Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

“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).

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!

Since the Pope is a theologian and a philosopher himself he would hardly reject the value of all the theological and philosophical insights and discoveriess of mankind…

 

[tonyrey]

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

yea!

Since the Pope is a theologian and a philosopher himself he would hardly reject the value of all the theological and philosophical insights of mankind…

 

[tonyrey]

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…

False. I believe miracles are superabundant - in accordance with the belief that God is a loving Father - but most of them are not detectable.

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.

False. We would no longer be free to choose to believe whether He exists and we would feel compelled to put His Will before our own…

 

[grannymh]

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

I am just cranky.

Thank you for presenting your position.

If that “quote” used twice in post 300 would be properly presented and properly identified as to what it was related to and what it is not related to, it would be a powerful presentation regarding one of the inherent problems of a message board, which is the situation where Catholics disagree with each other. I am not referring to legitimate discussions regarding Catholic doctrine in order to increase one’s knowledge.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

Since the Pope is a theologian and a philosopher himself he would hardly reject the value of all the theological and philosophical insights of mankind…

The Pope is bound to the Catholic Deposit of Faith. It is His duty to reject theological and philosophical insights when they counter Catholic teaching regardless of how many people think these insights are valuable.

 

[tonyrey]

The Pope is bound to the Catholic Deposit of Faith. It is His duty to reject theological and philosophical insights when they counter Catholic teaching regardless of how many people think these insights are valuable.

when….

 

[grannymh]

"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!

I believe this too with the addition that following in His steps involves humble obedience.

In this thread, Design with its powerful evidence is not a theological view of some sort used to interpret what is of enduring value about Jesus Christ. Design, itself, cannot be related theologically to serious issues of scripture interpretation. Design is a description and explanation of created objects including living organisms. Design is subservient. Design, itself, is sterile. Of course there is a purpose to design, (keeping the object in existence) but that material purpose is not defined in theological terminology with the exception that all has been created by God in some manner.

The proponents of design have limited its discussion to the existence of the material world. Design can be applied to human eyes but its proponents do not make the leap to the eyes (poetic description) of the spiritual soul which is responsible for making matter into a human being. That being said, people still exaggerate design by adding to it laws of nature which detour to miracles, evil, and a loving father based on what people want to believe about human fathers.

I realize that semantics play a huge part in discussions about design which is based on a material point view. Yes, I know that some, not all, people like to make the leap from the material aspects of design to a spiritual transcendent Pure Spirit Who is in a personal relationship with each individual person. That leap is not evinced in this thread. On occasion, this thread brings in an “intelligent designer” of sorts but it stops short of the nature of God as taught by Catholicism. On this thread, Design stops short of the beautifully designed human relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[inocente]

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.

Basic Reasoning 101, ages twelve and upwards, says that in the absence of any evidence we are not justified in reaching any conclusion. Your entire theory is therefore based on nothing more than fresh air.

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

This is one of countless ad hominems you’re made, and I’m fed up to the back teeth with you insinuating I’m not Christian. I write far more than you about Christ. It’s not up to you who follows Christ, it is not up to you to lay down the law about what a Christian must and must not believe.

I will not take orders from you, particularly after the theories you’ve put forward on this thread, which by your own words are not to be found in scripture or Catholicism.

**I’ve reported you before for this, and from now on will report you every time you question the sincerity of another’s beliefs.
**

 

[inocente]

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

Pointless suffering is pointless. The clue is in the name.

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

Far more people are cured by modern medicine than even the most optimistic claims for miracles. Whatever people may say from their armchair, virtually all will place trust in a scientifically trained doctor rather than a faith healer. God acts through doctors, the miracles are in what they can achieve with their knowledge and skill.

Belief in an interventionist god, along with demons and fairies, generates no knowledge of how to cure diseases, it acts against our survival and against our well-being.

False.

Am I suppose to respond with “I know you are, what am I”?

Irrelevant.Can you explain why you believe God does nothing - or very little - to minimise suffering?

I believe God works through us.

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?

I don’t invent things and then make up excuses for why they never happen.

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? **

I think your Design™ theory has been comprehensively debunked, and it is unfortunate while predictable that you haven’t solved the problem of natural evil, a problem as old as monotheism.

God works through people, it’s up to you if you want to deny that Christ’s church is the people.

Non-Christians would be unlikely to have heard a preacher go line by line through the following passage and how it gives the meaning of Christ’s church. They’d probably skip it as irrelevant, if indeed they ever read it at all.

*Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.

My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.”

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you. - Colossians 4:7-18*

 

[inocente]

False. I believe miracles are superabundant - in accordance with the belief that God is a loving Father - but most of them are not detectable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

False. We would no longer be free to choose to believe whether He exists and we would feel compelled to put His Will before our own…

Why? I know my wife exists but don’t feel compelled to put her will before my own, that isn’t love. Believers don’t feel compelled, otherwise why would scripture tell us to present their requests to God? Anyway, how in God’s name do we know the will of God that we could feel compelled?

 

[inocente]

I believe this too with the addition that following in His steps involves humble obedience.

In this thread, Design with its powerful evidence is not a theological view of some sort used to interpret what is of enduring value about Jesus Christ. Design, itself, cannot be related theologically to serious issues of scripture interpretation. Design is a description and explanation of created objects including living organisms. Design is subservient. Design, itself, is sterile. Of course there is a purpose to design, (keeping the object in existence) but that material purpose is not defined in theological terminology with the exception that all has been created by God in some manner.

The proponents of design have limited its discussion to the existence of the material world. Design can be applied to human eyes but its proponents do not make the leap to the eyes (poetic description) of the spiritual soul which is responsible for making matter into a human being. That being said, people still exaggerate design by adding to it laws of nature which detour to miracles, evil, and a loving father based on what people want to believe about human fathers.

I realize that semantics play a huge part in discussions about design which is based on a material point view. Yes, I know that some, not all, people like to make the leap from the material aspects of design to a spiritual transcendent Pure Spirit Who is in a personal relationship with each individual person. That leap is not evinced in this thread. On occasion, this thread brings in an “intelligent designer” of sorts but it stops short of the nature of God as taught by Catholicism. On this thread, Design stops short of the beautifully designed human relationship with Jesus Christ.

Not often we agree but when we agree, we agree.

 

[tonyrey]

**I’ve reported you before for this, and from now on will report you every time you question the sincerity of another’s beliefs.
**

The fact remains that a Christian should believe there is only one Being Who is self-explanatory.

Since it is clearly impossible to have an objective, rational discussion with you there is no point in attempting to do so any further.

 

[tonyrey]

One of the main objections to Design is that there are many unnecessary evils in the world. David Hume argued “there can be no ground for an inference to divine goodness while there are so many ills in the universe and while these ills might so easily have been remedied as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge if such a subject.” (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion)

Yet the various substances which provide the basis for life are potential sources of destruction: oxygen and water are lethal when they are present in excessive quantities. Iodine, phosphorus and cobalt are highly dangerous yet they are essential in minute quantities. So how could conditions be so perfectly regulated that individuals are never harmed or killed by such substances?

There are strict limits to the amount of order that can be expected in the biosphere. Many of the compounds necessary for the functioning of a living cell are extremely unstable and break down within an hour. Moreover the immense complexity of its physico-chemical structure makes it all the more unlikely that mishaps will never occur. A certain amount of disorder seems inevitable in the life process, particularly with regard to reproduction. Until a feasible blueprint is presented of a defect-free, accident-free system we are entitled to remain sceptical that it is possible.

Development implies that there must be a series of changes but how could it be ensured that every change corresponds exactly to the needs of an organism vis-a-vis its environment which is itself constantly changing? It seems inconceivable that out of countless billions of creatures which have contributed to the progress of life none should suffer as a result of the inability to obtain enough food or move fast enough to escape injury.

Could a world have been created without pain? Hume suggested it could have been replaced by a more merciful mechanism like a diminution of pleasure. The fact that irritability is a characteristic of the simplest organism is evidence to the contrary. it seems very doubtful that unpleasant warnings to prevent discomfort could be eliminated altogether. We are left with a choice between a world containing pain and an utterly different world of which we have no inkling.

There is no guarantee that even in another world there would not be some type of parallel to pain because pain is just one aspect of suffering: hunger, thirst, extreme fatigue, frustration and anger would all have to be eliminated. Whatever functions are selected will be liable to disruption and interruption. Any unfulfilled urge or desire will lead to misery and dissatisfaction. No matter how well-designed organisms are there can be no absolute guarantee that they will function perfectly throughout their lifespan - due to the element of chance and the contingency of physical organisation.

The laws of probability have not been superimposed on matter by God: they are an intrinsic feature of the physical universe which could not be altered without transforming it into a non-physical universe. How could it be ensured that no animal is ever injured, killed or incapacitated as the result of an accident or natural disaster? The more one investigates such proposals the more one becomes convinced of their impracticability. Their fundamental flaw is their failure to take into account the unimaginable complexity of the universe and of life itself. It has taken biologists decades to analyse and understand the ontogenesis of macroscopic structures in terms of microscopic interactions. That is why it is unrealistic to think mishaps could be totally obviated.
Failure and imperfection are features of any physical universe which serves the same purposes as ours.

 

[inocente]

The fact remains that a Christian should believe there is only one Being Who is self-explanatory.

Since it is clearly impossible to have an objective, rational discussion with you there is no point in attempting to do so any further.

Oh. And we’ve been getting along so well.

Agreed, big font does make one sit up and take notice. As long as we now see eye to eye on that little matter it’s cool. See you around then.

PS: For future reference, Baptists believe each of us is created in Gods’ image and so is competent before God to make our own moral and spiritual choices. As a result, telling us what Christians should believe is water off a duck’s back.

 

[grannymh]

Oh. And we’ve been getting along so well.

Agreed, big font does make one sit up and take notice. As long as we now see eye to eye on that little matter it’s cool. See you around then.

PS: For future reference, Baptists believe each of us is created in Gods’ image and so is competent before God to make our own moral and spiritual choices. As a result, telling us what Christians should believe is water off a duck’s back.

Agreement twice in a row.

 

[grannymh]

One of the main objections to Design is that there are many unnecessary evils in the world. David Hume argued “there can be no ground for an inference to divine goodness while there are so many ills in the universe and while these ills might so easily have been remedied as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge if such a subject.” (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion)

Forget David Hume. Respect Design for what it is. Trust your Catholic Religion.

 

[tonyrey]

One of the main objections to Design is that there are many unnecessary evils in the world. David Hume argued “there can be no ground for an inference to divine goodness while there are so many ills in the universe and while these ills might so easily have been remedied as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge if such a subject.” (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion)

I wouldn’t be a Catholic if I didn’t! Philosophers don’t forget David Hume: they analyse and refute his arguments…

 

[grannymh]

I wouldn’t be a Catholic if I didn’t! Philosophers don’t forget David Hume: they analyse and refute his arguments…

David Hume’s argument as presented in post 324 is a modern twisted version of Satan’s successful temptation to Adam.

From post 324. “David Hume argued “there can be no ground for an inference to divine goodness while there are so many ills in the universe and while these ills might so easily have been remedied as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge if such a subject.” (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion)”

The refutation to this age-old attack on God is in plain sight, paragraphs 355 -421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Unfortunately, Adam’s pride is prevalent in intellectual circles, science as well as philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

*

I wouldn’t be a Catholic if I didn’t! Philosophers don’t forget David Hume: they analyse and refute his arguments…

		 		 	 	 David Hume's argument as presented in post 324 is a modern twisted version of Satan's successful temptation to Adam.

From post 324. “David Hume argued “there can be no ground for an inference to divine goodness while there are so many ills in the universe and while these ills might so easily have been remedied as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge if such a subject.” (Dialogues concerning Natural Religion)” .
All the more reason for exposing its inconsistency! Hume presupposed the reality of goodness without explaining how it originated in a Godless universe…

The refutation to this age-old attack on God is in plain sight, paragraphs 355 -421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

. Unfortunately, Adam’s pride is prevalent in intellectual circles, science as well as philosophy… and in religious circles…

 

[grannymh]

All the more reason for exposing its inconsistency! Hume presupposed the reality of goodness without explaining how it originated in a Godless universe…

… and in religious circles…

From the little I know of David Hume, I am sure that there are lots of inconsistencies and gaps in his philosophy. Frankly, I remember very little of the content of my required philosophy minor. That is probably due to the fact that courses often coincided with my nap time. :yawn:

Nevertheless, one of my favorite philosophy professors was into “how Communism was the result of Cartesian philosophy.” Real things happened to real people in Russia and other countries because of the way subsequent philosophers interpreted and then re-interpreted Descartes. Tracing the history of philosophical concepts becomes important if one intends to refute dangerous philosophies in current society.

In post 329, there is this statement. “David Hume’s argument as presented in post 324 is a modern twisted version of Satan’s successful temptation to Adam.” There is the real possibility that the exit from the Garden of Eden is responsible for all the questions about the “many ills in the universe” as noted by David Hume quoted in post 324.

If the skill of design philosophy is to be useful in defending Catholicism, then people need to skillfully address the surrounding issues of the “Design” proposition. This means going to the historical source for the philosophical basis of various propositions such as solving the “evil” problem. For example, “Hume presupposed the reality of goodness without explaining how it originated in a Godless universe…” from post 330. In ancient times, the philosophy of goodness and badness was attributed to two equal warring supernatural beings. (reference Manichaeanism)

It is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to presuppose the real foundation for t philosophical goodness as the existence of both one supernatural Creator and one created human person. The difference between Catholicism and the some philosophers is that Catholicism uses the positive approach that God exists and some others use the negative approach of a Godless universe.

Links to cited posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9102525&postcount=324
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9104496&postcount=329
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9104892&postcount=330