Powerful evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

While a conventional wisdom says that we can form our mind completely rationally,

That bit of conventional wisdom doesn’t quite coincide with the functions of the mind which are already in place. We do not form our mind because in the Catholic sense the mind is part of the spiritual soul. Volition is another part. We may form opinions, judgments, our sense of good and bad, etc., but that is a tad different than a human forming a spiritual principle within herself or himself. Our mind is rational to begin with. It is part of the package. How rational is another topic.

instead what we consider reasonable or unreasonable may be influenced by irrational subconscious fears.

This is a good example of subjective thinking. It is up to the mind to sort out good subjective thinking from the not so good subjective thinking like your example of irrational subconscious fears.

In my humble observation, the issues in mind/body research are both how the brain reacts to stimulus and the general makeup of the stimulus itself. Obviously, there are other kinds of issues; however, I have singled out the ones which I find important. I accept the fact that you and others can place importance on other issues.

 

[tonyrey]

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“.

Let’s deal with one point at a time - without personal remarks:

1. Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance
2. In this context Chance means coincidences caused by the interplay of the laws of nature
3. Coincidences are often unforeseen and unpredictable by human beings.
4. These coincidences are often dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes of Design
5. In an immensely complex universe such coincidences are inevitable
6. Such misfortunes can be prevented by suspending the laws of nature
7. To suspend the laws of nature too frequently would undermine the order and predictability of events
8. A rational existence is impossible without order and predictability
9. Therefore to suspend the laws of nature too frequently would defeat the purpose of Design

Even though he was a sceptic Hume accepted the inevitability of evil.

 

[tonyrey]

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

That statement was made in his book *The First Three Minutes! *He has since stated:

I think that more and more the picture of nature, the outside world, has been one of an impersonal world governed by mathematical laws that are not particularly concerned with human beings, in which human beings appear as a chance phenomenon, not the goal toward which the universe is directed.

My emphasis! He has not even found evidence of purpose subsequent to the first three minutes! It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that there are many other goals besides human beings. All life is valuable and persons may well exist on other planets…

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?

edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.htm
Design has not been thought by rational philosophers to entail eternal life on this planet…

 

[tonyrey]

edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.htm

This link works:

pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/wein-frame.html

 

[buffalo]

Design deniers - see this. And design recognizers, too.

Programming of Life Video

Thanks to the Programming of Life folks the full video is available online. Teachers, look it over and ask the tough questions.​

"Programming of Life is a 45 minute documentary created to engage our scientific community in order to encourage forward thinking. It looks into scientific theories “scientifically”. It examines the heavy weight theory of origins, the chemical and biological theory of evolution, and asks the extremely difficult questions in order to reveal undirected natural process for what it is – a hindrance to true science.
This video and the book it was inspired by Joe Miaono (Programming of Life) is about science and it is our hope that it will be evaluated based on scientific principals and not philosophical beliefs." (courtesy of PofL website)

 

[grannymh]

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.

Thank you for your concern. I do realize and accept the fact that there is a huge variety of worldviews regarding the human nature. With that in mind, may I present part of my worldview regarding an operational human nature.

God created our spiritual soul so that we can share in His nature through knowledge (rational intelligence) and love (choice of our will) for eternity.

Yet, we are not simple “spirits”. Our nature is an unique composite of *both *the material and spiritual realms. We are the created creatures and as such, we need to live in free submission to our Creator. Because we are in the image of our Creator, we possess the dignity of a person who can freely choose to remain in our Creator’s friendship or to freely scorn our Creator as Adam did.

Our human nature is evidence of our Creator’s design to make it possible for us to enter into communion with Him. Being of the created material/physical world, we have anatomies which “return to dust”, that is, the normal operation of our material anatomy is to decompose with death. However, there is the old saying that we begin to die at the moment of our birth.

It is the ability of our spiritual soul to transcend the limits of the created world, including material death, and unite with Jesus Christ as we journey toward the eternal realm of God’s peace.

 

[rossum]

1. Omnipotence implies the power to suspend the laws of nature

Any suspension of the laws of nature is a change in the laws of nature. Possibly a temporary change, but nevertheless a change.

You stated that under design theory, the laws of nature are always the same. Hence either the designer is omnipotent, but limited – which is a paradox. Or else the designer is not omnipotent.

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!

I am not atheist, I believe in more gods than you do.

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

There is (probably) only one multiverse.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

2. Omnipotence implies the power to suspend the laws of nature

The change is not beyond the control of, but determined by, the designer.

You stated that under design theory, the laws of nature are always the same.

They are always the same for all practical purposes. Suspensions are rare enough to be safely ignored when predicting the outcome of events.

Hence either the designer is omnipotent, but limited – which is a paradox. Or else the designer is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is off the topic but it implies the power of self-limitation!

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!
I am not atheist, I believe in more gods than you do.

Quality is more important than quantity.
The fact remains that monotheism is more economical than atheism.

 

[grannymh]

Omnipotence is off the topic but it implies the power of self-limitation!

And also sliding off target is “but it implies the power of self-limitation”.

 

[tonyrey]

And also sliding off target is “but it implies the power of self-limitation”.

I agree but I don’t want him to think there is no answer! Yet another thread can be started on omnipotence if necessary.

 

[grannymh]

I agree but I don’t want him to think there is no answer! Yet another thread can be started on omnipotence if necessary.

One does not have to have answer for everything. Rossum is right in that God’s omnipotence cannot be limited otherwise there is a paradox.

However, the comment
– “Any suspension of the laws of nature is a change in the laws of nature. Possibly a temporary change, but nevertheless a change.” –
in post 141 is not quite accurate.

A law of nature governs the way a particular aspect of nature “operates” for want of a better word. If there is a suspension of that law, it is not the law which changes, it is the way nature operates that changes.

Some scientists would say that it is an extraordinary phenomenon when a law of nature is temporarily suspended.

 

[buffalo]

The change is not beyond the control of, but determined by, the designer.

They are always the same for all practical purposes. Suspensions are rare enough to be safely ignored when predicting the outcome of events.
Omnipotence is off the topic but it implies the power of self-limitation!

                                             Quality is more important than quantity. ;)

The fact remains that monotheism is more economical than atheism.

\

Catholics know God to be almighty.

 

[tonyrey]

Rossum is right in that God’s omnipotence cannot be limited otherwise there is a paradox.

1. If one cannot limit oneself one cannot be omnipotent!
2. To share power with others by giving them free will is a form of self-limitation
3. To permit others to choose evil is evidence of self-limitation
4. Christians would not pray “Thy Will be done” if God’s Will is always done
5. The immense amount of unnecessary suffering in the world is evidence that omnipotence has been limited
6. Power-sharing is essential if others are to have the power of self-determination
7. Love cannot exist on either side unless power is** voluntarily** shared

 

[inocente]

Let’s deal with one point at a time - without personal remarks:

1. Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance

You have departed a long way from scripture. Whether this is just you or Catholics generally I don’t know.

The OT sees what you call chance as the impartiality of God: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33

This is also explicit in the NT. When the apostles need an impartial decision, they use chance to consult the Lord in the tradition of the priests: Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. – Acts 1:24-26

In scripture, and (I think) all Christianity, everything that happens is due to God and His creatures, and these are the** only** agents, there cannot be any separate agency such as chance.

*2. In this context Chance means coincidences caused by the interplay of the laws of nature

1. Coincidences are often unforeseen and unpredictable by human beings*.

1. These coincidences are often dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes of Design

1. In an immensely complex universe such coincidences are inevitable

1. Such misfortunes can be prevented by suspending the laws of nature

1. To suspend the laws of nature too frequently would undermine the order and predictability of events

1. A rational existence is impossible without order and predictability

1. Therefore to suspend the laws of nature too frequently would defeat the purpose of Design

Even though he was a sceptic Hume accepted the inevitability of evil.

You have also departed a long way from standard design arguments. None of your points are needed by Aristotle, Thomas, or a modern take such as Al Moritz’ fine-tuning version. Not to mention the simplest of the lot: Paul’s For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. – Rom 1

In these arguments everything shows evidence of design, while you have to add a layer of complex decision criteria to determine what is designed and what is chance. And your points don’t even scratch the surface. For instance in point 9 you need to say whether “too frequently” is every ten milliseconds or every ten centuries, and why. Point 3 is inherently relativist and needs to be replaced - we are better at predicting earthquakes now than one hundred years ago, so whether an earthquake is designed or chance is on shifting sand. And so on.

All this is unnecessary in the standard arguments and in Christianity. In point 4 you admit that by your argument God is no longer omnipotent. You are arguing for a part-time god-ette, which subversively undermines the whole intent of the argument from design.

 

[inocente]

My emphasis! He has not even found evidence of purpose subsequent to the first three minutes! It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that there are many other goals besides human beings. All life is valuable and persons may well exist on other planets…

I’ve not read anything by Weinburg but understand his sentiment. We are valuable to God and to each other, but believing for one cotton picking minute we (and any other rational life) is the goal toward which the universe is directed is kind of like Star Trek, which fondly imagined that humans in 1970’s US culture were the bestest ever, the yardstick against which all aliens fell short. It’s blinkered wishful thinking, comfort food. Weinburg is saying let’s grow up. I agree.

 

[rossum]

The change is not beyond the control of, but determined by, the designer.

This does not, in general, follow from simple design theory. If an architect designs a building, that does not give the architect complete control over all changes in the building. It will still age. Rust, flaking paint, general wear and tear and all the other changes that impact buildings will still happen.

You are adding something extra to plain design theory if you make this claim. Please specify exactly what it is you are adding.

They are always the same for all practical purposes. Suspensions are rare enough to be safely ignored when predicting the outcome of events.

You said “always”. Even one exception is enough to destroy “always”. Please modify your theory, and specify what you have modified in the theory, so as to change the outcome from “always” to “very often”.

You have made a series of statements. You have not stated the underlying theory in any detail, nor have you derived those statements as being required by the theory. Any competent mathematician or physicist can derive the orbits of the planets from Newton’s theory of gravity. You have performed no such derivation, which makes your theory weak.

rossum

 

[inocente]

God created our spiritual soul so that we can share in His nature through knowledge (rational intelligence) and love (choice of our will) for eternity.

Yet, we are not simple “spirits”. Our nature is an unique composite of *both *the material and spiritual realms. We are the created creatures and as such, we need to live in free submission to our Creator. Because we are in the image of our Creator, we possess the dignity of a person who can freely choose to remain in our Creator’s friendship or to freely scorn our Creator as Adam did.

Our human nature is evidence of our Creator’s design to make it possible for us to enter into communion with Him. Being of the created material/physical world, we have anatomies which “return to dust”, that is, the normal operation of our material anatomy is to decompose with death. However, there is the old saying that we begin to die at the moment of our birth.

We think in very different ways and use very different words, but probably agree on the important stuff behind the words.

My wife pouts when over breakfast I reminder her we’re another day closer to death, and of course I say it to make her pout . Milder than John Lennon’s blunt accusation: So this is Christmas / And what have you done / Another year over / And a new one just begun.

So in my very different words, our normal operation is we return to dust because otherwise (a) our successors wouldn’t evolve and (b) the beaches would overflow with very wrinkly people. And that’s the way God planned it, that’s the way God planned it to be.

(I don’t know how I know that song, it’s also old and wrinkly, and had to look it up - Billy Preston / George Harrison / That’s The Way God Planned It) - youtube.com/watch?v=Aef0Xwxab9A

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Rossum is right in that God’s omnipotence cannot be limited otherwise there is a paradox.

1. If one cannot limit oneself one cannot be omnipotent!
2. To share power with others by giving them free will is a form of self-limitation
3. To permit others to choose evil is evidence of self-limitation
4. Christians would not pray “Thy Will be done” if God’s Will is always done
5. The immense amount of unnecessary suffering in the world is evidence that omnipotence has been limited
6. Power-sharing is essential if others are to have the power of self-determination
7. Love cannot exist on either side unless power is** voluntarily** shared

Gentle Readers.

The above seven points do not, do not refer to Almighty God.

The above seven points may apply to human beings depending on circumstances.
Please do not be confused. The above seven points are not, not, connected with Catholic theology.

Divine omnipotence is way beyond the limited power-sharing of humans. Divine omnipotence is beyond human love experienced on earth. Divine omnipotence transforms mortal human suffering into an eternal life of God’s peace. Divine omnipotence belongs to the Creator and cannot be completely described by the creature.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[tonyrey]

*1. If one cannot limit oneself one cannot be omnipotent!

1. To share power with others by giving them free will is a form of self-limitation
2. To permit others to choose evil is evidence of self-limitation
3. Christians would not pray “Thy Will be done” if God’s Will is always done
4. The immense amount of unnecessary suffering in the world is evidence that omnipotence has been limited
5. Power-sharing is essential if others are to have the power of self-determination
6. Love cannot exist on either side unless power is** voluntarily***

I have not mentioned God! However it is evident that God’s Will is not always done on earth because human beings have been given the gift of free will. If that is not the result of power-sharing what is it?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance

Only if you interpret Scripture literally.

Whether this is just you or Catholics generally I don’t know.

Whether it is or not is irrelevant.

The OT sees what you call chance as the impartiality of God: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33

“from” does not imply "directly willed by God". Otherwise He would be directly responsible for disasters like the Mexican earthquake.

This is also explicit in the NT. When the apostles need an impartial decision, they use chance to consult the Lord in the tradition of the priests:

Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. – Acts 1:24-26

**One **incident is insufficient to establish that **all **chance events are directly willed by God. The Apostles may well have been inspired to cast lots. Even if they weren’t inspired they weren’t infallible!

In scripture, and (I think) all Christianity, everything that happens is due to God and His creatures, and these are the** only** agents, there cannot be any separate agency such as chance.

How would you justify that assumption?

1. In this context Chance means coincidences caused by the interplay of the laws of nature

1. Coincidences are often unforeseen and unpredictable by human beings

.

1. These coincidences are often dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes of Design
2. In an immensely complex universe such coincidences are inevitable
3. Such misfortunes can be prevented by suspending the laws of nature
4. To suspend the laws of nature too frequently would undermine the order and predictability of events
5. A rational existence is impossible without order and predictability
6. Therefore to suspend the laws of nature too frequently would defeat the purpose of Design

Even though he was a sceptic Hume accepted the inevitability of evil.You have also departed a long way from standard design arguments. None of your points are needed by Aristotle, Thomas, or a modern take such as Al Moritz’ fine-tuning version.

They didn’t claim to be infallible and neither do I!

Not to mention the simplest of the lot: Paul’s For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. – Rom 1

Irrelevant. Not **everything **reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature.

In these arguments everything shows evidence of design, while you have to add a layer of complex decision criteria to determine what is designed and what is chance.

Your simplistic view of reality does not allow for the fact that misfortunes are inevitable in an immensely complex physical system.

And your points don’t even scratch the surface. For instance in point 9 you need to say whether “too frequently” is every ten milliseconds or every ten centuries, and why.

It is absurd to demand knowledge that no human being can possess. Do you deny that miracles occur? Can you specify how frequently?

Point 3 is inherently relativist and needs to be replaced - we are better at predicting earthquakes now than one hundred years ago, so whether an earthquake is designed or chance is on shifting sand. And so on.

The ability to predict natural events is irrelevant. They are still coincidences which often lead to death and suffering - permitted but not directly caused or willed by God.

All this is unnecessary in the standard arguments and in Christianity.

Which arguments in particular?

In point 4 you admit that by your argument God is no longer omnipotent.

False!

You are arguing for a part-time god-ette, which subversively undermines the whole intent of the argument from design.

False deduction! God remains omnipotent because He has the power to withdraw free will or suspend the laws of nature whenever and wherever He chooses…