B
buffalo
Guest
That rules out the multiverse now doesn’t it?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Such as?
G
grannymh
Guest
Right now I am wondering about a lot of things. How about I let you know after I figure out some puzzlements?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Human purpose is distinguished from biological purpose because it transcends the laws of nature. Even higher primates like gorillas and chimpanzees are not considered morally or legally responsible for their behaviour because there is no evidence that they have free will. Animals have the right to be treated humanely and even loved but they are not persons. Neither increased intelligence nor increased complexity is a sufficient explanation of our power of self-control and self-determination - with the capacity for self-sacrifice and unselfish love but also horrific cruelty and fiendish delight in destruction. The greatest evil is not suffering but the deliberate infliction of suffering on innocent creatures.
The bloodstained history of mankind led Arthur Koestler to believe there is a streak of insanity in the human race but he was mistaken. There is nothing more rational and clear-sighted than the minds of those who put themselves before everyone else and are determined to exercise their power over their victims. They are culpable because they know precisely what they are doing and they also know the vast majority of people believe what they are doing is a heinous crime.
Soon after the end of WW2 an English philosopher, Professor C.E.M.Joad, became a Christian because he was convinced diabolical atrocities like the Holocaust cannot have a natural explanation. They are due to the misuse of our power to transcend our environment and control others as well as ourselves. Far from being a disproof of Design moral evil is yet further evidence in its favour. If this were an amoral universe evil would be no more than a convention. An intrinsically purposeful existence is the only rational basis for human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The bloodstained history of mankind led Arthur Koestler to believe there is a streak of insanity in the human race but he was mistaken. There is nothing more rational and clear-sighted than the minds of those who put themselves before everyone else and are determined to exercise their power over their victims. They are culpable because they know precisely what they are doing and they also know the vast majority of people believe what they are doing is a heinous crime.
Soon after the end of WW2 an English philosopher, Professor C.E.M.Joad, became a Christian because he was convinced diabolical atrocities like the Holocaust cannot have a natural explanation. They are due to the misuse of our power to transcend our environment and control others as well as ourselves. Far from being a disproof of Design moral evil is yet further evidence in its favour. If this were an amoral universe evil would be no more than a convention. An intrinsically purposeful existence is the only rational basis for human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
G
grannymh
Guest
Emphasis mine.
The rational basis for human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is – The human person is worthy of profound respect. This is because God designed human nature with the purpose that we could share in His own life through knowledge and love.
B
buffalo
Guest
Pressing Bill Dembski on his conception of ID
…Some systems, such as the protein synthesis apparatus, are not just irreducibly complex, but also indispensable to life.
…Some systems, such as the protein synthesis apparatus, are not just irreducibly complex, but also indispensable to life.
M
Micorhizea
Guest
And that has to do with what? I don’t think I want to know… Of course it doesn’t.
M
Micorhizea
Guest
A penchant for drama, eh? Are you versed in General Semantics? If not, you can’t say that my allegations are unsubstantiated. And if you were, you couldn’t make some of the statements you’ve made. And how does my agreeing with someone who sees through your arguments make either of us prejudiced? It on’y means that to some extent we agree about the accuracy of your hypothesis.
No. Statistically this is the least violent time in all of human history. ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html and edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html for starters. Veritably everything associated with violence has decreased as well.
that is a meaningless question. You are trying to make a pre existing condition you don’t believe to be the case a factor of moment to moment earth experience. I neither live as if I exist by chance or not by chance. Neither chance nor purpose are ultimately factors, as purpose as you appear to be presenting it is an anthropomorphization of something that is rather different than that altogether. We might call it “discovery” and leave it at that. But it can look like purpose if you want it to. But that would be a filter you accept a a limitation.
See answer to 2
Ditto
Basically. you see the idea of design as hinged to purpose. That is what it seems to you to be like, because that is the filter you impose on yourself. And the brain, being absolutely impartial and willing to calculate from any given premise, has given you a lovely and seemingly functional picture of Universe as following your mental structure about design. You will always be convinced that it is so, as you see it, because it conforms to your model. Of course it does: you are looking through your model at something vastly greater, but you can only see your model. It’s beautiful, isn’t it?
When your model falls apart, and it may not for you, given the energy you spend on maintaining it for your own protection, you will feel some angst until you see clearly, or you build another model. It’s not bad, it’s just how we operate. Welcome to the race. When you can step outside your projections you will see clearly. That’s a promise.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Since when is violence the sole or most significant criterion of morality?
Do you live as if there are reasons why you exist?
Unless you specify what that “something” is your objection is worthless.
What precisely is it then?
What else could it be “hinged” to?
BTW I delete all personal remarks which do nothing whatsoever to further the discussion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“want” is the significant word…
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m glad you agree that Design is fundamental…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Design does not imply that everything is equally valuable or purposeful. There is a hierarchy of values and purposes. The laws of nature are obviously a fundamental condition of a rational existence within the universe. They are essential elements of Design without which nothing else would be valuable or purposeful. They provide the framework for life in the existing scheme of persons and things.
The immense complexity of the universe entails many degrees of purposefulness ranging from one extreme to the other. At the other end of the scale from the laws of nature** there are** many events which are purposeless and even destructive of purpose. This is the inevitable result of life in an impersonal, physical system: there cannot be light without darkness or harmony without discords. In a finite existence every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. Purpose is no exception: it has a negative aspect termed “dysteleological”, i.e. opposed to purpose.
This is why physical evil exists within the framework of Design. A perfect universe is a fantasy for which no one has ever produced a feasible blueprint. All arguments against Design are based on the false assumption that purposeless or destructive events cannot and should not occur. They fail to take into account the basic bipolarity of a physical existence. The positive and negative elements of reality are the unavoidable consequences of finitude. In short** it is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing…**
The immense complexity of the universe entails many degrees of purposefulness ranging from one extreme to the other. At the other end of the scale from the laws of nature** there are** many events which are purposeless and even destructive of purpose. This is the inevitable result of life in an impersonal, physical system: there cannot be light without darkness or harmony without discords. In a finite existence every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. Purpose is no exception: it has a negative aspect termed “dysteleological”, i.e. opposed to purpose.
This is why physical evil exists within the framework of Design. A perfect universe is a fantasy for which no one has ever produced a feasible blueprint. All arguments against Design are based on the false assumption that purposeless or destructive events cannot and should not occur. They fail to take into account the basic bipolarity of a physical existence. The positive and negative elements of reality are the unavoidable consequences of finitude. In short** it is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing…**
G
grannymh
Guest
Yes. Design is fundamental even to the point that we can walk from the couch to the fridge because of the design of our anatomy. Does that mean that the purpose of our anatomy is to get a beer?
What I do not agree with is the way design and purpose are being presented in this thread. Somehow, I get the subjective feeling that what is being presented is only part of the story. Perhaps, what I am subjectively seeing is similar to some, not all, contemporary philosophies which have as their base one of the many varieties of materialism.
In other words, we can all start from the fundamental position of design and purpose being obvious. The difficulty is that we travel on different philosophical paths.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Design is not and cannot by its very nature be more than a part of the story. No philosophical or even theological argument can ever do justice to the richness of reality. That is why God has not left us in the dark…Yes. Design is fundamental even to the point that we can walk from the couch to the fridge because of the design of our anatomy. Does that mean that the purpose of our anatomy is to get a beer?
What I do not agree with is the way design and purpose are being presented in this thread. Somehow, I get the subjective feeling that what is being presented is only part of the story. Perhaps, what I am subjectively seeing is similar to some, not all, contemporary philosophies which have as their base one of the many varieties of materialism.
In other words, we can all start from the fundamental position of design and purpose being obvious. The difficulty is that we travel on different philosophical paths.
In our society there are many who deny the fundamental position of design and purpose. Otherwise there would be no point in starting this thread!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Clarification:
All arguments against Design are based on the false assumption that purposeless or destructive events can **not **occur. In other words it is supposed that the universe could exist without any - or with fewer - purposeless or destructive events and achieve better results than it does now.
M
Micorhizea
Guest
I don’t know. who said it was?
From your viewpoint it has to look that way. I see it differently, as I previously stated.
God
See above
M
Micorhizea
Guest
Yes, it is. You “want” to verify in your own mind that design is actually what you make it up to be. So your mind arranges the interpretations of all of your experiences to verify that. Pretty simple, no?
T
tonyrey
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Then why is Design being promoted or defended? The title of this thread is “Powerful evidence for Design?”
Would it be a good idea to take another careful look at Design? And then decide how you want to use Design as part of something you wish to promote.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Powerful evidence for Design is powerful evidence for the existence of God. No philosophical or theological argument can provide a **logical proof **of the existence of God - or the existence of anything else for that matter - not even our minds or bodies…
- Status