Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

inocente:

Character building. Evil offers the opportunity to grow morall
Useful as a means of knowledge. Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.
If we were programmed to ‘do the right thing’ there would be no moral value to our actions. ‘We would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a complete paradise’ Swinburne.
A predictable environment. The world runs to a series of natural laws. These laws are independent of our needs, and operate regardless of anything. Natural evil is when these laws come into conflict with our own perceived needs.

False deduction on two counts:

1. Not all these explanations apply to everyone.
2. You imply that evil never offers the opportunity for moral development.l

The second says the small child’s suffering (from an incurable disease remember) provides her with a character-building opportunity. The crass immorality of that beggars belief.

False deduction on two counts:

1. Not all these explanations apply to everyone.
2. You imply that evil never offers the opportunity for character-building.

The third is relativism - it defines natural evil relative to our subjective “perceived needs”.

False. The needs are not entirely subjective. Pain is an objective self-defence mechanism.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9071107

 

[tonyrey]

To create a universe in which no one has free will, the power of reason, the capacity for love and self-determination - and to replace them with zombies who have no mind or will of their own…

I have pointed out several times that natural laws cannot cater for every contingency. Free will, the power of reason, the capacity for love and the capacity for self-determination all necessitate a predictable environment with natural laws which are “independent of our needs, and operate regardless of anything” - to quote St Irenaeus.

Many children are miraculously cured and prevented from even having the disease if you believe God is a loving Father - which seems extremely unlikely in view of your sarcastic remarks…

Leaving aside yet another of your ad hominems…

It is not an ad hominem but a fact. Your implication that God does not work miracles to cure children - or anyone else - is inconsistent with the belief that God is a loving Father.

…what about those who are not? Why do they suffer and not the others?

I have pointed out several times that a constant spate of miracles would make events unpredictable and defeat the purpose of creating an orderly world.

Just following your logic is all.

It is illogical to assume that each of the explanations presented by St Irenaeus applies to everyone when it is abundantly clear that a young child’s incurable disease does not lead to character-building or moral development.

If you think the suffering in the world is excessive then you have no reason whatsoever for believing in a loving Father.

Who said anything about excessive?

You have just implied it with your questions:

“Why would that require the small child to suffer the excruciating pain of an incurable disease?” and
“What about those who are not? Why do they suffer and not the others?”

Are you saying that the Bible is absurd when it tells us to fear God? (post #179) or that 1 Cor 1:18-31 is absurd when Paul writes “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.”? Or … ?

I wouldn’t want to be the only one quoting scripture so be all means quoth back to correct me and I’ll spread the word amongst Baptists. Would I be correct in telling them that fearing God, as instructed in Luke, Isaiah, etc. is a poor marketing strategy in our secular society?

You stated:

If God “permits” it then God wills it, and all we can do is wonder why. That’s the reason the Bible tells us to fear God.

You imply that the Bible tells us to fear God because all we can do is wonder why God permits suffering! In other words God deliberately sets out to make us terrified of Him by depriving us of the opportunity to understand the reasons why He permits suffering and exalts blind faith as the supreme virtue! That notion is as far removed from a loving Father as one can get…

You reject the explanations of others even though you have none to offer and seek refuge in wonderment. I think obscurantism is a more appropriate term…

 

[tonyrey]

If one is going to replace an Omnipotent Creator with an “Invisible Pink Unicorn”, would “Pinky” have to be Omnipotent?

:tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

If you disagree with me that your claim about Godel’s theorem is false then by all means discuss, with citations please.

Here’s my first citation – “Gödel’s Theorem - A much-abused result in mathematical logic, supposed by many authors who don’t understand it to support their own favored brand of rubbish…” - Prof. Cosma Shalizi, Carnegie Mellon - cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/godels-theorem.html

Have fun with your citations! None of them will alter the fact that things cannot explain themselves - unless you propose to deify them…

 

[buffalo]

Has anyone ever detected an invisible pink unicorn? By definition it cannot exist since it it cannot be both pink and invisible.

 

[Biblepoe]

You’re on the right track although that is only a part of the picture. How do we establish what is natural?

We determine what is natural and what is designed by contrasting the two. How do we initially determine what is natural or designed in order to come up with this contrast? We do so by observing what things have been designed. For example, we know that watches are designed because we have observed people making watches, every watch we know of is designed, and we don’t have any examples of watches that aren’t designed.

The problem with saying that the entire universe is designed is that you have absolutely no contrast between what is designed and what is naturally occurring. To refer to the watch on the beach analogy, it is like finding a watch on the beach within an entire universe of watches.

Is it self-evident that personal activity can be explained entirely by science? If not we already have a problem because it implies that a natural object is capable of explaining itself - which seems farfetched and certainly inconsistent with Godel’s Incompleteness theorem. **A system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
**

I can still infer that a watch was probably made by a human (who apparently designed it) without having to know how a human mind can develop naturally.

(And I should note that scientists do have a good, although not comprehensive, understanding of how the human brain works and has developed naturally. From what we know about it, it appears to be 100% responsible for what one may call the “mind".)

My intention is to suggest there is powerful evidence that Design exists.

That’s just about the same thing as trying to demonstrate that a god exists.

 

[cho_pilo]

Here is an excellent lecture that addresses this very issue.

No offense, but I’ll pass on the link to 90 minutes of my life that I will never get back. If possible, I’d like for you to explain it in your own words.

 

[tonyrey]

How do we establish what is natural?

That is the question no one has ever answered satisfactorily. Persons behave in ways unlike every other entity in the world. Are we entitled to regard all our activity as natural simply because we are in the world?

We determine what is natural and what is designed by contrasting the two.

We are not entitled to assume that an entity cannot be both designed and natural.

How do we initially determine what is natural or designed in order to come up with this contrast? We do so by observing what things have been designed. For example, we know that watches are designed because we have observed people making watches, every watch we know of is designed, and we don’t have any examples of watches that aren’t designed.

It may or may not be the initial means but it is certainly not the most significant criterion - which is whether an entity fulfils a purpose successfully.

The problem with saying that the entire universe is designed is that you have absolutely no contrast between what is designed and what is naturally occurring.

That contrast is based on an unsubstantiated assumption - that “natural” has preceded “design”, i.e. it has ontological priority.

To refer to the watch on the beach analogy, it is like finding a watch on the beach within an entire universe of watches.

The analogy is based on the same fatal flaw - that nature existed before design.

Is it self-evident that personal activity can be explained entirely by science? If not we already have a problem because it implies that a natural object is capable of explaining itself - which seems farfetched and certainly inconsistent with Godel’s Incompleteness theorem. A system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

I can still infer that a watch was probably made by a human (who apparently designed it) without having to know how a human mind can develop naturally.

That is true but are you justified in inferring that the mind was probably made by mindless processes? What is the basis of your inference?

(And I should note that scientists do have a good, although not comprehensive, understanding of how the human brain works and has developed naturally. From what we know about it, it appears to be 100% responsible for what one may call the “mind".)

If the brain is 100% responsible for the mind (for which there is not the evidence you claim) you are not responsible for your conclusions and there is no guarantee that they are true! They are merely the outcome of the way you have been conditioned by your genetic makeup and your past experiences.

My intention is to suggest there is powerful evidence that Design exists.

That’s just about the same thing as trying to demonstrate that a god exists.

Not at all! It is a very far cry from intelligence to Deity.

 

[tonyrey]

No offense, but I’ll pass on the link to 90 minutes of my life that I will never get back. If possible, I’d like for you to explain it in your own words.

If you watch the last 15 minutes you may have second thoughts about having wasted your time…

 

[tonyrey]

I can disprove Einstein with a faster-than-light neutrino (albeit not quite yet). I cannot disprove your design because “the designer wanted it that way” covers absolutely every possible observation.

That is sheer nonsense! If you insist on bringing the Designer into the discussion it is evident that the suspensions of the laws of nature are to compensate for their inability to fulfil perfectly the purposes for which they are intended, i.e. the origin and development of life and rational beings.

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”…

 

[buffalo]

No offense, but I’ll pass on the link to 90 minutes of my life that I will never get back. If possible, I’d like for you to explain it in your own words.

It could be the best 90 minutes of your life.

 

[tonyrey]

It could be the best 90 minutes of your life.

I wonder what would be a better way of “killing time”!

 

[Biblepoe]

Tonyrey, since you seem to be confused about my point (which is partly due to my use of the word natural) I’ll use a different approach to get my same point across:

Biblepoe;9072357:

How do we initially determine what is natural or designed in order to come up with this contrast? We do so by observing what things have been designed. For example, we know that watches are designed because we have observed people making watches, every watch we know of is designed, and we don’t have any examples of watches that aren’t designed.

It may or may not be the initial means but it is certainly not the most significant criterion - which is whether an entity fulfils a purpose successfully.

Here, you’re saying that we observe something (the universe, a watch on a beach, etc.), determine from observing it if it fulfills a purpose, then infer it must be designed by a conscious designer.

In reality, we do the opposite. We first observe designers (in this case, human beings) design and make things (such as watches) that fulfill purposes, then we infer that things like that are designed by conscious beings if our only examples of such things are those made by conscious beings.

In the latter, we use the existence of the conscious designer to infer that it is designed. In the former (your position), you use the thing (such as a watch) to determine if there is a conscious designer behind it. The former doesn’t take into account things that may not necessarily require a conscious being (such as an earth with many resources) while the second does.

By contrasting those things that we have observed being made by conscious beings (such as watches) with those things that we have not observed being made by conscious beings

Not at all! It is a very far cry from intelligence to Deity.

Well, when most people use the word “god”, they usually, at a minimum, mean a designer of the universe. I suppose different people mean different things by that word.

 

[tonyrey]

Here, you’re saying that we observe something (the universe, a watch on a beach, etc.), determine from observing it if it fulfills a purpose, then infer it must be designed by a conscious designer.

In reality, we do the opposite. We first observe designers (in this case, human beings) design and make things (such as watches) that fulfill purposes, then we infer that things like that are designed by conscious beings if our only examples of such things are those made by conscious beings.

Life is far more complex than that! We gradually assimilate facts about ourselves, others and inanimate objects from the moment we are born. Initially our only experience of purposeful activity is that of those who care for us but we also realise that many things are useful - not only manmade objects but natural things - like light and water. Some things do what we want them to do whereas many others don’t: some facilitate life but others obstruct us - like darkness and hard objects. So already we distinguish between two aspects of reality: the** positive** and the negative.

Design implies that we exist because the positive is more fundamental than the negative. Purpose is more fundamental than lack of purpose. Purpose presupposes intelligence. **The universe is intelligible because it is the product of intelligence. **This need not be the case.Reality could be inscrutable even to a much greater extent than it is for animals - whose understanding is far more limited than ours. The universe could be completely unintelligible because intelligence is not an absolute necessity - any more than life is.

The fact that the universe or life exists does not mean they must exist. Physical Necessity is an illusion. **No thing is necessary. **(Not even pasta. ) No one is necessary. Purpose need not exist but it does - and it is linked with everything we consider most precious: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Without Design everything becomes absurd, irrational, neutral, amoral, valueless, purposeless and meaningless…

 

[rossum]

Has anyone ever detected an invisible pink unicorn? By definition it cannot exist since it it cannot be both pink and invisible.

Both science and faith confirm that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. We know she is invisible because we cannot see her - that is science. We know she is pink because we believe it - that is faith.

The existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is confirmed by both faith and science.

rossum

 

[rossum]

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”…

You just lost. Fish can lay millions of eggs, only very few of which will ever reach maturity. How many acorns does an oak tree produce over its lifetime? How many of those acorns ever grow into a mature oak tree? How many spores does a mature fern produce? How many spores does a mushroom produce? Not only are you destroying your own theory, you are showing your lack of knowledge of biology.

Before modern medicine, death rates among human babies were around 50%. Every living organism overproduces young, some by large multiples of the requirement for replacement.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”…

You are merely revealing how unrealistic you are! The fact that very few reach maturity is the** reason** why there are so many…

1. Your parsimonious attitude to nature - based on parochial human notions of economy - overlooks the incontrovertible fact that the **superabundance **of acorns, spores, eggs and spermatazoa is essential to ensure the survival of offspring in a world where living organisms are exposed to “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”.
2. The** blind** laws of nature cannot possibly take into account the circumstances of every individual and cannot possibly cater for every contingency that may arise in the face of **the overwhelming odds against survival **in a perilous environment where there is incessant conflict and an unceasing struggle for survival.
3. In your proposed scheme of things life on this planet would have become extinct billions of years ago. Even in the existing system it has nearly done so on several occasions. It is easy to criticise from the comfort of your armchair but to design an immensely complex, rich and beautiful universe is an entirely different proposition…

 

[rossum]

You are merely revealing how unrealistic you are! The fact that very few reach maturity is the** reason** why there are so many…

Yes. I know. However, that is not what you said before:

If the vast majority of living beings were deformed, diseased, disabled or dead before reaching maturity it would be a definitive disproof that “the designer wanted it that way”…

We agree that “the vast majority of living beings” are “dead before reaching maturity”. Given your earlier statement, as I quoted, then we have “a definitive disproof that ‘the designer wanted it that way’”.

A “definitive disproof” which you agree with, Tony. As I said, your theory is dead in the water because the evidence has shown it to be incorrect.

You yourself stated the evidence that would show your design theory wrong. You yourself have agreed that the required evidence exists. Your design theory is wrong, Tony. The correct thing to do now is to modify your theory to account for the evidence that we see.

I look forward to your revised theory.

rossum

 

[inocente]

It could be the best 90 minutes of your life.

None of the great ways to spend 90 minutes involve youtube.

 

[inocente]

False deduction on two counts:

1. Not all these explanations apply to everyone.
2. You imply that evil never offers the opportunity for moral development.

These make that argument even more immoral, since the small child suffers the excruciating pain of an incurable disease only for the potential benefit of others, and may equally suffer for no purpose at all.

I made a valid deduction since the stated argument contained neither of these get-out clauses.

*False deduction on two counts:

1. Not all these explanations apply to everyone.
2. You imply that evil never offers the opportunity for character-building.*

Valid deduction. If evil only sometimes offers the opportunity then it happens regardless of any opportunity - the whole business will be completely blind to the small child’s suffering.

Stand in front of a room full of people and tell them you can prove God loves a small child suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease, since her plight may prompt others to help her and it may help build her character, and by this God shows her more love than miraculously curing her. Let me know how you get on.

False. The needs are not entirely subjective. Pain is an objective self-defence mechanism.

No, true. The third argument said nothing about pain. We are in a philosophy forum, and in philosophy arguments are as stated, not as fondly imagined.