Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

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.

But I am a non-beleiver. And this is, as I’ve pointed out, is not a matter of belief, as it has come to many who had no faith or were adamntly against it. it is a matter of work or “grace” that comes to those who voluntarily or not open themselves to it. And neither is it a matter of opinion, save for those who speculate about the veracity of those who have been there. Is Florida a matter of speculation or belief for you? Or do you just live there? That’s what I mean.

 

[tonyrey]

*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. *

Whether you’re a non-believer or not makes no difference. The fact remains that in a **philosophical **discussion with non-believers your experience cuts no ice.

The existence of Florida is a different proposition from the existence of Design.

 

[Gaber]

I don’t know but I think he was using a poetic expression there.yes. Meet someone of his caliber and see if you can say that again.

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.

As soon as you discover for yourself what it is you are beyond your discursive mind, the picture changes as radically as one of those magic pictures that you look at and see static, and then on focusing correctly, a 3-D picture pops out. It was always there. What changed? Only how you looked at it. This is fact, and needs only persitent effort to be realized as your own experience. Or grace, Never rule that out. Or see it as working to be open to grace. In any case the end is the same. Hass been since we were people made in His image and likeness. Can’t be diffgerent; it’s hard-wired.

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.

yes, but look at the incredible courage of those Saints who had no “guide” save thier desire to know God. Nothing swayed them! And their persistence paid off.

Too much reliance on argumentation can be a problem – you’re right.

No kidding. I know from expereince. I used to be a worse case thatn someone elso on here, but was blessed with an answer to my continuous prayers.

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.

I am not sure how you put all those in the smae sentence, but that is why the Buddha, having been to the extremes, rtecommended the midfdle path, yes?

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.

This is verbiage. Necessarily there is overlap. And nothing I can say or even agree with is other than a pointer, in the end, to the Ineffable. Agreements and discords are irrelevant in the face of Seeing.

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.

Yes, I could and do do that, But my favorite Catholic mystic has written three books and other works on the reasoning that stems from the level of realization that is possible to attain. It is a matter of out from the Star, not up to it. And I feel strongly that it ought to be known that there is more. If I knew then, when grace befell me, what I know now, a lot of suffering, searching, and angst would have been avoided. Frankly, I did not find the Church, anyone in it, or any of its writing that I found even a bit helpful in the matter. Actually quite the contrary. It is a kind of miracle I survived.

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).

If you construe my stating how I see it an attack, then what the design argument is doing is attacking Reality with ignorance.

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.

Yes, insofar as solely using reason as a method of accomplishing the alleged end. The challenge will lie with those who finally see and can hash out a language of the interior, as ther is now very little useful in that area as most kind of have to invent their own wheel, due to the current, but not for long, rarity of such insights as produce what we say.

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.

Thank yoou, but whatever might be arrived at is also useful as a way to indicate that what is specualted about is Real beyond the speculation and brings with it a different kind of reason. I don’t or didn’t learn my responses from a book. They are present on demand for the point at hand.

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.

So Reaity has no bearing on the idea of design as you put it forth? So what are you doing? I don’t want top say wht it sounds like, or I might get centured by the proctors! My “view,” as you label it, deals with what is at the root of your, or anyone’s abiltiy to construct or detect a category and populate it with relatives. So you don’t, as I pointed out to Tnyrey, want to deal with it because it would end your speculation and the entertainment that comes with it? Hmmmm…

 

[reggieM]

I said: “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.”

Yes, insofar as solely using reason as a method of accomplishing the alleged end.

That’s an agreement. There’s nothing in your view that can or should be debated. You haven’t provided any reference points outside of your own personal experience – and therefore we can just accept your assertions or not. It’s not something to debate about and you seem to agree.

You phrased the above as “**solely **using reason” to accomplish the “alleged end”.

The Design Argument has an end. One must use reason to accomplish that end. In the same way, mathematical formulas have an end. One does need to use mysticism in order to solve a math problem.

So Reaity has no bearing on the idea of design as you put it forth?

I think the Design Argument has been made very clear in many places on this thread. If you want to engage the argument, that’s great. But I think you’re not interested in that – but rather are turning the topic to your own private, personal experiences.

My “view,” as you label it, deals with what is at the root of your, or anyone’s abiltiy to construct or detect a category and populate it with relatives.

Would it be better if I called your “view” an “opinion”? That’s what it is. You’re an anonymous person on a web forum making assertions about things. Again, in the very first point raised in this reply, you made your assertions and that’s the end of it.

So you don’t, as I pointed out to Tnyrey, want to deal with it because it would end your speculation and the entertainment that comes with it?

We don’t want to deal with it because you’re not offering anything that is worth discussing. Again, you had a private experience and you insist on how great that was for you. Ok, we can be glad you experienced something. But after that, there’s nothing to “deal with” except your own private life – and we’re not interested in analyzing that.

You haven’t provided any coherent opposition to the Design Argument at all. In fact, you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in pursuing that kind of argumentation.

 

[reggieM]

• was blessed with an answer to my continuous prayers.*

Gaber - I think that’s an important point that you should bring out more often. I don’t want to dismiss or under-appreciate the good things you have to say (and I’m sorry if I came across that way). The fact that you were faithful in prayer and that you discovered deeper truths through Grace is not unimportant. In fact, it’s “the one thing that is needful” as our Lord taught us. Yours is a story of seeking God and finding.

But discussions about the path of spiritual contemplation of God are of a different order than our philosophical foundations.

 

[tonyrey]

The beauty of philosophy is that no matter how long you specialise in a topic you can always discover something you didn’t know. I was aware that Anaxagoras is famous for introducing the concept of Nous%between% (mind) as the cause of order in the universe but not that he paved the way for atomism with his theory that in the beginning there were a vast number of tiny elements which were a chaotic mass. Like Socrates he was put on trial for impiety but he was more fortunate in only being banished from Athens. It is touching that after his death the citizens erected an altar to Mind and Truth in his memory and observed the anniversary of his death for many years.

 

[Gaber]

I said: “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.”

Originally Posted by Gaber
Yes, insofar as solely using reason as a method of accomplishing the alleged end.

That’s an agreement. There’s nothing in your view that can or should be debated. You haven’t provided any reference points outside of your own personal experience – and therefore we can just accept your assertions or not. It’s not something to debate about and you seem to agree.No, it is a discounting of the argument itself as being based on insufficient data. The reference points I could provide, mine or anyone’s through history, including Jesus, would only do what I’ve done: point to the need for anyone seriously or practically interested in the Nature of Reality and its perceived manifestations to examine the tool they use to make their assertions.

Ultimately I’m simply saying that the design proposition is in effect plowing the wrong feild in terms of the result it wishes to “prove.” What have you proved to me? Yet I can ask you, “Are you aware?” you must perforxce say “Yes.” And if I asked “do you refer to yourself as “I”?” you must again perforce say “Yes.” Since those two things, not the proposed premioses and terms of your argument are alll that we actually share in realiy as a common ground, any useful examination of reality and phenomenon must rest on an expereintial understanding of what “awareness” and “I” are before any overlay of thoughts about them.

Commentary on what those are is valid only after the root expereince of their actual nature. Then we can talk, knowing what the structure of reality and percepotion is from an experiential basis. Until then we, or one of us, is speculating. But if you are interested, there are libraries of books, all pointers, that describe the discovery and conclusion of the process. They are from ancient to contemporary, from all four directions, and from people of remarkably variant background, even Catholic.

But none of them claim to be a “proof.” That is as impossible as a “proof” of the existance of God. the motto here is “vamos a ver.” Let’s go see. From your position you are arguing about the reality of Chinese rural life, never having been there and not speaking any Chinese dialect, and not having directions to get there to begin with. How useful is that?

You phrased the above as "**solely **

using reason" to accomplish the “alleged end”.
The Design Argument has an end. One must use reason to accomplish that end. In the same way, mathematical formulas have an end. One does need to use mysticism in order to solve a math problem…I think you meant to say “one does (not) need to use mysticism in order to…” But you are not proposiing a math problem or a solution to one. You are proposing at theory explicatiing what this Creation might in your opinionn be, and that is not a matter of logic or reason, though one can use those tools to speculate. That’s called rationalization. And surely logic and reason cannot account for the Ineffable, nor describe its Nature of how it feels to experience it, never mind what one must conclude experiencing such.

I think the Design Argument has been made very clear in many places on this thread. If you want to engage the argument, that’s great. But I think you’re not interested in that – but rather are turning the topic to your own private, personal experiences.

N, I am lodging an argument that those who propone the design idea are not proceediing from fact, but conjecture, and have offered a way to remedy that. So I have done two things, not one, and when it comes down to it, you just don’t like that there is a hole in the of structure of your argument.

Would it be better if I called your “view” an “opinion”? That’s what it is. You’re an anonymous person on a web forum making assertions about things. Again, in the very first point raised in this reply, you made your assertions and that’s the end of it.

No, it is not an opinion, because I have given you a useful way to ascetain for yourself the truth of it. Your refusiing to take those means is like your unexperienced allegations about the reality of the hypothetical village and me having been there, speaking their dialect, having got there by a useful map, would make my comments about it an opinion. You are the one with an opinion in this matter.

We don’t want to deal with it because you’re not offering anything that is worth discussing.

And you are???

Again, you had a private experience and you insist on how great that was for you. Ok, we can be glad you experienced something. But after that, there’s nothing to “deal with” except your own private life – and we’re not interested in analyzing that.

You are using the same lame excuse for lack of engagement that Tonyrey did. What is private about an estate with open gates and invitation signs? Does your refusal to entyer make it private? Or does your refusal allow you to maintain a personal story line about how you would like things to be because you bought into a fun nearrative that stimulates your brain?

You haven’t provided any coherent opposition to the Design Argument at all. In fact, you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in pursuing that kind of argumentation.

And why would anyone persue argumentation along a clearly debased line? Why would I oppose a fiction? To lend it verity? I don’t think so. It could be more useful to recommend a way to fill the hole in your premises, as I have. You can refuse that, but hey, it doesn’t make your arguments any more sound.

 

[reggieM]

But I am a non-beleiver …And neither is it a matter of opinion, save for those who speculate about the veracity of those who have been there. Is Florida a matter of speculation or belief for you? Or do you just live there? That’s what I mean.

Saying that you live in Florida is a lot different than saying that you know God and know the nature of reality and know the nature of my own mind.

These are difficult questions and the potential for self-deception is very high.

We have a powerful enemy also - so we have to be careful about illusions.

 

[tonyrey]

1. To reject Design amounts to rejecting the fundamental role played by reason in our interpretation of reality.
2. Reasoning uses logical principles such as the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle to establish conclusions about what we perceive.
3. Subjective intuition often gives insight into the nature of reality but it is notoriously fallible and it should always be subjected to rational analysis.

%between%

 

[rossum]

1. To reject Design amounts to rejecting the fundamental role played by reason in our interpretation of reality.
2. Reasoning uses logical principles such as the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle to establish conclusions about what we perceive.
3. Subjective intuition often gives insight into the nature of reality but it is notoriously fallible and it should always be subjected to rational analysis.

%between%

So, let us reason about reality. We see a horse in a field. Light from the sun reflects from the horse and enters our eyes. The light is focused onto our retina and converted into electrical impulses passing down optical nerves. These impulses travel to our brain where they are processed by a pattern recognition system. The impulses match a previously seen pattern which has been assigned the label “horse”.

We do not ever actually sense the horse. All our senses are indirect because every (name removed by moderator)ut is converted into electrical impulses in our sensory nerves. Those impulses are matched to patterns inside our brain.

So, looking at your three points.

1. Yes, design does play a fundamental role. Those patterns we have inside our heads form a designed model of the external world. However, it is always necessary to remember that the model we carry inside our heads is only a model. We build that model from our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts, which are not a true reflection of reality. Think how much better a dog could model the smell of our horse. We have a designed model, that is a reasonably close reflection of reality. That model is indeed designed.
2. Agreed, always remembering that our perceptions are not exact. Consider how a red-green colour blind person would see the same horse. The pattern of electrical impulses in their optical nerves would be different. Their internal model would be different.
3. Agreed. Rational analysis tells us that our internal model is designed. It is a logical error to extrapolate all the properties of that internal model to the external reality. A model horse might be powered by batteries. We do not find batteries in a real horse. The properties of the model are not always true of the original real object. We need to be very careful to be aware of the properties which apply to both: four legs, and the properties which only apply to one: batteries.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

1. To reject Design amounts to rejecting the fundamental role played by reason in our interpretation of reality.

Matched by our power of reason! Welcome back.

.1. Yes, design does play a fundamental role. Those patterns we have inside our heads form a designed model of the external world. However, it is always necessary to remember that the model we carry inside our heads is only a model. We build that model from our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts, which are not a true reflection of reality. Think how much better a dog could model the smell of our horse. We have a designed model, that is a reasonably close reflection of reality. That model is indeed designed.

The fact that the model is designed is significant because no other living being is capable of design based on insight and knowledge. The power to design requires explanation.

2. Reasoning uses logical principles such as the laws of identity, contradiction and the excluded middle to establish conclusions about what we perceive.

Agreed, always remembering that our perceptions are not exact. Consider how a red-green colour blind person would see the same horse. The pattern of electrical impulses in their optical nerves would be different. Their internal model would be different.

But not substantially different. The success of science is based on our ability to create an extremely accurate mathematical model (in many cases) of aspects of physical reality

3. Subjective intuition often gives insight into the nature of reality but it is notoriously fallible and it should always be subjected to rational analysis.

1. Agreed. Rational analysis tells us that our internal model is designed. It is a logical error to extrapolate all the properties of that internal model to the external reality. A model horse might be powered by batteries. We do not find batteries in a real horse. The properties of the model are not always true of the original real object. We need to be very careful to be aware of the properties which apply to both: four legs, and the properties which only apply to one: batteries.

The roles of reason and purpose are so fundamental and essential to our explanations of reality that they must be significant in any explanation of reality as a whole. Is there any other analogy which is more adequate and compelling? If not it is reasonable to accept the best available interpretation until a superior one is forthcoming.

The Design argument doesn’t purport to be a logical proof; it is based on an extremely high degree of probability, like scientific explanations - with the difference that it is an explanation of scientific explanations!

 

[reggieM]

No, it is a discounting of the argument itself as being based on insufficient data.

 

[reggieM]

The Design argument doesn’t purport to be a logical proof; it is based on an extremely high degree of probability, like scientific explanations - with the difference that it is an explanation of scientific explanations!

That’s an interesting point. The Design Argument is a defense of rationality and an explanation for the use of reason and logic – as with science and mathematics.

A person is free to believe that the entire universe popped into existence just one second ago with everything we perceive in it as it is. Or, that everything we perceive is an illusion and that there is no reality at all.

But those viewpoints are not reasonable – they defy reason and logic. When we perceive the external world acting on us and that reason and logic are used universally in every human society – that is strong evidence that those methods correspond to a reality.

Also, the fact that human beings universally feel responsibility for various things indicates that reality is not an illusion, but is something real that causes us to experience morality, responsibility, obligations, gratitude … etc.

In order to explain things, we use logic and reason, by necessity. Even the person who claims that logic and reason do not exist is using reason to do that – so it’s self-defeating.
Reasoning is a function of purposeful activity. Purpose is necessarily an expression of design (the terms are synonymous).

 

[tonyrey]

That’s an interesting point. The Design Argument is a defense of rationality and an explanation for the use of reason and logic – as with science and mathematics.

A person is free to believe that the entire universe popped into existence just one second ago with everything we perceive in it as it is. Or, that everything we perceive is an illusion and that there is no reality at all.

But those viewpoints are not reasonable – they defy reason and logic. When we perceive the external world acting on us and that reason and logic are used universally in every human society – that is strong evidence that those methods correspond to a reality.

Also, the fact that human beings universally feel responsibility for various things indicates that reality is not an illusion, but is something real that causes us to experience morality, responsibility, obligations, gratitude … etc.

In order to explain things, we use logic and reason, by necessity. Even the person who claims that logic and reason do not exist is using reason to do that – so it’s self-defeating.
Reasoning is a function of purposeful activity. Purpose is necessarily an expression of design (the terms are synonymous).

I’m beginning to think I’m redundant… to some extent. (I had to add that proviso because otherwise I could be accused of false modesty.

 

[tonyrey]

Reasoning is a function of purposeful activity.

Indeed! The highest form of purposeful activity is impossible without reasoning - and reasoning is essentially purposeful. They are interdependent.

Purpose is necessarily an expression of design (the terms are synonymous).

The relation of “design” and “purpose” is more complex than reason and purpose. “plan” seems less ambiguous.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber;9388707:

Do you think that design exists?

In what sense? An idea in your head that you superimpose over unexamined reality so that you van feel knowledgeable and in control? Or as an inadequate and incomplete name for an artificial distinction of a sort of human activity? Or what?
I

haven’t been able to discuss the design argument with you yet. At the same time, I did prove out that the Design argument has an end

, the way mathematics has an end. Why am I so unconvinced then that I don’t even remember what you put forth as such a claim? in other words, I don’t think so. And what would the point of such a “proof” be?

As I said, the design argument has an end. That end is accessible by reason.

For my part, I just wish it would end, so we can talk about something more important

Here’s a mistake.
“this Creation” or any Creation must have a Creator.

I assume that you mean mean the Universe. Creation, I think, is an unfortunate choice of word, as it assumes a Person, causality, and a whole slew of relativeistic concepts all and each liable, due to the Person factor, and the dualistic nature of language, English in particular, to be mistakenly and especially incompletely percieved.

But you’re assuming the Creation before demonstrating it.

No. Actually, I don’t understand what you call Creation as that at all. I have no need of demonstarting anything, either.

I can see why that’s causing some confusion – it does with many Catholics.
The Design Argument does not start with the assumption that there is a Creation. It is an argument giving evidence that a Creation exists.

It does? How? Please demonstrate. And you are what? Using the elements of what you don’t assume as existing to prove that it does? Wow. That sounds productive. Why don’t you start then, with where it seems to you to exist as something in need of “proof?”

Many Catholics that I’ve discussed this topic with over the years cannot find any reason why we should be interested in this argument – after all, they already believe that God exists and that His Creation exists. So, why prove something that they already accept?

I don’t know. I am not a believer that way. And as I said, or implied, I likely don’t account for the Univers in any way recognizable to you, or we wouldn’t be having this chat.

But this is an apologetics site. Apologetics is the art of giving reasons for the belief that you have.

Well then. I’m giving reasons that bypass a for bypassing the need for such such reasons. Just go and see, follow the map, and then you won’t have to spend a lot of time with people like me defending a suposetitious scenario.

 

[tonyrey]

For my part, I just wish it would end, so we can talk about something more important

No one is compelled to follow this thread - or any other thread for that matter. If you don’t like it you know what you can do.

Start your own…

 

[reggieM]

In what sense? An idea in your head that you superimpose over unexamined reality so that you van feel knowledgeable and in control? Or as an inadequate and incomplete name for an artificial distinction of a sort of human activity? Or what?

What do you think the term Design means when referred to in the “Design Argument”?

 

[edwest2]

reggieM;9391579:

In what sense? An idea in your head that you superimpose over unexamined reality so that you van feel knowledgeable and in control? Or as an inadequate and incomplete name for an artificial distinction of a sort of human activity? Or what?
IWhy am I so unconvinced then that I don’t even remember what you put forth as such a claim? in other words, I don’t think so. And what would the point of such a “proof” be?
For my part, I just wish it would end, so we can talk about something more important
I assume that you mean mean the Universe. Creation, I think, is an unfortunate choice of word, as it assumes a Person, causality, and a whole slew of relativeistic concepts all and each liable, due to the Person factor, and the dualistic nature of language, English in particular, to be mistakenly and especially incompletely percieved.
No. Actually, I don’t understand what you call Creation as that at all. I have no need of demonstarting anything, either.
It does? How? Please demonstrate. And you are what? Using the elements of what you don’t assume as existing to prove that it does? Wow. That sounds productive. Why don’t you start then, with where it seems to you to exist as something in need of “proof?”
I don’t know. I am not a believer that way. And as I said, or implied, I likely don’t account for the Univers in any way recognizable to you, or we wouldn’t be having this chat.
Well then. I’m giving reasons that bypass a for bypassing the need for such such reasons. Just go and see, follow the map, and then you won’t have to spend a lot of time with people like me defending a suposetitious scenario.

“something more important”? That statement is always used to attempt to convince others that such conversations should be avoided. That is not a reasonable explanation or excuse to dismiss something that is of great concern regarding the truth, whether you’re a Catholic or non-Catholic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Gaber;9393407:

For my part, I just wish it would end, so we can talk about something more important

“something more important”? That statement is always used to attempt to convince others that such conversations should be avoided. That is not a reasonable explanation or excuse to dismiss something that is of great concern regarding the truth, whether you’re a Catholic or non-Catholic.

Bravo!