Powerful evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

You are forgetting that the body is a useless encumbrance!

This is so out of tune with Catholicism that I am almost speechless.
What happened to the teaching that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?

 

[tonyrey]

Just look at what you wrote: “necessitate personal powers … when they are associated with persons”. Yes. Information systems necessitate elephantine powers when they are associated with elephants. You are not saying anything of any real significance here.

At the end of a long day I failed to express myself clearly and should have written:
“Information systems which lead to the development of physical organisms which have insight and intelligence are inadequately explained by a purely mechanical process which lacks insight and intelligence”.

Copying can be a purely mechanical process but when it serves as a basis for the development of conscious, purposeful, autonomous rational beings it is not adequately explained as a purposeless, irrational process devoid of consciousness and autonomy.

Nearly all of my DNA is copied from one or other of my parents’ DNA. Without their DNA I would not even exist as I am now. That DNA copying is a chemical process with no inbuilt purpose or consciousness.

Do you believe that all - including your most significant - attributes are derived from your DNA?

That is beside the point. Neither God nor angels are physical objects to which you ascribe no purpose even though living organisms are physical objects.

I do not ascribe “no purpose” to material objects. I ascribe “no intrinsic purpose” to material objects, since different purposes can be ascribed to the same material object at different times. I can use a screwdriver to drive screws or to open a tin of paint. The purpose of the screwdriver changes, depending on what I want to do at the time. There is only a temporary purpose, that I ascribe to the screwdriver. There is no intrinsic purpose built into the screwdriver.

That is obvious. The issue is whether material objects serve any purpose at all. Your belief in reincarnation implies that they do.

But you are a material being as well as a non-material being.

Currently, yes.

Therefore the two realms are linked.

How are they related if one is purposeful and the other purposeless? How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

Purpose is not an intrinsic property. I can change my purpose through my life. It is not fixed and unchangeable. You seem to be reifying “purpose” here, which is leading you into error. Reification is a common error in philosophy.

Since purpose implies activity I cannot be reifying it. “purposeful” and “purposeless” are not nouns but adjectives.

The question remains “How is our physical life related to our spiritual life?”

Why do you think the world exists? Does it serve no purpose in the Buddhist scheme of things?

There is no intrinsic purpose to the world. Living beings in the world may ascribe their own purpose to all or part of the world, but there is no single purpose built into the world.

Not even for reincarnation? Is reincarnation an accident?

A Hindu will see the world as Brahman’s way of achieving unity with itself. A Christian will see the world differently. You are reifying purpose and that is leading you into error.

Do you have no purposes while you are in this world?

 

[tonyrey]

This is so out of tune with Catholicism that I am almost speechless.

I was referring to a Buddhist’s view in the post you answered.

 

[rossum]

“Information systems which lead to the development of physical organisms which have insight and intelligence are inadequately explained by a purely mechanical process which lacks insight and intelligence”.

This is the basic premise of Intelligent Design. So far, the ID proponents have been unable to back up their statement with adequate scientific evidence. Both major attempts to do so have failed. Behe now agrees that IC systems can evolve. Dembski’s CSI has not been able to satisfactorily define what is, and what is not, a specification. His use of the No Free Lunch theorems was flawed, and has been shown to be flawed.

Do you believe that all - including your most significant - attributes are derived from your DNA?

Some of my significant attributes are derived from my DNA. Without my DNA I would lack some significant attributes; effectively, I wouldn’t be me but someone else.

That is obvious. The issue is whether material objects serve any purpose at all. Your belief in reincarnation implies that they do.

My point is that there is no intrinsic purpose to objects. One object can have many different purposes, assigned by different people and assigned by the same people at different times.

Since purpose implies activity I cannot be reifying it. “purposeful” and “purposeless” are not nouns but adjectives.

Purposes also change. You appear to be unhappy with purposes changing. You seem to treat “Purpose” as a single unchanging property of things. It isn’t.

The question remains “How is our physical life related to our spiritual life?”

1 Cease to do evil.
2 Do good.
3 Meditate.

Not even for reincarnation? Is reincarnation an accident?

What does this have to do with purpose?

Do you have no purposes while you are in this world?

As a newborn I did not have any purpose, as my mind was not then formed enough to define any purpose for myself or for anything else. Purposes came later.

rossum

 

[inocente]

I’m sure He is doing far more to prevent and mitigate suffering than the sceptics who regard miracles as extremely rare would have us believe…

You’ve demonstrated very clearly that miracles need excuses for why they are very rare or non-existent, the main excuse being that God doesn’t want us to know He exists, which is about as pathetic as an excuse can get. It wouldn’t interfere with free will in any way if God showed Himself and let us make up our mind if He is good or bad.

 

[inocente]

Not at all. Within their limitations the laws of nature work perfectly under all contingencies . They do the job they are intended to do, neither more nor less. At the outset I pointed out that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency - in the sense that they do not (and cannot) take into account the suffering they cause.

This would be obvious to any six-year old, no point in repeating it ad infinitum as if it’s wisdom or something.

So what?

Science eradicated smallpox worldwide. Fully documented.

Miracles have never eradicated one disease. Ever.

1. Pain is an emotive subject which is difficult - and probably impossible when we or some one we know is in extreme pain - to discuss objectively.

Not for most people, although I can’t speak for the one and only proponent of Design™.

6. One cannot know to what extent the laws of nature are suspended to minimise pain.

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger

Your sarcasm overlooks the fact that a constant spate of miracles would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system.

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger

*They would certainly reject your answer that God permits pain **for no good reason ***and **never does anything to prevent or mitigate the suffering in the world **- unless they too are sceptical about divine Providence…

Your philosophy of bafflement again. I’m not responsible for your unwillingness to make sense of any point of view other than your own.

NB I am deleting most of your sarcastic remarks about divine Providence which are out of place in an supposedly objective philosophical discussion on a Catholic forum.

You yourself said your Design™ theory can’t be found in Catholicism, so it’s both cynical and hypocritical of you to lecture me on what’s out of place. Please desist. You’re the one who is trotting out excuses.

There is no god but God, and God doesn’t do excuses.

 

[inocente]

I’ve explained why that just sounds ignorant and stupid to those who understand Godel’s theorem, and even provided a link. Horses and water, bro, horses and water.

Much of philosophy is about explaining ourselves, as are major branches of science. All those people obviously ignored your memo. Outside of abusing math theorems, is there one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something can’t be self-explanatory?

(I hope that question is self-explanatory.)
tonyrey;9097068:

Give just one example of something which is self-explanatory

• and is a** complete **explanation of itself.

I see you’ve found a new way to answer a question with a question. Please stick to the normal rules of conversation and answer my question first: Outside of abusing math theorems, is there one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something can’t be self-explanatory?

 

[inocente]

I pray for the doctors and nurses, etc., ahead of praying for the patient. I am confident that God is with us at all times. When I am at His pay grade, I will ask Him what’s He thinking!

And there was me thinking He does it for love, not money.

 

[grannymh]

And there was me thinking He does it for love, not money.

The only money was the thirty pieces of silver and that eventually went to a buriel ground. Catholicism has the inside information.

 

[grannymh]

As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger

Emphsis mine

WHAT ARE "THE THEOLOGICAL VIEWS OF THIS SORT "

IN THIS OUT-CONTEXT-QUOTE?

Yes, I am shouting. Bad form makes me very cranky.

 

[inocente]

Emphsis mine

WHAT ARE "THE THEOLOGICAL VIEWS OF THIS SORT "

IN THIS OUT-CONTEXT-QUOTE?

Yes, I am shouting. Bad form makes me very cranky.

What was the the point asking the question if you already made up your mind?

Read the whole passage headed Difference Between Form and Content. I linked it. The second para starts “The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces”. Except on this thread we have Design™ and Chance™, a God compromised in performing miracles and helping those in pain because He is defeated by the orderliness of His own creation. A theology which shifts the boundaries between image and intention, a theology not to be found in the Word, or apparently in any Catholic document.

The quote was precisely and exactly in context.

See, I can shout too.

 

[grannymh]

What was the the point asking the question if you already made up your mind?

Read the whole passage headed Difference Between Form and Content. I linked it. The second para starts “The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces”. Except on this thread we have Design™ and Chance™, a God compromised in performing miracles and helping those in pain because He is defeated by the orderliness of His own creation. A theology which shifts the boundaries between image and intention, a theology not to be found in the Word, or apparently in any Catholic document.

The quote was precisely and exactly in context.

See, I can shout too.

My point is that it is bad form to truncate the necessary beginning of a quote just to make a clever response to comments by a poster. Not only is the quote bad form, it can be an example of intentionally misleading readers.

 

[grannymh]

What was the the point asking the question if you already made up your mind?

Read the whole passage headed Difference Between Form and Content. I linked it. The second para starts “The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces”. Except on this thread we have Design™ and Chance™, a God compromised in performing miracles and helping those in pain because He is defeated by the orderliness of His own creation. A theology which shifts the boundaries between image and intention, a theology not to be found in the Word, or apparently in any Catholic document.

The quote was precisely and exactly in context.

See, I can shout too.

Note: “Shouting” in this case is not a lack of charity nor is it disrespect. It is merely to emphasize the method of presenting content.

 

[grannymh]

What was the the point asking the question if you already made up your mind?

Curiosity.

 

[grannymh]

Read the whole passage headed Difference Between Form and Content. I linked it. The second para starts “The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces”. Except on this thread we have Design™ and Chance™, a God compromised in performing miracles and helping those in pain because He is defeated by the orderliness of His own creation. A theology which shifts the boundaries between image and intention, a theology not to be found in the Word, or apparently in any Catholic document.

Emphasis mine

One thing about Pope Benedict XVI, he is not an easy read.

From my first very brief reading of the passage “Difference Between Form and Content”, I can see how some of Pope Benedict’s wording can be applied to some of the problems which occur when posters express their opinions about design, chance, laws of nature and performance of miracles.

But if one is applying the Pope’s words to topics on CAF, then one needs to be upfront that the Pope’s quote (used twice in post 300) is not about the views of design and miracles which appear on this thread.

Please refer to post 300
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9098458&postcount=300

I apologize for being so very, very, cranky this AM.

 

[inocente]

My point is that it is bad form to truncate the necessary beginning of a quote just to make a clever response to comments by a poster. Not only is the quote bad form, it can be an example of intentionally misleading readers.

“good form” reminded me of Dustin Hoffman playing Captain Hook .

You’ve charged people before (almost certainly me included) of quote mining or whatever the phrase is, but I’m not about to quote the entire CCC, Bible or any other book to avoid the Wrath Of Granny. The usual way of doing things, the usual “good form”, is to quote what’s needed and provide a reference for those who want to read more. It’s only “bad form” if the section quoted is out of the context of the writer’s intentions.

Ratzinger there presents what I sincerely believe, which is why it occurred to me to quote it in the first place.

Now it is “bad form” of you to accuse me of just wanting to make a clever response or of wanting to mislead readers, you don’t know my thoughts, you are not my judge, how dare you say such things, etc., etc.

OK, I’m not very good at this righteous indignation gig . Enough to say that the enduring value (to use Ratzinger’s phrase) of Christianity is in Christ, we preach Christ crucified, we are not ashamed of the Gospel, we do not compromise, or else we have “a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm.” OK, I only quoted a smidgen there in direct defiance of the Wrath Of Granny, but then “I am invincible” (another movie quote, Boris Ivanovich Grishenko in GoldenEye).

But if one is applying the Pope’s words to topics on CAF, then one needs to be upfront that the context of the Pope’s quote is not about the views of design and miracles which appear on this thread.

I disagree, profoundly disagree. He is writing about a living scripture, a living God, the Cross. In the intro on that page, he asks whether these still have meaning or merely represent “the reveries of the infant age of human history, for which we occasionally experience homesickness but to which we can nevertheless not return, inasmuch as we cannot live on nostalgia”.

He is discussing what does and doesn’t have value in Christianity, and criticizes theories which have the circular purpose of propping up this or that belief, with the stinging phrase that they “are only concerned to hide their emptiness.” At the end of the extract he proposes a very different basis: "The question about what the human being is finds its response in the following of Jesus Christ. Following in his steps from day to day in patient love and suffering we can learn with him what it means to be a human being and to become a human being." - philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm.

yea!

 

[inocente]

I apologize for being so very, very, cranky this AM.

Are you tall? Then you could be a lanky yankee cranky granny.

 

[tonyrey]

… is there one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something can’t be self-explanatory?

Anything is logically possible but **in the total absence of philosophical or scientific evidence **that an atomic particle or even a universe is self-explanatory one is fully justified in believing it is impossible.

Moreover **if **indeed you are a Christian you should believe there is only one Being Who is self-explanatory…

 

[grannymh]

Are you tall? Then you could be a lanky yankee cranky granny.

I’m just cranky.

You have presented your thoughts. Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

*Not at all. **Within their limitations ***

The point is that you refuse to accept it as an explanation for pointless suffering even though you cannot offer any explanation…

[Science eradicated smallpox worldwide. Fully documented. Miracles have never eradicated one disease. Ever.

Does that imply that God **never or rarely **cures people? Why do you think God is so frugal?

1. Pain is an emotive subject which is difficult - and probably impossible when we or some one we know is in extreme pain - to discuss objectively.

Not for most people… False.

1. One cannot know to what extent the laws of nature are suspended to minimise pain.

*As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger*Irrelevant.Can you explain why you believe God does nothing - or very little - to minimise suffering?

Your sarcasm overlooks the fact that a constant spate of miracles would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system.

*As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger*Irrelevant. Do you deny that a constant spate of miracles would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system because it would make life far more unpredictable?

They would certainly reject your answer that God permits pain **for no good reason **

and **never does anything to prevent or mitigate the suffering in the world **- unless they too are sceptical about divine Providence…Your philosophy of bafflement again.Do you deny that you cannot explain why God permits pain and yet believe God **never does anything to prevent or mitigate the suffering in the world? **

[/QUOTE]