be “functionally identical” with a** cosmological** theory? :confused:
However, there is an excellent theory which is derived from classical physics and the essential observation that human consciousness exists and is not explained by modern science, which avoids the shared pitfalls of conventional religion and modern science.
It proposes that two things, two causes, were required to create the universe and ourselves.
Who propounded this theory and by whom is it regarded as excellent?
 
Christ taught Capitalism and unfairness? On what basis do you ascribe to this opinion?
Read the Parable of the Talents (Matt.25:14 or thereabouts) all the way to the end. Capitalism.

Unfairness: Read the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. I do not know the specific chapter and verse on that. When you are finished, try to find any modern day good Christian Unionized worker who would regard that particular assignment of bennies as “fair.”
 
How could a** metaphysical** explanation - for which there is overwhelming and verifiable evidence - be “functionally identical” with a** cosmological** theory? :confused:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I wrote nothing about any metaphysical explanation. I wrote, simply:

*The belief that an unknowable, unverifiable, non-physical creator suddenly decided to create the universe is, after all, functionally identical to the notion that a mysterious “physical singularity” suddenly appeared out of nowhere and exploded, thus forming the universe.

Thus, at their core level, the belief in an almighty but unknowable God is functionally identical to cosmology’s silly Big Bang theory. Neither is verifiable.*

I stated clearly that there is no evidence— no verification— for either possibility. Both the metaphysical core of monotheistic religions and the core of modern cosmology are functionally identical— in that they each depend upon the hypothetical existence of one thing which cannot be identified or verified.

The “one thing” for monotheism is an omnipotent, infinite God. The equivalent for cosmology is a physical singularity.

Religionists wrap words and biblical interpretations around their concept, which no real churchgoing people actually comprehend. Cosmologists run their own snow job behind arcane mathematics which none of them can really understand either. Both hide their mystical concepts behind a veil of intellectually contrived obfuscation.

Thus, both are functionally identical.
Who propounded this theory and by whom is it regarded as excellent?
I did. Of course I regard it as excellent, but that hardly counts.

My editor also liked it. She is a courageous and independent sort of person. It seems to have changed her life, but I cannot recall her ever using the word “excellent:” amid her many constructive criticisms.

There are reviews on amazon.com by others who had good things to say about it, amid many interesting negative things. None of them used the term “excellent” either.

That leaves only myself. Of course, like most religionists you are looking for outside agreement, because that is the basis for religious beliefs. Alas. I have no help for you. I wrote the book for independent thinkers who have the courage to trust their own minds above the agreed-upon belief systems of their day.

BTW one reason why I prefer my own theories to those of others is that mine are verifiable. My core hypotheses involve components which still exist today, and therefore can be experimented upon— by anyone with the courage to consider genuinely new concepts.
 
Are you saying that the evidence does not point to the standard Big-Bang theory?

If so, what verifiable hypothesis do you have that provides a better model than the Big-bang theory?
I have a conjoined set of hypotheses which incorporate not only an alternative to the silly Big Bang theory, but which define God in the context of classical physics… The cores of these hypotheses depend upon two things which have already been discovered. One has been recently found with the methods of science, The other has been known to mankind since before the time of Neanderthals.

The concepts won’t fit in a short blog response, but are scattered here and there among my CAF posts over the last three years. They are assembled in a book which you can find on amazon.com by searching on my name. I do not recommend that you actually try to read it.
 
I don’t know if there is anything verifiable which can be shown to prohibit, the evolving of consciousness.
1.What produces consciousness?
  1. How does it produces consciousness?
  2. Are persons merely collections of particles?
 
1.What produces consciousness?
  1. How does it produces consciousness?
  2. Are persons merely collections of particles?
I fear your “trump card” questions cut both ways.

What produces consciousness? Some entity that is already conscious, like a soul? That is avoiding the question, unless you can answer:

How does it produce consciousness? How, even, does it interact with the physical aspects of human beings in order to influence our behaviour?

Are persons merely a confluence of nonphysical ectoplasm?
 
How could a* metaphysical***
  1. A metaphysical theory is an interpretation of reality.
2.Your theory is an interpretation of reality.
  1. Therefore your theory is a metaphysical theory.
  2. The Big Bang is a physical theory.
  3. There is no evidence that reality is solely physical.
  4. Therefore there is no evidence that metaphysical theories are physical theories.
  5. Therefore there is no evidence that cosmological theories - which are necessarily physical theories - are necessarily metaphysical.
  6. The only physical theory which is necessarily metaphysical is physicalism.
  7. No one has ever explained how reasoning can be valid if it is caused by blind physical events.
  8. Physicalism is self-destructive - and therefore false - because it explains consciousness and reasoning in terms of blind physical events.
 
What produces consciousness? Some entity that is already conscious, like a soul?
  1. Your question presupposes that consciousness is produced.
  2. There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness is produced.
  3. Therefore there is no reason to suppose that consciousness is a product.
How does it produce consciousness? How, even, does it interact with the physical aspects of human beings in order to influence our behaviour? Are persons merely a confluence of nonphysical ectoplasm?
  1. Your question presupposes that consciousness can be explained by human beings.
  2. There is no verifiable evidence that consciousness can be explained by human beings.
  3. There is no verifiable evidence that fundamental reality can be explained by human beings.
  4. There is verifiable evidence that consciousness is a reality that has not been explained.
  5. Without consciousness nothing can be explained.
  6. Without consciousness it is impossible to be rational.
  7. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that consciousness and rationality are fundamental realities.
  8. There is verifiable evidence that consciousness and rationality are only associated with persons.
  9. Therefore the most economical and cogent explanation of consciousness and rationality is that they are fundamental realities associated with one personal fundamental reality.
 
I was tempted to agree with you but then I reflected:
  1. We cannot possibly know whether God intends intelligent life to be abundant in the universe.
  2. Size or frequency have nothing to do with significance.
  3. Even if we are the only rational beings in the whole of Creation there is no valid reason to believe we exist for no reason or purpose.
  4. That is the insurmountable stumbling block for the non-Design theory.
  5. We can’t get blood out of a stone, let alone persons from particles!
  6. It would be the greatest miracle ever performed - without an adequate explanation… 😉

  1. *]True
    *]True, though it would be arrogant if we were to assume we were the only intelligence significant in God’s eyes. God’s love would, no doubt, extend to all creation.
    *]True. Ontology has nothing to do with ethical value, at least as modern science can understand or detect.
    *]False. The multitude of theories explaining “how we got here” from simple origins (e.g., thermodynamics, relativistic physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology) don’t relate to the question of the purpose of life. However, they do a remarkably good job of explaining most of the phenomena that lead to complex life. You don’t need to resort to any statement of teleology (the overall purpose of a thing) to explain the biology, chemistry, and physics of its behavior, nor the conditions that cause change in that “biophysicochemical” stuff.
    *]True. But it’s pretty well established that consciousness is a physical phenomenon of the brain and nervous system. Traumatic brain injury survivors have taught us that when your brain gets injured, your memory, emotional regulation, motor function, and cognitive skills change. If consciousness is a physical phenomenon, it is subject to physical forces. This is consistent with the brain operating on physical forces (e.g., electrical conduction down the axis of a neuron).
    *]True.

    Have a great day! 🙂
 
And that is precisely why so many are hell-bent on finding water…somehow that proves that life exists or existed, and SOMEHOW that translates into there being no God. That’s what it all boils down to. :eek:
How? I don’t understand that. The existence of life on Mars would mean there could be no God, how?
 
How? I don’t understand that. The existence of life on Mars would mean there could be no God, how?
I don’t understand that either. And I’m Catholic! Discovering previous life on Mars would conclude that Genesis 1-3 is a metaphorical narrative, which we already know (and the Catechism attests). Life existing anywhere it conceivable could be within our solar system (as we already see on our planet) suggests life may be anywhere we see a star like our sun with a set of planets like our solar system (at least with a nonzero probability). Based on what we see with telescopes, we can see something like 100 billion galaxies in the sky, each of which probably has at least 100 billion stars (our Milky Way galaxy has 200-400 billion). Do the math, and that’s approximately 1 x 10^22 (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars that we can see from earth. In that the earth is just about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe itself about 3x that age, it suggests that there’s a lot more in the universe that we can’t see.

We don’t see that our star is unique: it’s kind of a middle-of-the-road star. We see planets around many other starts.

If Curiosity finds life on Mars, that’s evidence that life arose on two planets in the same solar system. If that’s the case, celebrate the creator! It seems very likely that he made the “garden” that is the universe teeming with life! On some planet orbitting a star 3 billion light years away, someone may be having exactly the same conversation we are. Glory be!😃
 
  1. We cannot possibly know whether God intends intelligent life to be abundant in the universe.
  2. Size or frequency have nothing to do with significance.
  3. Even if we are the only rational beings in the whole of Creation there is no valid reason to believe we exist for no reason or purpose.
  4. That is the insurmountable stumbling block for the non-Design theory.
  5. We can’t get blood out of a stone, let alone persons from particles!
  6. It would be the greatest miracle ever performed - without an adequate explanation…
True, though it would be arrogant if we were to assume we were the only intelligence significant in God’s eyes. God’s love would, no doubt, extend to all creation. Ontology has nothing to do with ethical value, at least as modern science can understand or detect.I agree.
The multitude of theories explaining “how we got here” from simple origins (e.g., thermodynamics, relativistic physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology) don’t relate to the question of the purpose of life.
The purposeful nature of life cannot be explained by physical events.
However, they do a remarkably good job of explaining most of the phenomena that lead to complex life. You don’t need to resort to any statement of teleology (the overall purpose of a thing) to explain the biology, chemistry, and physics of its behavior, nor the conditions that cause change in that “biophysicochemical” stuff.
If biology, chemistry, and physics explain life it is purposeless because physical events per se are not purposeful…
It’s pretty well established that consciousness is a physical phenomenon of the brain and nervous system. Traumatic brain injury survivors have taught us that when your brain gets injured, your memory, emotional regulation, motor function, and cognitive skills change. If consciousness is a physical phenomenon, it is subject to physical forces.
If consciousness is a physical phenomenon it too is purposeless. Physicalism is an inadequate explanation of reality.
This is consistent with the brain operating on physical forces (e.g., electrical conduction down the axis of a neuron).
The mind is conscious but the mind cannot be produced by the brain because all our thoughts and decisions would have physical causes - which implies we are neither rational nor responsible for our behaviour. A more reasonable explanation is that our brain is the instrument with which our mind communicates, receives information and controls physical events. If the brain is seriously damaged we are no longer able to have any contact with the world but we still exist as conscious persons. 🙂
Have a great day!
You too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top