Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html

Many thanks for that reference. The review is excellent but can easily be misinterpreted.

The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value.This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

There is no doubt whatsoever about the truth of these statements. In particular to attempt to derive rational thought from non-rational factors is self-destructive. If the power of reason is produced by non-reasoning processes its validity is open to doubt.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete.

The reviewer seems to assume “minds are features of biological systems”. It is a materialistic assumption - **unless minds also exist independently **of biological systems. There is no valid reason to suppose minds are products of matter rather than fundamental features of reality.

And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such.

These statements are true but they are at odds with “Since minds** are** features of biological systems”. It would be more accurate to describe minds as related to - rather than inseparable from - biological systems.

Nagel’s skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. In Mind and Cosmos, he does suggest that if the materialist account is wrong, then principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic.

Try as he might, Nagel cannot avoid the only alternative to a **purposeless **explanation of existence. He remains an atheist but he has undermined his own position.

In spite of the great achievements of the physical sciences, reductive materialism is a world view ripe for displacement. Nagel shows that to recognize its limits is the first step in looking for alternatives, or at least in being open to their possibility.

Nagel is an eminent philosopher precisely because he is open-minded - unlike many of his contemporaries in our society…

 

[Sister_Terese]

This has to do with philosophical explorations which deal with the subject of consciousness. Its an effort to claim a qualitative in the world.

A term is introduced called qualia. …If a person is placed in a room painted red, the experience in awareness will be effected by the red in the room.

The red in the paint which exists regardless, is said to cause this particular notion of awareness. With this example, the suggestion is the notion of awareness functions by an association of “what it is like” in order to have a conscious thought.

So the red is seen, a qualia of real red from the paint is perceived and forms the conscious thought. The suggestion is our awareness is an experience of qualia in the world…sound , color, perception. ( the sensation of color cannot be accounted for in the scientists picture re light-waves)

If this is so, argues some thought…then when the tree makes a boom, or the color red in the room… cause’s the conscious thought which “happens” by a translation in “what it is like” …suggests that the experience in our awareness is an experience which is communicated by an experience( the qualia) we simply get "what it is like, a copy .So the boom and the color qualia which travels into our mind is already an experience and therefore…the outstanding question is who is experiencing all the qualia …An experiencer is required is the suggestion…enter a conscious world or God figure.

Did my best here, I read a super discussion a year and a half ago for something to do between an adamant theist with a career in the field of science and a gent preparing a thesis in philosophy who also had a degree in physic’s…They both pretty much were solid with respects to agreeing that the world is a conscious world. The interesting would be the idea that conscious thought emerges primarily out of the unconscious …This is up for grabs on correction, feel free to fire away. These area’s are really not the path I find myself thinking about too much, partly because of the amount of work thats been done, and the lack in capability to bring numbers and facts into the equation…but it is very interesting .

Whew!! You lost me after the first sentence! But, I THINK i understand the gist. I THINK what you are saying is that in order for something to exist, it must be experienced, sensed, or realized. So, because there is no hearing of the tree falling, the SOUND is not received, therefore, it cannot be. I don’t even know what I just said, to be honest…

If all people walked into this red room at different times, but they all had the experience of the color red–which must be that the room is red, then how do you explain the fact that there won’t be numerous realities of red? Isn’t it true, therefore, that red can only be red and therefore cannot be not red. I don’t make a bit of sense…I think I’ll just go take an aspirin…

 

[Sister_Terese]

Anyone here see the video “Expelled” by Ben Stein? I thought it was sadly excellent. I thought he was a comedian! DUH!!!

 

[oval]

Whew!! You lost me after the first sentence! But, I THINK i understand the gist. I THINK what you are saying is that in order for something to exist, it must be experienced, sensed, or realized. So, because there is no hearing of the tree falling, the SOUND is not received, therefore, it cannot be. I don’t even know what I just said, to be honest…

If all people walked into this red room at different times, but they all had the experience of the color red–which must be that the room is red, then how do you explain the fact that there won’t be numerous realities of red? Isn’t it true, therefore, that red can only be red and therefore cannot be not red. I don’t make a bit of sense…I think I’ll just go take an aspirin…

Thanks and it gives me a chance if anything for an exercise, maybe I will try a chair example.

Many thinkers use the idea of red and blind people, to try and make sense of the idea.

Another way, is to look at a chair and then close the eyes, the “immediate experience” is that the chair dis-appeared. We know though, the chair did not disappear.

So…it seems what we “immediately experience” when looking at the chair is not really an experience of the chair itself, but a representation of the chair by the mental image. So now we have two different things, the chair itself and the representing image.

Above we have established two different onto-logical things in the chair…1) a mental image 2) a material chair itself. So the chair would be a mind independent thing.

(Members are free to advise if I have my rabbits in a row here, this would be the idea in dualism (base)

So the tree falling and boom, or we could say looking at the moon and then looking away, are simply things created in the mind, remember from above, these are immediate experience’s and not the boom or the moon itself because they are representations 1) a mental image, and 2) the moon or boom itself.

So for the moon , chair or boom to be there when we look away or we are not there to hear the boom…it is suggested they are still there because God never stops perceiving things…this is called Idealism and it insists or implies I guess that consciousness is fundamental. …This is the required Experiencer-God idea ( this is my understanding)

Interestingly… above requires a distinction between mind and matter. We have a chair qualia and an individual qualia…so the chair cannot literally be an essential part of my own existence where it is said, that all we immediately perceive is a mental representation, of the chair or moon.

So…

In order to unify this problem, it could be suggested that the chair contributes at times to the conscious and sometimes to the unconscious. This way the chair can be in the same community or, essential part of the persons existence. So it then implies a society of qualia, the moon or chair or boom qualia being a portion or subset of the total persons “I” qualia.

anyway if any of you guys tony and fnr, joe anybody see’s to make any changes please do if u have time , I really didn’t think things would go in this direction with the qualia stuff, but it is interesting .

 

[tonyrey]

Whew!! You lost me after the first sentence! But, I THINK i understand the gist. I THINK what you are saying is that in order for something to exist, it must be experienced, sensed, or realized. So, because there is no hearing of the tree falling, the SOUND is not received, therefore, it cannot be. I don’t even know what I just said, to be honest…

If all people walked into this red room at different times, but they all had the experience of the color red–which must be that the room is red, then how do you explain the fact that there won’t be numerous realities of red? Isn’t it true, therefore, that red can only be red and therefore cannot be not red. I don’t make a bit of sense…I think I’ll just go take an aspirin…

We all have different experiences of colour, sound, heat, light, life and love…

It’s better to take time off to stroll through the park!

 

[tonyrey]

1. Design implies that reality is fundamentally rational, valuable and purposeful.
2. Non-Design implies that reality is fundamentally irrational, valueless and purposeless.
3. Design is positive.
4. Non-Design is negative.
5. A positive view of reality is creative and fulfilling.
6. A negative view of reality is destructive and frustrating.
7. Design is consistent because it is based on the value of reasoning.
8. Non-Design is inconsistent because it is based on the value of unreasoning events.
9. Design is superior to non-Design in every respect.
10. Design is the most comprehensive, adequate, coherent, economical, verifiable, fertile and inspiring interpretation of reality.

 

[fnr]

1. Design implies that reality is fundamentally rational, valuable and purposeful.
2. Non-Design implies that reality is fundamentally irrational, valueless and purposeless.
3. Design is positive.
4. Non-Design is negative.
5. A positive view of reality is creative and fulfilling.
6. A negative view of reality is destructive and frustrating.
7. Design is consistent because it is based on the value of reasoning.
8. Non-Design is inconsistent because it is based on the value of unreasoning events.
9. Design is superior to non-Design in every respect.
10. Design is the most comprehensive, adequate, coherent, economical, verifiable, fertile and inspiring interpretation of reality.

One thing I’ll ask, based on the design metaphor: at what stage of construction does design occur? An architecht of a building isn’t hammering in the nails. A fashion designer first makes a sketch.

If by design, you consider God having set the boundary conditions of the physics that makes our lives inevitable, I’m with you.

 

[tonyrey]

One thing I’ll ask, based on the design metaphor: at what stage of construction does design occur? An architect of a building isn’t hammering in the nails. A fashion designer first makes a sketch.

If by design, you consider God having set the boundary conditions of the physics that makes our lives inevitable, I’m with you.

The nature or modus operandi of the Designer is a separate philosophical issue from Design - which can be discussed in another thread. Christian belief in Providence is a theological view based on the teaching of Jesus which implies that God not only but also creates, sustains and directs the universe in its development. He is not a passive observer like an architect of a building or a fashion designer but an infinitely loving Father who cares for His children and intervenes wherever and whenever possible to prevent needless suffering without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.

 

[fnr]

The nature or modus operandi of the Designer is a separate philosophical issue from Design - which can be discussed in another thread. Christian belief in Providence is a theological view based on the teaching of Jesus which implies that God not only but also creates, sustains and directs the universe in its development. He is not a passive observer like an architect of a building or a fashion designer but an infinitely loving Father who cares for His children and intervenes wherever and whenever possible to prevent needless suffering without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.

Miracles do happen, but we need to be careful in saying that God’s intervening wherever needed. The problem of evil raises its head there very strongly.

 

[tonyrey]

Miracles do happen, but we need to be careful in saying that God’s intervening wherever needed. The problem of evil raises its head there very strongly.

I stipulated “without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.” There is obviously a limit to the number of observable miracles but there must be countless others that are undetectable, e.g. the severity and intensity of pain a person or animal experiences.

 

[oval]

Miracles do happen, but we need to be careful in saying that God’s intervening wherever needed. The problem of evil raises its head there very strongly.

Little bit surprised fnr… ( thought you might have something up your sleeve for a surprise, in the boundaries and the logo and then the cat. An idea. Oh well…maybe a rabbit will appear somewhere.

 

[Bradski]

…an infinitely loving Father who cares for His children and intervenes wherever and whenever possible to prevent needless suffering without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.

Wherever and whenever possible? Isn’t he omnipotent? And can you define ‘needless suffering’?

 

[Sister_Terese]

1. Design implies that reality is fundamentally rational, valuable and purposeful.
2. Non-Design implies that reality is fundamentally irrational, valueless and purposeless.
3. Design is positive.
4. Non-Design is negative.
5. A positive view of reality is creative and fulfilling.
6. A negative view of reality is destructive and frustrating.
7. Design is consistent because it is based on the value of reasoning.
8. Non-Design is inconsistent because it is based on the value of unreasoning events.
9. Design is superior to non-Design in every respect.
10. Design is the most comprehensive, adequate, coherent, economical, verifiable, fertile and inspiring interpretation of reality.

Can you give me an example of “non-design”?

 

[tonyrey]

Can you give me an example of “non-design”?

1. A Godless universe
2. Purposeless lives
3. Natural disasters
4. Accidents for which no one is responsible
5. Diseases caused by genetic mutations
6. Deaths due to ignorance
7. Unplanned development
8. All random events
9. All unexpected misfortunes
10. Everything in the materialist’s scheme of things!

 

[tonyrey]

Wherever and whenever possible? Isn’t he omnipotent? And can you define ‘needless suffering’?

Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

Needless suffering is all pain and anguish that could be prevented by human beings.

 

[Sair]

I stipulated “without depriving us of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.” There is obviously a limit to the number of observable miracles but there must be countless others that are undetectable, e.g. the severity and intensity of pain a person or animal experiences.

Frankly, severity and intensity of pain are most likely to have physical explanations.

Is it your belief that if a person were to actually encounter God, in person, or in a way that spoke undeniably and unequivocally of divine intervention, that worship of said God would no longer be a matter of voluntary action?

It’s problematic to claim that we have a choice in what we believe. Perhaps we do, in some extreme sense - but there’s only so far you can convince yourself that you don’t ‘believe’ in gravity before you hit the ground.

Why would a good god, belief in whom is supposed to be beneficial for humans, choose to behave in such a way as to leave ample room for doubt?

 

[Sair]

Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

That depends very much on your interpretation - it’s hard to imagine how it could be possible to do everything without some contradictory actions creeping in.

Needless suffering is all pain and anguish that could be prevented by human beings.

Does that mean that suffering we can’t prevent, but which could, presumably, be prevented by an omnipotent deity - like the 2004 Asian tsunami, for example - is somehow necessary? You’ve remarked in the past that in order to claim any suffering to be unnecessary, explanation of how it could be preventable or completely nonbeneficial is necessary; but this cuts both ways. What benefit did the suffering of the families affected by the tsunami, or by the recent Japanese earthquake, or by the Black Saturday fires here in Victoria, or any given natural disaster you’d care to name, have that outweighs their agony?

 

[tonyrey]

Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

Precisely!

Does that mean that suffering we can’t prevent, but which could, presumably, be prevented by an omnipotent deity - like the 2004 Asian tsunami, for example - is somehow necessary?

Disasters are essential! If people were never killed by a natural event like a tsunami, earthquake, landslide, avalanche, tidal wave or volcanic eruption we would realise we were being protected by a benevolent power.

You’ve remarked in the past that in order to claim any suffering to be unnecessary, explanation of how it could be preventable or completely nonbeneficial is necessary; but this cuts both ways. What benefit did the suffering of the families affected by the tsunami, or by the recent Japanese earthquake, or by the Black Saturday fires here in Victoria, or any given natural disaster you’d care to name, have that outweighs their agony?

None whatsoever! Natural disasters could be prevented by miracles but if every disaster were prevented we would realise we were being protected by a benevolent power.

 

[tonyrey]

Frankly, severity and intensity of pain are most likely to have physical explanations.

I agree.

Is it your belief that if a person were to actually encounter God, in person, or in a way that spoke undeniably and unequivocally of divine intervention, that worship of said God would no longer be a matter of voluntary action?

Yes!

It’s problematic to claim that we have a choice in what we believe. Perhaps we do, in some extreme sense - but there’s only so far you can convince yourself that you don’t ‘believe’ in gravity before you hit the ground.

The immense probability of many events doesn’t preclude **all **freedom to choose what to believe.

Why would a good god, belief in whom is supposed to be beneficial for humans, choose to behave in such a way as to leave ample room for doubt?

If there were no room for doubt we would realise we were being protected by a benevolent power.

 

[tonyrey]

If there were no room for doubt we would realise we were being protected by a benevolent power.

We are obviously free to chose what to believe and how to live because there is considerable disagreement on such issues.