Powerful evidence for Design?

[inocente]

Forgive me; I was sidetracked by our Buddhist friend who unwittingly succeeded in making me forget your posts! I shall answer them tomorrow without fail as I’m now coming to the end of a busy day, the last hour of which involved speaking Spanish…

Then I look forward to your pearls.

 

[tonyrey]

According to some Christians on this forum the laws of nature are perfect and therefore must cater for our every need and therefore cannot cause pointless suffering. I take it that you reject that view.

I entirely agree. You have established beyond all doubt that the laws of nature are irrefutable evidence of Design.…

The main point is that you accept the pointlessness of much suffering - which must therefore be due to natural causes

as well as human decisions.Of course.

Even though the laws of nature work perfectly…

It is not my theory. It is an explanation given by St Irenaeus.

I’ve not read his work, so don’t know how good the modern interpretation is in the link you posted. But you are incorporating that interpretation into your theory.

It is not my theory but in any case that is irrelevant to whether it corresponds to reality.

Would it defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe if miraculous cures occurred whenever some one is suffering from an incurable disease? If not why not?

I don’t see how we’d know. Perhaps pimples on noses would have been incurable except that God made sure Propionibacterium acnes could never become that potent.

Our ignorance does not imply that all incurable diseases could be eliminated in a world where there are natural laws which do not cater for our every need .

In your own words “the laws of nature are independent of us and are not contingent on us”.

That’s the bare science, yes. So Design offers no metaphysics beyond the bare science for why some suffer and others don’t?

It offers the reason why it is impossible for everyone to suffer to the same extent even in the context of Design.

In the context of a loving Father concerned for our salvation…

That doesn’t sound much like fear.

Fear in its proper perspective.

Take your example of a small child suffering the excruciating pain of an incurable disease. You are a priest standing with her parents helplessly looking at the child in her cot. The mother asks why God is doing this (or why God is permitting this). What answer can you give? God is giving the child a character-building opportunity? God is judging her? God has no power? Every reason I can think of sounds like a lame excuse in that situation. I think a lot of the lame excuses over the ages were dreamed up in ivory towers by people who never had to deal with reality.

God permits suffering of a small child because to prevent it in every case would make it impossible for us to be free to choose what to believe and how to live. The implication that children could somehow be made incapable of experiencing pain until they reach a certain age is absurd. You have stated:

1. The universe never needs to be rebooted, the laws of nature work perfectly under all contingencies, complete and correct in every way, free from fault or defect, an exemplification of supreme excellence.
2. It isn’t a measure of perfection that something caters to our every whim.
3. You accept the pointlessness of much suffering - which must therefore be due to natural causes as well as human decisions.

In addition:

1. Pain is a necessary defence mechanism for protection and survival.
2. The laws of nature cannot distinguish necessary from unnecessary pain.
3. Pain is therefore sometimes purposeless but inevitable.
4. Extreme pain leads to a lapse into unconsciousness and even death.
5. Pain leads to the production of natural anaesthetics in the brain.
6. There are many drugs to control and eliminate pain.
7. **We cannot know to what extent God intervenes to minimise pain.
   **
8. **Only hedonists - and pessimists like Schopenhauer - believe pain outweighs the value of all life.
   **

 

[tonyrey]

There is no point in participating in discussions on a Philosophy forum if you believe there is “no point in theories (20-21) and no point trying to find God in miracles, evidence for design, etc.” Its purpose is not to preach but to give* reasons***

In his epistles Saint Paul was preaching to the converted but Jesus gave many reasons to His opponents for believing in the truth of His teaching…

 

[tonyrey]

No, for the reasons given earlier. In order for Godel’s theorem to apply to your collections of atomic particles giving a complete explanation of themselves, you would need to define all the axioms for { collections of atomic particles }, which would take you forever, and show you had done a good job on the axioms, before you could prove that { collections of atomic particles } is incomplete.

But if your intent is to prove that a complete explanation is only possible with God, you would then need to define all the axioms for { God, collections of atomic particles }, which might take longer than forever, and show you had done a good job on the axioms, and then pull a rabbit out of the hat by proving that Godel’s theorem doesn’t apply to { God, collections of atomic particles }.

So no.

Inability to define all the axioms for collections of atomic particles does not prevent us from reaching well-established scientific conclusions about them. Obviously an existential proposition cannot attain the certainty of a logical proposition but there is not one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something is self-explanatory. Therefore Godel’s theorem is a valid heuristic principle…

 

[tonyrey]

This is not science but philosophy

Do you state every assumption you make every time you have a discussion? The fact that the assumption has been subsequently clarified has invalidated your objection to my argument.

You are showing a lack of knowledge of the Design explanation which takes into account two factors you have ignored: the exquisite organization of their molecular structure and information system contained in complexity.

I have taken both of those into account. Simple material explanations are perfectly capable of explaining “exquisite organisation”, such as snowflakes or crystals. Such organisation is an emergent property of the underlying chemistry or physics of the molecules involved. ID has attempted to show that certain living structures could not have evolved. So far, ID has been uniformly unsuccessful. Behe’s IC has been shown to be evolveable, which even Behe now accepts. Dembski’s CSI has also been shown to be evolveable, and indeed can trivially be shown to be capable of being generated by a regular process, in contrast to Dembski’s assertion to the contrary.

How do you explain the information system as the product of **uninformed **sources?

You are also forgetting that complexity is being discussed in the context of purpose as well as complexity.

You are insisting on purpose, I am not. Purpose is not intrinsic to something.

Purpose is intrinsic to all forms of life. Physical life presupposes physical objects which are therefore indispensable for its activity.

What is the “purpose” of a rock? The purpose is assigned to the rock be an external intelligence. Different intelligences may assign different purposes. A single rock may have many different purposes, assigned by different intelligences. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the purpose only be assigned by the designer. I have never in my life designed a screwdriver, yet I own some screwdrivers and use them for various purposes – very useful for levering the tops off cans of paint for example.

The very fact that things are used by you **for various purposes **demonstrates that those things are necessary for you to lead a purposeful existence in this world. Without them you would have nothing to use nor would you have a body with which you to use them. Why do you think the world exists? Does it serve no purpose in the Buddhist scheme of things?

It does not make sense to reject Design unless you can offer a reasonable alternative.

I have a reasonable alternatives, both in science and in the non-scientific area. For the material world, the apparent design is an artefact of the way our brains are wired and the emergent properties of STEM.

The belief that there are two disconnected worlds - one purposeful and the other purposeless - is literally incoherent. How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

For the non-material world, Buddhism rejects the question of origins as not useful and concentrates on what is useful.

The truth is not confined to what is useful! It is both unscientific and illogical to evade the origin of one world and not the other.

At present your view seems to be that all the purposeful activity is derived from purposeless events. Is that correct?

No. Purposeful activity is derived from purposeful activity. Buddhists call it karma. Only purposeful activity generates karma. It is up to us to ensure that our purposes are wise, and not foolish.

“Purposeful activity is derived from purposeful activity” is precisely what we understand by Design, the difference being that a fundamentally rational activity is more adequately and economically explained by one rational Entity rather than a great multitude of isolated entities. (Occam’s Razor.)

 

[rossum]

How do you explain the information system as the product of **uninformed **sources?

It is an emergent property. Hydrogen at normal temperatures is not wet. Oxygen at normal temperatures is not wet. However, the combination of hydrogen and oxygen makes water, which is wet at normal temperatures. Wetness is not present in either component, yet is present in their combination. It is an emergent property.

Evolutionary processes copy information from the environment into DNA. Copying can be a purely mechanical process.

Purpose is intrinsic to all forms of life. Physical life presupposes physical objects which are therefore indispensable for its activity.

Angels cannot have a purpose? God cannot have a purpose? Last time I looked, neither angels nt God were material.

Without them you would have nothing to use nor would you have a body with which you to use them.

Non-material beings can have purpose. I can be reincarnated as a non-material being.

The belief that there are two disconnected worlds - one purposeful and the other purposeless - is literally incoherent. How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

Agreed. There are not two disconnected worlds. There is one world, part of which is material and part of which is not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

How do you explain the information system as the product of uninformed sources?

Your hackneyed analogy breaks down because wetness is a physical characteristic whereas information systems necessitate personal powers like insight and intelligence when they are associated with persons.

Evolutionary processes copy information from the environment into DNA. Copying can be a purely mechanical process.

Copying can be a purely mechanical process but when it serves as a basis for the development of conscious, purposeful, autonomous rational beings it is not adequately explained as a purposeless, irrational process devoid of consciousness and autonomy.

As Hume remarked in another context, the cause is not proportioned to the effect. In other words materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. It amounts to extracting persons from dust…

Purpose is intrinsic to all forms of life. Physical life presupposes physical objects which are therefore indispensable for its activity.

Angels cannot have a purpose? God cannot have a purpose? Last time I looked, neither angels nt God were material.

That is beside the point. Neither God nor angels are physical objects to which you ascribe no purpose even though living organisms are physical objects.

Without them you would have nothing to use nor would you have a body with which you to use them.

Non-material beings can have purpose. I can be reincarnated as a non-material being.

But you are a material being as well as a non-material being.

The belief that there are two disconnected worlds - one purposeful and the other purposeless - is literally incoherent. How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

Agreed. There are not two disconnected worlds. There is one world, part of which is material and part of which is not.

How are they related if one is purposeful and the other purposeless? How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

The very fact that things are used by you for various purposes demonstrates that those things are necessary for you to lead a purposeful existence in this world. Without them you would have nothing to use nor would you have a body with which you to use them. Why do you think the world exists? Does it serve no purpose in the Buddhist scheme of things?

For the non-material world, Buddhism rejects the question of origins as not useful and concentrates on what is useful.

The truth is not confined to what is useful! It is both unscientific and illogical to evade the origin of one world and not the other.

No response!

“Purposeful activity is derived from purposeful activity” is precisely what we understand by Design, the difference being that a fundamentally rational activity is more adequately and economically explained by one rational Entity rather than a great multitude of isolated entities. (Occam’s Razor.)

No response!

 

[rossum]

Your hackneyed analogy breaks down because wetness is a physical characteristic whereas information systems necessitate personal powers like insight and intelligence when they are associated with persons.

Just look at what you wrote: “necessitate personal powers … when they are associated with persons”. Yes. Information systems necessitate elephantine powers when they are associated with elephants. You are not saying anything of any real significance here.

Copying can be a purely mechanical process but when it serves as a basis for the development of conscious, purposeful, autonomous rational beings it is not adequately explained as a purposeless, irrational process devoid of consciousness and autonomy.

Nearly all of my DNA is copied from one or other of my parents’ DNA. Without their DNA I would not even exist as I am now. That DNA copying is a chemical process with no inbuilt purpose or consciousness.

That is beside the point. Neither God nor angels are physical objects to which you ascribe no purpose even though living organisms are physical objects.

I do not ascribe “no purpose” to material objects. I ascribe “no intrinsic purpose” to material objects, since different purposes can be ascribed to the same material object at different times. I can use a screwdriver to drive screws or to open a tin of paint. The purpose of the screwdriver changes, depending on what I want to do at the time. There is only a temporary purpose, that I ascribe to the screwdriver. There is no intrinsic purpose built into the screwdriver.

But you are a material being as well as a non-material being.

Currently, yes.

How are they related if one is purposeful and the other purposeless? How do we fit into two disparate realms of existence?

Purpose is not an intrinsic property. I can change my purpose through my life. It is not fixed and unchangeable. You seem to be reifying “purpose” here, which is leading you into error. Reification is a common error in philosophy.

Why do you think the world exists? Does it serve no purpose in the Buddhist scheme of things?

There is no intrinsic purpose to the world. Living beings in the world may ascribe their own purpose to all or part of the world, but there is no single purpose built into the world.

A Hindu will see the world as Brahman’s way of achieving unity with itself. A Christian will see the world differently. You are reifying purpose and that is leading you into error.

rossum

 

[inocente]

I entirely agree. You have established beyond all doubt that the laws of nature are irrefutable evidence of Design.…

So you changed your mind about whether the laws of nature are perfect.

I’ve learned on this thread that anything and everything will, sooner or later, be claimed as irrefutable evidence of Design™, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

It is not my theory but in any case that is irrelevant to whether it corresponds to reality.

As you were the one who introduced his ideas to the thread, either you once thought they support Design™ but the wind changed, or you posted them for no good reason.

Our ignorance does not imply that all incurable diseases could be eliminated in a world where there are natural laws which do not cater for our every need .

Science eradicated smallpox worldwide. Has Design™ eradicated any diseases?

It offers the reason why it is impossible for everyone to suffer to the same extent even in the context of Design.

Didn’t understand, to the same extent as what?

God permits suffering of a small child because to prevent it in every case would make it impossible for us to be free to choose what to believe and how to live.

Walk into your local children’s hospital and tell that to the parents of children who are dying in pain.

Belief in that god seems pointless, no different than playing a lottery, better to put faith in science as science doesn’t do excuses. If I get your drift, this god won’t make the pain go away by miraculously curing the disease in every case because that would rob us of freely deciding whether or not to believe. But then sometimes the wind changes and this god does miraculously cure someone, robbing us of freely deciding whether or not to believe. :whacky:

The implication that children could somehow be made incapable of experiencing pain until they reach a certain age is absurd.

Really? The answer you would give the parents is that God’s hands are tied, since it would be absurd to make children incapable of experiencing pain?

Would that be before or after the nurse administers pain killers to the child?

9. There are many drugs to control and eliminate pain.

None of the points were evidence for Design™, and that one is evidence against Design™ since the drugs were discovered by scientists, not by Design™ fans.

PS: I added the ™ symbol for anyone who joined the thread after you said Design can’t be found in any Catholic documents.

 

[inocente]

In his epistles Saint Paul was preaching to the converted but Jesus gave many reasons to His opponents for believing in the truth of His teaching…

I think Paul is still speaking to the converted, don’t you?

Did any of the reasons Jesus gave include Design™, or anything like it?

 

[inocente]

Inability to define all the axioms for collections of atomic particles does not prevent us from reaching well-established scientific conclusions about them. Obviously an existential proposition cannot attain the certainty of a logical proposition but there is not one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something is self-explanatory. Therefore Godel’s theorem is a valid heuristic principle…

I’ve explained why that just sounds ignorant and stupid to those who understand Godel’s theorem, and even provided a link. Horses and water, bro, horses and water.

Much of philosophy is about explaining ourselves, as are major branches of science. All those people obviously ignored your memo. Outside of abusing math theorems, is there one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something can’t be self-explanatory?

(I hope that question is self-explanatory.)

 

[grannymh]

Nearly all of my DNA is copied from one or other of my parents’ DNA. Without their DNA I would not even exist as I am now. That DNA copying is a chemical process with no inbuilt purpose or consciousness.

Exactly. Because DNA is part of the material anatomy. The spiritual or rational soul is not copied from anything because it is individually created by God. It is the whole human person, body and soul, who has a purpose or goal which is the eternal attainment of the Beatific Vision.

Please stay the being you are. It would be a tad difficult to PM a non-material being.

 

[grannymh]

Walk into your local children’s hospital and tell that to the parents of children who are dying in pain.

As a former Hospice volunteer, I can assure you that dying in pain is extremely rare or non-existent in a hospital setting. At least in the U.S., doctors can administer pain-killing drugs regardless. Usually a decision is made by the patient or parent as to when, how, and if a person should be sedated. This is not the same as euthanasia which directly kills a person. What is being given a terminal patient is called palliative care for as long as the person lives. Depending on the patient, palliative care can be changed to suit the patient’s needs. Compassionate palliative care can be continued in a home setting.

 

[inocente]

As a former Hospice volunteer, I can assure you that dying in pain is extremely rare or non-existent in a hospital setting. At least in the U.S., doctors can administer pain-killing drugs regardless. Usually a decision is made by the patient or parent as to when, how, and if a person should be sedated. This is not the same as euthanasia which directly kills a person. What is being given a terminal patient is called palliative care for as long as the person lives. Depending on the patient, palliative care can be changed to suit the patient’s needs. Compassionate palliative care can be continued in a home setting.

It’s a good job that medicos and volunteers like you are at hand. A significantly higher proportion of people used to die in pain from what were then incurable diseases, and it was doctors and scientists striving to develop treatments which drove the numbers down, never a belief in an interventionist God.

Rather than inventing excuses about why God intervenes rarely if ever, for any Christian it would seem much more useful, and closer to the truth, to have faith that God works through you guys.

 

[grannymh]

It’s a good job that medicos and volunteers like you are at hand. A significantly higher proportion of people used to die in pain from what were then incurable diseases, and it was doctors and scientists striving to develop treatments which drove the numbers down, never a belief in an interventionist God.

Rather than inventing excuses about why God intervenes rarely if ever, for any Christian it would seem much more useful, and closer to the truth, to have faith that God works through you guys.

I pray for the doctors and nurses, etc., ahead of praying for the patient. I am confident that God is with us at all times. When I am at His pay grade, I will ask Him what’s He thinking!

 

[tonyrey]

inocente

A fine response to an assertion which implies that God permits suffering unnecessarily.

 

[tonyrey]

I pray for the doctors and nurses, etc., ahead of praying for the patient. I am confident that God is with us at all times. When I am at His pay grade, I will ask Him what’s He thinking!

I’m sure He is doing far more to prevent and mitigate suffering than the sceptics who regard miracles as extremely rare would have us believe…

 

[tonyrey]

Exactly. Because DNA is part of the material anatomy. The spiritual or rational soul is not copied from anything because it is individually created by God. It is the whole human person, body and soul, who has a purpose or goal which is the eternal attainment of the Beatific Vision.

Please stay the being you are. It would be a tad difficult to PM a non-material being.

You are forgetting that the body is a useless encumbrance!

 

[tonyrey]

The universe never needs to be rebooted, the laws of nature work perfectly under all contingencies, complete and correct in every way, free from fault or defect, an exemplification of supreme excellence. Not just that, they produce all the rich complexity from great simplicity. They are perfectly created by a perfect Creator, it doesn’t matter whether we happen to like them or not, we’re not God. I entirely agree. You have established beyond all doubt that the laws of nature are irrefutable evidence of Design…

So you changed your mind about whether the laws of nature are perfect.Not at all. Within their limitations the laws of nature work perfectly under all contingencies . They do the job they are intended to do, neither more nor less. At the outset I pointed out that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency - in the sense that they do not (and cannot) take into account the suffering they cause.

Science eradicated smallpox worldwide.

So what?

It offers the reason why it is impossible for everyone to suffer to the same extent even in the context of Design.

Didn’t understand, to the same extent as what?As one another.

God permits suffering of a small child because to prevent it in every case would make it impossible for us to be free to choose what to believe and how to live.

Walk into your local children’s hospital and tell that to the parents of children who are dying in pain.

1. Pain is an emotive subject which is difficult - and probably impossible when we or some one we know is in extreme pain - to discuss objectively.
2. Pain is a necessary defence mechanism for protection and survival.
3. The laws of nature cannot distinguish necessary from unnecessary pain.
4. Pain is therefore sometimes purposeless but inevitable.
5. One cannot know how much pain another living being experiences because it is subjective.
6. One cannot know to what extent the laws of nature are suspended to minimise pain.
7. Only hedonists - and pessimists like Schopenhauer - believe pain outweighs the value of life.

Belief in that god seems pointless, no different than playing a lottery, better to put faith in science as science doesn’t do excuses.

Your sarcasm overlooks the fact that a constant spate of miracles would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly system. Sceptical as he was, even David Hume accepted the inevitability of physical evil.

The implication that children could somehow be made incapable of experiencing pain until they reach a certain age is absurd.

Really? The answer you would give the parents is that God’s hands are tied, since it would be absurd to make children incapable of experiencing pain?They would certainly reject your answer that God permits pain **for no good reason **and **never does anything to prevent or mitigate the suffering in the world **- unless they too are sceptical about divine Providence…

NB I am deleting most of your sarcastic remarks about divine Providence which are out of place in an supposedly objective philosophical discussion on a Catholic forum.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve explained why that just sounds ignorant and stupid to those who understand Godel’s theorem, and even provided a link. Horses and water, bro, horses and water.

Much of philosophy is about explaining ourselves, as are major branches of science. All those people obviously ignored your memo. Outside of abusing math theorems, is there one jot of philosophical or scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that something can’t be self-explanatory?

(I hope that question is self-explanatory.)

Give just one example of something which is self-explanatory - and is a** complete **explanation of itself.