Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

A quick thought will show you your error.

What is the unstated assumption?

If your theory is not an interpretation of reality it is worthless.

…
Agreed. However, we have different interpretations of reality.

That is beside the point.

If your theory is an interpretation of reality it is a metaphysical theory.

 

[tonyrey]

This would seem to me to be a critical question. It may lead to an understanding of the creative mystery of God.

Several observations:

1. Animal suffering in the predator-prey relationship could be an object lesson to humans in the sense that in a limited (perhaps even fallen) world, love will necessarily involve the suffering of some to provide for the needs of others. If you truly love another, that love, in attempting to provide for the well-being of other will involve suffering and perhaps even death. A love that is unwilling to endure suffering on behalf of the other is no real love. A pseudo-love based upon avoidance of all suffering would sooner tolerate putting other and self out of existence than to endure even a slight inconvenience let alone a measure of hard won pain. This weak love will rationalize the rights of “choice” of any innocuous “good” for some over the very life others on the basis of “least amount of suffering.”
2. As an extension of the above object lesson, and to show that the use of power to avoid the demands of love is contrary to the very essence of existence, the all-powerful, all-loving God came down to Earth, took the role of prey, allowed Himself to be hunted and killed by predatory world-minded human authorities and then gave Himself, as prey, for food to allow all humanity to be energized by the divine energy, the blood that flowed through the veins of His sacrificed body. Love gives, Love endures, Love sacrifices all on behalf of other.

Why is the natural world set up as it is?

God in all His wisdom has written into the very fabric of nature the sacrifice of Himself on behalf of humanity that demonstrates the cost of love in a manner that we ought not forget. The reason suffering is real is because Love has a very real cost in terms of self-giving on behalf of other that cannot be avoided by rationalizing it away by bland references to rights.
We feel the suffering of others in the depths of our bones because Love is at the heart of our own being, in all creation and, foremost, in the very essence of our Creator. If Love wasn’t central to reality, suffering as felt anguish would not exist.

The view that suffering is the worst evil is a hedonistic assumption which is easily falsified. It fails to take into account - amongst other things - that an increase in sensitivity is a two-edged sword. The more sensitive we are the more we enjoy life but the more we suffer.

 

[Bradski]

False deduction. I am implying that there are times and places when God chooses not to act - for reasons I have given.

.He allows **apparently **needless suffering. We have no idea of what animals **feel **especially when they are not in our presence.

It’s not a deduction. When you said ‘whenever and wherever possible’ you meant ‘whenever and wherever He chooses’. It’s a significant difference. Thanks for clarifying that.

Now to ‘needless suffering.’ It’s seems that you meant ‘apparent’ needless suffering. And that the term ‘apparent’ means that you don’t believe that animals feel pain. Seeing that you and I are animals, maybe you could expound on that.

Can you give some examples?

And from the last post you made: who says suffering is evil? In respect to animal suuffering, which is the case in point, one animal hunting another for food is not evil.

 

[tonyrey]

False deduction. I am implying that there are times and places when God chooses not to act - for reasons I have given.

It’s impossible to spell out all the implications of every statement.

He allows apparently needless suffering. We have no idea of what animals feel especially when they are not in our presence.

Now to ‘needless suffering.’ It’s seems that you meant ‘apparent’ needless suffering. And that the term ‘apparent’ means that you don’t believe that animals feel pain. Seeing that you and I are animals, maybe you could expound on that. Can you give some examples?
That definitely is a false deduction from “apparently needless”.

And from the last post you made: who says suffering is evil? In respect to animal suffering, which is the case in point, one animal hunting another for food is not evil.

Predation is regarded by some people as a natural evil.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You have answered my question with a question, and an irrelevant one at that. This suggests that corresponding with you will not be worthwhile.

Since I do not believe in the Big Bang, I cannot point you to my theory about it. Of course, my book offers an alternative which does a better job of fitting the facts. I could point you in that direction, but it is not a trivial book, and it is creation-affirmative, so I doubt that you will be capable of understanding enough of it.

Unless you write something which leads me to think that an answer to your question would lead to a constructive conversation, rather than more tiresome atheistic/religious positional defense, I must regard your request as a risk to my personal privacy, and a complete waste of time.

I still do not understand how you choose to not believe in one of the most tested theories of all of physics and astronomy. I imagine it comes second in the ‘most tested theory’ category after quantum mechanics.

 

[fnr]

This would seem to me to be a critical question. It may lead to an understanding of the creative mystery of God.

Several observations:

1. Animal suffering in the predator-prey relationship could be an object lesson to humans in the sense that in a limited (perhaps even fallen) world, love will necessarily involve the suffering of some to provide for the needs of others. If you truly love another, that love, in attempting to provide for the well-being of other will involve suffering and perhaps even death.

Extinction throws a complication in here. Particularly the mass extinction event that is also known as human culture. Everywhere people appeared for the first time, we killed off the native macrofauna, for food or to get rid of competitors for food. The huge birds of New Zealand went extinct when people came. The dire wolf, mastodon, and saber tooth tigers of North America went extinct shortly after the arrival of humans. Can we view extinction as love? Such extinctions continue today, with the extinction rate exceeding the natural rate by about 2-3 orders of magnitude. I think this reflects humanity’s fallen nature. The damage of nature is inseparable from human coercion and abuse of other humans. This argues strongly against particular design, and in favor of geographically isolated evolution. The kicker here is that the location in which native macrofauna remain abundant is central Africa, where humans and animals co-evolved. Giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, cheetahs, gorillas, and the list goes on. This meant that before the industrial revolution, animals in that region had evolved appropriate defenses against humanity. When humanity moved out of Africa, it killed and ate most of the species unable to live a managed existence. Exemplary counter-examples include the bison and llama.

God in all His wisdom has written into the very fabric of nature the sacrifice of Himself on behalf of humanity that demonstrates the cost of love in a manner that we ought not forget. The reason suffering is real is because Love has a very real cost in terms of self-giving on behalf of other that cannot be avoided by rationalizing it away by bland references to rights.
We feel the suffering of others in the depths of our bones because Love is at the heart of our own being, in all creation and, foremost, in the very essence of our Creator. If Love wasn’t central to reality, suffering as felt anguish would not exist.

I would love to agree with you, but extinction of other species and our own policies that exploit the world’s poor suggest that we are acting more out of our fallen nature than love.

 

[rossum]

What is the unstated assumption?

To recap, here is your original error:

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.

Your hidden assumption is:

1a. There are no interpretations of reality that are not metaphyscical theories.

Without that assumption your logic fails, as I showed with my even and odd number example. A member of a set does not have to be a member of a subset of that set.

1. A woman is human.
2. Hugh Hefner is human.
3. Therefore Hugh Hefner is a woman.

This is identical to your original logic, but with the implicit assumption more obvious. In order to correct your logic you have to explicitly state your hidden assumption and to justify it as correct.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Extinction throws a complication in here. Particularly the mass extinction event that is also known as human culture. Everywhere people appeared for the first time, we killed off the native macrofauna, for food or to get rid of competitors for food. The huge birds of New Zealand went extinct when people came. The dire wolf, mastodon, and saber tooth tigers of North America went extinct shortly after the arrival of humans. Can we view extinction as love? Such extinctions continue today, with the extinction rate exceeding the natural rate by about 2-3 orders of magnitude. I think this reflects humanity’s fallen nature. The damage of nature is inseparable from human coercion and abuse of other humans. This argues strongly against particular design, and in favor of geographically isolated evolution. The kicker here is that the location in which native macrofauna remain abundant is central Africa, where humans and animals co-evolved. Giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, cheetahs, gorillas, and the list goes on. This meant that before the industrial revolution, animals in that region had evolved appropriate defenses against humanity. When humanity moved out of Africa, it killed and ate most of the species unable to live a managed existence. Exemplary counter-examples include the bison and llama.

I would love to agree with you, but extinction of other species and our own policies that exploit the world’s poor suggest that we are acting more out of our fallen nature than love.

I think that you misunderstood my point because perhaps I was not as clear as I thought I was.

What I was trying to say is that given a limited and fallen world, aggressive power separated from the energizing Love of God will impose suffering on others. Therefore, given such a world, love will necessarily be sacrificial and will be called to suffer harm for the sake of others. That suffering cannot be avoided except by abdicating love and resorting only to aggressive power to impose one’s will on others rather than acting on love and accepting the suffering that comes with it.

The point you made about the extinction of animals due to human action can be explained, I would argue, as a sign of aggressive power divorced from the Love of God. The imposition of power to avoid suffering.

My point that the predator prey relationship is an object lesson was in an attempt to show that Love accepts and does not avoid suffering in a fallen world where aggressive power is present because countering aggressive power with aggressive power will merely double the amount of suffering. In human affairs, an attack on a people by another is responded to by a counter attack and so suffering is multiplied.

In nature, prey becomes one with the predator after it is eaten. In God’s economy, rather than countering human aggression with counter aggression, Christ on the cross gave himself up as "prey” to human predators and as prey, allows himself to be eaten that He may become part of the body of the predators to change them from the “inside” so to speak. You become what you eat; so Christ allows Himself to be eaten in order to effect change in us as human predators from the inside out rather than externally by countering force with force.

The predator-prey relationship in nature models the very means by which life energy (the well-being of the other) is transferred through nature by sacrifice. In turn, the predator dies and becomes food for decomposers which in turn restore energy through plant-life to the original prey. If you understand that the one time sacrifice of God Himself through His Son on the cross is the means by which Life energy (Eternal Life) is transferred to humanity for eternity, then the need for aggression to grasp at life has been rendered futile. Love has conquered, aggressive resistance is futile.

 

[Bradski]

It’s impossible to spell out all the implications of every statement.

True. But saying that God will intervene where possible does not imply that God will intervene when He chooses. They are two entirely different things.

If He intervened ‘where possible’ it is inherent in that statement that there will be occasions when it is impossible for Him to do so. If he intervened ‘when He chooses’, it is inherent that He has complete control over the situation and will or will not intervene as he decides. I take it that you would agree that there could never be a situation when God found Himself able to act only ‘where possible’.

That definitely is a false deduction from “apparently needless”.
Predation is regarded by some people as a natural evil.

What’s with all this ‘false deduction’ business? I’m not making any deductions, I’m simply responding to what you have said:

He allows **apparently **needless suffering. We have no idea of what animals **feel **especially when they are not in our presence.

Now you’ve moved from ‘God prevents needless suffering (when he chooses, not just where possible)’ to ‘God prevents apparently needless suffering’. As an example of ‘needless suffering’ I have used animals in the wild, but you are suggesting that they don’t suffer.

We have no idea of what they feel.

But you do believe that they feel pain.

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.

Predation isn’t evil. Do you believe it to be so?

 

[tonyrey]

To recap, here is your original error:

Your hidden assumption is:1a. There are no interpretations of reality that are not metaphyscical theories.
Without that assumption your logic fails, as I showed with my even and odd number example. A member of a set does not have to be a member of a subset of that set.1. A woman is human.

1. Hugh Hefner is human.
2. Therefore Hugh Hefner is a woman.
   This is identical to your original logic, but with the implicit assumption more obvious. In order to correct your logic you have to explicitly state your hidden assumption and to justify it as correct.

You are obviously unaware of the meaning of metaphysics:

Metaphysics***:*** a division of philosophy that is concerned with **the fundamental nature of reality and being **and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

Merriam-Webster.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s impossible to spell out all the implications of every statement.

My original statement was:

“God 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. **”

I’m not making any deductions, I’m simply responding to what you have said:

*He allows **apparently ***needless suffering. We have no idea of what animals **feel **especially when they are not in our presence.

Now you’ve moved from ‘God prevents needless suffering (when he chooses, not just where possible)’ to ‘God prevents apparently needless suffering’. As an example of ‘needless suffering’ I have used animals in the wild, but you are suggesting that they don’t suffer.

I explicitly stated:

“We have no idea of what animals **feel.”

**In other words we don’t know to what extent they suffer.

But you do believe that they feel pain.

Animals give signs of feeling pain but we have no idea of its severity.

Predation isn’t evil. Do you believe it to be so?

Predation cannot be evil because it is necessary for survival. Only a few forms of primitive life can live on minerals!

 

[Bradski]

Animals give signs of feeling pain but we have no idea of its severity.

Predation cannot be evil because it is necessary for survival. Only a few forms of primitive life can live on minerals!

Then we both agree here in regard to evil. Suffering in the natural world is not comparable to the problem of evil. There is no evil intent in a lion tearing an antelope to pieces.

We don’t need to kill animals to survive. But if we do kill animals for food, it is generally accepted that we do so as humanely as possible. That’s because we understand that not to do so would cause them unnecessary suffering.

I can understand why God allows suffering in our world. But there is no requirement for an animal to suffer in the natural world (some Christians who believe in a literal translation of the bible even think that all animals were vegetarian before the fall).

The world could have been set up in any way that God desired. Why did he set it up so that there is so much suffering in the animal kingdom? Suffering which serves no purpose.

And I can’t imagine that you’re going to suggest that the agony an antellope would feel in being literally eaten alive for example is not suffering.

 

[ReapReason]

The world could have been set up in any way that God desired.

Really?

 

[Bradski]

Are you suggesting that He was restricted in some way?

 

[ReapReason]

Are you suggesting that He was restricted in some way?

There are different kinds of restrictions: some are contingent and some are necessary. I can see how natural restrictions can arise when creating a system for a particular end; this is to say that a goal or agenda can restrict the way a system works. I don’t think even God can avoid those kinds of limitations.

If God arbitrarily creates things just for the sake of it, then I can understand the difficulty in accepting that God would create this particular world. To arbitrarily create a situation in which beings suffer does not make any sense. But if for instance the Natural Evolution of the Universe is a principle of Gods creative act, then it makes sense that Gods activity is restricted by what ever good that God thinks will come out of creating a universe that naturally evolves. A naturally evolving universe, as we can see, inevitably involves limitations, errors and suffering; but we can also see good things in that same universe. Also, it would do well to consider that some forms of good, depending on the desired end, cannot be achieved without suffering. For example, the potentiality for pain is not desirable, however pain clearly serves as a natural deterrent to further injury in some cases and also encourages beings, that would otherwise be selfish and greedy, to band together in solidarity. Much of our values, our humanity and sense of worth, ironically develops out of our experience of suffering and our desire to stop potential suffering. This cannot be ignored if we ask the question “*what kind of world would we find the greatest number of morally-conscious beings who truly love and care for each-other *”. It is not self evident that we would find them in a world with no suffering as unfortunate as they may sound. And then of course the real question is “should a good being create a world with potential suffering if some good can come of it”. We answer that question every-time we choose to have children.

Consider also that while God could in principle create a universe where no suffering ever occurs, this doesn’t mean that it would be a good universe if by doing so a greater good is not achieved. In that respect a universe with no pain becomes a great evil.
It all depends on why God created the universe.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There are different kinds of restrictions: some are contingent and some are necessary. I can see how natural restrictions can arise when creating a system for a particular end; this is to say that a goal or agenda can restrict the way a system works. I don’t think even God can avoid those kinds of limitations.

If God arbitrarily creates things just for the sake of it, then I can understand the difficulty in accepting that God would create this particular world. To arbitrarily create a situation in which beings suffer does not make any sense. But if for instance the Natural Evolution of the Universe is a principle of Gods creative act, then it makes sense that Gods activity is restricted by what ever good that God thinks will come out of creating a universe that naturally evolves. A naturally evolving universe as we can see involves limitations, errors and suffering. Also, it would do well to consider that some forms of good, depending on the desired end, cannot be achieved without suffering. For example, the potentiality for pain is not desirable, however pain clearly serves as a natural deterrent to further injury in some cases and also encourages beings, that would otherwise be selfish and greedy, to band together in solidarity. Much of our values, our humanity and sense of worth, ironically develops out of our experience of suffering and our desire to stop potential suffering. This cannot be ignored if we ask the question “*what kind of world would we find the greatest number morally-conscious beings who truly love and care for each-other *”. It is not self evident that we would find them in a world with no suffering as unfortunate as they may sound. And then of course the real question is “should a good being create a world with potential suffering if some good can come of it”. We answer that question every-time we choose to have children.

Consider also that while God could in principle create a universe where no suffering ever occurs, this doesn’t mean that it would be a good universe if by doing so a greater good is not achieved. In that respect a universe with no pain becomes a great evil.
It all depends on why God created the universe.

Well-reasoned!

 

[tonyrey]

There are different kinds of restrictions: some are contingent and some are necessary. I can see how natural restrictions can arise when creating a system for a particular end; this is to say that a goal or agenda can restrict the way a system works. I don’t think even God can avoid those kinds of limitations.

If God arbitrarily creates things just for the sake of it, then I can understand the difficulty in accepting that God would create this particular world. To arbitrarily create a situation in which beings suffer does not make any sense. But if for instance the Natural Evolution of the Universe is a principle of Gods creative act, then it makes sense that Gods activity is restricted by what ever good that God thinks will come out of creating a universe that naturally evolves. A naturally evolving universe, as we can see, inevitably involves limitations, errors and suffering; but we can also see good things in that same universe. Also, it would do well to consider that some forms of good, depending on the desired end, cannot be achieved without suffering. For example, the potentiality for pain is not desirable, however pain clearly serves as a natural deterrent to further injury in some cases and also encourages beings, that would otherwise be selfish and greedy, to band together in solidarity. Much of our values, our humanity and sense of worth, ironically develops out of our experience of suffering and our desire to stop potential suffering. This cannot be ignored if we ask the question “*what kind of world would we find the greatest number of morally-conscious beings who truly love and care for each-other *”. It is not self evident that we would find them in a world with no suffering as unfortunate as they may sound. And then of course the real question is “should a good being create a world with potential suffering if some good can come of it”. We answer that question every-time we choose to have children.

Consider also that while God could in principle create a universe where no suffering ever occurs, this doesn’t mean that it would be a good universe if by doing so a greater good is not achieved. In that respect a universe with no pain becomes a great evil.
It all depends on why God created the universe.

It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing!

 

[tonyrey]

*Animals give signs of feeling pain but we have no idea of its severity.

Predation cannot be evil because it is necessary for survival. Only a few forms of primitive life can live on minerals!*

		 		 	 	 Then we both agree here in regard to evil. Suffering in the  natural world is not comparable to the problem of evil. There is no evil  intent in a lion tearing an antelope to pieces.

We don’t need to kill animals to survive. But if we do kill animals for food, it is generally accepted that we do so as humanely as possible. That’s because we understand that not to do so would cause them unnecessary suffering.

I can understand why God allows suffering in our world. But there is no requirement for an animal to suffer in the natural world (some Christians who believe in a literal translation of the bible even think that all animals were vegetarian before the fall).

The world could have been set up in any way that God desired. Why did he set it up so that there is so much suffering in the animal kingdom? Suffering which serves no purpose.

And I can’t imagine that you’re going to suggest that the agony an antellope would feel in being literally eaten alive for example is not suffering. Then we both agree here in regard to evil. Suffering in the natural world is not comparable to the problem of evil. There is no evil intent in a lion tearing an antelope to pieces.

We don’t need to kill animals to survive. But if we do kill animals for food, it is generally accepted that we do so as humanely as possible. That’s because we understand that not to do so would cause them unnecessary suffering.

I can understand why God allows suffering in our world. But there is no requirement for an animal to suffer in the natural world (some Christians who believe in a literal translation of the bible even think that all animals were vegetarian before the fall).Why should a natural world be different from our world apart from the needless suffering we cause? The laws of nature are still identical.

The world could have been set up in any way that God desired.

Correct.

Why did he set it up so that there is so much suffering in the animal kingdom? Suffering which serves no purpose.

Pain is the result of a fallible defence mechanism which cannot always determine when pain is unnecessary.

And I can’t imagine that you’re going to suggest that the agony an antelope would feel in being literally eaten alive for example is not suffering.

1. I know from personal experience that when you are paralysed with fear your blood runs cold, you become numb and are virtually dead.
2. Endorphins in the brain produce analgesia and are far more effective in a natural environment than in man-made cities.
3. People who live in primitive conditions are far tougher than those in a modern environment.
4. In times of battle soldiers are often not even aware they have been seriously wounded.
5. We can only speculate about the feelings of animals in a state of shock.
6. Obviously a sceptic will rule out the possibility that God minimises the amount of pain people and animals experience but even then he cannot reasonably argue that painful deaths outweigh the immense value of life.
7. Only an inconsistent pessimist like Schopenhauer believes it would be far better if life on this planet had never existed…

 

[tonyrey]

*Animals give signs of feeling pain but we have no idea of its severity.

Predation cannot be evil because it is necessary for survival. Only a few forms of primitive life can live on minerals!*

Pain is the result of a fallible defence mechanism which cannot determine when pain is unnecessary or excessive. There are bound to be purposeless events in a system with natural laws.

And I can’t imagine that you’re going to suggest that the agony an antelope would feel in being literally eaten alive for example is not suffering.

1. I know from personal experience that when you are paralysed with fear your blood runs cold, you become numb and are virtually dead.
2. Endorphins in the brain produce analgesia and are far more effective in a natural environment than in man-made cities.
3. People who live in primitive conditions are far tougher than those in a modern environment.
4. In times of battle soldiers are often not even aware they have been seriously wounded.
5. We can only speculate about the feelings of animals in a state of shock.
6. Obviously a sceptic will rule out the possibility that God minimises the amount of pain people and animals experience but even then he cannot reasonably argue that painful deaths outweigh the immense value of life.
7. Only an inconsistent pessimist like Schopenhauer believes it would be far better if life on this planet had never existed…

 

[Bradski]

Pain is the result of a fallible defence mechanism which cannot determine when pain is unnecessary or excessive. There are bound to be purposeless events in a system with natural laws.

You have two arguments here. One is that an animal’s defence doesn’t really know how much pain is too high. So you are implying that is does indeed feel considerable pain at times.

Your second argument consists of examples when the pain is rendered insignificant.

I think that we need to know which you are going with. Do animals feel significant pain in the wild or not?

Notwithstanding your answer, the world has been set up by God to operate in a particular way. There are many creatures that are vegetarian (no animal was hurt in the development of the species!). There is no reason, apart from a natural process of evolution, that animals need to be carnivores.

If God is controlling evolution, then why carnivores? Why allow a creature to develop that needs to rip another apart to exist? Unless He doesn’t control evolution.