Powerful evidence for Design?

[inocente]

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.

This is muddled. The laws of nature are indeed independent of our wishes but they quite obviously do deal with every contingency or the universe would stop working. It would be better to say that the laws of nature don’t cater for our every need.

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.
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.

Basically then, God must hold out the possibility of miraculous cures just so long as it’s not too many. Would you put a ballpark value on this goldilocks number? One in a billion? How does this lottery work? If my child is suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease, does God tell me it’s not worth praying since unfortunately He already reached His quota, try again next month, sorry for the inconvenience?

Wasn’t this thread intended to be about powerful evidence for Design?

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 they only work sometimes for some people then they’re hardly explanations, are they?

*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?” *

What about my question then, why do some suffer and not the others? You seem to be saying that once the miracle quota has been reached, game over, tough bunnies.

*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…*

So why then does the Bible tell us to fear God? Why does God say “I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”? – Is 45:7

Why do earthquakes happen? Archbishop of York John Sentamu said he had “nothing to say to make sense of this horror”, while another clergyman, Canon Giles Fraser, preferred to respond “not with clever argument but with prayer”. - news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467755.stm

Father Cote said that questioning, doubting and ambiguity are “not contrary to faith properly understood.” He said he thinks it is good to question, that it “takes us out of our complacency” as people struggle to interpret the answer to the question that Jesus poses to every age: “Who do people say I am?” - catholicnews.com/data/sto…ns/0500120.htm

An archbish, two clergymen, me and all the other obscurantist Christians seeking “refuge in wonderment”. Why, whatever next.

Once you’ve converted an atheist with your “natural evil is an opportunity for character-building” line, by all means come back and lecture me about the amazing value of easy answers.

 

[inocente]

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

Then you admit your claim about Godel’s theorem was false, and we can turn to “the fact that things cannot explain themselves”. Agreed that a jar of pickled gherkins is unlikely to write us a four hundred word essay on its life and times.

Is that what you mean? Explain yourself young man.

 

[buffalo]

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

It doesn’t work rossum. Nice try though.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

False! The child suffers because the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing.

…and may equally suffer for no purpose at all.

You have accidentally hit the mark! The suffering of the child **is **pointless - as you might expect given that the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing.

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.

You have again accidentally hit the mark! The suffering of the child** is ** pointless - as you might expect given that the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing.

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.

Stand in front of a room full of people and tell them you are distorting the reasoning of St Irenaeus and let me know how you get on…

 

[inocente]

False! The child suffers because the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing.

Your post #192: “Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain” and “Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally”

Richard Nixon: “That statement is no longer operative”. Suffering is now pointless.

*You have accidentally hit the mark! The suffering of the child **is ***pointless - as you might expect given that the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing.

Your post #172 (your emphases): “The concept of spiritual development presupposes belief in the objective value, meaning and purpose of life” and “We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern”.

Richard Nixon:“That statement is no longer operative”. Suffering must be excluded as it is now pointless.

Stand in front of a room full of people and tell them you are distorting the reasoning of St Irenaeus and let me know how you get on…

Your post 192 (quoting Irenaeus): “Suffering is a necessary part of God’s created universe – it is through suffering that human souls are made noble”

Your post #238: The suffering of the child **is **pointless

Richard Nixon:“That statement is no longer operative”. Not totally sure which statement yet.

You did agree the universe is basically orderly and doesn’t change completely from one day to the next, right? :compcoff:

 

[tonyrey]

The laws of nature are indeed independent of our wishes but they quite obviously do

 

[tonyrey]

Your post #192: “Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain” and “Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally”

Richard Nixon: “That statement is no longer operative”. Suffering is now pointless.

You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.** The three explanations do not apply to every case**.

Your post #172 (your emphases): “The concept of spiritual development presupposes belief in the objective value, meaning and purpose of life” and “We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern”.

Richard Nixon:“That statement is no longer operative”. Suffering must be excluded as it is now pointless.

** The fact that some suffering is pointless does not imply that **there is no objective value, meaning or purpose in life nor that we no longer have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that **everything - including misfortunes - will ultimately fit into **an intelligible pattern. Your notion of Providence seems to be total Negligence…

Your post 192 (quoting Irenaeus): “Suffering is a necessary part of God’s created universe – it is through suffering that human souls are made noble”

Your post #238: The suffering of the child **is **pointless

You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.** The three explanations do not apply to every case**.

You did agree the universe is basically orderly and doesn’t change completely from one day to the next, right?

You are merely making yourself look absurd with such non sequiturs…

 

[tonyrey]

Then you admit your claim about Godel’s theorem was false, and we can turn to “the fact that things cannot explain themselves”. Agreed that a jar of pickled gherkins is unlikely to write us a four hundred word essay on its life and times.

Is that what you mean? Explain yourself young man.

Can collections of atomic particles give a **complete **explanation of themselves? Yes or no?

 

[tonyrey]

Basically then, God must hold out the possibility of miraculous cures just so long as it’s not too many. Would you put a ballpark value on this goldilocks number? One in a billion? How does this lottery work? If my child is suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease, does God tell me it’s not worth praying since unfortunately He already reached His quota, try again next month, sorry for the inconvenience?

At this point it is pertinent to ask what precisely do you think God is doing?

 

[tonyrey]

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::

             *I

f 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”…

It is clear to any reasonable person - who is not trying to evade the inevitable and irrefutable fact that the vast majority of living beings (men, women, children, animals and their young) are not deformed, diseased, disabled or dead** when they are visible individuals.

**You have conceded that the superabundance of nature is essential for survival: it is therefore not an argument against but for Design. **
**.

 

[inocente]

If you demand absolute precision in every statement - which amounts to nit-picking- the laws of nature don’t deal with contingency satisfactorily. At least you have agreed that the laws of nature **don’t **cater for our every need and therefore cause pointless suffering.

I’m saying that if the laws of nature are independent of us then they cannot be contingent on us, so you saying they don’t deal with contingency doesn’t scan.

The pointlessness of suffering follows more or less automatically from evolution (which we won’t be discussing ) but is very hard to explain in any design context.

Your vicious sarcasm again reveals your rejection of divine Providence with its implication that God* never*** does anything to prevent or alleviate the suffering of anyone whatsoever. This thread is certainly powerful evidence for your virtual atheism - or at best obscurantism.

Ad hominem yet again. And I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve reminded you of the sticky It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.

I’ve quoted (a lot of) scripture which contradicts your theory, and you yourself said your theory can’t be found in any Catholic document, yet you’re telling me there’s something up with my beliefs? Matthew 7:1-6. Planks in eyes bro, planks in eyes.

And we’re only discussing theories here, no need to keep getting personal, lighten up dude.

You have failed to refute the fact that it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe if miraculous cures occurred whenever some one is suffering from an incurable disease - or any diseaseat all for that matter.

Doctors sometimes talk of spontaneous remission, which is medico-speak for “I don’t have a clue what’s going on”, but that’s as close to a miraculous cure as I’ve seen. If that’s OK with you.

Your absurd question implies that everyone throughout the world should receive precisely the same treatment and be prevented miraculously from suffering pointlessly.

How is it absurd? You are arguing there’s intervention, so what is the Design explanation for why some suffer and others don’t?

Your predilection for the Old Testament explains your neglect of Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father not a ruthless tyrant who massacres men, women and children alike and demands sacrifice - instead of mercy - and insists on blind obedience from his terrified subjects.

Wow. God never changes but the God of the OT is a massacring tyrant unlike the loving God of the NT? And you forgot I quoted from the NT anyway, where Christ says “Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” - Luke 12:4-5. That’s kind of a command, wouldn’t you say?

And it’s perfectly possible to know the OT without neglecting the NT.

You are ignoring all the philosophers and theologians who during the last two thousand years have given good reasons why God permits suffering in favour of three clergymen who have not even specialised in the subject because that was not their vocation. It would be far more to the point to address the issue than keep diverging from the subject with personal remarks…

Methinks you’re ignoring all the philosophers and theologians who during the last many thousand years have wrestled with the problem of natural evil and have not found the particular theories you proclaim at all reasonable.

When I wrote An archbish, two clergymen, me and all the other obscurantist Christians seeking “refuge in wonderment”. Why, whatever next, the only personal remark.was the bit in quotes, which was a personal remark you made about me.

 

[rossum]

It is clear to any reasonable person - who is not trying to evade the inevitable and irrefutable fact that the vast majority of living beings (men, women, children, animals and their young) are not deformed, diseased, disabled or dead** when they are visible individuals**.

The bolded words you added do not help you. I can see an acorn. I can see a fly’s egg. I can see a newborn mouse. All are “visible individuals”. THe great majority of them will die before reaching maturity.

How many acorns are there? How many oak trees?

How many eggs can a fish lay at one time? (Think of a piece of fish roe.)

How many tadpoles are there in a cluster of frog spawn?

Have you never actually observed nature? We are not knee-deep in mice, flies, rabbits etc. because the great majority of mice, flies, and rabbits never reach maturity and so are never able to breed.

How many visible seeds does a mature sycamore produce over its lifetime? On average, how many of those seeds is going to result in a replacement mature sycamore?

You have conceded that the superabundance of nature is essential for survival: it is therefore not an argument against but for Design.
You are changing your argument. The majority of living organisms die before they reach reproductive maturity. That means, by your own argument, you design hypothesis has failed. Remember,

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” (emphasis added)

Count up all those visible acorns that die before reaching maturity.

rossum

 

[inocente]

You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue.** The three explanations do not apply to every case**.

But that’s ad hoc, you can give one explanation, switch to another, then another still if that doesn’t pan out, and so on.

*** The fact that some suffering is pointless does not imply that ***there is no objective value, meaning or purpose in life nor that we no longer have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that **everything - including misfortunes - will ultimately fit into **an intelligible pattern. Your notion of Providence seems to be total Negligence…

Agreed, except the last sentence, yet another personal remark .

But it’s interesting you mention Providence. Are the following two views compatible? You: “the laws of nature don’t know what they are doing”. Jesus: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

You are merely making yourself look absurd with such non sequiturs…

If you’d stopped to think about it, I was suggesting that in an orderly universe theories don’t blow with the wind from one day to the next.

 

[inocente]

Then you admit your claim about Godel’s theorem was false, and we can turn to “the fact that things cannot explain themselves”. Agreed that a jar of pickled gherkins is unlikely to write us a four hundred word essay on its life and times.

Is that what you mean? Explain yourself young man.
tonyrey;9076490:

Can collections of atomic particles give a **complete **

explanation of themselves? Yes or no?

Yet again you answer a question with a question. Sticky: Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

Want to try again?

 

[inocente]

Basically then, God must hold out the possibility of miraculous cures just so long as it’s not too many. Would you put a ballpark value on this goldilocks number? One in a billion? How does this lottery work? If my child is suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease, does God tell me it’s not worth praying since unfortunately He already reached His quota, try again next month, sorry for the inconvenience?
tonyrey;9076512:

At this point it is pertinent to ask what precisely do you

think God is doing?

Deliriously happy to answer that. Well, except that again you answered my questions with a question, and the thread is titled “Powerful evidence for Design?”, not “There is no evidence for design so let’s talk about other things instead”.

But so you’re not in danger of bursting a blood vessel or anything, allow me to again quote the passage which explains precisely what I think God is doing.

20 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? 21 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. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Cor 1

So: no point in theories (20-21) and no point trying to find God in miracles, evidence for design, etc. (22) since those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, preach Christ crucified (23-25).

yea!

 

[tonyrey]

At least you have agreed that the laws of nature don’t cater for our every need and therefore cause pointless suffering.

According to some Christians on this forum the laws of nature are perfect and therefore must cater for our every need and therefore cannot cause pointless suffering. I take it that you reject that view.

The pointlessness of suffering follows more or less automatically from evolution (which we won’t be discussing ) but is very hard to explain in any design context.

The main point is that you accept the pointlessness of much suffering - which must therefore be due to natural causes as well as human decisions.

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.

I’m simply pointing out that your implicit rejection of divine Providence is inconsistent with belief in a loving Father.

I’ve quoted (a lot of) scripture which contradicts your theory, and you yourself said your theory can’t be found in any Catholic document, yet you’re telling me there’s something up with my beliefs? Matthew 7:1-6.

It is not my theory. It is an explanation given by St Irenaeus.

Doctors sometimes talk of spontaneous remission, which is medico-speak for “I don’t have a clue what’s going on”, but that’s as close to a miraculous cure as I’ve seen.

Would it defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe if miraculous cures occurred whenever some one is suffering from an incurable disease? If not why not?

You are arguing there’s intervention, so what is the Design explanation for why some suffer and others don’t?

In your own words “the laws of nature are independent of us and are not contingent on us”.

God never changes but the God of the OT is a massacring tyrant unlike the loving God of the NT? And you forgot I quoted from the NT anyway, where Christ says “Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” - Luke 12:4-5. That’s kind of a command, wouldn’t you say?

In the context of a loving Father concerned for our salvation…

Methinks you’re ignoring all the philosophers and theologians who during the last many thousand years have wrestled with the problem of natural evil and have not found the particular theories you proclaim at all reasonable.

Can you produce any of their reasons?

 

[tonyrey]

The bolded words you added do not help you. I can see an acorn. I can see a fly’s egg. I can see a newborn mouse. All are “visible individuals”. The great majority of them will die before reaching maturity.

How many acorns are there? How many oak trees?

How many eggs can a fish lay at one time? (Think of a piece of fish roe.)

How many tadpoles are there in a cluster of frog spawn?

Have you never actually observed nature? We are not knee-deep in mice, flies, rabbits etc. because the great majority of mice, flies, and rabbits never reach maturity and so are never able to breed.

How many visible seeds does a mature sycamore produce over its lifetime? On average, how many of those seeds is going to result in a replacement mature sycamore?

You are changing your argument. The majority of living organisms die before they reach reproductive maturity. That means, by your own argument, you design hypothesis has failed. Remember, Quote:
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” (emphasis added)
Count up all those visible acorns that die before reaching maturity.

1. Do you assess the value of life on earth in terms of acorns?
2. Is the superabundance of nature essential for survival?
3. Are the vast majority of living beings deformed, diseased or disabled?
4. Is the value of life outweighed by its drawbacks?
5. Do physical and spiritual development have a purposeless origin?

 

[tonyrey]

Deliriously happy to answer that. Well, except that again you answered my questions with a question, and the thread is titled “Powerful evidence for Design?”, not “There is no evidence for design so let’s talk about other things instead”.

But so you’re not in danger of bursting a blood vessel or anything, allow me to again quote the passage which explains precisely what I think God is doing.

20 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? 21 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. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Cor 1

So: no point in theories (20-21) and no point trying to find God in miracles, evidence for design, etc. (22) since those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, preach Christ crucified (23-25).

yea!

The point of my question is that the belief in Providence is inextricably linked with Design and suspensions of the laws of nature. This issue of **benevolent **Design is not strictly relevant but on a Catholic forum it is inevitably raised because evil is thought to constitute evidence that there is no ultimate purpose in existence.

There is no point in participating in discussions on a Philosophy forum if you believe there is “no point in theories (20-21) and no point trying to find God in miracles, evidence for design, etc.” Its purpose is not to preach but to give** reasons** for what we believe - as Jesus did when he was questioned by His opponents and by every successive generation of His followers. You are welcome to be a devil’s advocate but not to disparage the value of apologetics.

 

[tonyrey]

*Can collections of atomic particles give a **complete ***

Gödel demonstrated that there will always be some propositions that can’t be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms of the logical system to which they belong - unless you go outside the system. It follows that all complex systems are necessarily incomplete and that collections of atomic particles cannot give a **complete **explanation of themselves… Do you agree?

 

[tonyrey]

Count up all those visible acorns that die before reaching maturity.

I forgot to add that the majority of significant living beings survive until maturity. You won’t find acorns or vermin brought up to bolster the objections to Design in any rational discussion of the subject. That ploy hardly strengthens your case for a purposeless existence - which co-exists uncomfortably with the Buddhist concept of spiritual development…