Phi - losophical question

  • Thread starter Thread starter kcp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He probably hasn’t even thought about it but even if he rejects Design it is implicit in the Buddhist belief in spiritual development. Do you attribute “simple” patterns of growth to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations? 😉
:confused: The pattern of growth is the Fibonacci series. Start with 1 and 1, add them to make the next term, then in the same way keep adding the last two terms of the series to make the next. That’s the pattern of growth. Straightforward replication.

Some believe that numbers are spooky and mystical and turn them into a religion, just as some make UFOs or crystal pyramids or ID their religion, but I’m a Christian, I don’t subscribe to superstitions or false idols, numbers are just numbers, period.
 
Lemaître was not wrong to say what he said when he said it to Pius XII. What you persist in is the notion that Lemaître was admonishing the pope as if he was wrong, when he was only admonishing the pope because Pius was premature in citing Lemaitre’s discovery as consistent with Genesis. It was not until after the death of Pius in 1958 and just before the death of Lemaître that evidence confirming the Big Bang began to pour in. Lemaître was gratified on his deathbed to learn that the echo of the Big Bang could still be heard throughout the universe. Again, you never tire of trying to use Catholics to refute the views of other Catholics. It’s a failed strategy, but one I doubt you will ever stop trying to use as it seems to be programmed into many of your attacks on the posters as CA.
Well no, that’s just silly. If, as you claim, the evidence is now in, then every Pope since 1960 would shout from the roof tops that science has proven Genesis. Instead of which there is a deafening silence. Because no, science didn’t prove it, Lemaître is still correct.

For we walk by faith, not by sight even though you may wish to kill off faith and replace it with faux certainties.

And no, I’ve not “attacked” any other poster on this, because no other poster makes the claim. Just as no Pope makes the claim, no poster has either. No one except you.

And I don’t quote Catholics to refute the views of other Catholics. I quote truths to refute untruths. :onpatrol:
What T.V. Show are you talking about? My quote was from Cosmos the book, not a T.V. show.
Err… it’s the book of the TV series. Now come on, you’ve been quoting it for ever and a day and you never knew? You’re kidding?

You didn’t comment on the main point of my post. By placing scripture alongside a quote from a TV show I think you make if superficial and trivialize the author’s intention. Are not Catholics taught to read scripture prayerfully? Please look again at the depth of meaning found in “Let there be light” by Matthew Henry:

*We have here a further account of the first day’s work, in which observe, 1. That the first of all visible beings which God created was light; not that by it he himself might see to work (for the darkness and light are both alike to him), but that by it we might see his works and his glory in them, and might work our works while it is day. The works of Satan and his servants are works of darkness; but he that doeth truth, and doeth good, cometh to the light, and coveteth it, that his deeds may be made manifest, John 3:21. Light is the great beauty and blessing of the universe. Like the first-born, it does, of all visible beings, most resemble its great Parent in purity and power, brightness and beneficence; it is of great affinity with a spirit, and is next to it; though by it we see other things, and are sure that it is, yet we know not its nature, nor can describe what it is, or by what way the light is parted, Job 38:19, 24. By the sight of it let us be led to, and assisted in, the believing contemplation of him who is light, infinite and eternal light (1 John 1:5), and the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17), and who dwells in inaccessible light, 1 Tim. 6:16. In the new creation, the first thing wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit captives the will and affections by enlightening the understanding, so coming into the heart by the door, like the good shepherd whose own the sheep are, while sin and Satan, like thieves and robbers, climb up some other way. Those that by sin were darkness by grace become light in the world. 2. That the light was made by the word of God’s power. He said, Let there be light; he willed and appointed it, and it was done immediately: there was light, such a copy as exactly answered the original idea in the Eternal Mind. O the power of the word of God! He spoke, and it was done, done really, effectually, and for perpetuity, not in show only, and to serve a present turn, for he commanded, and it stood fast: with him it was dictum, factum—a word, and a world. The world of God (that is, his will and the good pleasure of it) is quick and powerful. Christ is the Word, the essential eternal Word, and by him the light was produced, for in him was light, and he is the true light, the light of the world, John 1:9; 9:5. The divine light which shines in sanctified souls is wrought by the power of God, the power of his word and of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, opening the understanding, scattering the mists of ignorance and mistake, and giving the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, as at first, God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 2 Cor. 4:6. Darkness would have been perpetually upon the face of fallen man if the Son of God had not come, and given us an understanding, 1 John 5:20. 3. *
 
He probably hasn’t even thought about it but even if he rejects Design it is implicit in the Buddhist belief in spiritual development. Do you attribute “simple” patterns of growth to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?
  1. Does the Buddhist belief in spiritual development imply Design?
  2. Are patterns of growth ultimately due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?
 
  1. Does the Buddhist belief in spiritual development imply Design?
You’re the only person I’ve ever met who capitalizes the word design, and you’ve never explained what you mean by it, so I can’t say.
2. Are patterns of growth ultimately due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?
Strange question. 1 + 1 = 2. Then 1 + 2 = 3. Then 2 + 3 = 5. Etc. Why do you think that could rely on randomness or be dependent on molecules? :confused:
 
You’re the only person I’ve ever met who capitalizes the word design, and you’ve never explained what you mean by it, so I can’t say.
A quick glance at Google:

filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-W-2175-CEX-N.PDF
Version 1.0. Design Argument.

The Anthropic Design Argument, by Peter Williams
www.focus.org.uk/skeptics_guide.php

[PDF]BEYOND THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
www.tech.plym.ac.uk/socce/evolang6/zuidema_odonnell.pdf
by W ZUIDEMA - ‎Related articles

The Argument From Design - Cambridge Journals


by G Doore - ‎1980 - ‎

The Argument from Design - Cambridge Journals


by RG Swinburne - ‎1968 -

[DOC]Explain the argument from **Design **put forward by Aquinas (10)
hepq.pbworks.com/

God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern …
www.amazon.co.uk › … › Christianity › Theology › Philosophy

Does the Buddhist belief in spiritual development imply Design?
2. Are patterns of growth ultimately due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?
Code:
Strange question. 1 + 1 = 2. Then 1 + 2 = 3. Then 2 + 3 = 5. Etc.  Why do you think that could rely on randomness or be dependent on  molecules?

What else could they rely on?
 
A quick glance at Google:

filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-W-2175-CEX-N.PDF
Version 1.0. Design Argument.

The Anthropic Design Argument, by Peter Williams
www.focus.org.uk/skeptics_guide.php

[PDF]BEYOND THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
www.tech.plym.ac.uk/socce/evolang6/zuidema_odonnell.pdf
by W ZUIDEMA - ‎Related articles

The Argument From Design - Cambridge Journals
journals.cambridge.org/article_S0034412500012130
by G Doore - ‎1980 - ‎

The Argument from Design - Cambridge Journals
journals.cambridge.org/article_S0031819100009189
by RG Swinburne - ‎1968 -

[DOC]Explain the argument from **Design **put forward by Aquinas (10)
hepq.pbworks.com/

God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern …
www.amazon.co.uk › … › Christianity › Theology › Philosophy

Does the Buddhist belief in spiritual development imply Design?
Ah, so design with a capital d is your personal shorthand for belief in the teleological argument.

No, arguments for the existence of God murder spiritual development, kill it stone dead, since they seek to replace faith with proof. Jesus said faith, not proof, can move a mountain. For Jesus, a mustard seed of faith is more potent than any number of so-called proofs. Little children have not yet been spiritually corrupted by proofs, and “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”.
What else could they rely on?
Are you claiming that 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5, etc. rely on randomness?

PS: apologies for delay in replying.
 
Well no, that’s just silly. If, as you claim, the evidence is now in, then every Pope since 1960 would shout from the roof tops that science has proven Genesis.
Except it’s Catholic teaching that the physical sciences, while they might help illustrate the truths of faith, do not prove those truths.
F
or we walk by faith, not by sight
even though you may wish to kill off faith and replace it with faux certainties.
Code:
We believe, and the Church has always taught, that by reason we can arrive at the knowledge of God's existence, and certain elementary truths about His nature; but without revelation we could never.arrive at the truths of salvation.
Are not Catholics taught to read scripture prayerfully?
The Catholic Church established the practice of lectio divino. Innumerable saints lived by it.
 
Except it’s Catholic teaching that the physical sciences, while they might help illustrate the truths of faith, do not prove those truths.
I’m not the one making that claim, but Pius XII said of Lemaître’s big bang hypothesis: “Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, modern science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the creator”.

When Lemaître heard that Pius would include that in a speech, he went to the Vatican to warn the Pope’s advisers that all scientific theories are provisional and for that reason alone should not be used to support theological statements, and Pius changed his speech and never said such a thing again.

So maybe that was when the Church started to teach what you say above. If would be useful if you could link where the Church teaches that, so we can quote it in future.
 
Ah, so design with a capital d is your personal shorthand for belief in the teleological argument.
You have totally ignored all the evidence to the contrary!
No, arguments for the existence of God murder spiritual development, kill it stone dead, since they seek to replace faith with proof. Jesus said faith, not proof, can move a mountain. For Jesus, a mustard seed of faith is more potent than any number of so-called proofs. Little children have not yet been spiritually corrupted by proofs, and “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”.
Jesus did not say reasoning is useless. He proved his opponents were wrong with rational arguments. He pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures. He does not expect us to have blind faith like fanatics but to use our intelligence and judgment.
Are you claiming that 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5, etc. rely on randomness?
This is not an answer to my question:

Are patterns of growth ultimately due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations?
PS: apologies for delay in replying.
There is no time limit in the pursuit of truth. 🙂
 
You have totally ignored all the evidence to the contrary!
No, I was just relieved to finally know what you mean by design with a capital d.
Jesus did not say reasoning is useless. He proved his opponents were wrong with rational arguments. He pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures. He does not expect us to have blind faith like fanatics but to use our intelligence and judgment.
He still says faith, not reason, moves mountains. He still says the kingdom belongs to little children, not to logicians.

And I think your take on Matt 6 is a bit one-sided, for Jesus never mentions the ugliness of disease and hunger as evidence of a loving Father caring for his creatures. Jesus doesn’t say the point of the passage is a one-sided “all things bright and beautiful” or “always look on the bright side of life”, he says it’s “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
*This is not an answer to my question:
Are patterns of growth ultimately due to fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations? *
Yes it is. The pattern of growth is 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, etc. And that can’t possibly depend on “fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations”, can it?

I agree that Christians should use reason, and reason tells us that numerology is irrational, that phi is derived from very simple arithmetic, not by magical divination or mystical mumbo jumbo.
 
No, I was just relieved to finally know what you mean by design with a capital d.
You persist in saying "design with a capital d is your personal shorthand for belief in the teleological argument in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
He still says faith, not reason, moves mountains. He still says the kingdom belongs to little children, not to logicians.
Jesus didn’t say it belongs only to little children or that we shouldn’t follow His example by using our intelligence to defend our faith.
And I think your take on Matt 6 is a bit one-sided, for Jesus never mentions the ugliness of disease and hunger as evidence of a loving Father caring for his creatures. Jesus doesn’t say the point of the passage is a one-sided “all things bright and beautiful” or “always look on the bright side of life”, he says it’s “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
It is not one-sided to put the evidence of a loving Father** before everything else**. The very fact that Jesus said “Each day has enough trouble of its own” is an example of reasoning rather than appealing to blind faith. We are expected to be childlike in our confidence in divine Providence but not childish in our approach to life. Remember what St Paul wrote “When I was a child…”
Yes it is. The pattern of growth is 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, etc. And that can’t possibly depend on “fortuitous combinations of molecules and random genetic mutations”, can it?
I agree that Christians should use reason, and reason tells us that numerology is irrational, that phi is derived from very simple arithmetic, not by magical divination or mystical mumbo jumbo.
The pattern of growth depends on the order in the universe reflected in mathematical language. Numbers correspond to physical reality regardless of human symbols.
 
You persist in saying "design with a capital d is your personal shorthand for belief in the teleological argument in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I’ve never seen anyone else use that single capitalized word to mean the argument from design. 🤷
Jesus didn’t say it belongs only to little children or that we shouldn’t follow His example by using our intelligence to defend our faith.
Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

I doubt that the parents who asked Jesus to bless their children only did so after careful analysis of arguments for the existence of God. Nor did Jesus stick around to debate such arguments. Nor is scripture exactly full of such arguments.
It is not one-sided to put the evidence of a loving Father* before everything else***. The very fact that Jesus said “Each day has enough trouble of its own” is an example of reasoning rather than appealing to blind faith. We are expected to be childlike in our confidence in divine Providence but not childish in our approach to life. Remember what St Paul wrote “When I was a child…”
Then, to get back on topic, all I came to this thread to say is it might be an idea not to attribute magical powers to basic arithmetic.
The pattern of growth depends on the order in the universe reflected in mathematical language. Numbers correspond to physical reality regardless of human symbols.
You appear to be saying that 1+1 = 2 may not be true in another physical universe, where perhaps 1+1 = -17.658. But no, take 1 from both sides and you’d have 1 = -16.658.
 
I’ve never seen anyone else use that single capitalized word to mean the argument from design.
You have now seen it in the citations!
Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
I doubt that the parents who asked Jesus to bless their children only did so after careful analysis of arguments for the existence of God. Nor did Jesus stick around to debate such arguments. Nor is scripture exactly full of such arguments.

Non sequitur. Not everyone has a vocation to be a Christian philosopher or theologian but that doesn’t imply they’re superfluous. If they were you wouldn’t be on this forum!
Shouldn’t we use our intelligence to defend our faith?
Then, to get back on topic, all I came to this thread to say is it might be an idea not to attribute magical powers to basic arithmetic. You appear to be saying that 1+1 = 2 may not be true in another physical universe, where perhaps 1+1 = -17.658. But no, take 1 from both sides and you’d have 1 = -16.658.
I stated that a pattern of growth depends on the order in the universe (as opposed to chaos) which is reflected in mathematical language. Numbers correspond to physical reality regardless of human symbols. It has nothing to do with numerology.

There is still an unanswered question: Does spiritual development imply Design, i.e. is it part of God’s plan?

I wish you every Easter blessing, consolation and hope of reunion with those you love.
 
You have now seen it in the citations!
You could have avoided the citations, it was only because each of the titles included the word argument that I concluded you might mean the argument from design, but I’m still unsure what you mean by design with a capital d.
Non sequitur. Not everyone has a vocation to be a Christian philosopher or theologian but that doesn’t imply they’re superfluous. If they were you wouldn’t be on this forum!
Shouldn’t we use our intelligence to defend our faith?
Jesus still says faith, not reason, moves mountains. He still says the kingdom belongs to little children, not to logicians.

*For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”*
I stated that a pattern of growth depends on the order in the universe (as opposed to chaos) which is reflected in mathematical language. Numbers correspond to physical reality regardless of human symbols. It has nothing to do with numerology.
Abstract ideas such as numbers, arithmetic and logic do not depend on order in the physical universe.
There is still an unanswered question: Does spiritual development imply Design, i.e. is it part of God’s plan?
Now I don’t know whether design with a capital d means the teleological argument or Gods’ plan, or both, or neither. This is very frustrating. Please rewrite your question using an uncapitalized synonym, how do you expect me to give an answer when I can’t even decode your question?
I wish you every Easter blessing, consolation and hope of reunion with those you love.
Thank you, and may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
 
You could have avoided the citations, it was only because each of the titles included the word argument that I concluded you might mean the argument from design, but I’m still unsure what you mean by design with a capital d.
It is capitalised throughout the text as well as in the titles.
Jesus still says faith, not reason, moves mountains. He still says the kingdom belongs to little children, not to logicians.
*For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”*

Jesus is not referring to all wisdom and all intelligence - which would imply “Credo quia absurdum”:
Now well into the twenty-first century, we are aware that we need wisdom as much as ever, at the personal, national and international levels. As Job 28 alerts us, the crucial question is where wisdom is to be found. The Bible contains a rich wisdom tradition, which, after a long period of neglect, has found its way back onto biblical and theological agendas. We welcome this recovery, but it is important to note that we have a long way to go to recover a full biblical theology of wisdom.
In this book our focus is on the theological interpretation of Old Testament wisdom. Nowadays books dealing with different aspects of Old Testament wisdom appear on a regular basis but rarely with deep theological engagement. The recent renaissance of theological interpretation in biblical studies has still to mature and certainly still to excavate the riches awaiting us in Old Testament Wisdom literature. Our hope is that this volume will contribute to just such an excavation.
As Proverbs tells us, Lady Wisdom calls out to us amid all the challenges of public and private life. All the while Dame Folly stands as a symbol for our unwillingness to attend to her call. In our view the time is ripe for renewed attention to Lady Wisdom’s voice as we encounter it in Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes. If Scripture is indeed God’s Word to us, then much is at stake in attending to his address through these remarkable books. They present the real possibility of finding wisdom amid the great challenges of the twenty-first century.
ivpbooks.com/old-testament-wisdom-literature
Abstract ideas such as numbers, arithmetic and logic do not depend on order in the physical universe.
Could they exist if there were chaos?
Now I don’t know whether design with a capital d means the teleological argument or Gods’ plan, or both, or neither. This is very frustrating. Please rewrite your question using an uncapitalized synonym, how do you expect me to give an answer when I can’t even decode your question?
Gods’ plan implies Design (capitalised to distinguish it from human design).

Is spiritual development part of God’s plan?
Thank you, and may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
And also with you…
 
It is capitalised throughout the text as well as in the titles.
Neither of the citations for which you included links use it capitalized in the text. btw you may not have noticed that your second citation (Zuidema) argues against, not for. 😉
Jesus is not referring to all wisdom and all intelligence - which would imply “Credo quia absurdum”:
*Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”*
Could they exist if there were chaos?
Of course. Though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging, 1+1 = 2.
Is spiritual development part of God’s plan?
I remember a tongue-in-cheek sermon about how the purpose of spiritual development is to earn a better condo in heaven, one on the street where God lives. The less developed have to live in far away suburbs and commute, serve them right. I don’t think it’s part of God’s plan, it’s not like a degree or a driving license.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top