Overwhelming evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
These three arguments together entail an immaterial, timeless, intentional, super-intelligent, necessary being of virtually limitless power. I guess that comes as close to the classical idea of God as could be hoped from human reason.
Click to expand...
Well, if you’ve found the answer that you’re looking for, Pete, then you’re a lucky man.
 
Bradski said:
But the argument doesn’t go anywhere. You say that there’s evidence for a supernatural Intelligent Designer. I ask how you know there’s a such a thing and you say it’s because you’ve found the evidence. And then I ask what evidence and you say evidence for a supernatural Intelligent Designer…etc etc.

What we could do to sort this out is accept, for the purpose of further discussion, that there may well be evidence for a supernatural designer. We’ll accept, for the moment, everything that Dembski and his chums are saying.

What we’ll do then is ask everyone to send in their idea as to what this designer might be. We’ll take one representative for each suggestion and they’ll all go into a room to discuss it. How do you think that might go?
Click to expand...
We would have to entertain information that came to us from outside our frame of reference.
 
Peter_Plato said:
There are three very cogent arguments for theism that, when taken together and honestly assessed, form a very powerful case and even point directly at the classical conception of God.

Briefly:
  1. The Cosmological Argument that the universe does not explain itself and because the Big Bang clearly defines a beginning of matter, space, time and energy, points directly at a timeless, immaterial, all powerful, necessary and intentional explanation or Cause.
  2. The fine-tuning of the universal laws of physics at the instant after the Big Bang demonstrates that the controlling “force” behind the universe must have the virtually unlimited power and intelligence to fine tune more than 30 universal constants to allow the universe to bring about life.
  3. The level of intelligence and virtually unlimited power that could chemically order the DNA code in the first living cells with the “programming” necessary to allow for the capacity of DNA and protein molecules to generate the vast array of life on the planet Earth and possibly elsewhere in the universe.
These three arguments together entail an immaterial, timeless, intentional, super-intelligent, necessary being of virtually limitless power. I guess that comes as close to the classical idea of God as could be hoped from human reason.
Click to expand...
👍 An extremely powerful case that has not been refuted.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Doesn’t matter. The point is that science can, and has, given renewed vitality to theistic philosophy in an increasingly materialistic environment. The arguments within that realm, like those of history, politics, etc., are more complex than science and will naturally entail much more debate and abstract reasoning, and just because everyone won’t necessarily come to the same conclusion doesn’t mean the argument won’t go anywhere or isn’t worth having, for that matter. Plus, it’s simply wrong to say it won’t go anywhere. Conversions happen all the time. Case in point: me.
Click to expand...
👍 The truth shines by its own light…
 
**If **scientists can be scientifically explained their explanations are worthless because they are not responsible for their explanations which are due to circumstances beyond their control.

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth… 🙂
 
buffalo said:
Not without Revelation.
Click to expand...
Ah, but all the other guys in the room will have had revelations as well. That’s why they think that they’re right and you’re wrong.

To save me hanging around, could you tell me if you think you all might reach some agreement on who actually has the truth? We haven’t really made any progress unless you reach some sort of consensus.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, but all the other guys in the room will have had revelations as well. That’s why they think that they’re right and you’re wrong.

To save me hanging around, could you tell me if you think you all might reach some agreement on who actually has the truth? We haven’t really made any progress unless you reach some sort of consensus.
Click to expand...
Anyone who does serious research will eventually come to the Catholic Church.

There are many human reasons why they do not engage on the search.

If you would like us to show you the differences we will.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, but all the other guys in the room will have had revelations as well. That’s why they think that they’re right and you’re wrong.

To save me hanging around, could you tell me if you think you all might reach some agreement on who actually has the truth? We haven’t really made any progress unless you reach some sort of consensus.
Click to expand...
Ah! The consensus view of truth. And when all have agreed on the one version, how do we know that the consensus was correct? Another consensus on whether the consensus of the consenters is true or by assuming arbitrarily that the truth is merely what is consented to? By what consensus did you arrive at that standard to be used by the consenters? Was there also a consensus where all the possible definitions of truth were included and each consented to as valid options? Then was there a consensus for each definition that it accurately depicted the proposed version? And was there also a consensus on who the consenters should be who would be eligible to consent to the definition? And by what consensus was that determined?

Yes, by all means. Let’s determine truth by agreement! :eek:
 
Peter_Plato said:
Ah! The consensus view of truth. And when all have agreed on the one version, how do we know that the consensus was correct? Another consensus on whether the consensus of the consenters is true or by assuming arbitrarily that the truth is merely what is consented to? By what consensus did you arrive at that standard to be used by the consenters? Was there also a consensus where all the possible definitions of truth were included and each consented to as valid options? Then was there a consensus for each definition that it accurately depicted the proposed version? And was there also a consensus on who the consenters should be who would be eligible to consent to the definition? And by what consensus was that determined?

Yes, by all means. Let’s determine truth by agreement! :eek:
Click to expand...
👍 A delightful reductio ad absurdum!
 
Peter_Plato said:
Yes, by all means. Let’s determine truth by agreement!
Click to expand...
We are, for the sake of this discussion, running with the idea that some indication of an Intelligent Designer has been discovered. Dembski, to use him as an example, has shown that there could be design in nature, but as he rightly says and as the Discovery Institute rightly says, this does not necessarily mean God. So it could be any supernatural entity. They are pains to point this out.

It’s not now for me to decide which supernatural entity it is likely to be. But there are plenty of people who have very definite ideas and they all say they are right. As do you. It is now up to everyone who thinks they are right to put forward their case for their particular deity. I’m sure you’ll do a good job for your side.

And it goes without saying that just saying…
buffalo said:
Anyone who does serious research will eventually come to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
…is not going to cut any ice with all the other guys in the room. They’ll just replace ‘Catholic Church’ with their particular belief system. If the answer coming out of the room is: ‘We can’t agree. Everyone thinks that they are right’, then we have no answer. The supernatural entity is anything that anyone wants to believe it is.

Not making much progress, are we…
 
Bradski said:
Not making much progress, are we…
Click to expand...
This thread is on evidence for design. If you want to concede that has been shown, then your question ought to be the subject of another thread. This thread has been “fattened” to the point of bursting and needs some respite.
 
Bradski said:
We are, for the sake of this discussion, running with the idea that some indication of an Intelligent Designer has been discovered. Dembski, to use him as an example, has shown that there could be design in nature, but as he rightly says and as the Discovery Institute rightly says, this does not necessarily mean God. So it could be any supernatural entity. They are pains to point this out.

It’s not now for me to decide which supernatural entity it is likely to be. But there are plenty of people who have very definite ideas and they all say they are right. As do you. It is now up to everyone who thinks they are right to put forward their case for their particular deity. I’m sure you’ll do a good job for your side.

And it goes without saying that just saying…

…is not going to cut any ice with all the other guys in the room. They’ll just replace ‘Catholic Church’ with their particular belief system. If the answer coming out of the room is: ‘We can’t agree. Everyone thinks that they are right’, then we have no answer. The supernatural entity is anything that anyone wants to believe it is.

Not making much progress, are we…
Click to expand...
If one just takes the number of adherents then the majority know the God of Abraham.
 
buffalo said:
If one just takes the number of adherents then the majority know the God of Abraham.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that the more people that hold to a particular view, the more likely it is to be the truth? I’m really not sure you want to head down this path…
 
buffalo said:
If one just takes the number of adherents then the majority know the God of Abraham.
Click to expand...
In 50 CE there were more adherents to Buddhism than to Christianity. Are you telling us that Christianity was incorrect until it became the largest religion on the planet?

Number of adherents is not always a good guide to truth.

rossum
 
Bradski said:
So you’re saying that the more people that hold to a particular view, the more likely it is to be the truth? I’m really not sure you want to head down this path…
Click to expand...
You are right. But I thought you were heading down that path.

Truth is truth no even if no one believes it and a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes.
 
rossum said:
In 50 CE there were more adherents to Buddhism than to Christianity. Are you telling us that Christianity was incorrect until it became the largest religion on the planet?

Number of adherents is not always a good guide to truth.

rossum
Click to expand...
You know better…see above post…
 
On another thread Design has been rejected on the ground that purpose is “a very human - and very localised - construction”! In other words it is a figment of the imagination… :eek:

If purposeful activity is an illusion reasoning itself is purposeless - in which case it is also valueless. If all our activity is beyond our control our ability to discover the truth is wishful thinking.

If we are simply natural robots we cannot possibly reach **our **own conclusions. We are only instruments which convey information. (In the naturalist’s scheme of things reasoning is nothing more than information processing).

We are supposedly programmed by natural events to survive - nothing more than that. (Natural selection as opposed to intelligent selection.) The defects of this hypothetical scenario are constantly staring us in the face - with the prospect of a nuclear holocaust, not to mention the bloodstained history of the human race. Nothing could be further from the truth…
 
tonyrey said:
On another thread Design has been rejected on the ground that purpose is “a very human - and very localised - construction”! In other words it is a figment of the imagination… :eek:

If purposeful activity is an illusion reasoning itself is purposeless - in which case it is also valueless. If all our activity is beyond our control our ability to discover the truth is wishful thinking.

If we are simply natural robots we cannot possibly reach **our **own conclusions. We are only instruments which convey information. (In the naturalist’s scheme of things reasoning is nothing more than information processing).

We are supposedly programmed by natural events to survive - nothing more than that. (Natural selection as opposed to intelligent selection.) The defects of this hypothetical scenario are constantly staring us in the face - with the prospect of a nuclear holocaust, not to mention the bloodstained history of the human race. Nothing could be further from the truth…
Click to expand...
That last is a pretty big call.

You seem to be mistaking nature itself for some kind of thinking, if uncaring, being that actually had intentions for how we would develop, and is somehow immutable and severely limited in its range of possible outcomes.

And the claim that if we are “natural robots”, we couldn’t reach “our” own conclusions is just a holdover from the dualistic assumption that the real seat of the self is beyond nature. That has never been demonstrated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top