Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

Gaber;9393407:

“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

No, not avoided, as we are here and participating, but there seem to be adamantine positions that are not easy of resolution in the realm of mentality. Were they resolvrd, we could move on in a more unified fashion, and that seems more important to me. But it can’t be done on sandy footing.

 

[edwest2]

Bravo!

Thank you.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;9393739:

No, not avoided, as we are here and participating, but there seem to be adamantine positions that are not easy of resolution in the realm of mentality. Were they resolvrd, we could move on in a more unified fashion, and that seems more important to me. But it can’t be done on sandy footing.

“sandy footing”? This issue is of great importance and requires clarification and explanation. Just like Dark Matter is currently on sandy footing

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Couple questions about this article,

The trouble is, it never made any sense. For one thing, it meant that all purpose is an illusion, even in ourselves, which is absurd. We know that is not true from the direct evidence of our own experience.

To play devil’s advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?

There are many sources from scientific literature explaining that evolution occurs “without purpose or direction”. It is claimed to be entirely the product of blind natural laws.
So, if true, then all purpose would indeed be an illusion since non-purposeful agents cannot create purpose, design or plan.

But do we “know there is purpose from direct evidence of our experience”?

Yes, obviously. We can tell the difference between something created for a purpose and something that is the product of random accident.

Some will say then, “we create our own purpose”. So, they assert that purpose is an illusion, essentially, but we create this illusion of purpose as an evolutionary adaptation (because it helps us survive, supposedly). As follows …

Quote:
How are systems physically capable of this sort of intelligent, adaptive behavior? Again, all the Darwinist has to say is: Intelligent agency would be a great thing to have from the point of view of natural selection, therefore natural selection will see to it that it comes into existence.

That was talking about how intelligent agency was an effect of blind, natural processes – and we could restate it with purpose “purpose is a great thing to have from the point of view of natural selection … etc.”

Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.

I think that’s why people get tired of trying to make sense of Darwinian claims. They really are that stupid – and otherwise intelligent people, for some reason, are not embarrassed at all to publish and defend these kinds of claims.

When you read how some credentialed scientists try to defend the anti-design position it can be simply astounding.

I think it’s a problem of over-specialization in academia and professions. Scientists often will focus solely on formulating data (math, statistics, etc) and lab-work. But they have never studied the humanities at all and often know nothing about basic philosophy.

So they make incredible errors in logic and simple reasoning without ever realizing it.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber;9395213:

“sandy footing”? This issue is of great importance and requires clarification and explanation. Just like Dark Matter is currently on sandy footing
Peace,
Ed

Yes, as I’ve been attempting to do all along. Perhaps a re-reading of my posts and those like mine might be in order. But simply put, it behooves us to apply episemological process and inquiry into the nature and source of awareness itself, and have some results, before it is useful to engage in specualtions based on inculcated and habituated presumptions.those are what most of us operate from, even if in alll good faith and sincerity. Once the mind and it’s place is experientially understood, then there is a basis for reasoning frm solid ground. Until then there is speculation and teleology.

 

[reggieM]

The outstanding virtue of Design is that it enables us to see everything in its true perspective. There is a framework of order, harmony and purpose within which there is disorder, discord and disruption. Existence is intrinsically valuable in spite of the view of Sophocles, Schopenhauer and others that it would be better if nothing existed. The beauty, richness and variety of life on Earth were valuable even before man appeared. No one who appreciates nature can deny that a planet devoid of life is less fascinating than our planet.

In order to know and love God, it’s important to appreciate what He has created. One way to do that is to discover traces of God’s presence in many aspects of nature – human or otherwise.

The anti-Design mentality reduces nature to an accidental occurrence – and thus reduces (actually eliminates) our ability to appreciate anything.

Belief in a purposeless universe is soul-destroying in more senses than one. Its logical outcome is “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”. To assume this life is the only life may give a superficial sense of freedom but it is a shortsighted policy doomed to despair. The prospect of death must cast a black shadow over life for any realistic person when it is equated with total extinction and permanent separation from everyone and everything we love and cherish.

Materialism (Darwinism, etc) is a philosophy of despair.
Because Design exists, we have hope – and it is hope which is founded in truths that we can discover.

 

[tonyrey]

In order to know and love God, it’s important to appreciate what He has created. One way to do that is to discover traces of God’s presence in many aspects of nature – human or otherwise.

The anti-Design mentality reduces nature to an accidental occurrence – and thus reduces (actually eliminates) our ability to appreciate anything.

Materialism (Darwinism, etc) is a philosophy of despair.
Because Design exists, we have hope – and it is hope which is founded in truths that we can discover.

It is ironic that materialists often say this life is more valuable because it is the only life we have. Brevity is not a bad thing if we have very limited interests, feeble desires, shallow expectations and scanty concern for justice but if life is indeed immensely valuable we want it to last for as long as possible. And for all eternity if we love some one very much!

Nor should we forget charity begins at home. We can’t be very fond of the only person we live with twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and fifty-two weeks every year of our lives… if we’re not fussy about bidding farewell forever to ourselves…

 

[Gaber]

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.

I don’t understand this concept, which sounds to me like you are saying that wisdom and philosphy are dofferent and have s different Source. Whatever came to me as insight came as a result, if such a link can be rightfully madem after a long period of intense prayer and work asking for wisdom. And as near as I can ascertain, philosophy litterally means the love of wisdom. Toss in there the commonly touted eaption of God with Love/love, and the whole things seems inseperable. And on top of that, if you agree that what I arrived at, so to speak, was a gift from prayer, and there was an insight, would it not be wise to proceed out from that insight instead of bifurcatiinig the world and attempting to proceed up to it from conjectural premises?

And in any case, I cannot see any useful philosophy taking place without an epistemological examination of the tool used to philosophize with as a necessary prerequisit to any accuracy of universally applicable conclusions.

 

[Gaber]

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.

Of course it is. And no one knows God in the sense implied here. The analogy was simply meant, as I’m sure you understand, to point to the idea that one can at least potentially ask directions from someone who has been somewhere that the asker hasn’t. And if you don’t want to go to that destination, either why ask, or why make up stories about what that place is like, how it works, what sort of architecture is there, or what it means?

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

No kidding. Especially if one approaches from a speculative base, as many do by dint of an unexamined acceptance of an inherited paradigm questionably transmitted by inadequate means.

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

That also is a fact. However, the personalization of it into an externalized “enemy” is part and parcel of the bifurcation whose othe part is the equally misunderstood legend of the “fall” which has at least two very viable alternate interpretations, each far more useful and practical than the vagueness of the one that is not even required to be taken litterally by its cheif proponent in either of its two versions.

And yet you are correct. As one of my favorites said: “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroyu your world.” But that is in no way substantially different from “all things shall be made new in the twinkiling of an eye.” It simply means that there is a shift in the basis of understanding. And from that Real basis far more accurate assesments can be made.

Sorry to again make an analogy, but they seem to help in thier way. Just consider what happened when the idea of plate techtonics was finally accepted, just a smidge before I was born. Suddenly there was a viable explanation for why there were earthquakes, why mountain ranges did cetain things, why there were volcanos on coastliines, etc, etc. All those phenomena were known, but their actual cause was not.

And while the Root of human perception and expression is an interior and subjective discovery, and is meaningless to mortal mind unless expereienced, it is no less at the Root of religion and philososphy in a most intimate way: it provides the actual footing for their unfoldment in congruence with Reality. Conversely, until that Root is known, religion and philosophy are vague search engiines walking alll over the Ground of their foundation without recognizing it and keeping it at a distance by limiting the scope of inquiry to the gross levels of mentality. This is why some call it “Radical knowledge.” And if you look in the dictianary, if you don’t already know it, that is a wonderfully appropriate word.

So that is the expalantion of my persistence with this idea of “design.” There ought to be, in courtesy to the actual Natue of things, some voice, however useful, poiinting to what is even at the root of the ability of anyone to put forth any speculative mentally invented structure, even “design.” And some indication of how the “design” argument is not useful is found in post #766 above. you yourself said it:

The anti-Design mentality reduces nature to an accidental occurrence – and thus reduces (actually eliminates) our ability to appreciate anything.

My mentality dismisses design as an argument for the existence of God while fully recognizing that humanly speaking we have within ourarsenal of mental/creative faculties something we can call an abiltity to design. But to use that as an anthropomorphization of God by distributing the limits of that human faculty, despoite its Deivine root, is not useful as an argument fro the existence of an alleged Creator, especially one who designs in any sense we would use it humanly, even by extrapolation.

So while you propose your arguments most usually in terms of either/or, that is not how Divine “logic” works. If it wer more in a both/and augemented mode, you likely couldn’t state the designm argument with any degree of illusion of consistendcy with Reality other than our ability to make the appearance of seemingly valid lines of “logic” that leave much both out and to the imagination.

So for myself, I neither claim the Universe and myself in it to be an accidental occurrence, nor do I have any diminished appreciation of Nature, in which I thankfully live and am gratefully humbled by many times daily. I feel I augment that appreciation by my constant raving about its Beauty. Similarly with the Arts, particulary the visual and literary Arts in which I participate and sponsor, or the performance arts which I relish with a passion. So where do I fit into your statement?

 

[edwest2]

Of course it is. And no one knows God in the sense implied here. The analogy was simply meant, as I’m sure you understand, to point to the idea that one can at least potentially ask directions from someone who has been somewhere that the asker hasn’t. And if you don’t want to go to that destination, either why ask, or why make up stories about what that place is like, how it works, what sort of architecture is there, or what it means?
No kidding. Especially if one approaches from a speculative base, as many do by dint of an unexamined acceptance of an inherited paradigm questionably transmitted by inadequate means. That also is a fact. However, the personalization of it into an externalized “enemy” is part and parcel of the bifurcation whose othe part is the equally misunderstood legend of the “fall” which has at least two very viable alternate interpretations, each far more useful and practical than the vagueness of the one that is not even required to be taken litterally by its cheif proponent in either of its two versions.

And yet you are correct. As one of my favorites said: “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroyu your world.” But that is in no way substantially different from “all things shall be made new in the twinkiling of an eye.” It simply means that there is a shift in the basis of understanding. And from that Real basis far more accurate assesments can be made.

Sorry to again make an analogy, but they seem to help in thier way. Just consider what happened when the idea of plate techtonics was finally accepted, just a smidge before I was born. Suddenly there was a viable explanation for why there were earthquakes, why mountain ranges did cetain things, why there were volcanos on coastliines, etc, etc. All those phenomena were known, but their actual cause was not.

And while the Root of human perception and expression is an interior and subjective discovery, and is meaningless to mortal mind unless expereienced, it is no less at the Root of religion and philososphy in a most intimate way: it provides the actual footing for their unfoldment in congruence with Reality. Conversely, until that Root is known, religion and philosophy are vague search engiines walking alll over the Ground of their foundation without recognizing it and keeping it at a distance by limiting the scope of inquiry to the gross levels of mentality. This is why some call it “Radical knowledge.” And if you look in the dictianary, if you don’t already know it, that is a wonderfully appropriate word.

So that is the expalantion of my persistence with this idea of “design.” There ought to be, in courtesy to the actual Natue of things, some voice, however useful, poiinting to what is even at the root of the ability of anyone to put forth any speculative mentally invented structure, even “design.” And some indication of how the “design” argument is not useful is found in post #766 above. you yourself said it:My mentality dismisses design as an argument for the existence of God while fully recognizing that humanly speaking we have within ourarsenal of mental/creative faculties something we can call an abiltity to design. But to use that as an anthropomorphization of God by distributing the limits of that human faculty, despoite its Deivine root, is not useful as an argument fro the existence of an alleged Creator, especially one who designs in any sense we would use it humanly, even by extrapolation.

So while you propose your arguments most usually in terms of either/or, that is not how Divine “logic” works. If it wer more in a both/and augemented mode, you likely couldn’t state the designm argument with any degree of illusion of consistendcy with Reality other than our ability to make the appearance of seemingly valid lines of “logic” that leave much both out and to the imagination.

So for myself, I neither claim the Universe and myself in it to be an accidental occurrence, nor do I have any diminished appreciation of Nature, in which I thankfully live and am gratefully humbled by many times daily. I feel I augment that appreciation by my constant raving about its Beauty. Similarly with the Arts, particulary the visual and literary Arts in which I participate and sponsor, or the performance arts which I relish with a passion. So where do I fit into your statement?

The human being can sense God’s work. To deny that is to limit ourselves to our sense perceptions.

There is no reason for the visual or literary arts. None. An appreciation of beauty is not just the firing of neurons or a chemical response to external (name removed by moderator)uts.

I work in the visual and literary arts. Design is not an instinct. We are not just another type of animal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Further evidence that the positive aspects of life outweigh the negative is provided by the findings of the latest research into disease:

For years, bacteria have had a bad name. They are the cause of infections, of diseases. They are something to be scrubbed away, things to be avoided.
But now researchers have taken a detailed look at another set of bacteria that may play even bigger roles in health and disease: the** 100 trillion good bacteria** that live in or on the human body.
No one really knew much about them. They are essential for human life, needed to digest food, to synthesize certain vitamins, to form** a barricade against disease-causing bacteria**. But what do they look like in healthy people, and how much do they vary from person to person?
In a new five-year federal endeavor, the Human Microbiome Project, which has been compared to the Human Genome Project, 200 scientists at 80 institutions sequenced the genetic material of bacteria taken from nearly 250 healthy people.
They discovered more strains than they ever imagined — as many as a thousand bacterial strains on each person. And each person’s collection of microbes, the microbiome, was different from the next person’s. To the scientists’ surprise, they also found genetic signatures of disease-causing bacteria lurking in everyone’s microbiome. But instead of making people ill, or even infectious, these disease-causing microbes simply live peacefully among their neighbors.

nytimes.com/2012/06/14/health/human-microbiome-project-decodes-our-100-trillion-good-bacteria.html?_r=2&hp

This discovery highlights the fact that progress and development cannot occur without competition - which some people think is evidence of faulty Design. Yet it is the essence of life. Our body never reaches full maturity unless it has to fight for survival and become tough. We attain strength and nobility of character only by overcoming hardships and challenges.

It remains to be explained how life would be worth living if it were always secure, pleasant, comfortable, predictable, luxurious - and utterly boring!

 

[reggieM]

My mentality dismisses design as an argument for the existence of God while fully recognizing that humanly speaking we have within ourarsenal of mental/creative faculties something we can call an abiltity to design.

The design argument is not about “an ability to design”. It’s about evidence that the universe and especially the human beings in it were not the product of an accidental occurrence but show evidence of having been designed.

So for myself, I neither claim the Universe and myself in it to be an accidental occurrence,

As I just pointed out, if the Universe and yourself are not the product of an accidental occurence then they are the product of Design.

So where do I fit into your statement?

You have asserted that the universe was designed (not a product of an accidental occurence). If you accept the Gospel account of the Resurrection of Christ, then you necessarily accept the argument from design.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t understand this concept, which sounds to me like you are saying that wisdom and philosphy are dofferent and have s different Source. Whatever came to me as insight came as a result, if such a link can be rightfully madem after a long period of intense prayer and work asking for wisdom.

Philosophical truths are different than theological truths. Grace is an unmerited gift. God gives His light to the soul which illuminates the mind for the understanding of higher things.

An atheist can reason correctly using philosophical proofs. In that way, philosophy is closer to mathematics – as I said before – you do not need an appeal to mysticism to solve a mathematical problem. Logical problems are the same – one can follow the argument without the need of sanctifying grace.

However, the gift of God – which we receive through prayer and the sacraments – lifts the mind to truths which cannot be achieved by philosophy alone.

This is why we pray – so that God can enlighten us in ways that we cannot find on our own. But people who do not pray or even believe in God can find some degree of wisdom – and that’s what philosophy is. It’s the use of natural reason to discover truths.

Theological truths, however, go beyond what human nature alone can find – they come from God, through grace.

 

[tonyrey]

The design argument is not about “an ability to design”. It’s about evidence that the universe and especially the human beings in it were not the product of an accidental occurrence but show evidence of having been designed.

As I just pointed out, if the Universe and yourself are not the product of an accidental occurence then they are the product of Design.

You have asserted that the universe was designed (not a product of an accidental occurence). If you accept the Gospel account of the Resurrection of Christ, then you necessarily accept the argument from design.

Irrefutable. To dispense with purpose is to dispense with reason and rely on blind faith alone…

 

[Gaber]

The human being can sense God’s work. To deny that is to limit ourselves to our sense perceptions.

Or to have an other explanation. Either/or,. as is is so rampantly used on here, is the lowest order of logic.

There is no reason for the visual or literary arts. None. An appreciation of beauty is not just the firing of neurons or a chemical response to external (name removed by moderator)uts.

I think you may mean that there is no allegedly evolutionary or survival reason for them. Perhaps so, or they are an extrapolation somehow. But I tend to agree with you, there is no appearant reason other thatn the enjoyment of the inherent beauty of pattern and tension of contrast.

I work in the visual and literary arts. Design is not an instinct. We are not just another type of animal.

The body certaioonly is just another type of animal. witness feral children. What can be, and to some degree is, is the kind of awareness potential that can be enjoyed by the human due to its ability to cross certain barriers in awareness, of which the human has at least nine. Animals? I don’t know.

All that said, what did your comments have to do with my post?

 

[Gaber]

The design argument is not about “an ability to design”. It’s about evidence that the universe and especially the human beings in it were not the product of an accidental occurrence but show evidence of having been designed.

OK, so you are taking a labeled human ability and anthropomorphizing it oveer an alleged “designer.”

As I just pointed out, if the Universe and yourself are not the product of an accidental occurence then they are the product of Design.

You are using what in sales is called and “assumptive close” coupled with “either/or” logic, the lowest and least usful of its forms. That unfortunate and misleading coupling allows you to justify your ignorance or serious consideration of other possibilities.

You have asserted that the universe was designed (not a product of an accidental occurence). If you accept the Gospel account of the Resurrection of Christ, then you necessarily accept the argument from design.

My assertion that the Universe is not an accident does not necessarily or needfully qualify it for the trumped up category of “design.” And neither is the acceptance nor rejection of the Gospel account an either/or proposition. That one point thus stated reveals that you are rationalizing from piety as distinct from knowledge theology, history, literature, phenomenology, of any other critical discipline that can be applied. So your criteria are fabrications of your erroneopusly coupled assumptions base. Wrong premise–wrong conclusion. GIGO. C’mon. You know that. You have more brains than to be so simplistic. And thus the perspective I stand for doesn’t fit into any of your categories, further casting doubt on the consistency of your constructions.

 

[Gaber]

Philosophical truths are different than theological truths. Grace is an unmerited gift. God gives His light to the soul which illuminates the mind for the understanding of higher things.

Examples? so there is no philosophy of reigion? Or religious philosophy? Or there is philosophy that is strictly secular? If so, why are you applying said secular philosophy to what is ultimately a reigious idea: that there is a “designer” of the Universe?

An atheist can reason correctly using philosophical proofs. In that way, philosophy is closer to mathematics – as I said before – you do not need an appeal to mysticism to solve a mathematical problem. Logical problems are the same – one can follow the argument without the need of sanctifying grace.

An atheist, as anyone can, can use reason to the best of their ability, sometimes correctly, given the limited premises of an argument. But no philosopher of whatever stipe can take themselves out of the equation, and they cannot remove the requirement that whatever, even secular or atheistic argument is put forth, has to fit into Reality and not contreadict it or the integrity of theor own actual structure in aarenes as distinct from a cnjectured one. It seems to me that you are attempting to legitimize the presence of conjecture in philosphical thinking by compart"mental"iszing it.

However, the gift of God – which we receive through prayer and the sacraments – lifts the mind to truths which cannot be achieved by philosophy alone.

Perhaps it seems that way from your perspective. In any case, once discovered, as you seem to have allowed that I might have in some kind or degree, that new understanding can legitimately inform the structure of philosophy since Wisdom is, at least in your defineiton, I am sure, a gift of God as well. Otherwise Franklin Merrel-Wollfe could not have usefully titled one of his excellent works The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object.
This is why we pray – so that God can enlighten us in ways that we cannot find on our own. But people who do not pray or even believe in God can find some degree of wisdom – and that’s what philosophy is. It’s the use of natural reason to discover truths.
Theological truths, however, go beyond what human nature alone can find – they come from God, through grace. And here we have yet another artificially imposed limitation from a position of incomplete or partial relevant expereince based on an assumption unproved simply by lack of completed inquiry. And that is fine, of course. But you ae making the mistake, perhaps, that I did: not allowing for something completely unpredicted by your premises from entering your expereince and pulling the rug completely out from what you think you stand on. THINK you stand on.

You both, and more of you, I am sure, are so adamant in your belief in correctness that you are shooting yourselves in the foots, (sic) the foot being the symbol of under-standing. Just allow that there is at least a third position that your self assessed hermetically sealed argument doesn’t allow for. I was, mentally, kind of where you are, and now perforce can’t be. Wasn’t my idea, I guarantee you. So lighten up on the insistance of being so absolutely right. Want to make God laugh? Construct a proof. Blessed good mind excercies, though, lol!

Love and Peace.

 

[tonyrey]

You both, and more of you, I am sure, are so adamant in your belief in correctness that you are shooting yourselves in the foots, (sic) the foot being the symbol of under-standing. Just allow that there is at least a third position that your self assessed hermetically sealed argument doesn’t allow for. I was, mentally, kind of where you are, and now perforce can’t be. Wasn’t my idea, I guarantee you. So lighten up on the insistance of being so absolutely right. Want to make God laugh? Construct a proof.

There is only one hermetically sealed argument around here - and that is the one that dispenses with reason in favour of an invulnerable and unassailable private revelation which is unfalsifiable and unverifiable by lesser mortals…

 

[prodigalson2011]

There is only one hermetically sealed argument around here - and that is the one that dispenses with reason in favour of an invulnerable and unassailable private revelation which is unfalsifiable and unverifiable by lesser mortals…

This, two times over.

If anyone here is adamant about being absolutely right, it’s you, Gaber. I’m sorry, but it’s true. For someone claiming to be so enlightened, you sure do come across as condescending.

Might I suggest there was a reason St. Paul said, “Let us reason together?”

Might I even risk redundancy and propose that God gave us reason for a reason?

 

[Gaber]

There is only one hermetically sealed argument around here - and that is the one that dispenses with reason in favour of an invulnerable and unassailable private revelation which is unfalsifiable and unverifiable by lesser mortals…

Since you and I have exhausted this point before, to your untaken advantage, it is clear you are not talking about me. So why is your statement appended to something I said? I mean the “ivulnerable” and “unassailable” parts are right, which is why it is called the "Path of the Uncontradictable " by many who discover it. Ad it is therefore not private, though subjective, as is everything else in expereince. But it certainly is quite verifiable by anyone willing to do the work, as we discussed. So again, who is it that you are addressing?