Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

Yes, Heinlein. I don’t worship men. And I’ll just point out that men, especially over the last century, have increasingly used science in precisely the way I speak of it.

“thrown with great force” Yes, we could probably sit down and have a good discussion. This anonymous internet thing is a stumbling block in that regard. However, I think your extremist view has certain similarities with what you only think is an extremist view from myself and others who see the world correctly. Aside from that - what harm are we causing?

Peace,
Ed

I don’t worship men either, though I’ve tried to do that with women early on and gave it up as an unproductive practice. and the science bit is just a phase, I’m quite sure, of growing up. Also, I am by no means and atheist, if you got that impression somehow. And you gave me a good laugh. Thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

I have by far less proposed an answer than a method of discovering for yourself what is behind the rationlaizing mind. If you are so capable of detecting what is unenlightened, where is your curiosity for what makes your thinkum dinkum? It can’t be in your mind.

I’m certainly glad I’m not out of my mind! The belief that one has found a method of discovery - as I have already pointed out - is subjective and doesn’t necessarily correspond to reality but there is no point in trying to reason with you because you reject the value of reasoning in favour of your privileged insight. The rest is silence…

 

[edwest2]

I don’t worship men either, though I’ve tried to do that with women early on and gave it up as an unproductive practice. and the science bit is just a phase, I’m quite sure, of growing up. Also, I am by no means and atheist, if you got that impression somehow. And you gave me a good laugh. Thanks!

I don’t know where the atheist idea comes from. I don’t think that of you. But yes, Catholics do have Divine Revelation. If that does not suit you because you think the next other answer is around the bend, I’m not here to argue about it. It’s very plain. Jesus, as God, confirmed what we know about His Creation. That’s all I’m saying.

Science Fiction, to me, is about hardware and discovery, not social engineering or change for the sake of change.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

1. Those who reject Design are committed to the view that the universe is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
2. Without Design human rights and animal rights are solely human ideas.
3. Without Design the power of reason is an unreliable freak of nature!
4. Yet all human progress and development is based on reasoning.
5. Reasoning is essentially valuable and purposeful.
6. Reasoning is used by sceptics to deny reasoning is fundamental!
7. Scepticism is evidence of Design because sceptics claim to be reasonable in reaching their negative conclusions…
8. Yet negation presupposes affirmation.
9. Absurdity presupposes rationality.
10. Rationality presupposes Truth.

 

[reggieM]

1. Those who reject Design are committed to the view that the universe is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.
2. Without Design human rights and animal rights are solely human ideas.
3. Without Design the power of reason is an unreliable freak of nature!
4. Yet all human progress and development is based on reasoning.
5. Reasoning is essentially valuable and purposeful.
6. Reasoning is used by sceptics to deny reasoning is fundamental!
7. Scepticism is evidence of Design because sceptics claim to be reasonable in reaching their negative conclusions…
8. Yet negation presupposes affirmation.
9. Absurdity presupposes rationality.
10. Rationality presupposes Truth.

Impressive!

I would like to see someone try to refute those propositions – because those are what the anti-Design viewpoint entails and it would be very helpful to see if it has any defense.

I would estimate that the majority of university-level faculty in the U.S. & Europe in the fields of biology, history, literature, physics, anthropology and sociology – all embrace the anti-Design opinion.

But when we look for a defense of that position, very little comes forward. Of course, as explained in points #6-8, a defense of anti-Design is self-refuting. What usually follows is an emotional, ad hominem backlash or a turn-around to attack the claims of Christianity and the nature of God.

The no-Design position should be supported with evidence as a positive claim. Instead, anti-Design merely functions as a dogma of the materialist faith. It serves as a bias – a false first premise and therefore a completely illogical conclusion: “Since there is no God, what we see in the universe exhibits no Design at all. Therefore, Design does not exist.”

But the first premise (“there is no God”) however is not proven by that claim. It’s just the blind faith dogma of atheism.

But even a Blind Faith position has its source in reason and thus gives evidence of Design.

 

[Gaber]

1. Those who reject Design are committed to the view that the universe is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

I reject “design” and view the Universe as ultimately valuable, absolutely meaningful, and without other purpose thatn to Be. Your limited logic fails to include all casses and is therefore insufficinent as a a useful premise.

1. Without Design human rights and animal rights are solely human ideas.

Limiting terms and possibilities by assumption fails to be inclusive of reality.

1. Without Design the power of reason is an unreliable freak of nature!

Or it has another, more useful explanation.

1. Yet all human progress and development is based on reasoning.

Which is why so many mathematicians and chemists and folks from alll disciplines, and the arts, often report that the answer came to them unbidden after reason was exhausted. Reason is certainly a preparation, but it is not the ultimate end of the process. Ask Aquinas.

1. Reasoning is essentially valuable and purposeful.

Well, yes, of course, within its scope of application. But it is not and cannot be ALL encompassing, if you get what I mean.
QUOTE]6. Reasoning is used by sceptics to deny reasoning is fundamental!Reasoning is not needed to dny that reasoning is fundamental. One only needs to ask “who is reasoning?” What is fundamental is Consciousness as the light to awareness of ideas and thoughts. So thoughts and reason are kind of at the lower end of things in the heirarchy. Intuition and such are higher. But similarly to relying of mechanical force to get things done at one stage of history, so in one stage reason seems to rule. That will pass, while its useful properties and applications will remain.

1. Scepticism is evidence of Design because sceptics claim to be reasonable in reaching their negative conclusions…

Yes, so you are saying that anyone who trhiks more clearly, inclusively, or differently than you is wrong because they don’t agree. Good one!

1. Yet negation presupposes affirmation.

Of an obstacle, in this case, to clarity.

1. Absurdity presupposes rationality.

Which we are fervently hoping for from your keyboard.
10. Rationality presupposes Truth. Actually, only a means to arrive at limited truths. Presupposition presuposes duration, a quality that Truth has not. Truth IS, and can be pointed to, even by rationality.

So after all that, your point is?

 

[reggieM]

I … view the Universe as ultimately valuable, absolutely meaningful, and with… [the] purpose … to Be.

It’s great to see your acceptance of Design and your full support of the fundamental point that Tony offered here.

Your efforts in arguing against the anti-Design and anti-spiritual views are appreciated.

 

[Gaber]

It’s great to see your acceptance of Design and your full support of the fundamental point that Tony offered here.

Your efforts in arguing against the anti-Design and anti-spiritual views are appreciated.

You guys are verging on being certifiable, you know? Enjoy your hell, the cheif quality of which is that you dhn’t know you ae in it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You guys are verging on being certifiable, you know? Enjoy your hell, the cheif quality of which is that you dhn’t know you ae in it.

For someone who claims such enlightenment, you sure have a tendency to be mean spirited.

 

[reggieM]

You guys are verging on being certifiable, you know? Enjoy your hell, the cheif quality of which is that you dhn’t know you ae in it.

Discussion Forum Rules

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2&postcount=1
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks …

 

[reggieM]

For someone who claims such enlightenment, you sure have a tendency to be mean spirited.

That’s one good way to measure the validity and quality of the claims of enlightenment.

 

[tonyrey]

I reject “design” and view the Universe as ultimately valuable, absolutely meaningful, and without other purpose thatn to Be. Your limited logic fails to include all casses and is therefore insufficinent as a a useful premise.
Limiting terms and possibilities by assumption fails to be inclusive of reality.
Or it has another, more useful explanation.
Which is why so many mathematicians and chemists and folks from alll disciplines, and the arts, often report that the answer came to them unbidden after reason was exhausted. Reason is certainly a preparation, but it is not the ultimate end of the process. Ask Aquinas.
Well, yes, of course, within its scope of application. But it is not and cannot be ALL encompassing, if you get what I mean.
]Reasoning is not needed to dny that reasoning is fundamental. One only needs to ask “who is reasoning?” What is fundamental is Consciousness as the light to awareness of ideas and thoughts. So thoughts and reason are kind of at the lower end of things in the heirarchy. Intuition and such are higher. But similarly to relying of mechanical force to get things done at one stage of history, so in one stage reason seems to rule. That will pass, while its useful properties and applications will remain.
Yes, so you are saying that anyone who trhiks more clearly, inclusively, or differently than you is wrong because they don’t agree. Good one!
Of an obstacle, in this case, to clarity.
Which we are fervently hoping for from your keyboard.
Actually, only a means to arrive at limited truths. Presupposition presuposes duration, a quality that Truth has not. Truth IS, and can be pointed to, even by rationality.

So after all that, your point is?

My point is quite simply that you have abandoned reason in favour of a private revelation which makes you regard all those who disagree with you as benighted numbskulls! I really don’t understand why you are wasting your time and energy on individuals you judge to be virtually certifiable and in a hell of their own making rather than devoting your attention to those who inhabit the heaven you have succeeded in attaining…

 

[tonyrey]

Impressive!

I would like to see someone try to refute those propositions – because those are what the anti-Design viewpoint entails and it would be very helpful to see if it has any defense.

I would estimate that the majority of university-level faculty in the U.S. & Europe in the fields of biology, history, literature, physics, anthropology and sociology – all embrace the anti-Design opinion.

But when we look for a defense of that position, very little comes forward. Of course, as explained in points #6-8, a defense of anti-Design is self-refuting. What usually follows is an emotional, ad hominem backlash or a turn-around to attack the claims of Christianity and the nature of God.

The no-Design position should be supported with evidence as a positive claim. Instead, anti-Design merely functions as a dogma of the materialist faith. It serves as a bias – a false first premise and therefore a completely illogical conclusion: “Since there is no God, what we see in the universe exhibits no Design at all. Therefore, Design does not exist.”

But the first premise (“there is no God”) however is not proven by that claim. It’s just the blind faith dogma of atheism.

But even a Blind Faith position has its source in reason and thus gives evidence of Design.

Reggie, I like your development of the points in my post which are obviously not original but stored somewhere in memory’s archives!

The more we delve into the significance of reason the more impressive it becomes. Its only apparent rival is love…

Yet why do we have to separate them? Surely they are interdependent. Love goes beyond reason yet it is never unreasonable in a negative sense. We know the folly of the Cross isn’t really folly at all!

St John of the Cross expressed this in his famous lines:

That thou mayest have pleasure in everything, seek pleasure in nothing. That thou mayest know everything, seek to know nothing. That thou mayest possess all things, seek to possess nothing.

This is a magnificent expression of God’s intention for us. It doesn’t mean we should reject pleasure, knowledge and possessions. They are valuable in themselves but they are not the primary goal of our existence.

The simple word “that” reveals the** purpose** that is at the heart of life. We are created in order to seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which all converge in divine perfection.

St Augustine’s even more famous words sum up the reason for our existence:

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.

**Design **takes us all the way to our Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer - when supplemented by the life and teaching of Jesus.

 

[reggieM]

St John of the Cross expressed this in his famous lines:

That thou mayest have pleasure in everything, seek pleasure in nothing. That thou mayest know everything, seek to know nothing. That thou mayest possess all things, seek to possess nothing.
This is a magnificent expression of God’s intention for us. It doesn’t mean we should reject pleasure, knowledge and possessions. They are valuable in themselves but they are not the primary goal of our existence.

That’s a beautiful quote about the paradoxes that God gave us to reveal His presence in the world.
If material nature itself was sufficient, then to have pleasure one would seek pleasure in everything. To have all things, one would have to seek all things.

A defense of human reason is not an idolatry of or exaggeration of the power of reason. The Design Argument does not claim that unaided natural reason alone is sufficient for the highest levels of knowledge.
But we have to start with reason as a foundation.

Without that, the paradoxes that St. John explains wouldn’t make any sense.

As you pointed out: **That **thou mayest have pleasure in everything, seek pleasure in nothing.

This is explaining the Design in the process. To accomplish the purpose of a higher pleasure with God, one must not seek pleasure.

The act of seeking is a reflection of our desire. Since our highest desire is only correctly oriented and directed at infinite fulfillment, we will not gain happiness (pleasure, peace, true riches) by directing it at finite goals.

What sounds like a contradiction, therefore, is actually a simple, logical construct.

1. Every human soul was directly created by God with a relatively infinite capacity for His goodness.
2. The soul desires this principle and fulfillment of its being – which is God.
3. Anything less than God is finite and cannot satisfy the soul’s infinite desire.
4. Pleasures and riches are finite effects which have their source in God.
5. Therefore, to obtain true pleasure (the presence of God), do not seek pleasure (a finite effect).

 

[tonyrey]

That’s a beautiful quote about the paradoxes that God gave us to reveal His presence in the world.
If material nature itself was sufficient, then to have pleasure one would seek pleasure in everything. To have all things, one would have to seek all things.

A defense of human reason is not an idolatry of or exaggeration of the power of reason. The Design Argument does not claim that unaided natural reason alone is sufficient for the highest levels of knowledge.
But we have to start with reason as a foundation.

Without that, the paradoxes that St. John explains wouldn’t make any sense.

As you pointed out: **That **thou mayest have pleasure in everything, seek pleasure in nothing.

This is explaining the Design in the process. To accomplish the purpose of a higher pleasure with God, one must not seek pleasure.

The act of seeking is a reflection of our desire. Since our highest desire is only correctly oriented and directed at infinite fulfillment, we will not gain happiness (pleasure, peace, true riches) by directing it at finite goals.

What sounds like a contradiction, therefore, is actually a simple, logical construct.

1. Every human soul was directly created by God with a relatively infinite capacity for His goodness.
2. The soul desires this principle and fulfillment of its being – which is God.
3. Anything less than God is finite and cannot satisfy the soul’s infinite desire.
4. Pleasures and riches are finite effects which have their source in God.
5. Therefore, to obtain true pleasure (the presence of God), do not seek pleasure (a finite effect).

You rarely fail to surprise me, Reggie! No sooner do I think “That’s it. The matter is settled” then you pop up with a sequel. There’s more in this than meets the eye!

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by tonyrey
St John of the Cross expressed this in his famous lines:

This is a magnificent expression of God’s intention for us. It doesn’t mean we should reject pleasure, knowledge and possessions. They are valuable in themselves but they are not the primary goal of our existence.

The simple word “that” reveals the purpose that is at the heart of life. We are created in order to seek truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which all converge in divine perfection…

That’s a beautiful quote about the paradoxes that God gave us to reveal His presence in the world.
If material nature itself was sufficient, then to have pleasure one would seek pleasure in everything. To have all things, one would have to seek all things.

A defense of human reason is not an idolatry of or exaggeration of the power of reason. The Design Argument does not claim that unaided natural reason alone is sufficient for the highest levels of knowledge.
But we have to start with reason as a foundation.

Without that, the paradoxes that St. John explains wouldn’t make any sense.

As you pointed out: **That **thou mayest have pleasure in everything, seek pleasure in nothing.

This is explaining the Design in the process. To accomplish the purpose of a higher pleasure with God, one must not seek pleasure.

The act of seeking is a reflection of our desire. Since our highest desire is only correctly oriented and directed at infinite fulfillment, we will not gain happiness (pleasure, peace, true riches) by directing it at finite goals.

What sounds like a contradiction, therefore, is actually a simple, logical construct.

1. Every human soul was directly created by God with a relatively infinite capacity for His goodness.
2. The soul desires this principle and fulfillment of its being – which is God.
3. Anything less than God is finite and cannot satisfy the soul’s infinite desire.
4. Pleasures and riches are finite effects which have their source in God.
5. Therefore, to obtain true pleasure (the presence of God), do not seek pleasure (a finite effect).

Only problem is, y’all misread St. John of the Cross, one of the few ultimatley correct spokespeople of what is behind the Church as actual teaching as distinct from what it seems to need to do to keep a public face.

The common word in all three seekings is “nothing.” It ought to be capitalized. to draw attention to the actual intention here. To discover Nothing," which is what God appears as to the human mind which is blinded by Glory and Allnes, is to experience the shift in perspective that allows pleasure in everything, the ownership of everythin, and the knowledge of everything. The backwardsnes of your attempted reading is exemplified in the idea that "…truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love which all converge in divine perfection… "as if God or knowing God is a structual matter built of parts like the tower of Babel. Those virtues emanate from God as “His” Nature.

No wonder you are capable of such a thing as “design” hypothesis being taken seriously. “Nothing” in those words of the wonderful Saint is exactly the threshhold to the full meaning of the effulgence of God expereinced. They are not contredictons. They are technique. They are the way. He could just as well ahve said “Shut up your thinking and find that in what appears as nothing to the mind is the Fullness of Signifricance and Meaning.” Others, not me, have said that or similar, though I completely agree. But you seem not to care that our finest Saints point the way, you seem to prefer using reason without its proper foundation.
[/QUOTE]

 

[reggieM]

You rarely fail to surprise me, Reggie! No sooner do I think “That’s it. The matter is settled” then you pop up with a sequel. There’s more in this than meets the eye!

Thank you, Tony. It’s funny because I usually think I’m just repeating what you said the first time – but you opened up the pathway and I took it another step along the way. You’re right also – there’s more in this than it might seem.

For materialist atheism, paradoxes are problems that have to be solved using only material/natural means. So, when St. Francis said (paraphrasing the Gospel) “in giving we receive”, there’s no category for that in materialism. In giving we lose, not receive.

Then, the atheist view will attack God for having created paradoxes – because of the belief that limited, directional, finite laws and matter have to explain everything.

But God created paradoxes precisely to defy scientism.

The universe is reasonable enough that we can understand it. But it has aspects that transcend reason – to teach us that human reason alone is not absolute.

Gaber, for example, fell into the opposite problem – in a pure skepticism that denies the power and necessity of reason to build a foundation.

The truth is both – reason and transcendent-mysticism. We can’t put all the emphasis on one or the other.

In philosophy, we have an artificial construct of reason-alone.

In the same way, if talking about the higher stages of prayer, one could talk about “mystical union alone” – which is a human process that transcends reason.

But those are not the whole picture of life. We have to take both together (eventually).

(… I hope someone else is reading this because I don’t want to pretend that I’m trying to convince you of these things, Tony. )

Then again, if nobody can respond to these challenges, then the Argument from Design is clearly victorious.

 

[reggieM]

But you seem not to care that our finest Saints point the way, you seem to prefer using reason without its proper foundation.

If you’re talking to me, then you’re completely mistaken.

But I will say that the above post (virtually all of it, not just what I quoted) is the best and most coherent argument that is somewhat close to being on-topic that I’ve seen from you thus far.

Your biggest problem is that you don’t understand or recognize the distinction between philosophy and teachings on the practice of mystical contemplation.

That’s not a difficult problem to fix. I have pointed the way for you. I have opened the door. You just need to walk through it.

I’ll try again … you conclude:

“Shut up your thinking …”

That has basically been your sole message in this entire thread. You’ve really just said that over and over – no matter what point is raised, that’s your answer.

But that obviously doesn’t work. Philosophy has its own grammar. Logic has rules that we can learn.

When learning and discussing these things, we cannot say “Shut up your thinking …”

That is an appropriate command for those learning to enter into deeper prayer and contemplation.

But it’s not an appropriate command for those exploring the products of human reason and thought.

When you can fully accept and embrace that simple, basic distinction that I gave here – then you’ll either leave this thread because you’re not interested in philosophy, or you’ll join it within the limits of this discipline.

If you want to learn calculus, for example, you don’t start by explaining that the rules of math are irrelevant and that all one needs to do is attain mystical union with God.

 

[reggieM]

Only problem is, y’all misread St. John of the Cross, one of the few ultimatley correct spokespeople of what is behind the Church as actual teaching as distinct from what it seems to need to do to keep a public face.

An additional good sign here - - you’ve finally committed yourself to a positive affirmation of a Catholic source.

From an essay which I’ve only read this beginning of, but from a scholar of St. John of the Cross’ mystical theology:

[while] our cognition of God through reason and revelation, then, is necessarily incomplete. The contributions of traditional theological disciplines are not, for that reason, understood to be irrelevant. To the contrary, St. John was well schooled in scholasticism at the University of Salamanca and relies a great deal on Dogmatic Theology as a propadeutic to the mystical journey. As a journey of faith, it is Dogmatic Theology which enables us to the reach the vestibule safely; it is the compass whose unchanging ordinals, divinely illumined, give us bearing in the dark night of the soul. Constituting, as it does, an index of truth in the form of dogmatic certainties, it provides essential definition in the face of gathering obscurity, and so disabuses us of error, which St. John sees as constituting one of the principal impediments to the soul in its journey to union with God.
johnofthecross.com/introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-st-john-of-the-cross.htm

 

[atheistgirl]

For materialist atheism, paradoxes are problems that have to be solved using only material/natural means. So, when St. Francis said (paraphrasing the Gospel) “in giving we receive”, there’s no category for that in materialism. In giving we lose, not receive.

Do you really contend that atheists who volunteer willingly of their time, money, and expertize for the betterment of their fellow man, are left with a feeling of loss, and don’t feel they get anything back from their voluntary and charity activities, never mind the ad hoc daily ‘‘good deeds’’ they might routinely carry out?

Really?

I’ll be sure to let them know what a bunch of losers they are

Perhaps you should read some of their stories.

atheistvolunteers.org/node/49

Sarah x