Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

*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…

Nature is a blind force - according to the naturalist - which inevitably wreaks havoc on living organisms and is summed up beautifully by David Hume:

Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

*Dialogues concerning Natural Religion

The title is particularly apt for a pantheist/naturalist! * Nature is indeed “severely limited in its range of possible outcomes” if it is ultimately purposeless. Survival for survival’s sake alone is literally a dead end.

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.

If we were the products of a purposeless system all our activity would be programmed by our environment to attain one goal - and one alone: to survive. All other goals would be derived from that urge (which has never been explained). We would be robots with no will of our own or choice in the matter any more than cogs in a machine can alter the outcome of events. Unpalatable though it may be it is the logical consequence of monistic naturalism in which the self doesn’t even exist!

 

[Bradski]

!If we were the products of a purposeless system all our activity would be programmed by our environment to attain one goal - and one alone: to survive. All other goals would be derived from that urge (which has never been explained). We would be robots with no will of our own or choice in the matter any more than cogs in a machine can alter the outcome of events.

Well, if we still lived in trees, then that’s literally all we’d be worried out. Finding something to eat and making sure that when other creatures found something to eat, it wasn’t us. There wasn’t much else apart from sex.

Now we’re a little bit smarter, so we can live without the danger of being eaten and the fridge is full of food so we don’t have to worry about looking for it all day.

So now we don’t spend all this time either looking for food or making sure we don’t turn into food, we have a bit of time on our hands. So I guess it’s only natural to ask: Is this it? Well, we have a bit of time spare to enjoy ourselves and people write stories, have sex, paint pictures, get drunk, make music, play games, read books, go skiing etc. It gives us something to do.

Some people spend time learning about the universe and how it works. Not a great deal of use in most of it, but it satisfies the curiosity that most creatures have. There’s always another hill to climb or planet to search.

So we do all of this and more because it gives us a sense of purpose, without which a lot of us would be bored and, yes, perhaps a little depressed. And while all this is going on, most of us satisfy the natural urge to pass on our genes and raise children. And then we die.

I think that about sums it up nicely…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Well, if we still lived in trees, then that’s literally all we’d be worried out. Finding something to eat and making sure that when other creatures found something to eat, it wasn’t us. There wasn’t much else apart from sex.

Now we’re a little bit smarter, so we can live without the danger of being eaten and the fridge is full of food so we don’t have to worry about looking for it all day.

So now we don’t spend all this time either looking for food or making sure we don’t turn into food, we have a bit of time on our hands. So I guess it’s only natural to ask: Is this it? Well, we have a bit of time spare to enjoy ourselves and people write stories, have sex, paint pictures, get drunk, make music, play games, read books, go skiing etc. It gives us something to do.

Some people spend time learning about the universe and how it works. Not a great deal of use in most of it, but it satisfies the curiosity that most creatures have. There’s always another hill to climb or planet to search.

So we do all of this and more because it gives us a sense of purpose, without which a lot of us would be bored and, yes, perhaps a little depressed. And while all this is going on, most of us satisfy the natural urge to pass on our genes and raise children. And then we die.

I think that about sums it up nicely…

The problem with this theory is that men were making art, telling stories, etc. long before we had it so cozy.

 

[Sair]

The problem with this theory is that men were making art, telling stories, etc. long before we had it so cozy.

Those things can also be explained in the context of survival and promoting social cohesion, though - and our propensity for telling stories is most likely what gave rise to religions in the first place!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, if we still lived in trees, then that’s literally all we’d be worried out. Finding something to eat and making sure that when other creatures found something to eat, it wasn’t us. There wasn’t much else apart from sex.

Now we’re a little bit smarter, so we can live without the danger of being eaten and the fridge is full of food so we don’t have to worry about looking for it all day.

So now we don’t spend all this time either looking for food or making sure we don’t turn into food, we have a bit of time on our hands. So I guess it’s only natural to ask: Is this it? Well, we have a bit of time spare to enjoy ourselves and people write stories, have sex, paint pictures, get drunk, make music, play games, read books, go skiinesisg etc. It gives us something to do.

Some people spend time learning about the universe and how it works. Not a great deal of use in most of it, but it satisfies the curiosity that most creatures have. There’s always another hill to climb or planet to search.

So we do all of this and more because it gives us a sense of purpose, without which a lot of us would be bored and, yes, perhaps a little depressed. And while all this is going on, most of us satisfy the natural urge to pass on our genes and raise children. And then we die.

I think that about sums it up nicely…

To **your **satisfaction but there is one fatal flaw in your hypothesis - revealed in the words “it gives us a sense of purpose”. They imply there is no purposeful activity whatsoever. Consequently your conclusions are valueless because they emerge from a machine - if your hypothesis is true.

We all know the limitations of computers programmed by rational beings. If we were
biological computers what hope would we have of understanding the nature of reality?

Your post also reveals belief in** the underlying futility of all life** - a most inspiring creed.

 

[Sair]

To **your **satisfaction but there is one fatal flaw in your hypothesis - revealed in the words “it gives us a sense of purpose”. They imply there is no purposeful activity whatsoever. Consequently your conclusions are valueless because they emerge from a machine - if your hypothesis is true.

We all know the limitations of computers programmed by rational beings. If we were
biological computers what hope would we have of understanding the nature of reality?

Your post also reveals belief in** the underlying futility of all life** - a most inspiring creed.

Why is life futile just because it doesn’t last forever?

Why are conclusions valueless if they emerge from “biological machines” that generate such conclusions in relation to themselves and their environments?

And why should there be any comparison between the capacities of machines developed by rational beings to perform specific, limited functions in narrowly-defined contexts and organisms evolved over the course of geological time to simply survive and reproduce by whatever means are effective in a given environment?

And the futility of life, I might add, is just your interpretation, based upon the belief that meaning and purpose only come from beyond nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If a universe exists, then it has properties, by definition. And properties, by definition, are an explanation of something. If that something appears to be chaotic, it simply means that you don’t have an accurate explanation. And why can’t chaos be unnatural. Why do you think the opposite is the case?

A contradictory statement. Properties are evidence of order and design, that does not mean " chaos. " What you are saying here makes no kind of sense. What exactly are you saying???

Value? The universe has no value in itself except that which we designate to it. And it is most definitely purposeless and meaningless.

Pure personal opinion. You are welcome to it. I certainly understand why some do not want God to exist.

The fact is that whether the universe began in an organized state or in a chaotic state it cannot account for either for the fact it exists or that it now exists in an ordered state.

Even if you suggest that the universe existed eternally it still cannot account for its existence or for its present order.

Really, those who suggest otherwise should just " man up " and say they do not want God to exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Why is life futile just because it doesn’t last forever?

You are putting words into my mouth. Life is futile in the naturalist’s scheme of things because it is purposeless.

Why are conclusions valueless if they emerge from “biological machines” that generate such conclusions in relation to themselves and their environments?

Because biological machines cannot think for themselves, cannot reach their own conclusions and have no insight whatsoever.

And why should there be any comparison between the capacities of machines developed by rational beings to perform specific, limited functions in narrowly-defined contexts and organisms evolved over the course of geological time to simply survive and reproduce by whatever means are effective in a given environment?

Because rational beings are supposed to be biological machines. -

And the futility of life, I might add, is just your interpretation, based upon the belief that meaning and purpose only come from beyond nature.

Ad hominem. (I don’t come into it!)

It would be fascinating to discover how meaning and purpose are fabricated by meaningless and purposeless things…

For naturalists the goal of life is restricted “to satisfy the natural urge to pass on our genes and raise children” - according to a very recent post - taking for granted a phenomenon that has never been explained.

 

[tonyrey]

To reject Design is to join the cult of Unreason!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Why is life futile just because it doesn’t last forever?

Because it ultimately amounts to nothing. Even counting the effect one may have on future generations, all life will be wiped out eventually anyway, so any expended effort towards survival, progress, etc. is, in the most ultimate sense, prolonging the inevitable. It might be fun, it might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but ultimately all material progress does no one any good and you’re simply fooling yourself.

Here’s one definition of “futile” (from the World English Dictionary): *pointless; unimportant; trifling *

And, in the materialistic scheme of things, life is indeed pointless and unimportant, objectively speaking. The universe that produced us, being the ultimate barometer of truth, has no purpose or point, and so neither can we. We are, quite literally, pointless.

Why are conclusions valueless if they emerge from “biological machines” that generate such conclusions in relation to themselves and their environments?

Let’s distinguish here. They may have truth value inasmuch as they correlate to material reality, but, on that basis, any conclusions that extend beyond the narrow framework of physical reality, i.e. moral values and moral truths, metaphysical notions like dignity or agape, etc., are simply illusory subjective sensations. On the basis of materialism, there is no valid grounds for the truth of such metaphysical realities, because such realities, if they are to have any objective value, must by definition exist independently of individual human beings and, as these concepts presuppose purpose and valuation, must originate from an intelligent (purposeful) source.

And why should there be any comparison between the capacities of machines developed by rational beings to perform specific, limited functions in narrowly-defined contexts and organisms evolved over the course of geological time to simply survive and reproduce by whatever means are effective in a given environment?

Because both are limited strictly to their physical components. You really answer your own question: “organisms evolved…to simply survive and reproduce by whatever are effective…” sounds an awful lot like, “machines developed…to perform specific limited functions…” The only difference is in your distinction between the manmade machine’s limitation of operative contexts and the other’s adaptability, but this is just making a distinction in complexity, not kind.

And the futility of life, I might add, is just your interpretation, based upon the belief that meaning and purpose only come from beyond nature.

Again, purpose presupposes intent. If there is no intelligent force behind nature, ascribing it purpose is anthropomorphization, plain and simple.

If you want to argue for purpose in nature, you are, de facto, admitting the existence of a higher intelligence.

And what tonyrey says is not interpretation, it’s a pretty objective observation. There is simply no logical basis for inferring purpose from a materialistic model of reality.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Those things can also be explained in the context of survival and promoting social cohesion, though - and our propensity for telling stories is most likely what gave rise to religions in the first place!

I think that runs into some problems. If we assume these characteristics to be gradually emergent, then in their earliest phases they would have been superfluous and deleterious. Everyone knows the cliche about “starving artists.” If that’s true today, how much more so in a primitive, hostile environment? The individuals who exhibited such inclinations would have gotten less food, been lower in the social hierarchy and thus would probably have been much less likely to survive or reproduce. In fact, I can’t remember who it was, but some prominent scientist said recently that the more intelligent a species is the less apt it is to survive. As the arts engage some of our highest intellectual faculties, I think we can extend that logic to the level of individuals within a species as well. The more time one spends thinking about higher things, the less will he be mindful of his immediate environment.

 

[Bradski]

The problem with this theory is that men were making art, telling stories, etc. long before we had it so cozy.

No, it was because we had spare time that we were able to produce art, tell stories etc. It might not have been ‘cosy’ but it simply shows that we weren’t spending all our time having to deal with the basic priorities of life: staying alive and having sex.

So the guy sitting in the cave, having just finished his meal, hasn’t got much else to do. In effect, he get’s bored so he looks for something to do. He looks for something that will keep him occupied. He looks for something purposeful to occupy his time.

So he mixes some paint. For what purpose? To paint a picture. For what purpose? Because it fills in his time and gives him something to do. For what purpose? It gives him some pleasure to look at the finished work.

 

[Bradski]

To **your **satisfaction but there is one fatal flaw in your hypothesis - revealed in the words “it gives us a sense of purpose”. They imply there is no purposeful activity whatsoever. Consequently your conclusions are valueless because they emerge from a machine - if your hypothesis is true.

Painting a picture, reading a book, growing some flowers, raising some children, exploring another planet…these are all purposeful activities. I keep giving examples of where we, as individuals have purpose in our lives. I give you examples of purpose in everyday life. Whether you believe in an ultimate purpose or not, you still have a reason two get out of bed in the morning.

My life is full of purpose. How could it not be? But I don’t have to believe that the Universe is here for a particular reason for that to hold.

• a most inspiring creed.

You seem to have a one-note argument, Tony. And it stems from the fact that you don’t seem to want to accept that people can live purposeful lives without believing in an ultimate reason for us being here. Your only response (generally expressed in a line or two at most) is that we must think life is futile. That’s not true, as much as you seem to want it to be true.

Atheist: there is no ultimate purpose in the universe.
Tony: so you believe that life is futile!
Atheist: no, I have purpose in my life, which is rich and rewarding.
Tony: no, you believe it’s futile!

I think that that sums up a large majority of your posts.

 

[ManRay]

I would add that as soon as we realize we exist then became aware of the value of existence. I think it all boils down to value. We engage in things that we value, and value is the basis of purpose.

Painting a picture, reading a book, growing some flowers, raising some children, exploring another planet…these are all purposeful activities. I keep giving examples of where we, as individuals have purpose in our lives. I give you examples of purpose in everyday life. Whether you believe in an ultimate purpose or not, you still have a reason two get out of bed in the morning.

My life is full of purpose. How could it not be? But I don’t have to believe that the Universe is here for a particular reason for that to hold.

You seem to have a one-note argument, Tony. And it stems from the fact that you don’t seem to want to accept that people can live purposeful lives without believing in an ultimate reason for us being here. Your only response (generally expressed in a line or two at most) is that we must think life is futile. That’s not true, as much as you seem to want it to be true.

Atheist: there is no ultimate purpose in the universe.
Tony: so you believe that life is futile!
Atheist: no, I have purpose in my life, which is rich and rewarding.
Tony: no, you believe it’s futile!

I think that that sums up a large majority of your posts.

 

[tonyrey]

Painting a picture, reading a book, growing some flowers, raising some children, exploring another planet…these are all purposeful activities. I keep giving examples of where we, as individuals have purpose in our lives. I give you examples of purpose in everyday life. Whether you believe in an ultimate purpose or not, you still have a reason two get out of bed in the morning.

My life is full of purpose. How could it not be? But I don’t have to believe that the Universe is here for a particular reason for that to hold.

You seem to have a one-note argument, Tony. And it stems from the fact that you don’t seem to want to accept that people can live purposeful lives without believing in an ultimate reason for us being here. Your only response (generally expressed in a line or two at most) is that we must think life is futile. That’s not true, as much as you seem to want it to be true.

Atheist: there is no ultimate purpose in the universe.
Tony: so you believe that life is futile!
Atheist: no, I have purpose in my life, which is rich and rewarding.
Tony: no, you believe it’s futile!

I think that that sums up a large majority of your posts.

Your ad hominem is not a valid substitute for refuting the reasons I have given for the consequences of rejecting Design - which have demonstrably failed to do.

 

[tonyrey]

I would add that as soon as we realize we exist then became aware of the value of existence. I think it all boils down to value. We engage in things that we value, and value is the basis of purpose.

That is true but

1. Are there reasons why existence is valuable?
2. How did a valuable existence originate?
3. What makes us capable of choosing to decide what is valuable?

 

[ReapReason]

Atheist: there is no ultimate purpose in the universe.
Tony: so you believe that life is futile!
Atheist: no, I have purpose in my life, which is rich and rewarding.
Tony: no, you believe it’s futile!

I think that that sums up a large majority of your posts.

Atheist:
Its not rational to believe in God for its emotional reward, because it does not relfect reality as it truly is.

Theist:
Therefore it is not objectively wrong to sacrifice the life of an innocent human object if it benefits the pragmatic needs of the pack.

Atheist:
By the word object i assume you mean a person. I find that idea subjectively repulsive and so do most people.

Theist:
There are only objects in existence and their usefulness is relative. Perhaps it is repulsive to you and many other human objects, however, if the goal is truly pragmatic-survival, then it would be irrational not to sacrifice the life of an innocent human object for the pragmatic needs of the pack. Since, relative to the survival of a group, an individual human object has no true value beyond that which is pragmatic and utilitarian; and to look at human objects as being anything above that in their identity, is irrational since it does not reflect reality as it truly is.

Atheist:
I choose to close my eyes to this.

Theist:
I thought you would do that. But you should consider whether you really want to be a part of a society that treats and values you as an expendable object.

Atheist:
But we don’t live in that kind of society; people treat me like a person, not a pragmatic-utility.

Theist:
If they treat you as a being with a distinct objective universal value in comparison to other non-human objects apart from purely pragmatic evaluations, then it is because they are delusional, and for the sake of rationality, like the existence of God, we should shun that kind of thinking despite losing the emotional rewards that come with promoting such a delusion. Even if that means the collapse of human civilization.

**Atheist: **Is that how you would treat your children and family, as expendable human objects for the sake of sustaining a rational pragmatic society?

Theist: Concepts such as “family” and “my child” in the way you imply them, are meaningless in a purely naturalistic world. Perhaps there is a pragmatic utilitarian reason for a family within a society where everybody must pull their own weight. But there is no family, in the sense of “we ought to love our mother and father and kin because we share blood”. That is irrational. Family, children, and love, are expendable concepts if situations arise where emotional attachments threaten the greater pragmatic goal of society as whole, which is to survive. There are simply groups of objects that are tempted to congregate due to pragmatic and emotional reward, nothing more. A child is simply a parasitic object. It only survives if people have the delusion that they ought to love their children, or because an emotional attachment to a new born human object fares well with the pragmatic goal of society as a whole. One can not honestly say that this would always be the case. In fact a truly pragmatic society may discourage any emotional attachment in the sense of family and love, since that would not reflect the true value of the object and would cause problems when the call for sacrifice is needed.

Thus if such a dilemma were to arise where an innocent child is a threat, you need to decide whether or not to yield to the irrational delusion that your emotional attachment to the child is greater and more important than the pragmatic survival of society as a whole.

In fact, when an atheist is finally honest about the consequences of accepting metaphysical naturalism, he or she knows that many of the value driven fundamental concepts that are most important to the identity of human civilization, including our dignity as people, is robbed of its value and existence. Its not only God that we lose.

No normal rational human being actually wants this to be the case and they would demand evidence of metaphysical naturalism once they understand what it actually means for them as people. A personal object does not only form attachments to children because of instinct alone or because of some kind of pragmatic evaluation. They also form attachments because they intuitively believe that they morally ought to. They intuitively recognize that family and children have an objective value beyond simply that which is pragmatic and useful. And this is made evident by the fact that men and women try to raise children precisely in that image, that they ought to be loving and caring. They do not teach these things to children simply because they represent a set of useful pragmatic laws. They teach these thing irrespective of whether or not they are useful for survival or society.

In other-words, as much as people might deny Gods existence, they do not act like God does not exist. This is the hypocrisy, irrationality, and denial, that flows through the veins of the New Atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

To reject Design is to reduce persons to animals because in a purposeless universe there is no significant difference between a child and a chimp!

 

[tonyrey]

Because it ultimately amounts to nothing. Even counting the effect one may have on future generations, all life will be wiped out eventually anyway, so any expended effort towards survival, progress, etc. is, in the most ultimate sense, prolonging the inevitable. It might be fun, it might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but ultimately all material progress does no one any good and you’re simply fooling yourself.

Here’s one definition of “futile” (from the World English Dictionary): *pointless; unimportant; trifling *

And, in the materialistic scheme of things, life is indeed pointless and unimportant, objectively speaking. The universe that produced us, being the ultimate barometer of truth, has no purpose or point, and so neither can we. We are, quite literally, pointless.

Let’s distinguish here. They may have truth value inasmuch as they correlate to material reality, but, on that basis, any conclusions that extend beyond the narrow framework of physical reality, i.e. moral values and moral truths, metaphysical notions like dignity or agape, etc., are simply illusory subjective sensations. On the basis of materialism, there is no valid grounds for the truth of such metaphysical realities, because such realities, if they are to have any objective value, must by definition exist independently of individual human beings and, as these concepts presuppose purpose and valuation, must originate from an intelligent (purposeful) source.

Because both are limited strictly to their physical components. You really answer your own question: “organisms evolved…to simply survive and reproduce by whatever are effective…” sounds an awful lot like, “machines developed…to perform specific limited functions…” The only difference is in your distinction between the manmade machine’s limitation of operative contexts and the other’s adaptability, but this is just making a distinction in complexity, not kind.

Again, purpose presupposes intent. If there is no intelligent force behind nature, ascribing it purpose is anthropomorphization, plain and simple.

If you want to argue for purpose in nature, you are, de facto, admitting the existence of a higher intelligence.

And what tonyrey says is not interpretation, it’s a pretty objective observation. There is simply no logical basis for inferring purpose from a materialistic model of reality.

Thanks for your support.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheist:
Its not rational to believe in God for its emotional reward, because it does not reflect reality as it truly is.

Theist:
Therefore it is not objectively wrong to sacrifice the life of an innocent human object if it benefits the pragmatic needs of the pack.

Atheist:
By the word object i assume you mean a person. I find that idea subjectively repulsive and so do most people.

Theist:
There are only objects in existence and their usefulness is relative. Perhaps it is repulsive to you and many other human objects, however, if the goal is truly pragmatic-survival, then it would be irrational not to sacrifice the life of an innocent human object for the pragmatic needs of the pack. Since, relative to the survival of a group, an individual human object has no true value beyond that which is pragmatic and utilitarian; and to look at human objects as being anything above that in their identity, is irrational since it does not reflect reality as it truly is.

Atheist:
I choose to close my eyes to this.

Theist:
I thought you would do that. But you should consider whether you really want to be a part of a society that treats and values you as an expendable object.

Atheist:
But we don’t live in that kind of society; people treat me like a person, not a pragmatic-utility.

Theist:
If they treat you as a being with a distinct objective universal value in comparison to other non-human objects apart from purely pragmatic evaluations, then it is because they are delusional, and for the sake of rationality, like the existence of God, we should shun that kind of thinking despite losing the emotional rewards that come with promoting such a delusion. Even if that means the collapse of human civilization.

**Atheist: **Is that how you would treat your children and family, as expendable human objects for the sake of sustaining a rational pragmatic society?

Theist: Concepts such as “family” and “my child” in the way you imply them, are meaningless in a purely naturalistic world. Perhaps there is a pragmatic utilitarian reason for a family within a society where everybody must pull their own weight. But there is no family, in the sense of “we ought to love our mother and father and kin because we share blood”. That is irrational. Family, children, and love, are expendable concepts if situations arise where emotional attachments threaten the greater pragmatic goal of society as whole, which is to survive. There are simply groups of objects that are tempted to congregate due to pragmatic and emotional reward, nothing more. A child is simply a parasitic object. It only survives if people have the delusion that they ought to love their children, or because an emotional attachment to a new born human object fares well with the pragmatic goal of society as a whole. One can not honestly say that this would always be the case. In fact a truly pragmatic society may discourage any emotional attachment in the sense of family and love, since that would not reflect the true value of the object and would cause problems when the call for sacrifice is needed.

Thus if such a dilemma were to arise where an innocent child is a threat, you need to decide whether or not to yield to the irrational delusion that your emotional attachment to the child is greater and more important than the pragmatic survival of society as a whole.

In fact, when an atheist is finally honest about the consequences of accepting metaphysical naturalism, he or she knows that many of the value driven fundamental concepts that are most important to the identity of human civilization, including our dignity as people, is robbed of its value and existence. Its not only God that we lose.

No normal rational human being actually wants this to be the case and they would demand evidence of metaphysical naturalism once they understand what it actually means for them as people. A personal object does not only form attachments to children because of instinct alone or because of some kind of pragmatic evaluation. They also form attachments because they intuitively believe that they morally ought to. They intuitively recognize that family and children have an objective value beyond simply that which is pragmatic and useful. And this is made evident by the fact that men and women try to raise children precisely in that image, that they ought to be loving and caring. They do not teach these things to children simply because they represent a set of useful pragmatic laws. They teach these thing irrespective of whether or not they are useful for survival or society.

In other-words, as much as people might deny Gods existence, they do not act like God does not exist. This is the hypocrisy, irrationality, and denial, that flows through the veins of the New Atheism.

The very fact that many fathers and mothers abandon their children for a lover demonstrates the weakness of “natural ethics”…