Powerful evidence for Design?

[Biblepoe]

Wow.

Tonyrey, I’ve got to say that you seem to me to be a bit desperate to demonstrate that a god exists, given that about half of the 194 posts on this thread are by you and how much you’ve posted on this topic before. That’s dedication.

I’ve got to ask, what is the criteria for determining if something is designed?

I propose that the way someone determines if something is designed is by contrasting it against what is naturally occurring and determining if it is like other things that you know persons have designed (like a watch on a beach).

 

[tonyrey]

Wow.

Tonyrey, I’ve got to say that you seem to me to be a bit desperate to demonstrate that a god exists, given that about half of the 194 posts on this thread are by you and how much you’ve posted on this topic before. That’s dedication.

It’s not desperation but confidence - and exuberance! When you have specialised in a subject for many years you enjoy discussing it…

I’ve got to ask, what is the criteria for determining if something is designed?

I propose that the way someone determines if something is designed is by contrasting it against what is naturally occurring and determining if it is like other things that you know persons have designed (like a watch on a beach).

You’re on the right track although that is only a part of the picture. How do we establish what is natural? Is it self-evident that personal activity can be explained entirely by science? If not we already have a problem because it implies that a natural object is capable of explaining itself - which seems farfetched and certainly inconsistent with Godel’s Incompleteness theorem. **A system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
**

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey, I’ve got to say that you seem to me to be a bit desperate to demonstrate that a god exists…

My intention is to suggest there is powerful evidence that Design exists.

 

[rossum]

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

We are discussing your version of design theory. For practical purposes I use well established science, not design theory.

Your version of design theory fails on its own terms, as you stated them. It also fails to make any practical, testable predictions.

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.

This is your problem. If the natural laws stay the same, then it is because the designer wanted them to stay the same. If natural laws change (temporarily) it is because the designer wanted them to change. Whatever happens, it is always the designer.

Now replace “designer” with “Invisible Pink Unicorn”. There is no way to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whether the laws change or the laws stay the same. This cannot be science. I can disprove Einstein with a faster-than-light neutrino (albeit not quite yet). I cannot disprove your design because “the designer wanted it that way” covers absolutely every possible observation.

rossum

 

[inocente]

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

Noting that neither you nor any other Catholic answered my question in post #179, except yet again you ducked by answering a question with a question.
In post #182 you say “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.”

Using that logic in the case of the child:

1. God permits the excruciating pain of the small child’s incurable disease to avoid some greater evil. What could possibly be more evil? Perhaps we shouldn’t ask, and instead fill our thoughts with how sweet and nice God can be until the child finally dies in agony?
2. God won’t miraculously cure the child since then we’d know God exists, and that would never do. A child in excruciating pain is a small price to pay for keeping our power to choose what to believe?
3. But then you’ve previously argued that God does perform miracles, so if God intervenes and deprives us of our power to choose what to believe by making a statue cry, why not when it really matters? Because the dying child will go to heaven, that’s all right then, problem solved?

If God “permits” it then God wills it, and all we can do is wonder why. That’s the reason the Bible tells us to fear God.

 

[inocente]

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’.

So that’s why God permits the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease, it’s to make her soul noble. There’s been a lot of drivel written over the years, but that guy takes the biscuit.

 

[inocente]

How do we establish what is natural? Is it self-evident that personal activity can be explained entirely by science? If not we already have a problem because it implies that a natural object is capable of explaining itself - which seems farfetched and certainly inconsistent with Godel’s Incompleteness theorem. **A system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
**

False. The theorem only applies to deduction from axioms in a formal system, which is a type of reasoning rarely if ever used in science. In this case the idea of trying to formally define all axioms for “personal activity” would be pointless, impossible and silly.

 

[tonyrey]

So that’s why God permits the excruciating pain of a small child’s incurable disease, it’s to make her soul noble.

It’s easy to make nonsense out of a statement by taking it out of its context. You should read more carefully:

• 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. **

 

[tonyrey]

False. The theorem only applies to deduction from axioms in a formal system, which is a type of reasoning rarely if ever used in science. In this case the idea of trying to formally define all axioms for “personal activity” would be pointless, impossible and silly.

The principle applies to any explanation whatsoever. Can a part of nature account entirely for nature?

 

[tonyrey]

We are discussing your version of design theory. For practical purposes I use well established science, not design theory.

Would you agree that all scientific propositions are provisional?

Your version of design theory fails on its own terms, as you stated them. It also fails to make any practical, testable predictions.

False! For a start** it predicts that all rational beings will continue to think, act and plan according to the principle that the laws of nature will continue to remain constant. **I hardly think you could demand anything more practical than that - if you are a reasonable person…

This is your problem. If the natural laws stay the same, then it is because the designer wanted them to stay the same. If natural laws change (temporarily) it is because the designer wanted them to change. Whatever happens, it is always the designer.

I have already pointed out that the Design explanation per se does not require the suspension of natural laws. In fact the nature of the Designer is off the topic. We should confine ourselves to the basic issue: powerful evidence for Design.

 

[tonyrey]

In post #182 you say “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.”

Using that logic in the case of the child:

1. God permits the excruciating pain of the small child’s incurable disease to avoid some greater evil. What could possibly be more evil?

To create a universe in which **no one **has free will, the power of reason, the capacity for love and self-determination - and to replace them with zombies who have no mind or will of their own…

1. God won’t miraculously cure the child since then we’d know God exists, and that would never do.

False! Many children are miraculously cured and prevented from even having the disease if you believe God is a loving Father - which seems extremely unlikely in view of your sarcastic remarks…

A child in excruciating pain is a small price to pay for keeping our power to choose what to believe?

Once again you are indulging in your favourite trick of selecting one explanation as if it is the **sole **explanation.

If you think the suffering in the world is excessive then you have no reason whatsoever for believing in a loving Father.

1. But then you’ve previously argued that God does perform miracles, so if God intervenes and deprives us of our power to choose what to believe by making a statue cry, why not when it really matters? Because the dying child will go to heaven, that’s all right then, problem solved?
   ]If God “permits” it then God wills it, and all we can do is wonder why. That’s the reason the Bible tells us to fear God.

Do you accept the dictum: Credo quia absurdum?

Your appeal to wonderment doesn’t satisfy many people in our secular society:

“Abandon all reason and be terrified you who enter here!”

 

[buffalo]

We are discussing your version of design theory. For practical purposes I use well established science, not design theory.

Your version of design theory fails on its own terms, as you stated them. It also fails to make any practical, testable predictions.

This is your problem. If the natural laws stay the same, then it is because the designer wanted them to stay the same. If natural laws change (temporarily) it is because the designer wanted them to change. Whatever happens, it is always the designer.

Now replace “designer” with “Invisible Pink Unicorn”. There is no way to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whether the laws change or the laws stay the same. This cannot be science. I can disprove Einstein with a faster-than-light neutrino (albeit not quite yet). I cannot disprove your design because “the designer wanted it that way” covers absolutely every possible observation.

rossum

It is interesting that the ID folks are using the exact science that Darwin used, that is “the best explanation”. Either both are science or both are disqualified.

 

[cho_pilo]

This is your problem. If the natural laws stay the same, then it is because the designer wanted them to stay the same. If natural laws change (temporarily) it is because the designer wanted them to change. Whatever happens, it is always the designer.

Now replace “designer” with “Invisible Pink Unicorn”. There is no way to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whether the laws change or the laws stay the same. This cannot be science. I can disprove Einstein with a faster-than-light neutrino (albeit not quite yet). I cannot disprove your design because “the designer wanted it that way” covers absolutely every possible observation.

rossum

I believe the term is that it is not falsifiable. It also offers no predictions and no model, which means it is not science. But I think that’s already been established. I’m more interested in the psychological aspects of the belief in design.

So, are you content just believing there is a purpose, or would your prefer knowing what that purpose is? And, if you believe you already know what that purpose is, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[buffalo]

I believe the term is that it is not falsifiable. It also offers no predictions and no model, which means it is not science. But I think that’s already been established. I’m more interested in the psychological aspects of the belief in design.

Here is an excellent lecture that addresses this very issue.

 

[inocente]

It’s easy to make nonsense out of a statement by taking it out of its context. You should read more carefully:

• Useful

The first bullet says the small child suffers the excruciating pain of an incurable disease for the useful benefit of others.The crass immorality of that beggars belief.

The second says the small child’s suffering (from an incurable disease remember) provides her with a character-building opportunity. The crass immorality of that beggars belief.

The third is relativism - it defines natural evil relative to our subjective “perceived needs”.

All three bullets could be believed by an atheist just as much as by a theist. I saw Swinburne in a debate once, he argued that the Jews going to the ovens provided an opportunity for the guards to grow morally. He was shouted off but escaped being lynched.

 

[inocente]

The principle applies to any explanation whatsoever. Can a part of nature account entirely for nature?

If you disagree with me that your claim about Godel’s theorem is false then by all means discuss, with citations please.

Here’s my first citation – “Gödel’s Theorem - A much-abused result in mathematical logic, supposed by many authors who don’t understand it to support their own favored brand of rubbish…” - Prof. Cosma Shalizi, Carnegie Mellon - cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/godels-theorem.html

 

[inocente]

To create a universe in which **no one **has free will, the power of reason, the capacity for love and self-determination - and to replace them with zombies who have no mind or will of their own…

Why would that require the small child to suffer the excruciating pain of an incurable disease?

False! Many children are miraculously cured and prevented from even having the disease if you believe God is a loving Father - which seems extremely unlikely in view of your sarcastic remarks…

Leaving aside yet another of your ad hominems, what about those who are not? Why do they suffer and not the others?

*Once again you are indulging in your favourite trick of selecting one explanation as if it is the **sole ***explanation.

Just following your logic is all.

If you think the suffering in the world is excessive then you have no reason whatsoever for believing in a loving Father.

Who said anything about excessive? I’m trying to get to the bottom of your argument that “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.”

*Do you accept the dictum: Credo quia absurdum?

Your appeal to wonderment doesn’t satisfy many people in our secular society:

“Abandon all reason and be terrified you who enter here!”*

Are you saying that the Bible is absurd when it tells us to fear God? (post #179) or that 1 Cor 1:18-31 is absurd when Paul writes “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.”? Or … ?

I wouldn’t want to be the only one quoting scripture so be all means quoth back to correct me and I’ll spread the word amongst Baptists. Would I be correct in telling them that fearing God, as instructed in Luke, Isaiah, etc. is a poor marketing strategy in our secular society?

 

[grannymh]

This is your problem. If the natural laws stay the same, then it is because the designer wanted them to stay the same. If natural laws change (temporarily) it is because the designer wanted them to change. Whatever happens, it is always the designer.

It is not necessarily always the designer. For example. When a particular law is in place, the subject of that law acts in a particular way. When a particular law is suspended, the subject then can act in some other way. Therefore the change is not in the law which has been suspended; the change occurs in the subject itself.

If the “designer” is an omnipotent God Who suspends a natural law, the change, if it occurs, is still in the subject of that law. The suspended law has not changed. Does omnipotence change? It does not by definition. Logically the creature cannot limit the power of an omnipotent Creator. The Creator Who is considered God is not restricted by His creation.

Now replace “designer” with “Invisible Pink Unicorn”.

If one is going to replace an Omnipotent Creator with an “Invisible Pink Unicorn”, would “Pinky” have to be Omnipotent?

 

[buffalo]

It is not necessarily always the designer. For example. When a particular law is in place, the subject of that law acts in a particular way. When a particular law is suspended, the subject then can act in some other way. Therefore the change is not in the law which has been suspended; the change occurs in the subject itself.

If the “designer” is an omnipotent God Who suspends a natural law, the change, if it occurs, is still in the subject of that law. The suspended law has not changed. Does omnipotence change? It does not by definition. Logically the creature cannot limit the power of an omnipotent Creator. The Creator Who is considered God is not restricted by His creation.

If one is going to replace an Omnipotent Creator with an “Invisible Pink Unicorn”, would “Pinky” have to be Omnipotent?

Does Pinky have a son?

 

[grannymh]

Does Pinky have a son?

I think the son’s name is Floyd.