T
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thanks for that reference. The concept of directiveness is fundamental to any adequate explanation of life.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 principles and not philosophical beliefs." (courtesy of PofL website)
G
grannymh
Guest
Here is the comment which you replied to.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?
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.
Point 1 of your post 147
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9063021&postcount=147
“1. If one cannot limit oneself one cannot be omnipotent!”
In Catholic theology, there is only one being Who can be considered omnipotent. That being is God. This is why I posted a clarification in post 152.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9063305&postcount=152
Humans should be addressed as the created creature and not on the same level of being as the Creator.
I
inocente
Guest
It will be very easy for you to put me right, just find me a Catholic document which says that chance events are not the work of God. Oh I forgot, you already said there aren’t any such documents. But anyway, enlighten me on how a figurative interpretation would differ from a literal one in either of the quotations, which I repeat below for your convenience.
*The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33
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*
I think we can say with total confidence that other Catholics don’t believe in your Chance as you already told me it can’t be found in Catholic teaching.
Of course He is. He sent the Flood and many other disasters in the OT. He makes it rain on good and bad alike. HE IS THE LORD. Who else do you think is responsible, Donald Duck?
First you strip God of omnipotence and then put yourself up as better than the apostles. You did say you’re a Christian, right?
The assumption that God and His creatures are the only agents is called MONOTHEISM.
I was quoting Paul, you’re saying Paul was simplistic?
Irrelevant, we’re discussing the gaping chasms in your theory, you can’t fix them by changing the subject.
Try telling the victims that a disaster is a “coincidence” (of what - a conjunction of planets or something?) which God didn’t will, no of course He would do no such thing, but decided to permit, because somehow that means He doesn’t get any blame.
Judge, it was pure coincidence that the gunman saw those victims. I didn’t order him to kill them and could easily have stopped him but decided to permit it, so that’s much better, right?
Err, the one’s I just mentioned, Aristotle and Thomas.
Ahem. In point 4 you said “These coincidences are often dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes of Design”, in other words you are saying they happen outside of God’s will and God is forced to react and decide whether to “permit” them or not. Your logic is that God is not omnipotent.
Too late, you already placed God in the position of reacting to events caused by your goddess Chance.
I
inocente
Guest
Heh. Since it isn’t possible for any designer to design anything with first having a purpose in mind, I would have thought it was trivially easy to decide what is designed, as opposed of course to what happened by chance, and from there determine the purpose. Or is that just too darned straightforward and practical?
G
grannymh
Guest
:yup:
T
tonyrey
Guest
Since you believe God sent the Flood and many other disasters in the OT - and of course such events as the recent earthquake in Japan - there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you…It will be very easy for you to put me right, just find me a Catholic document which says that chance events are not the work of God. Oh I forgot, you already said there aren’t any such documents. But anyway, enlighten me on how a figurative interpretation would differ from a literal one in either of the quotations, which I repeat below for your convenience.
*The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. – Proverbs 16:33
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*
I think we can say with total confidence that other Catholics don’t believe in your Chance as you already told me it can’t be found in Catholic teaching.
Of course He is. He sent the Flood and many other disasters in the OT. He makes it rain on good and bad alike. HE IS THE LORD. Who else do you think is responsible, Donald Duck?
First you strip God of omnipotence and then put yourself up as better than the apostles. You did say you’re a Christian, right?
The assumption that God and His creatures are the only agents is called MONOTHEISM.
I was quoting Paul, you’re saying Paul was simplistic?
Irrelevant, we’re discussing the gaping chasms in your theory, you can’t fix them by changing the subject.
Try telling the victims that a disaster is a “coincidence” (of what - a conjunction of planets or something?) which God didn’t will, no of course He would do no such thing, but decided to permit, because somehow that means He doesn’t get any blame.
Judge, it was pure coincidence that the gunman saw those victims. I didn’t order him to kill them and could easily have stopped him but decided to permit it, so that’s much better, right?
Err, the one’s I just mentioned, Aristotle and Thomas.
Ahem. In point 4 you said “These coincidences are often dysteleological, i.e. opposed to the purposes of Design”, in other words you are saying they happen outside of God’s will and God is forced to react and decide whether to “permit” them or not. Your logic is that God is not omnipotent.
Too late, you already placed God in the position of reacting to events caused by your goddess Chance.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your confrontational style is inappropriate for an objective philosophical discussion.Heh. Since it isn’t possible for any designer to design anything with first having a purpose in mind, I would have thought it was trivially easy to decide what is designed, as opposed of course to what happened by chance, and from there determine the purpose. Or is that just too darned straightforward and practical?
Suffice it to say that God **knows everything **- including that which has happened, is happening and will happen including coincidences.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In philosophy omnipotence can be - and is often - discussed without reference to Catholic theology. It may not appeal to you but there is no point in referring to God when you are contending with individuals who don’t believe there is a Creator - like the person to whom my response was directed.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No response!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?
T
tonyrey
Guest
So far not one of these statements has been refuted…
G
grannymh
Guest
The “statements” are found in post 147
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9063021&postcount=147
Which of these statements refer to God and which statements refer to a human person?
Post 152 clarified that the seven statements did not refer to Almighty God as being omnipotent according to Catholic theology which has the support of philosophy regarding the Divine Nature of One Supreme Being. Thus, philosophically speaking, the seven statements do not pertain to God according to Catholic teaching.
However, post 152 did comment that the seven statements may apply to human beings depending on circumstances. Since I am not sure of the circumstances for each statement, I can neither affirm nor deny the human statements.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I do not believe any of the statements are inconsistent with Catholic teaching. I am interested to know what reasons you have for thinking they are…
BTW I agree that Divine omnipotence is way beyond the limited power-sharing of humans, that Divine omnipotence is beyond human love experienced on earth, that Divine omnipotence transforms mortal human suffering into an eternal life of God’s peace and that Divine omnipotence belongs to the Creator and cannot be ** completely** described by the creature.
G
grannymh
Guest
When all seven statements apply to God, they are not Catholic teachings. Philosophically, from a Catholic position, God’s omnipotence cannot be limited otherwise there is a paradox. If you disagree, that is your choice to make.
You may, if you wish, apply the seven statements to humans. In that case, you may decide for yourself if the circumstances you had in mind when you originally wrote them apply to humans.
This is all that I will say on what you wrote in post 147.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9063021&postcount=147
T
tonyrey
Guest
Omnipotence is off the topic of evidence for Design but the immense amount of suffering in the world is certainly relevant. Much of it appears to be unnecessary although it is impossible to demonstrate how it could be prevented without interfering with the laws of nature. Most philosophers would agree with David Hume conceded that some evil is inevitable. His objection was that it is excessive and outweighs the “insipid” pleasures of life despite all the evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of living creatures are not deformed, diseased, disabled or in constant distress.When all seven statements apply to God, they are not Catholic teachings. If you disagree, that is your choice to make.
You may, if you wish, apply the seven statements to humans. In that case, you may decide for yourself if the circumstances you had in mind when you originally wrote them apply to humans.
This is all that I will say on what you wrote in post 147.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9063021&postcount=147
The very use of the term “insipid” reveals how Hume underrated the extent to which persons and animals enjoy being alive with all its opportunities for development, excitement, enrichment, achievement, contentment and fulfilment. To believe good outweighs evil is to accept Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet - a view which is obviously absurd and defeatist. Ironically he devoted much of time to writing about beauty!
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for confirming that your version of design theory is self-contradictory. You are saying that your original “always” really means “most of the time”. That is Humpty-Dumpty argumentation.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
False!
- You have signally failed to refute the fact that you have taken “always” out of its context of predictability.
- It remains true that the constancy of natural laws is a sound principle for all practical purposes**.**
- The Design explanation is far **more powerful **than any scientific theory because the reality of purpose is the fundamental principle by which all rational beings live and expect other rational beings to live.
- No scientific theory has such practical, fertile and** valuable** consequences for our interpretation of day-to-day existence and our long term goals.
- The concept of spiritual development presupposes belief in **the objective value, meaning and purpose of life. **
- Even if we don’t believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living.
- So in practice we live **as if **we don’t exist by Chance.
- Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability.
- We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern.
- We are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don’t regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations…
- The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology, philosophy - and the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and work.
- The spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration.
- It is the** fertility** of Design that makes it far superior to the notion that we exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.
R
rossum
Guest
Always means always, not most of the time. One single counter-example can invalidate “always”. A single counter-example does not invalidate “most of the time”.
The two are different. You started by claiming “always”. That claim was incorrect, by your own statements.
Your version of design theory fails to be self-consistent.
rossum
I
inocente
Guest
Your ad hominem combined with not responding to any of my points indicates a rout. I accept your abject surrender.
Regarding the earthquake in Japan (assuming the OT prophet of the Messiah isn’t also irrational and unworthy of your valuable time):
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
For another, perhaps more conventionally Catholic view on disasters (my emphasis):
*Cote, too, said that the earthquake was a “purely seismic natural phenomenon.” He said that God made a material world, with laws of gravity, and that he is not an interventionist. “God suffers when we suffer,” he said. "He does not force his love on us like a tidal wave. “The Christian God is a God of vulnerability,” he said. "The biggest risk God takes is to love us unconditionally. God is forever taking risks. “He’s in our shoes. God has stepped into our shoes in solidarity with us in all things,” Father Cote said. “He shared in our humanity to show that he did not make a mistake when he created you and me.”
Father Cote said that questioning, doubting and ambiguity are “not contrary to faith properly understood.” He said he thinks it is good to question, that it “takes us out of our complacency” as people struggle to interpret the answer to the question that Jesus poses to every age: “Who do people say I am?” - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500120.htm*
So take your pick, but please consider tried and tested design arguments rather than the kindly old gentleman god who brings us comforting coping strategies in the face of reality.
- Status