Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Those words of Jesus also apply to adults but He singled out children because destroying their faith in God is more damnable and inexcusable.
If there is any degree of confidence in the truth of one’s faith, this should not be a problem, surely?

 

[tonyrey]

The essential difference is that we don’t regard the universe as the ultimate and immutable reality.

If you choose to imagine that the universe is the ultimate reality you need to produce some evidence that it is either eternal or self-created.

Whatever the universe is, it is not immutable - and I wonder why any reality needs to be immutable in order to provide solid reasons for particular courses of action in particular times and places.

What solid reasons can you produce for particular courses of action in particular times and places? On what are they based?

If it was, for example, okay for the Israelites to massacre neighbouring peoples in Old Testament times, but not now, it would appear that your God’s design, both in planning and execution, is similarly inconsistent.

The assumption that massacres were “okay” is not only false but absurd.

And that doesn’t even touch on the logical fact that an entirely immutable entity would be incapable of creation in the first place…

A false conclusion based on a false concept of divine immutability. Do you cease to be the same person if you create something?

It is a mistake to think the Will of God excludes our wishes. Otherwise we wouldn’t have been told to pray for our needs and the needs of others.

Prayer would be unnecessary if your God were actually omniscient.
Does he really require constant reminders from his faithful? If Christian theology is correct, he knew our wishes before he even created us.

Another false conclusion based on the false premise that God takes no account whatsoever of human activity.

 

[tonyrey]

Objections to Design reveal more about the objectors than the Creator! They are all based on false assumptions:

1. The Creator would not be concerned about events on this planet. (A snob!)
2. The Creator would never control events directly. (A sloth!)
3. The Creator would not produce anything imperfect. (A perfectionist!)
4. The Creator would not produce anything gradually. (A speed merchant!)
5. The Creator would not need to exist! (A materialist!)

 

[ReapReason]

1. The Creator would not produce anything gradually. (A speed merchant!)

Why would a creator such as the God of Christianity create something gradually?

I can understand a God such as that believed by Greylorn doing things in steps because such a being is limited by time and space. I don’t however understand why the God of Christianity would do so, simply because it appears arbitrary and pointless.

All these billions of years only makes sense if God intended forms and essences to evolve naturally according to the potentialities that God planed from the beginning. God does not do arbitrary and pointless things and neither does he waste time.

 

[Sair]

Objections to Design reveal more about the objectors than the Creator! They are all based on false assumptions:

1. The Creator would not be concerned about events on this planet. (A snob!)
2. The Creator would never control events directly. (A sloth!)
3. The Creator would not produce anything imperfect. (A perfectionist!)
4. The Creator would not produce anything gradually. (A speed merchant!)
5. The Creator would not need to exist! (A materialist!)

These objections are all based upon claims made about God by believers of various stripes.

Touch upon any one of these and the believer discussing the issue will simply move the goal posts, or assert that you don’t know enough about divine nature to make such claims - as has been amply demonstrated in replies to my previous posts!

But the fact of the matter is, the only thing I or any other unbeliever has to go on is the testimony of believers about God - there is no direct evidence, hence my (and others’) lack of belief.

So make up your mind - is your God perfect, or is he not? Is he unchanging or is he not? Does he know the wishes of humans without the need for prayer or not? He can hardly be all of these things at once, yet these are all things that are believed about God. When people who are committed to having faith can’t agree about what they have faith in, then it should come as no surprise that people like me, who have no such commitment to supernaturalist beliefs, have a tendency to question what exactly this being called ‘God’ is supposed to be.

 

[ReapReason]

there is no direct evidence, hence my (and others’) lack of belief.

There is no scientific evidence, but scientific evidence is irrelevant when asking whether or not God exists.

So make up your mind - is your God perfect, or is he not?

God is a perfect being, but what you think perfection is doesn’t necessarily relate to metaphysical perfection.

Is he unchanging or is he not?

In a metaphysical context God is unchanging, but this does not mean that God is not active; it means that Gods activity and existence is simultaneous - timeless.

Does he know the wishes of humans without the need for prayer or not?

God timelessly knows your prayers only because some where in time you prayed. God knows what you “need” regardless of prayer, but that doesn’t mean that prayer does not have a function for spiritual or moral development apart from the fact of God answering them.

This is your assumption, which you made for your convenience.

yet these are all things that are believed about God. When people who are committed to having faith can’t agree about what they have faith in, then it should come as no surprise that people like me, who have no such commitment to supernaturalist beliefs, have a tendency to question what exactly this being called ‘God’ is supposed to be.

This is just an excuse to stop seeking. You should be more concerned with understanding which interpretation of God makes the best logical sense of existence. Its irrelevant that people have different understandings of how a word applies to God regardless of whether or not they share the same faith.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why would a creator such as the God of Christianity create something gradually?

I can understand a God such as that believed by Greylorn doing things in steps because such a being is limited by time and space. I don’t however understand why the God of Christianity would do so, simply because it appears arbitrary and pointless.

All these billions of years only makes sense if God intended forms and essences to evolve naturally according to the potentialities that God planed from the beginning. God does not do arbitrary and pointless things and neither does he waste time.

If God’s relationship to creation is akin to a musician performing a piece of music, then it makes sense that it doesn’t happen “all at once.” Each measure in the piece has its own place in the value of the overall composition.

Your complaint, “Why doesn’t the piece ‘just happen’ all at once?” is analogous to an unappreciative member of the audience, who, after coming in late, merely wants to get it over with. Maybe God has enjoyed every little part of His creation as Mozart or Bach appreciate their own, and others’ works, I.e., appreciating the music as music for its own aesthetic value. You wouldn’t complain of Bach that his pieces are too long and should just happen within a few seconds. That would speak more about your attention span than it does of the musician’s or God’s talent and creativity. The problem here is one of unnecessarily constraining God to the role of contractor or fast food operator who must turn the product out as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to do his job effectively. That is a problem of your parochial perspective not one that need concern God in the least.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But the fact of the matter is, the only thing I or any other unbeliever has to go on is the testimony of believers about God - there is no direct evidence, hence my (and others’) lack of belief.

There is plenty of evidence, what you are holding out for is some kind of mathematic certainty, which you would probably nit pick even if it existed.

So make up your mind - is your God perfect, or is he not? Is he unchanging or is he not? Does he know the wishes of humans without the need for prayer or not? He can hardly be all of these things at once, yet these are all things that are believed about God.

God is perfect but the things He creates are incomplete; God is unchanging but the things He creates need not be, so His “relationship” to those things may be changing; He knows the wishes of humans but that does not mean the humans who pray do not need to; He can be all those things at once because no real contradiction exists, except to the constrained thinking of limited minds.

When people who are committed to having faith can’t agree about what they have faith in, then it should come as no surprise that people like me, who have no such commitment to supernaturalist beliefs, have a tendency to question what exactly this being called ‘God’ is supposed to be.

I’d be careful with such disingenuous statements that hinge upon our capacity to understand because a similar statement could be made about science.

When scientists who are committed to their field can’t agree about and keep changing and updating the content of the object of their study, then it should come to no surprise that people like me, who have no such commitment to their naturalistic beliefs, have a tendency to question what this field of study called ‘science’ is supposed to be.

 

[ReapReason]

If God’s relationship to creation is akin to a musician performing a piece of music

Why does that make sense, and how does the analogy of a musician apply to creation? God is not playing music.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would a creator such as the God of Christianity create something gradually?

How do you determine the optimum rate of development?

I can understand a God such as that believed by Greylorn doing things in steps because such a being is limited by time and space. I don’t however understand why the God of Christianity would do so, simply because it appears arbitrary and pointless.

Do you believe in instant Creation?

All these billions of years only makes sense if God intended forms and essences to evolve naturally according to the potentialities that God planned from the beginning.

Is natural evolution sufficient to explain the existence of persons?

God does not do arbitrary and pointless things and neither does he waste time.

Which things do you consider to be arbitrary, pointless and time-wasting?

 

[ReapReason]

I

Your complaint, “Why doesn’t the piece ‘just happen’ all at once?” is analogous to an unappreciative member of the audience, who, after coming in late, merely wants to get it over with. Maybe God has enjoyed every little part of His creation as Mozart or Bach appreciate their own, and others’ works, I.e., appreciating the music as music for its own aesthetic value. You wouldn’t complain of Bach that his pieces are too long and should just happen within a few seconds. That would speak more about your attention span than it does of the musician’s or God’s talent and creativity. The problem here is one of unnecessarily constraining God to the role of contractor or fast food operator who must turn the product out as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to do his job effectively. That is a problem of your parochial perspective not one that need concern God in the least.

The problem here is that God does not create things to induce a sense of pleasure in him self like human beings. If God creates something, it is not for his self pleasure. God is already perfect and does not take on emotional potentialities such as pleasure.

 

[tonyrey]

If God’s relationship to creation is akin to a musician performing a piece of music, then it makes sense that it doesn’t happen “all at once.” Each measure in the piece has its own place in the value of the overall composition.

Your complaint, “Why doesn’t the piece ‘just happen’ all at once?” is analogous to an unappreciative member of the audience, who, after coming in late, merely wants to get it over with. Maybe God has enjoyed every little part of His creation as Mozart or Bach appreciate their own, and others’ works, I.e., appreciating the music as music for its own aesthetic value. You wouldn’t complain of Bach that his pieces are too long and should just happen within a few seconds. That would speak more about your attention span than it does of the musician’s or God’s talent and creativity. The problem here is one of unnecessarily constraining God to the role of contractor or fast food operator who must turn the product out as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to do his job effectively. That is a problem of your parochial perspective not one that need concern God in the least.

Human notions of economy have no bearing on the nature of reality!

 

[tonyrey]

*Objections to Design reveal more about the objectors than the Creator! They are all based on false assumptions:

They are based on statements made by unbelievers in posts on this forum!

Touch upon any one of these and the believer discussing the issue will simply move the goal posts, or assert that you don’t know enough about divine nature to make such claims - as has been amply demonstrated in replies to my previous posts! But the fact of the matter is, the only thing I or any other unbeliever has to go on is the testimony of believers about God - there is no direct evidence, hence my (and others’) lack of belief.

We have direct evidence of extremely complex machines and great masterpieces designed by rational beings but no explanation whatsoever of the means by which the wonders of nature - including rational beings - have been created by purposeless objects.

So make up your mind - is your God perfect, or is he not?

A discourteous form of interrogation which reveals an aggressive mentality…

Is he unchanging or is he not? Does he know the wishes of humans without the need for prayer or not? He can hardly be all of these things at once, yet these are all things that are believed about God. When people who are committed to having faith can’t agree about what they have faith in, then it should come as no surprise that people like me, who have no such commitment to supernaturalist beliefs, have a tendency to question what exactly this being called ‘God’ is supposed to be…

There is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who has frequently failed to respond to previous posts, is dominated by antagonism and incapable of considering the subject objectively.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Tony,

You may appreciate the blog post “Intelligible Design and Darwin’s Black Box” by Professor John Medaille over the the Distributist Review: distributistreview.com/mag/2012/09/intelligible-design-and-darwins-black-box/.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The problem here is that God does not create things to induce a sense of pleasure in him self like human beings. If God creates something, it is not for his self pleasure. God is already perfect and does not take on emotional potentialities such as pleasure.

You know that for sure, how?

If we are created in the image of God and a great deal of the joy we receive in life is the sheer joy of creativity and appreciation of beauty, why could God not appreciate, in some way, perhaps not emotively, his handiwork? There are no qualms in Genesis over God proclaiming each step of creation to be good.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why does that make sense, and how does the analogy of a musician apply to creation? God is not playing music.

Hello? This is analogy.

If it makes any sense to speak of creation as, analogically speaking, the work of a divine architect, engineer or watchmaker who ends up with some product, i.e., the cosmos, at the end, then my point is that divine creativity may not be like a craft where a resulting product is formed, but more like a continual act of composing where the product is continually being generated as the musician creates music over time. The very act of creating over time itself is precisely the product which is continually being generated through the act, as in music, not constructed at one time holus bolus and then left to complete a function, as in a watchmaker making a watch.

Stretch your mind a little, it won’t snap, I promise!

 

[rossum]

Is natural evolution sufficient to explain the existence of persons?

The Catholic Church considers that natural evolution is sufficient to explain the material components of persons. It does not consider that natural evolution is sufficient to explain the immaterial components of persons.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The Catholic Church considers that natural evolution is sufficient to explain the material components of persons. It does not consider that natural evolution is sufficient to explain the immaterial components of persons.

Life is not considered to be solely due to natural evolution - which is intrinsically purposeless.

 

[rossum]

Life is not considered to be solely due to natural evolution - which is intrinsically purposeless.

Purpose is externally assigned, it is not intrinsic. A hammer does not have an intrinsic purpose; its purpose is assigned by the wielder.

When a boss employs a worker, her purpose is to get some work done. The worker’s purpose is to earn money. Those are two different purposes assigned at the same time to the same person. Purposes will change throughout life, and may be multiple.

Purpose is not intrinsic, so evolution lacking intrinsic purpose is not exactly unusual.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Tony,

You may appreciate the blog post “Intelligible Design and Darwin’s Black Box” by Professor John Medaille over the the Distributist Review: distributistreview.com/mag/2012/09/intelligible-design-and-darwins-black-box/.

Thanks, Alberti, for that reference to a fine article. My only reservation is voiced in one of the comments:

I am confused, however, by your critique of Intelligent Design proponents being “content with a black box labeled “miracles”".

To exclude divine intervention amounts to a rejection of Providence and a reduction of God to a Clockmaker! Teleology is left to exist in a vacuum and Kant’s “kingdom of ends” becomes kingless!