Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Do you believe persons are material

Then you have experience of design by persons who have a spiritual and a physical nature.

1. Have we failed entirely?

We have failed up to now. We will succeed at some point in the future.

Why have we failed?

1. Does our spiritual development culminate in non-existence?

No.

                                                   3. Is that the purpose of spiritual development?

No.

What is the purpose of spiritual development?

In other words it may be an epistemological but it is not a metaphysical alternative.

In science, epistemology is often more relevant than metaphysics.

That is an inadequacy with regard to spiritual development.

 

[rossum]

Then you have experience of design by persons who have a spiritual and a physical nature.

I have never observed instances of design by entities of a purely spiritual nature. Human design I have observed.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I have never observed instances of design by entities of a purely spiritual nature. Human design I have observed.

Is the material aspect of our nature responsible for our spiritual development?

What is the purpose of our spiritual development?

 

[rossum]

Is the material aspect of our nature responsible for our spiritual development?

Our nature, both its material and non-material parts, is responsible for out spiritual development.

What is the purpose of our spiritual development?

Whatever purpose we set for ourselves. We are autonomous and act for ourselves. Sometimes we act wisely, at other times not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Our nature, both its material and non-material parts, is responsible for our spiritual development.

Whatever purpose we set for ourselves. We are autonomous and act for ourselves. Sometimes we act wisely, at other times not.

Then you agree we are autonomous, purposeful beings and you believe there is no explanation of our existence as autonomous, purposeful beings but there are reasons why we act wisely or unwisely with regard to our spiritual development?

 

[tonyrey]

Many people believe everything is ultimately due to either Design or Chance. Theists - like John Calvin - believe not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God whereas sceptics - like Schopenhauer - believe there is no reason why anything exists. The truth lies between the two extremes: within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance. In an immensely complex universe negative and destructive events are inevitable. Sooner or later persons and animals are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no reason why natural disasters like earthquakes occur in populated areas. The laws of nature don’t take into account the welfare of living beings.

It is impossible to know the precise extent to which chance events play a part in our lives within the overall pattern of development because they are often beneficial. Some strokes of good fortune like winning the lottery are obvious because no one is responsible but what is thought to be “bad luck” is not necessarily fortuitous. It is sometimes caused by ignorance, carelessness or even malice. Although disease is often due to an unhealthy lifestyle not all victims of cancer are responsible for their illness. Circumstances like exposure to radioactive substances may be the cause. Again there is no reason why some individuals are afflicted and others escape unharmed.

The main feature of chance events is that they are irregular, spasmodic, inconsistent and unreliable. We do not rely on them to make our decisions although we take them into account by considering how likely they are to happen. Bishop Butler said that probability is the very guide of life. In other words, we are not entirely at the mercy of chance because we can use our power of reason to minimise the risk of failure and misfortune. The fact that we can do this is further evidence that existence is fundamentally rational rather than absurd. To derive consciousness, thought and insight from inanimate chemical reactions is the most preposterous metaphysical conjuring trick ever performed and surpassed only by the futile attempt to explain everything from nothing!

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Many people believe everything is ultimately due to either Design or Chance. Theists - like John Calvin - believe not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God whereas sceptics - like Schopenhauer - believe there is no reason why anything exists. The truth lies between the two extremes: within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance. In an immensely complex universe negative and destructive events are inevitable. Sooner or later persons and animals are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is no reason why natural disasters like earthquakes occur in populated areas. The laws of nature don’t take into account the welfare of living beings.

It is impossible to know the precise extent to which chance events play a part in our lives within the overall pattern of development because they are often beneficial. Some strokes of good fortune like winning the lottery are obvious because no one is responsible but what is thought to be “bad luck” is not necessarily fortuitous. It is sometimes caused by ignorance, carelessness or even malice. Although disease is often due to an unhealthy lifestyle not all victims of cancer are responsible for their illness. Circumstances like exposure to radioactive substances may be the cause. Again there is no reason why some individuals are afflicted and others escape unharmed.

The main feature of chance events is that they are irregular, spasmodic, inconsistent and unreliable. We do not rely on them to make our decisions although we take them into account by considering how likely they are to happen. Bishop Butler said that probability is the very guide of life. In other words, we are not entirely at the mercy of chance because we can use our power of reason to minimise the risk of failure and misfortune. The fact that we can do this is further evidence that existence is fundamentally rational rather than absurd. To derive consciousness, thought and insight from inanimate chemical reactions is the most preposterous metaphysical conjuring trick ever performed and surpassed only by the futile attempt to explain everything from nothing!

You DO realise, that you have set yourself up, philosophically for the “god of the gaps” refutation by those statements.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Design is NOT a “theory” in natural science. It is not testable. What is the null hypothesis ? Who are the “natural scientists” that are testing it, and how are they testing it ?

 

[tonyrey]

You DO realise, that you have set yourself up, philosophically for the “god of the gaps” refutation by those statements.

The “god of the gaps” is irrelevant because Design embraces the whole of reality!

Do you believe there is no purpose in existence?

 

[tonyrey]

Design is NOT a “theory” in natural science. It is not testable. What is the null hypothesis ? Who are the “natural scientists” that are testing it, and how are they testing it ?

Design is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical interpretation of reality!

It is also testable. Try living as if you are not a purposeful being!

 

[rossum]

Then you agree we are autonomous, purposeful beings

Yes, with the proviso that we set our own purpose. It is not set externally.

and you believe there is no explanation of our existence as autonomous, purposeful beings

On the contrary, there is a range of explanations. Our material parts are being explained by sciences such as cosmology and biology. Our non-material parts are present due to our own past failures.

but there are reasons why we act wisely or unwisely with regard to our spiritual development?

Indeed. Different people have different knowledge and experience. They act on the basis of their own knowledge and experience. Some act wisely, while others do not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Then you agree we are autonomous, purposeful beings

1. How have we acquired our purpose-setting ability?
2. If it is not set externally what determines whether we succeed or fail?

and you believe there is no explanation of our existence as autonomous, purposeful beings

On the contrary, there is a range of explanations. Our material parts are being explained by sciences such as cosmology and biology. Our non-material parts are present due to our own past failures.

1. What is the cause of our past failures?
2. Did our spiritual nature exist before we failed?
3. Did our material nature precede our spiritual nature?

but there are reasons why we act wisely or unwisely with regard to our spiritual development?
Indeed. Different people have different knowledge and experience. They act on the basis of their own knowledge and experience. Some act wisely, while others do not.

1. What determines whether we act wisely?

 

[rossum]

1. How have we acquired our purpose-setting ability?

Not an interesting question. We have such an ability. The important question is how we use it.

1. If it is not set externally what determines whether we succeed or fail?

Reality is externally determined. How well we succeed is determined by how congruent our purposes are to reality. “I will earn a billion dollars next week,” is not a realistic purpose for most of us.

1. What is the cause of our past failures?

Our failure to act in consonance with reality.

1. Did our spiritual nature exist before we failed?

1. Did our material nature precede our spiritual nature?

Both our spiritual and material natures are evanescent and constantly changing. Neither lasts for more than an instant, so your questions are not applicable. Their existence is only momentary.

1. What determines whether we act wisely?

We do. We determine our own actions. Some of our actions are wise, others are not.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. How have we acquired our purpose-setting ability?

It may not be interesting to you but it is unscientific and unphilosophical to ignore fundamental questions.

2. If it is not set externally what determines whether we succeed or fail?

Reality is externally determined. How well we succeed is determined by how congruent our purposes are to reality. “I will earn a billion dollars next week,” is not a realistic purpose for most of us.

The belief that success depends on how congruent our purposes are to reality is evidence of Design!

3. What is the cause of our past failures?

Our failure to act in consonance with reality.

Are we responsible for our failure?

4. Did our spiritual nature exist before we failed?

1. Did our material nature precede our spiritual nature?

Both our spiritual and material natures are evanescent and constantly changing. Neither lasts for more than an instant, so your questions are not applicable. Their existence is only momentary.

Then we cannot be responsible for what we have done in the past - an excuse that would be rejected in any court of law.

6. What determines whether we act wisely?

We do. We determine our own actions. Some of our actions are wise, others are not.

So we have the power of self-determination which cannot be explained scientifically.

On that point we are in agreement.

 

[rossum]

It may not be interesting to you but it is unscientific and unphilosophical to ignore fundamental questions.

Such as “What is the origin of God?” I only have limited time so I have to prioritise what I spend my time on. If you wish to pursue the answer on your own, then by all means do so.

The belief that success depends on how congruent our purposes are to reality is evidence of Design!

Of our own designs and plans, yes. It says nothing about whether or not reality was designed.

Are we responsible for our failure?

Yes.

Then we cannot be responsible for what we have done in the past - an excuse that would be rejected in any court of law.

We are not a single self. We are a series of causally connected evanescent ‘selves’. That causally connected series is responsible for its past actions. The causal connection carries forward the effects of past actions.

So we have the power of self-determination which cannot be explained scientifically.

That does not follow from what I said: “We determine our own actions. Some of our actions are wise, others are not.” That says nothing about what can currently be explained scientifically, or what might be explained scientifically in future.

On that point we are in agreement.

Good.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Such as “What is the origin of God?” I only have limited time so I have to prioritise what I spend my time on. If you wish to pursue the answer on your own, then by all means do so.

 

[tonyrey]

A purposeless universe is not an adequate explanation of the power of self-determination because selves do not exist within the scientific scheme of things.

Mea maxima culpa!

 

[rossum]

The origin of the purpose-setting ability of millions of persons is in a different category from the nature of the Supreme Being.

I place both questions in the same category. You obviously do not.

Then our designs exist in a void.

Our designs exist in external reality. If you wish to consider reality as a void, then that is your privilege. If the via negativa works for you then follow it.

If we are responsible for our failure we must have existed prior to our failure.

For correct values of “we”.

Responsibility is not attributed to the **effects **of past actions but to our decisions.

My apologies for not being clearer. Only conscious actions are considered. Unconscious actions are not.

If our own actions are explained scientifically we are not responsible for them because they have physical causes.

I have already said that human beings have both material and non-material components.

A purposeless universe is not a adequate explanation of the power of self-determination because selves do not exist within the scientific scheme of things.

I am talking about a religious scheme of things. In any case, the universe observably contains purpose so to talk of a “purposeless universe” is nonsense. Any human being can have one or more purposes, and the existence of those purposes show that purpose does exist in the universe.

I do reject a reified “Purpose”, but by now you should know that I reject all reified concepts.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I place both questions in the same category. You obviously do not.

 

[rossum]

According to you “reality” is a reification!

Not precisely. There is an external reality, independent of ourselves. However, we can never know that reality, because all we have to work with are our senses. Through the imperfect medium of our senses we build up an imperfect model of reality inside our heads. The error of reification is to mistake that imperfect model inside our heads for the actual external reality. Our internal models contain all sorts of incorrect and extraneous stuff. We need to be constantly aware that we are working with an inaccurate internal model, not with the actual external reality.

Our designs exist but you seem to believe they have no physical or spiritual cause.

How did you get that from what I said? Humans are both physical and spiritual. Humans generate designs, hence our designs have both material and spiritual causes because we ourselves are both material and spiritual.

You mean that “we” are not one and the same persons from moment to moment. Your view resembles Hume’s “bundles of perceptions” which have no lasting identity or continuity apart from being consecutive - which is not sufficient to justify responsibility.

The resemblance to Hume is correct, however the connection is not just “consecutive”, it is also causal. The series of instantaneous persons is causally connected, the preceding instant is part of the causes of the succeeding instant. That is why the different series remain separate. The earlier me is causally connected to the current me, but not causally connected to the current you. Hence the two sequences remain separate.

They are still conscious actions that occurred in the past to a different person.

Do you deny the possibility that persons can change? If there is change then there must be difference.

So our existence cannot be explained scientifically - unless the spiritual is derived from the physical. Do you believe that?

The material part of our existence can be explained scientifically. Some of the methods of science can usefully be applied to the spiritual part as well, as advised by the Buddha in the Kalama sutta.

A purposeless universe is hardly nonsense because the universe either exists for a purpose or it doesn’t.

Or both or neither. The universe is a conglomerate of many different parts. Parts may be purposeful while other parts may be purposeless. Is the universe hot? Parts are hot, parts are cold and parts have no atoms present so temperature is undefined.

Including persons, minds, spirits and truths?

I reject reified persons, reified minds, reified spirits and reified truths. Reification is at heart the error of mistaking our internal mental model of something for the actual thing. One of the techniques of Buddhist meditation is to see just the bare object, without all the added mental overlays that go into our internal models.

rossum