Powerful evidence for Design?

[inocente]

Your confrontational style is inappropriate for an objective philosophical discussion.

Suffice it to say that God **knows everything **- including that which has happened, is happening and will happen including coincidences.

This is the basic fault line in your argument.

Standard design arguments intend to show that the universe has a purpose and did not come about by purposeless chance.

Your position, that some things come about by purposeful design while others are purposeless and un-designed, sits on a fence and begs the question of why not one or the other.

In both the OT and NT God is Almighty, He wills everything, and in that sense everything is designed by Him, although it is a very different understanding of design. To mix a few passages:

*He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 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, so that people are without excuse.

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.*

 

[tonyrey]

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

To interpret those statements literally contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for His children. Does God intend and directly will that men. women, children and animals are mutilated and crushed to death in an earthquake?

 

[tonyrey]

Your position, that some things come about by purposeful design while others are purposeless and un-designed, sits on a fence and begs the question of why not one or the other.

What is the purpose of the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

 

[inocente]

To interpret those statements literally contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for His children. Does God intend and directly will that men. women, children and animals are mutilated and crushed to death in an earthquake?

The “argument from Isaiah” would take the form: 1. God created all. 2. God sustains all (acts through the laws of nature). 3. Ergo God creates disasters.

I can’t see how else to interpret the words, they are crystal clear. We could try to tone it down by saying God instead “permits” disasters, but if God is omniscient (knows the future) and omnipotent then He could prevent them, so from our point of view there’s no difference, they are both the will of God.

 

[inocente]

What is the purpose of the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

We’re unlikely to solve the problem of evil on this thread.

My Baptist understanding is since God is Almighty, God must be feared:

Should you not fear me?” declares the LORD.
“Should you not tremble in my presence?" – Jeremiah 5:22

He goes on to imply that for us, complacency breeds contempt:

They do not say to themselves,
‘Let us fear the LORD our God,
who gives autumn and spring rains in season,
who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’

But only God is to be feared, not the devil, not death, but God alone:

*It is you alone who are to be feared.
Who can stand before you when you are angry? – Psalm 76:7

“Do not call conspiracy
everything this people calls a conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread. - Isaiah 8:12-13

“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. - Luke 12:4-5*

But Jesus immediately goes on to reassure us: “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

And Paul wades in with: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Rom 8:38-39

So sure, it’s hard to reconcile, but as that Father Cote said (post #174), questioning, doubting and ambiguity are “not contrary to faith properly understood”, and I think we fool ourselves if we try for comfortable answers.

tony, granny, other Catholics - does any of the above make sense in Catholicism?

 

[tonyrey]

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

Do you deny that it remains true that the constancy of natural laws is a sound principle for all practical purposes**?**

BTW The suspension of natural laws is only applicable when the issue of benevolent Design is considered. Otherwise the constancy of natural laws is an absolute principle for all rational beings whether they believe in Design or not - but as far as science is concerned it is only a matter of probability.

 

[tonyrey]

We’re unlikely to solve the problem of evil on this thread.

My Baptist understanding is since God is Almighty, God must be feared:

Should you not fear me?” declares the LORD.
“Should you not tremble in my presence?" – Jeremiah 5:22

He goes on to imply that for us, complacency breeds contempt:

They do not say to themselves,
‘Let us fear the LORD our God,
who gives autumn and spring rains in season,
who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’

But only God is to be feared, not the devil, not death, but God alone:

*It is you alone who are to be feared.
Who can stand before you when you are angry? – Psalm 76:7

“Do not call conspiracy
everything this people calls a conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread. - Isaiah 8:12-13

“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. - Luke 12:4-5*

But Jesus immediately goes on to reassure us: “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

And Paul wades in with: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Rom 8:38-39

So sure, it’s hard to reconcile, but as that Father Cote said (post #174), questioning, doubting and ambiguity are “not contrary to faith properly understood”, and I think we fool ourselves if we try for easy answers.

tony, granny, other Catholics - does any of the above make sense in Catholicism?

Do you still believe God** wills** the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

 

[tonyrey]

To interpret those statements literally contradicts the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father who cares for His children. Does God intend and directly will

God is certainly the Ultimate Cause of everything but not the Direct Cause.

I can’t see how else to interpret the words, they are crystal clear. We could try to tone it down by saying God instead “permits” disasters, but if God is omniscient (knows the future) and omnipotent then He could prevent them, so from our point of view there’s no difference, they are both the will of God.

There is a vast difference. God permits evil in order to avoid a greater evil. To prevent all disasters would deprive us of our freedom, i.e. our power to choose what to believe and how to live.

 

[grannymh]

The “argument from Isaiah” would take the form: 1. God created all. 2. God sustains all (acts through the laws of nature). 3. Ergo God creates disasters.

I can’t see how else to interpret the words, they are crystal clear. We could try to tone it down by saying God instead “permits” disasters, but if God is omniscient (knows the future) and omnipotent then He could prevent them, so from our point of view there’s no difference, they are both the will of God.

I am just getting the hang of some of Aquinas’s philosophy. It seems to this old brain, that God sustains the being or existence of natural objects which enables them to act in accord with their specific nature.

 

[grannymh]

Do you still believe God** wills** the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

The human anatomy dies in many different ways. Adults have commented that small children often have a clear sense of the spiritual life which conquers our material time and space.

 

[inocente]

God is certainly the Ultimate Cause of everything but not the Direct Cause.
There is a vast difference. God permits evil in order to avoid a greater evil. To prevent all disasters would deprive us of our freedom, i.e. our power to choose what to believe and how to live.

When you’re on a sinking ship, the difference between the ultimate cause (the captain steered it onto rocks) and the direct cause (the rocks made a big hole in the hull) is a bit academic.

God designed the laws of nature so that a whole range of disasters never happen, for instance galaxies never turn into mayonnaise, a heavy snowfall never makes a continent topple over, etc., and that doesn’t affect our freedom. So if God had designed the laws of nature such that there could never be any disasters of any kind, we wouldn’t even be aware that there could be disasters and it wouldn’t affect our freedom either.

 

[inocente]

I am just getting the hang of some of Aquinas’s philosophy. It seems to this old brain, that God sustains the being or existence of natural objects which enables them to act in accord with their specific nature.

Which is fine except that God could have set the laws of nature so that disasters were never in the nature of objects. And before anyone tries it, declaring God changed the laws of nature at the Fall doesn’t help, since innocent alien beings in other parts of the universe who had never heard of Adam would suddenly find that objects on their planet changed their nature overnight.

This stuff makes me head hurt.

 

[tonyrey]

The human anatomy dies in many different ways. Adults have commented that small children often have a clear sense of the spiritual life which conquers our material time and space.

Do you believe God** wills** the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

 

[tonyrey]

When you’re on a sinking ship, the difference between the ultimate cause (the captain steered it onto rocks) and the direct cause (the rocks made a big hole in the hull) is a bit academic.

If you’re in a court of law - even it happens to be on a sinking ship - you will find it makes far more than an academic difference. Your innocence or guilt does not terminate when you eventually die ( even though that is not the concern of the judge and jury)…

You are assuming that such a feat is feasible. It requires omniscience to know the scope of omnipotence…

Can you explain how **all **harmful coincidences could be prevented without disrupting the order in the universe?

[/QUOTE]

 

[grannymh]

Which is fine except that God could have set the laws of nature so that disasters were never in the nature of objects. And before anyone tries it, declaring God changed the laws of nature at the Fall doesn’t help, since innocent alien beings in other parts of the universe who had never heard of Adam would suddenly find that objects on their planet changed their nature overnight.

This stuff makes me head hurt.

Frankly, I never did and probably never will pay attention to laws of nature with a trademark. But I do pay attention to the way the human anatomy came about and how it continues to work in conjunction with its spiritual soul. I like biological sciences and anthropology and have a deep respect for physics. Chemistry and cooking are a mystery to me. The night sky is sheer joy. If I ever have the chance to ask God a few questions, laws of nature will not be at the top of my list. My head feels fine, thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Do you believe God** wills** the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease?

Good grief! I don’t have to know everything about God. Nor do I intend to know everything about God because that would be a form of pride. I understand my place as a creature and I will remain so.
:bowdown:

 

[tonyrey]

Good grief! I don’t have to know everything about God. Nor do I intend to know everything about God because that would be a form of pride. I understand my place as a creature and I will remain so.
:bowdown:

 

[tonyrey]

Irenaeus (c.130-200) Bishop of Lyons. Major work ‘Adversus omnes Haereses’ detailed attack on Gnosticism. Hailed as the first great Catholic theologian. Through his writings he helped to establish the Canon of Scripture. Irenaean theodicy is ‘soul making’. His theodicy is more concerned with the development of humanity…

Suffering is a necessary part of God’s created universe – it is through suffering that human souls are made noble. The world is a ‘vale of soul making’.
One of the ways in which this ‘test’ is carried out is through faith. God’s purpose cannot easily be discerned, but believers continue to believe despite the evidence. This faith becomes a virtue. John Hick calls this lack of understanding an ‘epistemic distance’.
To summarise Irenaeus’ Theodicy:

• Humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
• We are in an immature moral state, though we have the potential for moral perfection.
• Throughout our lives we change from being human animals to ‘children of God’.
• This is a choice made after struggle and experience, as we choose God rather than our baser instinct.
• There are no angels or external forces at work here.
• God brings in suffering for the benefit of humanity.
• From it we learn positive values, and about the world around us.

Suffering and evil are:

• Useful as a means of knowledge. Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.
• Character building. Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. If we were programmed to ‘do the right thing’ there would be no moral value to our actions. ‘We would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a complete paradise’ Swinburne.
• **A predictable environment. The world runs to a series of natural laws. These laws are independent of our needs, and operate regardless of anything. Natural evil is when these laws come into conflict with our own perceived needs. **

There is no moral dimension to this. However,** we can be sure of things in a predictable world! **Heaven and hell are important within Irenaeus’s Theodicy as part of the process of deification, the lifting up of humanity to the divine. This process enables humans to achieve perfection.
Irenaeus never developed his theodicy fully but his ideas were later taken up by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and more recently by John Hick.

scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/theodicy_irenaeus.htm

I have emphasized the significant points about predictability, natural laws and natural evil.

 

[cho_pilo]

A completely new dimension of reality is opened up by the view that the universe is the product of Design. It implies that purpose is not a rare phenomenon but fundamental and widespread. Even inanimate objects are valuable and significant because without them life would be impossible. This is where science is entirely uninformative and insignificant because it tells us nothing about the reasons for our existence. To leave people with the impression that science explains everything is to leave them with no authentic purpose at all. It doesn’t tell us how we should behave towards others or even towards ourselves. It doesn’t distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. In other words it leads to a dead end…

How does the idea of design lead to concepts of right, wrong, good, evil, just & unjust? I don’t see the connection.

 

[tonyrey]

How does the idea of design lead to concepts of right, wrong, good, evil, just & unjust? I don’t see the connection.

I have pointed out that:

1. Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability.

1. 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.

1. 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…

All this means that we have moral obligations towards ourselves, other persons, other living beings and our environment. In a purposeless universe morality is merely a human convention.