Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

You’re gonna have to do better than that. The origins of morality do not rest in religion. Anthropology has proven that. The psychological need for meaning, (whatever that is), does not imply the existence of YOUR meaning. Because you feel the need for meaning doesn’t mean you get to make up one.

And speaking of Aquinas, if there is no time, (as there is at a Singularity), then First Cause has been rendered mute.

We are either left in the “Cloud of the Unknowing”, (unknown Medieval mystic), or we are nowhere. It’s no longer about science and logic, (or it’s NOT about faith).

All this “intelligent” design is nonsense, (as Father Coyne, from the Vatican has told us).
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

The “irreducible complexitry” has been debunked, in countless places.

You do faith no service, sir.

You need to give reasons and **refute **specific statements rather than make blanket assertions, Jason. The argument from authority cuts no ice…

 

[reggieM]

If that is the case the statement that nothing has any value, meaning or purpose that very statement is valueless, meaningless and purposeless - and therefore not worth considering!

Exactly.

All unbelief presupposes some kind of belief. So I ask:

What is the basis of the unbeliever’s belief(s)? :juggle:

The unbeliever must assert some axioms – and then argues that those axioms are false.

 

[reggieM]

The devil’s advocate could say it teaches us nothing because there is nothing to be taught. In other words life is absurd and we only imagine it has any value, meaning or purpose…

That is obviously self-defeating, as you pointed out. The evidence of meaning and purpose in the universe is evidence of design – because meaning and purpose are goal-directed and require a rational mind. Rationality requires free choice – which would be impossible in an entirely materialist structure. When we make choices those are always directed towards goals – and thus purpose – and thus design.

Some claim that design is an illusion, but as above, that claim could never be true if design was an illusion. No argument could be true if there was no design since the separation of truth from falsehood is a function of Design and purpose itself.

All of life works towards purpose – and this would be impossible without Design.

Some people mistakenly think that the Design Argument is a question of Faith and religion but it’s really not that at all. It’s a philosophical argument from natural reason. It does not require any religious faith to recognize the truth of the Design Argument (ID or otherwise).

 

[tonyrey]

That is obviously self-defeating, as you pointed out. The evidence of meaning and purpose in the universe is evidence of design – because meaning and purpose are goal-directed and require a rational mind. Rationality requires free choice – which would be impossible in an entirely materialist structure. When we make choices those are always directed towards goals – and thus purpose – and thus design.

Some claim that design is an illusion, but as above, that claim could never be true if design was an illusion. No argument could be true if there was no design since the separation of truth from falsehood is a function of Design and purpose itself.

All of life works towards purpose – and this would be impossible without Design.

Some people mistakenly think that the Design Argument is a question of Faith and religion but it’s really not that at all. It’s a philosophical argument from natural reason. It does not require any religious faith to recognize the truth of the Design Argument (ID or otherwise).

It requires great faith in scepticism to understand how this point fails to be understood! “I refuse to believe, I refuse to believe, I refuse to believe…”

Even the archsceptic David Hume believed that

A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes everywhere the careless, the most stupid thinker.

• Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Jason,

And speaking of Aquinas, if there is no time, (as there is at a Singularity), then First Cause has been rendered mute.

Sorry to butt in here, but Aquinas’ arguments do not deal with the beginning of the universe in time, but the sustaining of the universe in being at every moment.

Here is a good blog that you might be interested in:

Edward Feser

God bless,
Andrew

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Exactly, and the point is, that if there is/was no “moment”, as there is at a singularity, the “sustaining at every moment” is completely meaningless. Are you saying space-time is required for God’s existence ?

The entire design argument assumes, (as Aquinas did), that the universe is intuituve. It is NOT. Uncertainty, (Heisenberg), and Relativity, (Einstein), have proven that it is NOT.

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly, and the point is, that if there is/was no “moment”, as there is at a singularity, the “sustaining at every moment” is completely meaningless. Are you saying space-time is required for God’s existence ?

The entire design argument assumes, (as Aquinas did), that the universe is intuituve. It is NOT. Uncertainty, (Heisenberg), and Relativity, (Einstein), have proven that it is NOT.

What is the precise meaning of “the universe is intuituve”?

 

[reggieM]

The argument from First Cause is about causality and not about physics.

Every effect has a cause. That’s the metaphysic behind all science and behind all rational thought.

When we see an effect (the universe), it must have a cause.
Since an infinite regress is impossible, then there must be a first, uncaused caused. That follows from logical necessity.

There is another option – that rationality and logic are illusionary and false. But that’s not an option because nobody could arrive at that conclusion (or even determine that there were such things as options in solving problems, or that there were problems at all, etc).

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

 

[tonyrey]

The argument from First Cause is about causality and not about physics.

Every effect has a cause. That’s the metaphysic behind all science and behind all rational thought.

When we see an effect (the universe), it must have a cause.
Since an infinite regress is impossible, then there must be a first, uncaused caused. That follows from logical necessity.

There is another option – that rationality and logic are illusionary and false. But that’s not an option because nobody could arrive at that conclusion (or even determine that there were such things as options in solving problems, or that there were problems at all, etc).

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

Otherwise there may be no link between thoughts and conclusions.

Of course it can be argued that neither thoughts nor conclusions exist! In which case the rest is silence…

 

[reggieM]

Otherwise there may be no link between thoughts and conclusions.{/quote]

Exactly! Conclusions are the effects of a prior cause. When a person denies the validity of that process, there can be no rational discussion at all.

Of course it can be argued that neither thoughts nor conclusions exist! In which case the rest is silence…

 

[tonyrey]

Of course it can be argued that neither thoughts nor conclusions exist! In which case the rest is silence…
The silence of complete ignorance and/or insanity.

An argument was presented by a materialist on this forum that truth is merely a **physical, observable **phenomenon:

It’s an isomorphism. A map. In human brains, it is made of neurons and axons and synapses, in fantastically huge arrays interconnected in stupendously complex patterns. But if you draw a map, say a crude drawing of the floorplan of your home, it is isomorphic to the structure of your home (from the top down, looking at the vertical walls) to the extent your drawing skills obtain.

In that case, the physical state could be grooves in the sand which you made with a stick to draw the floor plan of your home. It has meaning, because it is isomorphic; it corresponds to the plan of your house to some significant degree, where comprehending one leads to comprehension and understanding of the other, to the point (perhaps) where one is recognizable from familiarizing oneself with the other.

To which I responded:

Implicit is the **person **who comprehends, understands, familiarizes and is responsible for the representation… which is revealed by the use of “you” - and “oneself” relegated to the end of your sentence. What do “you” and “oneself” refer to? What does the familiarizing? The brain?

There has been no response to these questions!

All reasoning is supposed to consist of sets of atomic particles somehow being arranged in the same way as other sets of atomic particles by another set of atomic particles and then proceeding to instruct a further set of atomic particles to arrange themselves as yet another set of atomic particles! Such is the absurdity of taking materialism to its logical conclusion. It is extremely economical and consistent - like the thoughts of a lunatic…

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Every effect has a cause. That’s the metaphysic behind all science and behind all rational thought.

When we see an effect (the universe), it must have a cause.
Since an infinite regress is impossible, then there must be a first, uncaused caused. That follows from logical necessity.

There is another option – that rationality and logic are illusionary and false. But that’s not an option because nobody could arrive at that conclusion (or even determine that there were such things as options in solving problems, or that there were problems at all, etc).

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

As I said, the assumption is that the universe is logically intuitive. Heisenberg, Einstein, and Dirac have proven it is not. “Causality”, is not necessarily what science is all about. “Predictability” and “causality” are not the same thing. Saying “everything has a cause” depends on “meaning”. Science is not looking for “causes”.

In order to have a cause, TIME, (and therefore spacetime) already has to exist, a priori.

a. there is not “something”. The total energy of the universe WAS (sum) “zero”, (“0”), (equal amouts of matter and anti matter), after the Big Bang, AND remains so, (gravity can have a negative value). “Nothing” is a philosophical construct, proven, in this universe, to be a pleasant fiction. Example : There is no “vaccum of space”. It is teeming with Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Thus it is a lingustic connundrum.

Quantum Mechanics has progessed FAR beyond the good old days of “causality exists and is reliable”, and every effect has A cause".

b. The entire enterprise of Intelligent Design rests in the notion that God is “apprehendable”, by intelect. THAT is “non-traditional”, (to say the least). Faith is an act of the will. It’s NOT an "intellect"ual matter, by definition.

c. Genesis 32:30 Jacob then asked him, “Do tell me your name please”. He answered, “Why should you want to know my name ?”

 

[reggieM]

There has been no response to these questions!

Interesting. The concept of a person transcends what any collection of molecules, by themselves, can be.

All reasoning is supposed to consist of sets of atomic particles somehow being arranged in the same way as other sets of atomic particles by another set of atomic particles and then proceeding to instruct a further set of atomic particles to arrange themselves as yet another set of atomic particles!

This describes a teleological process – the arrangement of a set particles for the purpose of instructing another set. This is goal-oriented – as with any system of communication.

This cannot be solved by an appeal to physics.

 

[reggieM]

In order to have a cause, TIME, (and therefore spacetime) already has to exist, a priori.

I think you’re offering an argument from physics – but the point raised was philosophical. Causes are not restricted by matter, and thus not restricted by time and space. Intelligence transcends the material – thus we have logic and mathematics which use symbolic language to indicate cause.

Again, I asserted:

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with that or not.

“Nothing” is a philosophical construct, proven, in this universe, to be a pleasant fiction.

If it is a philosophical construct, then science could not prove it to be a fiction. Science cannot address philosophical facts since science is a product of philosophy. The argument from First Cause is not talking about “in this universe”, but rather the cause of the universe which must necessarily be outside of it.

Example : There is no “vaccum of space”. It is teeming with Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Thus it is a lingustic connundrum.

This does not refute the concept of “nothing”. A “vaccum of space” is not what is meant as “nothing” in philosophical terms.

If science wants to take the task (which would be a completely incorrect application of science) to explain the origin of all things, then science needs to explain the cause for those things to exist.

Physics cannot answer the problem – that’s why we have claims about the multiverse. What caused all of the matter and natural laws that we observe our universe to exist? That’s the problem.

Quantum Mechanics has progessed FAR beyond the good old days of “causality exists and is reliable”, and every effect has A cause".

It seems that you’re saying that causality does not exist and is not reliable. But as mentioned elsewhere, that claim is self-defeating.

The entire enterprise of Intelligent Design rests in the notion that God is “apprehendable”, by intelect.

No, it really doesn’t at all. You might enjoy reading more about Intelligent Design theory. It doesn’t say anything about God but merely that evidence of intelligence can be observed in the universe. That’s pretty basic, standard Catholic thought.

THAT is “non-traditional”, (to say the least). Faith is an act of the will. It’s NOT an "intellect"ual matter, by definition.

True, but as the Church teaches - Faith is based on knowledge. We don’t assert blind faith. As mentioned also, the Design Argument is not a question of religion or faith – it’s an argument from natural reason. The ID argument (a component of the overall Design argument) uses science to evaluate what is found in nature and the universe.

Genesis 32:30 Jacob then asked him, “Do tell me your name please”. He answered, “Why should you want to know my name ?”

It’s true that we encounter vast mysteries in the nature of God and in His creation. No human mind can absorb the infinite. We should also be humble before His creation and not pretend to know more than we really can know. If you’re saying that, then I fully agree.

At the same time, God has given us reasoning powers which can and must be trusted. We can know God through the things He has made. We observe His effects in nature and thus come to a greater knowledge of Him.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

I think you’re offering an argument from physics – but the point raised was philosophical. Causes are not restricted by matter, and thus not restricted by time and space. Intelligence transcends the material – thus we have logic and mathematics which use symbolic language to indicate cause.

Again, I asserted:

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with that or not.

I am not agreeing with that. The word “fact” does not appear in the scientific method. Science does not presume to assert causality. Science is by definition, circular. The “popular” fiction, is that it asserts anything which is not testable. Causality is not testable.

“Cause” and “be outside” are STILL dependant on spacetime. You have no proof that “philosophical” nothing exists. Until you do, your paradigm is incomplete.

Science doesn’t HAVE to do anything. The NEED for that, is in YOUR head. It’s not the business of science to fulfill your needs. The NEED “to explain all things”, results ultimately, (only), in “god of the gaps”. What are you going to do when further knowledge is obtained ? The motivations for a possible multiverse, are numerous. Do you know what they are ? There may be ways to TEST that. You only NEED a “cause”, IF the universe is logical and intuitive. As I said above, that has been proven to be false. A cause STILL has to “exist” a priori. Name one property, (in human language), of God that does NOT require time.

“Natural reason” is going to have to be re-thought, or it cannot stand up to the advances in Physics. Ultimately, “based on reason” leads to “at what point is the leap” made ? Here, there, …where ? The fact that you “don’t assert blind faith”, proves you value reason. The question is, “at what point do you suspend it”. “What is found in nature” is neither logical, nor intuitive.

“At the same time, God has given us reasoning powers which can and must be trusted. We can know God through the things He has made. We observe His effects in nature and thus come to a greater knowledge of Him.”

Is “Uncertainty”, (Heisenberg), Relativity, (Einstein), and Dirac’s “spinners”, "reasonable ?
No. Einstein said “God does not play dice”, and LOST the argument. The only thing one “observes” in nature is that it’s NOT intuitive, and “rational”. (Chaos Theory may refute me, but it’s not proof of God).

I repeat, at what point, why, and how, does one CHOOSE to suspend reason ?

 

[Gaber]

It is easy: in any realm of human endeavor, political, social, religious, whatever, have a belief system you subscribe to. then you can have wonderful rationalizations of whatever you want, having abandoned, or far more likely, been ignorant of premises, factors, and processes that would actually constitute reason. Adamantine clinging to one’s inculcated or unexamined paradigm constitutes the choice.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting. The concept of a person transcends what any collection of molecules, by themselves, can be.

This describes a teleological process – the arrangement of a set particles for the purpose of instructing another set. This is goal-oriented – as with any system of communication.

This cannot be solved by an appeal to physics.

Indeed. The same applies to the futile attempts to reduce the DNA **information **system to physical events which don’t know what they are doing!

 

[reggieM]

I am not agreeing with that.

Ok but I would then expect all of your responses in this discussion to be consistent with this principle. But they’re not – you’re contradicting that view and supporting mine with every sentence. For example, the next sentence you write …

The word “fact” does not appear in the scientific method.

With this, are you offering a fact or not? If not, then what is it?

Science does not presume to assert causality.

As above, are you attempting to offer a fact or is it a speculative guess?
If it’s a fact, then you’ve not only refuted your first point, but you’d need to show how the scientific method arrived at this fact.

“Cause” and “be outside” are STILL dependant on spacetime. You have no proof that “philosophical” nothing exists.

Two points – you would need to try to convince me using your opposition (which you claim to reject) to this point:

To use the scientific method, to use logic and reason, one starts by asserting that the principle of causality exists and is reliable.

You’re attempting to use logic and at the same time, deny the principle of causality. A logical, philosophical proof does not need to be demonstrated with empirical evidence. It remains true because of the relationship of the premises through the principle of causality, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle and the axiom that being is different than non-being.

You’re claiming to reject that, but then you use a method of argumentation that affirms all of those points.

You only NEED a “cause”, IF the universe is logical and intuitive.

Again, I need the principle of causality to understand anything you’re saying at all. You’re using that principle and offering it as reliable – in fact, you’re talking about “proofs” which require the use of that principle.

Name one property, (in human language), of God that does NOT require time.

Since time is the measurement of change, then various attributes of God do not require time – immutability, being, goodness, wisdom, immensity.

“Natural reason” is going to have to be re-thought, or it cannot stand up to the advances in Physics.

This doesn’t follow. Physics has no category for natural reason or for theological proofs either for that matter.

“What is found in nature” is neither logical, nor intuitive.

If we could not find logic in nature, then you would not be able to try to convince me of that point.

**

The only thing one “observes” in nature is that it’s NOT intuitive, and “rational”.

As above, I wish your discussion was consistent with your viewpoint here.

You should not be using logic or reason at all. You should use something else. Actually, the word “should” is a function of causality (logic and reason). From my view, I would like to see what kind of information you could offer to me that was devoid of anything rational or logical.

I repeat, at what point, why, and how, does one CHOOSE to suspend reason ?

I don’t think we can address this question until you’re ready to affirm that reason is a function of the principle of causality in action.

You’ve already denied that principle – so, to be consistent, I could answer that you rightly should always suspend reason and logic because neither correspond to nature at all (according to your view, apparently).

But instead, you use reason and logic – to claim that neither are reliable and neither can be found in nature.

This comment I provided before:

“At the same time, God has given us reasoning powers which can and must be trusted. We can know God through the things He has made. We observe His effects in nature and thus come to a greater knowledge of Him.”

Is merely a paraphrase of the infallible teaching of the Church as promulgated through Vatican Council I.

You may not be interested in that, but just for the record for anyone who is.

You cannot evaluate the Uncertainty Principle without an a priori acceptance of the principle of causality. This is how we distinguish what something is and what it is not – and how we can have knowledge about something and how we can not.

We should focus our discussion first on that point because there’s no sense in talking about Physics if we do not agree on the fundamentals of causality and reason.

If what you say is deliberately intended and believed to mean both the affirmative and negative of your proposition, then it would be best for me to try to understand that somehow.**

 

[reggieM]

The same applies to the futile attempts to reduce the DNA **information **system to physical events which don’t know what they are doing!

Information is necessarily goal-directed - so it is purposeful. Therefore it is evidence of Design.

 

[reggieM]

Going back for a minute …

The NEED “to explain all things”, results ultimately, (only), in “god of the gaps”.

Do you believe that God exists? If so, on what basis?

What are you going to do when further knowledge is obtained ?

I find that scientific knowledge has added to our reasons to believe in God, not taken them away.

The motivations for a possible multiverse, are numerous. Do you know what they are ?

Aside from what I offered (fine tuning and the attempt to explain origins) – no. Could you offer some more?

There may be ways to TEST that.

Could you suggest how that would be possible?