Overwhelming evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it was the best when you found it, it’s even best-er now, thanks to your admirable contributions.
Please don’t single me out, Reggie. There have been - and are - many excellent contributors to this forum (believers and non-believers alike) who have helped me progress in the last three years by leaps and bounds! Every day I learn something… 🙂
 
Christians - and members of other religions - are unorthodox if they reject Design:
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with **the purpose ** of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11
 
  1. You are perfectly entitled to post comments on anyone’s posts but I am not the only one who finds you are unreasonable in your rejection of others’ reasons without giving a reason for doing so.
I’ve given you one grand-ultimate reason which you simply reject offhand: that the tool you are using to come to your conclusions has not been calibrated to the task you are attempting to use it for by dint of neglecting to discover its actual nature relative to the claims you are making. Similarly with understanding the very language you are using and the distortions it makes necessary. Similarly with neglecting a host of disciplines applicable to the task, especially epistemology. Do you wish to indicate how that is not a list of reasons? I even opened the door to a technique(s) that might be useful in the most fundamental of those examinations.
  1. It is obvious that there are limits to what reason can establish yet no one is entitled to claim to have superior insight without producing evidence they have superior insight.
“Superior insight” is relative to conditions experienced and is labeled such by y’all as a decision not to engage a methodology known to be useful to the end proposed. Again, your decision not to go to NYC does not make it either a superior place or my private domain. It is your decision not to take steps to get there that allows your labeling, not the open invitation to what is know to be an expereincible discovery.
  1. To assert that “Neither the Universe nor god is reasonable” overlooks both the success of science and also the purpose of God in creating the universe.
How can you say that? First, as I have indicated, parts of the universe accessible to us are analyzable by reason. The whole as such is not. Even in math .9 repeating is equal to one. There are proofs. Is that reasonable? Yet reason is used to prove it. Imaginary numbers and irrationals being useful? And how do you reason about the whole from a limited standpoint? Does the lesser include the greater? You can’t even calculate the events of the next five minutes accurately or even know its factors, and you claim you have a handle on God??? And know “His” Purpose???

I have severely underestimated you. Faith must have some magical component that transcends the very reason you use to argue your ends. At least I have offered a way, a methodology of discovery that has been used and proved by Catholics and non. Perhaps I have mistaken the usefulness of actually tasting a chocolate chip cookie as being preferable to arguing the merits of recipes with people who have had maybe a whiff of one but refuse to eat it. Or of swimming being more useful than reading the manual. Or drinking the blessed water instead of arguing about how full the glass is. So my reason of preferring knowledge to faith or speculation is useless here. I apologize for taking your valuable time.
 
I’ve given you one grand-ultimate reason which you simply reject offhand: that the tool you are using to come to your conclusions has not been calibrated to the task you are attempting to use it for by dint of neglecting to discover its actual nature relative to the claims you are making. Similarly with understanding the very language you are using and the distortions it makes necessary. Similarly with neglecting a host of disciplines applicable to the task, especially epistemology. Do you wish to indicate how that is not a list of reasons? I even opened the door to a technique(s) that might be useful in the most fundamental of those examinations.

“Superior insight” is relative to conditions experienced and is labeled such by y’all as a decision not to engage a methodology known to be useful to the end proposed. Again, your decision not to go to NYC does not make it either a superior place or my private domain. It is your decision not to take steps to get there that allows your labeling, not the open invitation to what is know to be an expereincible discovery.
How can you say that? First, as I have indicated, parts of the universe accessible to us are analyzable by reason. The whole as such is not. Even in math .9 repeating is equal to one. There are proofs. Is that reasonable? Yet reason is used to prove it. Imaginary numbers and irrationals being useful? And how do you reason about the whole from a limited standpoint? Does the lesser include the greater? You can’t even calculate the events of the next five minutes accurately or even know its factors, and you claim you have a handle on God??? And know “His” Purpose???

I have severely underestimated you. Faith must have some magical component that transcends the very reason you use to argue your ends. At least I have offered a way, a methodology of discovery that has been used and proved by Catholics and non. Perhaps I have mistaken the usefulness of actually tasting a chocolate chip cookie as being preferable to arguing the merits of recipes with people who have had maybe a whiff of one but refuse to eat it. Or of swimming being more useful than reading the manual. Or drinking the blessed water instead of arguing about how full the glass is. So my reason of preferring knowledge to faith or speculation is useless here. I apologize for taking your valuable time.
You should start another thread on the relation of faith to reason because it is not directly related to the topic of Design.

In the meantime I wish to point out that I don’t claim to “have a handle on God” or “know His Purpose”. I** believe** the teaching of Jesus interpreted by the Church He founded with the Apostles led by St Peter.

No apologies are necessary because on this forum we all have the right to express our opinions. My time is not more valuable than yours or anyone else’s! 🙂
 
The path is wide and **many **go there.
That is a tautology. Each has a different experience and faith is necessarily a part of it.
All of it is arrived at by reason. You can’t pick up a paint brush without reason. You can’t write a single word without reason. You can’t distinguish between dance and architecture without reason. You can’t even recognize that a painting exists without reason.
All of it is analyzable by reason, The existence of anything is noted by the faculty of being able to discern difference or contrast. In the example, say of the Amerinds not seeing Columbus ships, as it is claimed, they first noted difference as wave patterns and contrasted that to the usual experience of their lives. they then reasoned that there must be a cause and looked for further contrast and difference. Not so? What about the farmer who denied the existence of the rather solid steam engine huffing and puffing before him? Inability to see difference, Where are someone’s glasses or wrench when they are right before their eyes? Inability to see difference. Why don’'t animals (generally) reason? Inability to see difference. Why were “Adam and Eve” kicked out of the Garden? they saw difference and contrast.
I hope, eventually, you will learn this. What you present is some kind of gnostic fairy-land where reason is something secondary. It’s like the hippie-ish, '60s frauds who claimed that “money is useless” while they padded their own bank accounts and sought tax shelters.
Maybe we ought to talk about Jekyll Island and money some time. And I don’t know from Gnostic, 'cept I aint one. And if you close your eyes, I can show you an elephant that is like a rope, a wall, a pillar, a fan, a pipe, or whatever you conclude it might be by not seeing itl
You come on to a philosophy site and want to argue with people – now claiming that the artist offers the best support for the points you’re trying to win … ok, great. Instead of trying to reason with people, just post photos of your art-work, or clips of your instrumental compositions and that, apparently, will prove your points better than reason can.
I have no point to win. Y’all asked questions and I answered. But if you misrepresent what I’m talking about, why would I stay silent? Or maybe that would have been best, as now you are stepping on your own feet trying to run with what my presentation isn’t. And it is the successful contemplative I point to most often, resorting to more common experience as a perhaps a more palatable or pragmatic pointer. And me posting such things will not give you the experience of where to go to actually create something yourself which is the whole blessed point But that is where y’all always take this. “Show me a picture of your state of awareness and I’ll believe you.” That won’t happen, so I’ve tried to encourage you to look at your own state to see the source of it. *I can’t do that for you, any more than I can taste a chocolate chip cookie for you or make you less thirsty by drinking the water myself. *
You are against reason – you continue to argue against it. And that’s about as obvious a self-contradiction as we can find.
Show me where I’m against reason. I most distinctly claim that it is limited, but that is in no way equatable to negating its existence, denying its utility, or any such thing. That is something you are trying to pin on me so that you won’t have to use reason yourself in a way that isn’t rationalization.
I assumed that you took the same attitude towards me when you refused to answer the questions I posed to you.
Since I’ve answered the same questions on here numerous times, I’m guessing that I’ve already done so and that you haven’t recognized that. Provide a post number, if you like, and I’ll have a go if you want particular ones answered. I don’t live on here, and may have gone by them as well. I have no need to refuse answering your questions.
It’s about trying to build some credibility, Gaber – and that’s not going to happen unless you’re willing to explore the weakness and inconsistency of your own views and then challenge yourself, instead of thinking and you’re here only to challenge everybody else.
I’m not here to challenge anyone. And “everybody” is an untenable allness statement… Some on here agree with me on many, and a few with nearly all the points I make. That I’m here to challenge is your interpretation perhaps based on how you feel when someone calls you on something that ain’t quite so. How unusual on a philosophy forum is that?!. I have commented on positions that are incompatible with Reality as I see it and stated why. If you find that challenging, well then you have had some good exercise other than engaging in mutual self congratulation with someone with whom you share a temporary consensus reality. You ought to thank me! 🙂
 
You should start another thread on the relation of faith to reason because it is not directly related to the topic of Design.

In the meantime I wish to point out that I don’t claim to “have a handle on God” or “know His Purpose”. I** believe** the teaching of Jesus interpreted by the Church He founded with the Apostles led by St Peter.

No apologies are necessary because on this forum we all have the right to express our opinions. My time is not more valuable than yours or anyone else’s! 🙂
You are a good egg, Tonyrey. What I posted on here is by necessity of your inquiries in here. I’ll let the proctors move my posts if they deem fit. As for belief, that being the foundation of your stance, it is right and proper to question the validity of a premise when someone presents it as being the determinant of their argument, yes? How do you know that you believe? Who is it that believes? Answer those and you may not have to have belief as a foundation stone, and yet be perfectly Catholic if you wish. It’s been done. And rather elegantly, I might add.

And I could give a hoot, as some say, if you want to do it yourself or not, but why is there such an adamantine refusal on here to even look at the possibility of an alternative and more fundamental view that has been tried and tested even bynsome Greats of our own Church? I just don’t get it.
 
Perhaps I have mistaken the usefulness of actually tasting a chocolate chip cookie as being preferable to arguing the merits of recipes with people who have had maybe a whiff of one but refuse to eat it.
The direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity is something far superior than what you have to offer, Gaber. The chocolate chip cookie that you’re so excited about having tasted is merely an understanding (correct or not) of your own mind. That’s your message. We, supposedly, need to know the limits of reason.

However, you have not had that direct unitive sight of God.

“When we see Him, we will be like Him”.

“If you love me, keep my commandments”.

It’s love of God that counts – not meditative insights on the limits of humanity.
We love God through His Son – and in the Church that Jesus came to earth to found.

You’re distant from the Church now – and that is sad to see. You’ve chosen your own mental activities over the power of the Sacrament and over the apostolic community of the Faithful.

Those are major problems in your worldview. We cannot love God without following His commands. This is an ethical and moral obligation – and it’s all part of Design as well.

Yes, I would say that you’ve mistaken many things – most seriously, you’re mistaken about the Catholic Faith itself, preferring your own religious opinions to that of the Holy Church. As such, you’re spreading errors – not the truth.

Your insistence that human knowledge is limited is not something new. It’s a basic, ordinary teaching of the Catholic Faith. As St. Thomas teaches – God infuses the soul with the light of divine reason, which transcends what human knowledge can achieve.
 
The direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity is something far superior than what you have to offer, Gaber. The chocolate chip cookie that you’re so excited about having tasted is merely an understanding (correct or not) of your own mind. That’s your message. We, supposedly, need to know the limits of reason.

However, you have not had that direct unitive sight of God.

“When we see Him, we will be like Him”.
We already are, but don’t see how.
“If you love me, keep my commandments”.
How can you not keep the commandments from a state of Unity? Only by being ignorant that that is a pre-existing condition occluded by identifying with the changeability of the mind.
It’s love of God that counts – not meditative insights on the limits of humanity.
We love God through His Son – and in the Church that Jesus came to earth to found.
And what does that mean if you do not "be still and know that I am God.? Why do all those contemplatives go and meditate on Silence, the one that’s not the absence of sound? Is it to better enjoy soap operas or acquire fast cars and enormous bank accounts?
You’re distant from the Church now – and that is sad to see. You’ve chosen your own mental activities over the power of the Sacrament and over the apostolic community of the Faithful.
How does your assessment of where I’m at constitute any semblance of actuality? That is a pure intellectual assertion based on what?
Those are major problems in your worldview. We cannot love God without following His commands. This is an ethical and moral obligation – and it’s all part of Design as well.
They are your problems because you make them so. They are not problems to me, as you have not yet once accurately described what I’m about, and can’t. What you have described is in your own mind, which I’ve urged you to question in order to use it with a greater degree and kind of accuracy than your great accomplishment so far. You have an excellent mind. You just haven’t seen it for what it is yet.
Yes, I would say that you’ve mistaken many things – most seriously, you’re mistaken about the Catholic Faith itself, preferring your own religious opinions to that of the Holy Church. As such, you’re spreading errors – not the truth.
Of course that is what it seems to you like from your accepted paradigm. How could it be otherwise?
Your insistence that human knowledge is limited is not something new. It’s a basic, ordinary teaching of the Catholic Faith. As St. Thomas teaches – God infuses the soul with the light of divine reason, which transcends what human knowledge can achieve.
Of course it isn’t new!!! Good grief! It’s older than Catholicism! And what could be the remedy to that is what I keep harping about. I don’t know what the most excellent Saint meant or intended by what is translated as “reason.” I’d love to talk with him now that he had that insight during the Mass that changed his life just before he left us. Wouldn’t that be awesome?! 🙂
 
You are a good egg, Tonyrey. What I posted on here is by necessity of your inquiries in here. I’ll let the proctors move my posts if they deem fit. As for belief, that being the foundation of your stance, it is right and proper to question the validity of a premise when someone presents it as being the determinant of their argument, yes? How do you know that you believe? Who is it that believes? Answer those and you may not have to have belief as a foundation stone, and yet be perfectly Catholic if you wish. It’s been done. And rather elegantly, I might add.
“How do you know that you believe?” and “Who is it that believes?” are certainly not the topic of this thread.
And I could give a hoot, as some say, if you want to do it yourself or not…
I think the expression is in the negative. 😉
…but why is there such an adamantine refusal on here to even look at the possibility of an alternative and more fundamental view that has been tried and tested even bynsome Greats of our own Church? I just don’t get it.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but that view is also off the topic of Design.
 
Those are major problems in your worldview. We cannot love God without following His commands. This is an ethical and moral obligation – and it’s all part of Design as well.
👍
It is worth repeating the words of St Paul:
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with **the purpose ** of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11
 
“How do you know that you believe?” and “Who is it that believes?” are certainly not the topic of this thread.

I think the expression is in the negative. 😉

I’m sorry to disappoint you but that view is also off the topic of Design.
So what you are saying is that discussion about the validity and truth of your premises is not allowed in the thread, and that the problem needs to be solved in the terms in which it was generated.
 
We already are, but don’t see how.
Your view conflicts with the Gospel text though. It’s not true that you possess the direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity. Your resistance to that fact says something … are you so arrogant as to present yourself as one who has achieved the spiritual perfection that Unity requires? I’m sorry, but that’s certainly the way it sounds.

You’ve fallen very short of the mark, Gaber. I’m forced to talk about you because that’s the only topic you offer us. It’s all about your world, and not about God, not about His Church, not about orthodox teaching, not about the moral imperatives that Christ gave us – but all we have is what we can know about you.

As Catholics, we’re taught to discern spirits. How do we know a person is a true prophet or a false one? How do we know a visionary is true or false?

The first, fundamental rule is to test what the self-proclaimed prophet says.
Second, test what he is.

If the prophet argues against the Catholic Faith, we know that cannot be the work of God.
We can discuss that if you want – it’s a different topic, but I can show you why orthodox Catholic teaching is the measure of true spirituality, and a deviation from Catholic belief is proof that there is error and falsehood in the spiritual claim.

If the prophet does not reveal the basic, fundamental virtues that are absolutely required of a true spiritual foundation – then that is a very strong indication that there is falsehood and deceit involved, either intentional or not.

That’s all we’re left with in discerning what you have to say.

Do you speak about God? Not really.
Do you speak about a burning love of Christ and of His teaching. No.
Are you interested in submitting, purely and simply, to the divine truths given through the Church? No.
Do you place your own esoteric, ambiguous opinions above the doctrines of the Magisterium of the Church? Yes.
Do you prefer to focus on mental awareness than on the beauty, power, love and nature of God? Yes.

These are all indicators that you do not possess the divine vision. Of course – that should be obvious. You’re struggling to find the truth.

There’s nothing wrong with that Gaber. What is wrong is that you won’t admit that, and you pretend that you don’t need to engage in that. You pretend that you can actually see the truth when it’s obvious that you don’t.
How can you not keep the commandments from a state of Unity?
You are not in a state of Unity. Period. It’s up to you do deny that and assert the opposite. You do not possess the direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity.
I’m not trying to embarrass you, but this is necessary for you to recognize and admit.
Only by being ignorant that that is a pre-existing condition occluded by identifying with the changeability of the mind.
The direct vision transcends the changeability of the mind – it’s the Unity with the Unchanging. “… we will be like Him”. We no longer need to talk about the limits of reason because we have the Vision. Again, you do not possess that vision. Period. That is a clear and obvious fact.
To refute me, just point me (off line to protect confidentiality) to one Catholic priest who will attest that you authentically possess the Divine Vision – directly. That should be easy.
Why do all those contemplatives go and meditate **on **Silence
Here’s where you’re completely wrong and offering false teaching.
None of the Catholic Saints mediated ON silence. You capitalize Silence like it’s a god of some kind – that’s the idolatry I’m trying to show you. You’re meditating on a natural thing – something created. That’s the evil that is subtle but very real.

The saints meditated IN silence – and they mediated ON God alone. ON the perfection and fullness of God. They forgot themselves, they had NO NEED for mental techniques or even understandings of their own awarness or lack of reason. If they meditated on On themselves, or ON silence, or ON awareness or ON their own minds – they removed themselves from God.

That’s a beautiful example of your problem in a nutshell. You’re always talking about mind and awareness but never on God. You cannot love God fully until He is everything and you realize you are His creature. You need to submit and subject yourself to Him - not to your own opinions.

But unfortunately, it’s all about your own opinions in every one of our discussion and never about submission to Him (correction – you do admit that He introduced you to awarness, but you substitute that awareness for Him).

Where is the gratitude, Gaber? How do you thank Christ for what He gives you? By rejecting the Church He died for?
How does your assessment of where I’m at constitute any semblance of actuality?
I think I’ve offered some clarity for you to consider. Go and read what I said.
They are your problems because you make them so.
I don’t consider myself the maker of reality. Again, I am a creature, not the Creator. This the arrogance that you seem to be presenting. Supposedly, you are the Creator of your own reality – this leaves no room or need for God. This explains why you never refer to Him or to His moral law. You dismiss the Church because it’s “not your problem” – you’ve made your own church, which is yourself.

You’re cut off from the Community of the Faithful – the Communion of Saints. Because you have no need for them. Again, that’s just simple arrogance and egoism. We all face that temptation, but yours is public and affirmative. So I feel the need to point that out in hopes of correcting you.
They are not problems to me, as you have not yet once accurately described what I’m about, and can’t.
You’re a lapsed Catholic. You avoid going to Mass. You don’t confess your mortal sins. Those are accurate descriptions based on facts.
You have an excellent mind.
Gaber, I am trying everything I can to open **your **excellent mind – because I think you’re worth it. I am praying for you because you’re not on the right path – although I think in your heart you truly want to be.
And what could be the remedy to that is what I keep harping about. I don’t know what the most excellent Saint meant or intended by what is translated as “reason.” I’d love to talk with him now that he had that insight during the Mass that changed his life just before he left us. Wouldn’t that be awesome?! 🙂
Yes, it would be. Keep in mind, what you’re harping about is not new (as you know) and it’s also completely unnecessary for you to keep harping, especially when your own views are in need of reform and improvement.

True prayer is a communication of Love. That’s basic. We know that. We can know that fully without disparaging reason. You continue to attack reason, you continue to act as if reason is unnecessary. But in the Catholic view, BOTH reason and transcendence are necessary. Dogma and Mysticism must work together. Doctrine without mystical love is empty legalism. Mysticism without true doctrine is fanaticism.

We have to have a balance of both. Not reason alone, not intuition alone.
 
So what you are saying is that discussion about the validity and truth of your premises is not allowed in the thread, and that the problem needs to be solved in the terms in which it was generated.
The validity of the power of reason is directly relevant to this thread and to the teaching of Jesus who constantly used it to justify his statements. He appealed to the beauty of nature to demonstrate that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures:
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your lifea]?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
Matthew 6:25-30
 
… True prayer is a communication of Love. That’s basic. We know that. We can know that fully without disparaging reason. You continue to attack reason, you continue to act as if reason is unnecessary. But in the Catholic view, BOTH reason and transcendence are necessary. Dogma and Mysticism must work together. Doctrine without mystical love is empty legalism. Mysticism without true doctrine is fanaticism.

We have to have a balance of both. Not reason alone, not intuition alone.
👍 A powerful, heartfelt post, Reggie. All of us need the virtue of humility to recognise the limitations of our reasoning but to deny its basic role is a form of pride. As Jesus Himself used it so must we.
 
Bradski

**No. Would you enjoy it more if you realised that this was all you were going to get? **

My clock is winding down pretty fast. I have realized more joy in life from my religion than when I had no religion. I hope there is more joy yet to be had … even after my Texas clock stops forever. :D;)
 
The path is wide and **many **go there.

All of it is arrived at by reason. You can’t pick up a paint brush without reason. You can’t write a single word without reason. You can’t distinguish between dance and architecture without reason. You can’t even recognize that a painting exists without reason.

I hope, eventually, you will learn this. What you present is some kind of gnostic fairy-land where reason is something secondary. It’s like the hippie-ish, '60s frauds who claimed that “money is useless” while they padded their own bank accounts and sought tax shelters.

You come on to a philosophy site and want to argue with people – now claiming that the artist offers the best support for the points you’re trying to win … ok, great. Instead of trying to reason with people, just post photos of your art-work, or clips of your instrumental compositions and that, apparently, will prove your points better than reason can.

You are against reason – you continue to argue against it. And that’s about as obvious a self-contradiction as we can find.

I assumed that you took the same attitude towards me when you refused to answer the questions I posed to you.

It’s about trying to build some credibility, Gaber – and that’s not going to happen unless you’re willing to explore the weakness and inconsistency of your own views and then challenge yourself, instead of thinking you’re here only to challenge everybody else.
I was going to carry on with my interesting idea with contrast and the nature of things (chaos-order) but had an unexpected busy weekend & noticed this entry.

I looked up the word reason to get a handle on the exact definition.

Can you give me an example of the use of reason without a relative chaos, resulting in a definitive and pursued relative order?

Reducing this chore for the simplest answer in my thinking takes us to the equation of
2+2=4

In the equation 2+2=4 there are two individual quantities required. The only way two individual quantities for the equation can exist is if they are segregated.

The only way they can be segregated is by a contrasting notion existing between the two values.

In short 2+2=4 is a reasoning which includes both chaos and order (contrast) arriving at a relative definitive order in their unification and consequential value. Since they are not unified, something is presumed in opposition.

Art is not so. Art is the appreciation in management, of the blending nature of chaos-order . Art would be the suggested experience all together including perseverance-management…thats how it works, is related to and therefore appreciated…I don’t see all this in the definition of reason. And also don’t see exactly where reasoning or pure reason can take place without chaos…a contrast is required.
 
I was busy editing above and mixed up some of the signs…anyway I meant to say its just an opinion and don’t worry about getting back but somehow it seems to be missing so I’m mentioning…must be late or something.
 
I was going to carry on with my interesting idea with contrast and the nature of things (chaos-order) but had an unexpected busy weekend & noticed this entry.

I looked up the word reason to get a handle on the exact definition.

Can you give me an example of the use of reason without a relative chaos, resulting in a definitive and pursued relative order?

Reducing this chore for the simplest answer in my thinking takes us to the equation of
2+2=4

In the equation 2+2=4 there are two individual quantities required. The only way the two individual quantities for the equation can exist is if they are segregated.

The only way they can be segregated is by a contrasting notion existing between the two values.

In short 2=2+4 is a reasoning which includes both chaos and order (contrast) arriving at a relative definitive order in their unification and consequential value.

Art is not so. Art is the appreciation in management, of the blending nature of chaos-order . Art would be the suggested experience all together including perseverance-management…thats how it works, is related to and therefore appreciated…I don’t see all this in the definition of reason. And also don’t see exactly where reasoning or pure reason can take place without chaos…a contrast is required.
  1. You are correct in concluding there has to be a contrast with order but it is disorder rather than chaos - which is associated with total disorder.
  2. Even in an orderly system coincidences lead to disorder - like collisions which occur as a result of the immense complexity of the universe.
  3. Order is more fundamental than disorder because it is positive whereas disorder is negative.
  4. “Nothing shall come of nothing.” - King Lear
  5. Nothing presupposes something, darkness presupposes light, death presupposes life, absurdity presupposes reason and Chance* presupposes Design.
*Chance in the sense of “that which is irrational and purposeless”.
 
I looked up the word reason to get a handle on the exact definition.

Can you give me an example of the use of reason without a relative chaos, resulting in a definitive and pursued relative order?
Interesting comments – thanks.

A simple example of the use of reason is any distinction you make between what is true and what is false. This happens thousands of times a day for you. Reason is the conscious, free-will exercise that compares and (yes) contrasts the truth of things.
Reducing this chore for the simplest answer in my thinking takes us to the equation of
2+2=4
Exactly. We have two quantities and by adding them, we get a third. That is the use of reason.
We have one canvas to paint. We divide the canvas in half. Now we have … 5 halves of the canvas? No, obviously we have two halves. Thus, reason is essential to the task of painting.
In the equation 2+2=4 there are two individual quantities required. The only way two individual quantities for the equation can exist is if they are segregated.
True – reason separates, compares and contrasts. That is how we can determine the truth or falsehood of something. If everything was chaos, there would be nothing distinctive as an identity.

This is an important part of reasoning – the Law of Idenitity. A thing is the same as itself.

Socrates: How about sounds and colours: in the first place you would admit that they both exist?
Theaetetus: Yes.
Socrates: And that either of them is different from the other, and the same with itself?
Theaetetus: Certainly.
Socrates: And that both are two and each of them one?
Theaetetus: Yes.

Individual colors exist. They are different with each other and the same as themselves.
This is a start for reasoning.
The only way they can be segregated is by a contrasting notion existing between the two values.
That’s one way to say it – true.
In short 2+2=4 is a reasoning which includes both chaos and order (contrast) arriving at a relative definitive order in their unification and consequential value. Since they are not unified, something is presumed in opposition.
It “includes” chaos because it separates order from chaos. Reason is the power that enables us to recognize truth and falsehood. Additionally, only reason can create order since order comes from regularity, not chaos.
Art is not so. Art is the appreciation in management, of the blending nature of chaos-order .
I don’t see the difference. You explained that reason separates from chaos, so both chaos and order are at work. The same is with art. With no order, there can be no art.
Art would be the suggested experience all together including perseverance-management…thats how it works, is related to and therefore appreciated…I don’t see all this in the definition of reason. And also don’t see exactly where reasoning or pure reason can take place without chaos…a contrast is required.
Art requires reason. Reason is not secondary to art – because art is a pre-eminent work of Design. It’s a deliberate use of reason, along with intuition – to communicate meaning.

You can’t have meaning (purpose or value) without design. That’s the conscious use of reason to communicate beauty in art.
 
👍 A powerful, heartfelt post, Reggie. All of us need the virtue of humility to recognise the limitations of our reasoning but to deny its basic role is a form of pride. As Jesus Himself used it so must we.
Thanks, Tony. 🙂
Interesting point and so true … a denial of the role of reason **is **a form of pride. We might be tempted to set aside reason to just follow our impulses – but reason will help us make the best decisions. That is, reason – along with – spiritual insight or intuition.

I hope Gaber will take some time to reply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top