Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

“direction” is the keyword! Choosing a direction implies having a reason

I specified “direction” because otherwise there is no reason or motivation for a choice.
Not all motivations lack reasons unless one is a materialist!

 

[tonyrey]

The only “thing” that is non-intuitive is the fact that we are aware of our thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions.

I agree. It is the basis of all our knowledge.

 

[reggieM]

A superb analysis, Reggie.

Thanks, Tony.

 

[reggieM]

Design is not an anthropomorphic but a** ratiocentric** explanation of reality which corresponds to the fact that reason is the sole means by which the persons on this planet or anywhere else can reach provisional and analogical interpretations of existence.

Great point – and a very helpful term that I haven’t seen before.

 

[reggieM]

Depends. You can know some of the truth, AFTER you have some evidence for thinking it’s true.

That’s right. We have some evidence and we draw a conclusion that something is true and another is false.

If the universe is non-intuitive, then you have to do the investigation, before you can accept something. It’s only a “solid foundation” if it’s a solid foundation. What that is, is a human judgement, which you have criteria for. The question is, “are they sound ?”

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making about whether something is sound or not. We trust that we can discover the truth about things. From that point, we can learn about God. This takes us on a path to higher truths that come from grace.

But we could never make that journey of knowledge without accepting that truth, reason and logic are established on solid foundations in reality.

 

[reggieM]

We do know how that specific example of order likely arose …

There is no scientific evidence that gives a plausible explanation for a material origin of the DNA code.

b. Even if the (essentially “god of the gaps” … because you, right now can’t see it) argument is accepted, it does not lead us to OUR God.

We do know how complex, specified, functional information can be produced – and it is always the result of intelligence.
Since there is no known natural cause of such information, then intelligence is the only reasonable source.

To deny this is to deny that intelligence can create specified functional information.

Someone said, that this discussion, (among Catholics), is in essence, somehow qualitatively different from one between those with no faith. If that is really true, then why are we doing this ? If the position of faith is assumed, before the discussion iis had, then we’re wasting our time. So can a person of faith even, with any intelectual honesty, have this discussion, if the outcome is not really already determined ?

That’s a good question and I’m not sure how to answer.
I enjoy the Design Argument for what we could call the “preamble to the articles of the Faith”. It’s really just looking at the foundation of what we believe.

We believe in God for a reason. But that’s just the starting point. After that, we build on our knowledge and experience of God. So I agree with you – this is really not a topic that Catholics should debate about much, since accepting the Design Argument is necessary to the Catholic Faith. As I said before, it’s part of the infallible teaching of the Church. But I’m not talking about ID here, but the Design Argument in general (that we can know the existence of God through knowledge of what He has made).

Thanks again for all your help. I’m going on retreat, (at the monastery), and won’t be back for a while.

Many thanks and God bless! I’ve enjoyed your insights and I hope you have a great retreat.

 

[reggieM]

Then, while we know of no “random source that can produce that kind of order, that does not mean either that there isn’t one, or that the exceptionally presumptive statement " So, intelligent design is really the only reasonable origin of that kind of order” has even any validity.

It’s not presumptive because we do know that intelligence can and does produce similar functional/operational code. So it would seem unscientific to eliminate the possibility that that sophisticated, multi-functional code was not designed by intelligence – since we know that intelligence can produce it, and thus far is the only known source of it.

Certainly, one can look for other causes via natural laws and chance, but until something is discovered, intelligence remains the only reasonable solution.

That statement is a superimposed anthropomorphism of the highest-or lowest-order.

Since we already can observe different non-human kinds of intelligence, then it’s not an anthropomorphism to propose that an intelligence or mind had a formative impact on nature.

I don’t know if you believe that God exists, or what you believe about the nature of God – but in the Catholic view, we believe that God created all things through His intelligence. He created all things – visible and invisible.

 

[tonyrey]

Design is not an anthropomorphic but a* ratiocentric***

I’ve probably seen it somewhere but it must be in the remote past. I’ve very fond of it but I don’t claim to be original. I also use the words “subnatural” - and “substitious” - as a retort to “supernatural” and “superstitious” which are bandied about as derogative terms by materialists. They may be neologisms but point to the absurdity of explaining reality in terms of its lowest aspects. Nature without life or purpose is not natural at all!

Materialism is a subversive subterfuge which subtracts reason from reality, makes everything subnormal and turns life into a subsidiary subway instead of a superb superhighway that supercedes all substitutes for the supernatural realm of God.

 

[Gaber]

It’s not presumptive because we do know that intelligence can and does produce similar functional/operational code. So it would seem unscientific to eliminate the possibility that that sophisticated, multi-functional code was not designed by intelligence – since we know that intelligence can produce it, and thus far is the only known source of it.

So you take “similarity” as cause, and claim it is unscientific to include other possibilities or to suspend making a conclusion because to be actually rational about this is unscientific.

Certainly, one can look for other causes via natural laws and chance, but until something is discovered, intelligence remains the only reasonable solution.

No, it just means that you are uncomfortable wit admiting ignorance so you leap to a conclusion and rationalise it an cvall it “reason.”

Since we already can observe different non-human kinds of intelligence, then it’s not an anthropomorphism to propose that an intelligence or mind had a formative impact on nature.

That may be, but even if it is so, there is no way of ascertaining even by correct reasoning, of which there seems a dearth here, that that mind actually designed anything in the sense of planning as we understand it, and therefore, again, yet, and still as always in these “proofs,” a-n-t-h-r-o-p-o-m-o-r-p-h-i-z-a-t-i-o-n.

I don’t know if you believe that God exists, or what you believe about the nature of God – but in the Catholic view, we believe that God created all things through His intelligence. He created all things – visible and invisible.

I have no doubt about God. And since you confess belief, you confess lack of knowledge other thatn the self verifying variety within your own paradigm. That paradigm exoists as part of an infinitly greater Reality which it only shadows the meaning of, if you will only exhaust your mind an allow it to step aside for a second, you will clearly see. So while Catholicism may be about God, as is any religion n excercise in imagination, God is not about any religion that makes shadows about Deity with its formulae appropriate to the level of comrehension of such systems of mortal thought. And yet even behind that is the Allnes of Divinity. So penetrate your religion and discover a way beyond the necessity to make such feeble structures as “design theory,” or concentrate heavily on the fraction that lets you say “until something is discovered” and discover what that brilliant tool you are using to argue with’s actual place in the scheme of things is.

 

[reggieM]

I have no doubt about God.

I think the challenge for you, especially in this philosophical forum, is to communicate what you mean by that to others somehow – in a way that is understandable and convincing.

As it stands, you’ve made an assertion – that you “have no doubt”. But that says nothing about how you arrived at that conviction and how others can evaluate your thoughts and conclusions.

… if you will only exhaust your mind an allow it to step aside for a second, you will clearly see.

At least this is a good suggestion and a prediction. If I exhaust my mind, I will clearly see. But how do I know that **you **see? On what basis should I follow what you suggest? Right now I just have your assertions. But what kind of support can you give to these views? Again, I think your challenge is to try to give your reasons for things so that others can be convinced by them.

So while Catholicism may be about God, as is any religion n excercise in imagination, God is not about any religion that makes shadows about Deity with its formulae appropriate to the level of comrehension of such systems of mortal thought.

As above, this is an interesting assertion but I would ask you to try to prove the truth of this somehow – because otherwise, why should I believe what you are saying? You could be deceived or just completely wrong. How would I know?

So penetrate your religion and discover a way beyond the necessity to make such feeble structures as “design theory,”

If you have discovered a way to demonstrate the existence of God and explain His workings which is better than the design argument, please offer that explanation and demonstration.

discover what that brilliant tool you are using to argue with’s actual place in the scheme of things is.

Here I fully agree that God gave us a brilliant tool that we can use to learn about Him and about ourselves. But we should also use that tool to share what we have learned and convince others about the truth of God’s love. Agreed?

 

[reggieM]

Materialism is a subversive subterfuge which subtracts reason from reality, makes everything subnormal and turns life into a subsidiary subway instead of a superb superhighway that supercedes all substitutes for the supernatural realm of God.

I’m in the mood for a submarine sandwich now.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m in the mood for a submarine sandwich now.

I hope you’re not subducted when you’re submerged because your insuperable skill in your superlative submissions demonstrate that you’re a superman :knight1: far superior to supercilious individuals :whacky: who launch superficial arguments against the Supreme Supernatural Being!

 

[reggieM]

I hope you’re not subducted when you’re submerged because your insuperable skill in your superlative submissions demonstrate that you’re a superman :knight1: far superior to supercilious individuals :whacky: who launch superficial arguments against the Supreme Supernatural Being!

Your thoughts on the subject of Design are sublime. :clapping: And those supercilious individuals who disagree are super-silly-ous.

… is the use of common word forms done by design or by accident?

 

[tonyrey]

Your thoughts on the subject of Design are sublime. :clapping: And those supercilious individuals who disagree are super-silly-ous.

… is the use of common word forms done by design or by accident?

Apparently there is no such thing as design! It has been thoroughly “spanked” out of existence - by some nebulous means, probably privileged insight…

 

[Gaber]

I think the challenge for you, especially in this philosophical forum, is to communicate what you mean by that to others somehow – in a way that is understandable and convincing.

As it stands, you’ve made an assertion – that you “have no doubt”. But that says nothing about how you arrived at that conviction and how others can evaluate your thoughts and conclusions.

Thanks, ReggieM. Actually I,ve done that on many occasions. What seems to hapen, though, is that what is required from those who have not gone past their intellect to its source are inclined to want the insufficiencies of logic and reason as a “proof,” thought tha is as impossible as a logical “proof” of God. What I have offered is a systematic way of discovering the truth of my stand by expereince. So far no takers, only agreement from others who have had that happy experience of shutting off their discursive mind for even a second and understanding correctly beyond the paradigm of limits what that experience means and impies. Ask Tonyrey. He seems to be my most frequent refuser.

At least this is a good suggestion and a prediction. If I exhaust my mind, I will clearly see. But how do I know that **you **see? On what basis should I follow what you suggest? Right now I just have your assertions. But what kind of support can you give to these views? Again, I think your challenge is to try to give your reasons for things so that others can be convinced by them.

I made the suggestion because i experienced it and found an astounding truth about human nature and how the mind works. I was not blowing smoke, I was offering an invitation.

As above, this is an interesting assertion but I would ask you to try to prove the truth of this somehow – because otherwise, why should I believe what you are saying? You could be deceived or just completely wrong. How would I know?

It is not a matter of belief. That is what the whole thing is about, ReggieM, to get past the vagaries of belief to something that is actually solid; irrevocably so.

If you have discovered a way to demonstrate the existence of God and explain His workings which is better than the design argument, please offer that explanation and demonstration.

God does not “exist,” God IS, and is not demonstrable, but experiencable as the end of inquiry. Unfortunately, even many mystics stop short of the last barrier.

Here I fully agree that God gave us a brilliant tool that we can use to learn about Him and about ourselves. But we should also use that tool to share what we have learned and convince others about the truth of God’s love. Agreed?

Great, there is some spark of agreement. But why did Walt Whitman say " “I and mine do not convince by argument, similes or rhymes. We convince by our presence.” I have no stake in convincing you or anyone. I do have a stake in presenting the fact that there is an alternative to limiting oneself to an acquired beleif system that may be helpful up to a point, but may, at some juncture, because of its reliance on mere reason, become a greater hindreance than a help. Am I advocating the abandfoning of reason? Not at all. What I am advocating is putting it on a premise that is experiential and common to anyone who is awake enough to ask themselves what they am, and conduct an exhustive inquiry along that line.

That is something that I neither invented or conjectured, only expereinced, and discovered that of all the systems of explaining Reality, there is one that has not changed since the begining of human recoreds, and always yields the same result. Invariably. And that happens despite any differences in culture, gender, time, location, itellect, education, religion or lack of it, or any other factor of the individual making the discovery. Or even with or without cmmunication between those who have made it an those not. It is a Grace. It is the footing which transcends the feidl in which the faithful and the atheist are indistinguishable due to the limited scope of either;s argument. Neithe contaiins the one factor that would change everything in the blink of an eye. And yet the world remains what it is. Blessed miracle, if you ask me.

 

[johnnyjones]

The evidence for God are the things made. Bible 101.

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence for God are the things made. Bible 101.

“things” include persons - who are the greatest evidence (if we are to go by the success of science). But then Jesus pointed to the beauty of the lilies. So where are we? Aren’t we made in the image of God?

Fortunately it is a false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between them!

 

[tonyrey]

So far no takers, only agreement from others who have had that happy experience of shutting off their discursive mind for even a second and understanding correctly beyond the paradigm of limits what that experience means and impies. Ask Tonyrey. He seems to be my most frequent refuser.

I don’t reject the truth or value of your experience. I have simply pointed out that in a philosophical discussion with non-believers - and materialists in particular - it cuts no ice.

 

[reggieM]

But why did Walt Whitman say " “I and mine do not convince by argument, similes or rhymes. We convince by our presence.”

I don’t know but I think he was using a poetic expression there.

I do have a stake in presenting the fact that there is an alternative to limiting oneself to an acquired beleif system that may be help[ful up to a point, but may, at some juncture, because of its reliance on mere reason, become a greater hindreance than a help.

That’s certainly a reasonable point to offer. I agree with you if you’re not rejecting reason and dogmatic belief entirely. Certainly, we need to affirm the transcendent and mystical experiences – and actually prayer is an experience of mysticism since we’re communicating with God. But prayer must work with our “belief system” – for Catholics, we acquire this system as handed down from Christ, to the apostles and fathers, to our Catholic parish life.

I do think a certain amount of trust is needed in a person who gives spiritual advice, though. For example, your phrase “exhaust the mind” may be good as a step to contemplation of God but it can also lead to dangerous irrationality or even demonic assault. We have to use reason and faith and mystical experience – together. It’s a fullness and not one against the other.

Too much reliance on argumentation can be a problem – you’re right.
The other extreme – blind faith, fideism or even mental exercises to clear the mind or remove discursive reason (which is basically the same as Buddhist and Hindu practice) can be a problem also.

And that happens despite any differences in culture, gender, time, location, itellect, education, religion or lack of it, or any other factor of the individual making the discovery. Or even with or without cmmunication between those who have made it an those not. It is a Grace.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you have to say but I don’t see your views as having to be incompatible with the Design Argument or any other Catholic apologetics dialogue.

So, perhaps if you were just inviting people to consider the mystical experience of grace or to focus on God in silence, that would be a lot clearer message.

When you move to an attack on the Design Argument or, basically, on any philosophical discourse at all – then it seems like you’re going far beyond a helpful invitation and you’re actually engaging in a philosophical conflict (to say that argumentation is unnecessary).

There’s really nothing to debate about what you propose. You’re inviting people to try to encounter God by leaving behind an overly-rational approach.

That’s pretty simple. In fact, the Prayer Forum here on CAF is really the better place to raise that point. It’s not something that is debatable. In fact, not much discussion can come from it. You made a point, you offer an invitation – and I think you make the results very attractive – to see beyond the mundane things of the world and experience Grace. That’s what the Saints did – so it’s an excellent point that you’re bringing to our attention.

But beyond that, there’s nothing in your view that touches the Design Argument at all. It’s a totally different category of thought and discussion.
[/quote]

 

[reggieM]

I don’t reject the truth or value of your experience. I have simply pointed out that in a philosophical discussion with non-believers - and materialists in particular - it cuts no ice.

True. Actually, the philosophical arguments that prove the existence of God or of the supernatural order or which prove materialism false should be an important foundation for believers in God also.