Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

How can the multiverse theory be verified, falsified, tested or used for any practical purposes?

Precisely how can it be tested?

Do scientists have any choice in the matter, considering that they do not allow for the existence of the mind in their scientific investigations?

Scientists are perfectly happy examining the human mind.

Scientists don’t examine the mind. They examine what is occurring to discover what effects it has on human behaviour.

Science has discovered many drugs to help with mental conditions such as bipolar, schizophrenia and alzheimer’s.

Science is concerned only with **physical **behaviour not with intangibles.

P1 is false. The fundamental laws of nature have not been and will not be changed because there is no reason to do so.

This is not what you said earlier. See your post #44 in this thread:
Quote:

             *1. The laws of nature will **always*** remain fundamentally constant

*Why do you think these statements are inconsistent?
*
What scientific test could establish whether the laws of nature will or will not remain constant? If science cannot perform a test Design is more fruitful and informative than science because it predicts the laws of nature will always remain constant and always provide a trustworthy basis for **rational existence - as long as physical life is possible in the universe. **(Design does not claim that physical life will always exist in the universe).

Rational existence is the most powerful evidence for Design because Design not only corresponds to the way every rational person lives it also provides **a reason **for doing so. Science is restricted to probability whereas Design offers certainty! To deny Design is to deny the basis for all our rational conclusions…

It is relevant because karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development imply the existence of persons **and **

the existence of the physical world which are not obviously interdependent.Your understanding of karma is faulty. Karma does not imply the presence of a material universe. Karma operates whether the universe is in a material stage or an immaterial stage. Even in a material stage, immaterial beings, such as gods, are still subject to karma.

I did not state that karma always implies the presence of a material universe.
In the existing state of affairs karma implies the existence of persons **and **the existence of the physical world. The fact that karma operates whether the universe is in a material stage or an immaterial stage merely exacerbates the problem for Buddhism of why there is physical world at all!

The significant difference is that theism are more adequate and economical because it postulates one Supreme Being.

Simple theism does not. Monotheism postulates a single supreme being. Polytheism postulates a number of different powerful beings.

That is true but it remains true that monotheism is the most adequate and economical explanation because it postulates one Supreme Being.

 

[grannymh]

Rational existence is the most powerful evidence for Design because Design not only corresponds to the way every rational person lives it also provides **a reason **for doing so. Science is restricted to probability whereas Design offers certainty! To deny Design is to deny the basis for all our rational conclusions.

Pardon me. Could you explain this in Catholic terminology? This sounds like Design is slipping into some kind of creator.

I previously posted “Humans are designed to live in the material world and the spiritual world at the same time.”

It is God, not a Design, Who offers certainty when it comes to the being and purpose of rational humanity. God, not just any intelligent designer, is the one Who designs according to His purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

Mental conditions such as bipolar, etc., affect the physical brain and indeed scientists are responsible for many, many benefits for people who are victims of these diseases as well as other diseases affecting the rest of the human anatomy.

This proper use of science is somewhat different from current research which has tried to p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the spiritual soul with its intellectual activity and volition. There are many cases in which researchers have observed activity within the physical brain. Benefits from knowing where specific brain activity is located include brain mapping for extremely difficult surgery.
.
In order to observe the various sections of the brain and neural system in action, there has to be some source of stimulus to initiate the activity. In the case of brain mapping, there is a bipolar electrode. Stubbing one’s toe in the dark also acts as a stimulus. A yelp of pain is a reaction common to both humans and animals and both can learn a safe path in the dark. However, humans, as a species, have immaterial rational capabilities for creative solutions like electric lights which are better than relying on one’s memory of a safe path in the dark. Especially when “someone” in the house likes to rearrange furniture.

It is true that scientists can be very happy with studying human anatomy such as the marvelous brain and neural system. However, their success stories cannot exclude the spiritual intellective powers and volition from existence.

Humans are designed to live in the material world and the spiritual world at the same time.

I think a Buddhist would agree with you - apart from the term “designed”.

 

[inocente]

You are merely revealing your ignorance. The term “Argument from Design” has been used by philosophers for centuries and is the title of articles and books such as that by Professor Thomas MacPherson published by MacMillan.

And on an atheist website: “Often this is referred to as the Argument from Design…”

atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/design.htm

That has nothing to do with this thread. No traditional teleological argument attempts to prove the Christian God, which is left to separate arguments. As Hume pointed out, even if the argument from design is accepted, the presence of imperfection means the designer could just as easily be an incompetent deity, a committee of deities, an absent deity or a whatever.

Your explanation for imperfection, your Chance, excludes God from most events in favor of an autopilot or another deity (I suspect the latter given your capitalizing of the word).

Even then you make a mockery of reason by pretending that all kinds of things are evidence for your argument when clearly they are no such thing.

Incidentally, after your procrastination and obstinate lack of reasoning on this thread, you are the least likely poster to be able to call anyone else ignorant.

 

[tonyrey]

Pardon me. Could you explain this in Catholic terminology? This sounds like Design is slipping into some kind of creator.

I previously posted “Humans are designed to live in the material world and the spiritual world at the same time.”

It is God, not a Design, Who offers certainty when it comes to the being and purpose of rational humanity. God, not just any intelligent designer, is the one Who designs according to His purpose.

I recently pointed out that the topic is Design not the origin of Design - which is a logical sequel I hope to discuss in another thread. The only certainty offered here is a rational existence (although that is a considerable advance on scepticism and nihilism )

 

[inocente]

Mental conditions such as bipolar, etc., affect the physical brain and indeed scientists are responsible for many, many benefits for people who are victims of these diseases as well as other diseases affecting the rest of the human anatomy.

This proper use of science is somewhat different from current research which has tried to p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the spiritual soul with its intellectual activity and volition. There are many cases in which researchers have observed activity within the physical brain. Benefits from knowing where specific brain activity is located include brain mapping for extremely difficult surgery.

The following is a preliminary study. If confirmed, it shows that racial bias, not usually considered a mental illness, can be affected by beta blockers of all things. The mechanism is thought to be a reduction in unconscious fear causing a changed conscious attitude. If repeatable, it’s further evidence that the mind is the brain, whether some like it or not.

*Our results indicate that β-adrenoceptors play a role in the expression of implicit racial attitudes suggesting that noradrenaline-related emotional mechanisms may
mediate negative racial bias. Our findings may also have practical importance given that propranolol is a widely used drug. However, further studies will be needed to examine
whether a similar effect can be demonstrated in the course of clinical treatment.

study: springerlink.com/content/63v2561264075373/fulltext.pdf
news: pharmalot.com/2012/03/take-this-pill-and-you-wont-be-a-racist/*

 

[tonyrey]

You are merely revealing your ignorance. The term “Argument from Design” has been used by philosophers for centuries and is the title of articles and books such as that by Professor Thomas MacPherson published by MacMillan.

It has everything to do with your false assertions:

You leave me with no possible conclusion other than Design is a cult, and as I’ve never heard of capital D Design before and it’s not to be found on the internet, I guess you must be the founding and only member.

 

[grannymh]

I recently pointed out that the topic is Design not the origin of Design - which is a logical sequel I hope to discuss in another thread. The only certainty offered here is a rational existence (although that is a considerable advance on scepticism and nihilism )

This, from post 116, is what I was wondering about.

“Rational existence is the most powerful evidence for Design because Design not only corresponds to the way every rational person lives it also provides **a reason **for doing so. Science is restricted to probability whereas Design offers certainty! To deny Design is to deny the basis for all our rational conclusions.”

I was not wondering about the origin of design. Rather it seemed like design, itself, was being described as a deity of some sorts which offers certainty. How can Design, itself, be the basis for all our rational conclusions. According to Catholicism, human nature is designed as an unique unification of spirit and matter. It is our single nature in action which results in rational thought.

Pardon me. Could you explain the section from post 116 quoted above in Catholic terminology? This ( from post 116 quoted above) sounds like Design is slipping into some kind of creator-agent rather than the Christian God.

 

[tonyrey]

This, from post 116, is what I was wondering about.

“Rational existence is the most powerful evidence for Design because Design not only corresponds to the way every rational person lives it also provides **a reason **for doing so. Science is restricted to probability whereas Design offers certainty! To deny Design is to deny the basis for all our rational conclusions.”

I was not wondering about the origin of design. Rather it seemed like design, itself, was being described as a deity of some sorts which offers certainty. How can Design, itself, be the basis for all our rational conclusions. According to Catholicism, human nature is designed as an unique unification of spirit and matter. It is our single nature in action which results in rational thought.

Pardon me. Could you explain the section from post 116 quoted above in Catholic terminology? This ( from post 116 quoted above) sounds like Design is slipping into some kind of creator-agent rather than the Christian God.

Design is commonly used by philosophers as shorthand for “the existence of Design” or “the Argument from (or to) Design” in contrast, for example, to Chance. I have also pointed out that it is capitalised to distinguish the Design of the universe from other forms of design.

I apologise for having confused you but sooner or later such misunderstandings are bound to arise. I’m grateful you have pointed it out in case others have had the same impression. :tiphat:

 

[grannymh]

The following is a preliminary study. If confirmed, it shows that racial bias, not usually considered a mental illness, can be affected by beta blockers of all things. The mechanism is thought to be a reduction in unconscious fear causing a changed conscious attitude. If repeatable, it’s further evidence that the mind is the brain, whether some like it or not.

Our results indicate that β-adrenoceptors play a role in the expression of implicit racial attitudes suggesting that noradrenaline-related emotional mechanisms may
mediate negative racial bias. Our findings may also have practical importance given that propranolol is a widely used drug. However, further studies will be needed to examine
whether a similar effect can be demonstrated in the course of clinical treatment.

study: springerlink.com/content/63v2561264075373/fulltext.pdf
news: pharmalot.com/2012/03/take-this-pill-and-you-wont-be-a-racist/

Propranolol as in the research title “Propranolol Reduces Implicit Negative Racial Bias” is defined by Wikipedia as –

(INN) is a sympatholytic non-selective beta blocker. Sympatholytics are used to treat hypertension, anxiety and panic. It was the first successful beta blocker developed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propranolol

Obviously, drugs, as a stimulus, do affect the brain and how it acts or expresses its response to said drugs. This anatomical fact does not exclude the mind as a free, imaginative, rational soul with intellective powers and volition. For example, Catholics promoted interracial justice in the 1940’s because they used their tools of reason and did not need to have their brain worked on by drugs. I remember my aunt had a book that asked the question. “What color is blood?” Where did that approach come from?

When it comes to the design of a human being, one needs to remember that the spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy have individual roles which unite in one operational human.

 

[grannymh]

No traditional teleological argument attempts to prove the Christian God, which is left to separate arguments.

I agree that no traditional teleological argument attempts to prove the Christian God; but I need to add that Catholic teaching in regard to God and humanity is not accepted by all Christian Faiths. Isn’t it interesting that the Catholic Church will not compromise its Deposit of Faith? That is one of the reasons I feel secure.

 

[inocente]

It has everything to do with your false assertions:

True as God is my witness.

You yourself told me in post #78 that your capital D Design could not be found in the CCC or any other Church or non-Church documents. You wrote “You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!”.

Then just one day later in post #106, answering to my conclusion that capital D Design is a confused notion only to be found in your head, you wrote that it has been “used by philosophers for centuries and is the title of articles and books such as that by Professor Thomas MacPherson published by MacMillan”.

So on odd dates it’s not to be found in books, on even dates it is.

Explain yourself?

 

[tonyrey]

True as God is my witness.

You yourself told me in post #78 that your capital D Design could not be found in the CCC or any other Church or non-Church documents. You wrote “You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!”.

Then just one day later in post #106, answering to my conclusion that capital D Design is a confused notion only to be found in your head, you wrote that it has been “used by philosophers for centuries and is the title of articles and books such as that by Professor Thomas MacPherson published by MacMillan”.

So on odd dates it’s not to be found in books, on even dates it is.

Explain yourself?

Church documents are not philosophical works.

Design is commonly used by philosophers as shorthand for “the existence of Design” or “the Argument from (or to) Design” in contrast, for example, to Chance. It is capitalised to distinguish the Design of the universe from other forms of design.

 

[tonyrey]

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”

This well-known dictum by Steven Weinberg sums up the anti-Design fashion in science which is amusing on account of its lack of philosophical acumen. What possible evidence of purpose can be found in the initial stages of the formation of the physical universe? When scientists venture into metaphysics they are clearly out of their depth. The fundamental criterion of Design is not what occurs at the origin but throughout the history of the universe. The end product is far more significant than the starting point. By any standards the development from atoms to rational beings is an incredible achievement. If this isn’t evidence of progress what is?

The flaw in such backward thinking is that it is backward in more ways than one! To think everything is explained by what has occurred** in the past **is obviously unbalanced. Physical causes are not even the most significant causes. All progress is the result of looking forwards into the future and planning ahead. Reality is bound to seem pointless if we are obsessed with regression!

Weinberg is entitled to his opinion but to base a philosophical conclusion on such scanty evidence is ludicrous. It amounts to the product of an invention deducing that the invention is purposeless as if it is a detached observer! A valuable exercise is to imagine we are spectators of the Big Bang who are trying to predict what will be its consequences. How far would we get?

The fact that development has occurred does not imply that it had to occur. It could have come to an abrupt end at any stage. Dawkins admitted that it amounted to climbing a mountain! But like Jacques Monod he attributed success to Chance and Necessity. It is significant that in daily life no one behaves as if we are freaks of nature which just happen to exist for no reason or purpose. We even invent purposes to satisfy our need for purpose…

 

[rossum]

Precisely how can it be tested?

By examining outcomes. If a certain specification of the multiverse results in no daughter universes, then that specification is false. If a certain specification of the multiverse results in daughter universes that are all 10 cm in diameter, then that specification is false. By observing the outcome (our current universe) we can place limits on the allowed properties of the multiverse.

Why do you think these statements are inconsistent?

It is you who think they are inconsistent. I used the original version as premise one in my syllogism showing that the designer is not omnipotent. It was you who objected to my use of that premise and proposed the alternative wording. If the two are consistent then my original syllogism stands, since if they are consistent then they are alternative statements of the same premise.

What scientific test could establish whether the laws of nature will or will not remain constant?

My point entirely. Your design is untestable, which makes it scientifically weak. Have you read Carl Sagan’s ‘The Dragon in my Garage’?

I did not state that karma always implies the presence of a material universe.

It certainly looked like it:

It is relevant because karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development imply the existence of persons **and **the existence of the physical world which are not obviously interdependent.

In the existing state of affairs karma implies the existence of persons **and **the existence of the physical world. The fact that karma operates whether the universe is in a material stage or an immaterial stage merely exacerbates the problem for Buddhism of why there is physical world at all!

That is not a problem for Buddhism. It is one of the irrelevant questions that are not conducive to enlightenment. See the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta. Buddhism has far less interest in history than the Abrahamic religions. It describes where we are and how to get from here to where we want to be.

That is true but it remains true that monotheism is the most adequate and economical explanation because it postulates one Supreme Being.

Monotheism is the second most economical explanation. Atheism is even more economical than monotheism, if economy is your criterion.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely how can it be tested?

Specifications are speculations unless there is evidence that they correspond to reality.

Why do you think these statements are inconsistent?

It is you who think they are inconsistent. I used the original version as premise one in my syllogism showing that the designer is not omnipotent. It was you who objected to my use of that premise and proposed the alternative wording. If the two are consistent then my original syllogism stands, since if they are consistent then they are alternative statements of the same premise.

1. Omnipotence implies the power to create the laws of nature
2. Omnipotence implies the power to suspend the laws of nature
3. The fact that the laws of nature have not been and are not changed does not imply that omnipotence does not exist
4. There is no need to change the laws of nature if they produce overwhelmingly successful results
5. The laws of nature have produced overwhelmingly successful results
6. Omnipotence does not imply that the laws of nature always produce successful results
7. The fact that the laws of nature have not changed and do not change is evidence of immense wisdom, immense power, consistency and success rather than the absence of omnipotence

What scientific test could establish whether the laws of nature will or will not remain constant?

My point entirely. Your design is untestable, which makes it scientifically weak. Have you read Carl Sagan’s ‘The Dragon in my Garage’?

It is scientifically weak but metaphysically powerful! The absence of certainty in science is evidence of its inferiority when it comes to making decisions in daily life. Every time we make decisions based on the constancy of natural laws we are implicitly testing it.

It is relevant because karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development imply the existence of persons and the existence of the physical world which are not obviously interdependent.

In the existing state of affairs karma implies the existence of persons and the existence of the physical world. The fact that karma operates whether the universe is in a material stage or an immaterial stage merely exacerbates the problem for Buddhism of why there is physical world at all!
That is not a problem for Buddhism. It is one of the irrelevant questions that are not conducive to enlightenment. See the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta. Buddhism has far less interest in history than the Abrahamic religions. It describes where we are and how to get from here to where we want to be.

It is unscientific and unreasonable not to have any interest in history and not to explain how or why enlightenment originated. The entire process of attaining enlightenment is purposeful and implies Design. Otherwise it occurs in a meaningless void.

That is true but it remains true that monotheism is the most adequate and economical explanation because it postulates one Supreme Being.

Monotheism is the second most economical explanation. Atheism is even more economical than monotheism, if economy is your criterion.

Atheism is less economical because it presupposes the existence of physical energy **and **the laws of nature - and if you are a Buddhist the process of enlightenment!

The** multiverse theory is at the other extreme from one **Supreme Being!

 

[inocente]

Church documents are not philosophical works.

Design is commonly used by philosophers as shorthand for “the existence of Design” or “the Argument from (or to) Design” in contrast, for example, to Chance. It is capitalised to distinguish the Design of the universe from other forms of design.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

1. You avoided answering my point that your theory changes daily, making your earlier charge dead before it left your keyboard.
2. Disingenuous to pretend that your “You won’t find it [design] in documents” only meant Church documents when the original posts (which I conveniently linked ) are there for all to see.
3. Also disingenuous to pretend that all along you’ve been referring to the teleological argument in contrast to chance. Your post #70 clearly says you were instead trying to merge them - “Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance!”. Mind you, that was a full four days ago, so who knows whether you would still argue that God is absent from “conjunctions of events“.
4. No, philosophers don’t walk around referring to the teleological argument by the one word “Design” - in philosophy the word refers to any purposeful pattern.

The daily changes in your argument indicate confusion. You appear to be saying that it isn’t to be found in Catholicism, which would explain why you are finding it so hard to make it consistent. A bit of integrity would come in handy at this point bro – you tried out your idea and found that even with the constant addition of twiddly bits it still crashes and burns with great monotony. No biggy, happens to all of us.

 

[inocente]

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”

This well-known dictum by Steven Weinberg sums up the anti-Design fashion in science which is amusing on account of its lack of philosophical acumen. What possible evidence of purpose can be found in the initial stages of the formation of the physical universe? When scientists venture into metaphysics they are clearly out of their depth.

In your quote Weinburg doesn’t say anything about “the initial stages”. Trying to limit him by adding words which aren’t there is amusing on account of your lack of philosophical acumen and means your venture into metaphysics clearly put you out of your depth.

The fundamental criterion of Design is not what occurs at the origin but throughout the history of the universe. The end product is far more significant than the starting point. By any standards the development from atoms to rational beings is an incredible achievement. If this isn’t evidence of progress what is?

…] All progress is the result of looking forwards into the future and planning ahead. Reality is bound to seem pointless if we are obsessed with regression!

Relativism. In 5 billion years’ time the evidence of progress will be the Earth losing its atmosphere and oceans (at the very least) as the Sun transforms into a red giant. Humans will probably be long extinct or totally transformed anyway. Or is that end product looking uncomfortably far forwards and planning too far ahead?

 

[inocente]

Obviously, drugs, as a stimulus, do affect the brain and how it acts or expresses its response to said drugs. This anatomical fact does not exclude the mind as a free, imaginative, rational soul with intellective powers and volition. For example, Catholics promoted interracial justice in the 1940’s because they used their tools of reason and did not need to have their brain worked on by drugs. I remember my aunt had a book that asked the question. “What color is blood?” Where did that approach come from?

Imho the hypothesis isn’t really about drugs but that our conscious attitudes arise from subconscious processes. Rather that us forming our mind rationally, we may instead invent and focus on reasoning which happens to support our irrational subconscious fears. Hypotheses such as this are becoming more frequent, and might look innocuous but directly challenge the concept of a rational soul. Not an issue for me but might frighten some horses.

Drug-free reasoning Catholics are not immune: In the name of civil rights, the bishop had ordered the integration of two segregated Catholic churches that sat six hundred feet apart on the same property. White parishioners threw rocks and shouted at the blacks. When the bishop arrived, an angry mob confronted him. …] Today that church, Our Lady of Guadalupe, is facing challenges posed by segregation of another kind: between Latino and white Catholics. - endeavors.unc.edu/catholic_in_a_small_southern_town_a_new_kind_of_segregation

When it comes to the design of a human being, one needs to remember that the spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy have individual roles which unite in one operational human.

I’m very sorry to hear that your anatomy is decomposing, not just inconvenient but potentially embarrassing when bits drop off, but at least you’re still operational.

 

[inocente]

Obviously, drugs, as a stimulus, do affect the brain and how it acts or expresses its response to said drugs. This anatomical fact does not exclude the mind as a free, imaginative, rational soul with intellective powers and volition. For example, Catholics promoted interracial justice in the 1940’s because they used their tools of reason and did not need to have their brain worked on by drugs. I remember my aunt had a book that asked the question. “What color is blood?” Where did that approach come from?

Imho the hypothesis isn’t really about drugs but that our conscious attitudes arise out of subconscious processes. While a conventional wisdom says that we can form our mind completely rationally, instead what we consider reasonable or unreasonable may be influenced by irrational subconscious fears. As a result anything which affects unconscious processes (presumably even unto diet and aging) may change even our examined beliefs about ourselves and others. This type of hypothesis is becoming more frequent, and challenges concepts such as a rational soul. Not an issue for me but might frighten some horses.

Drug-free reasoning Catholics are not immune: In the name of civil rights, the bishop had ordered the integration of two segregated Catholic churches that sat six hundred feet apart on the same property. White parishioners threw rocks and shouted at the blacks. When the bishop arrived, an angry mob confronted him. …] Today that church, Our Lady of Guadalupe, is facing challenges posed by segregation of another kind: between Latino and white Catholics. - endeavors.unc.edu/catholic_in_a_small_southern_town_a_new_kind_of_segregation

When it comes to the design of a human being, one needs to remember that the spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy have individual roles which unite in one operational human.

I’m very sorry to hear that your anatomy is decomposing, which is inconvenient and potentially embarrassing when bits drop off, but at least you’re still operational.