Sexuality As Proof Of A Designer

[anns82]

My point was that believing sex is sacred does not make it so. Do you disagree?

Very true. But if the truth is that sex is sacred, then it is, in fact sacred. I’m happy we agree on something ; )

For the roller coaster thing, even with the disclaimer, it is still a very ridiculous argument. If those people believe their roller coaster experience honestly compares to the value of sex, then there is something wrong.

Something can be sacred to you, or sacred to me, or sacred to God, whatever. But nothing is just “sacred” in and of itself.

I find that comment very interesting. So you are saying that if something is sacred to God, it is not inherently sacred to those made in His image?

Originally Posted by anns82 View Post
The natural way for humans to create new life is through the intimate embrace of sex. Are you saying that sex is not intimate? Are you saying that the true nature of sex is all about control? If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a loving family, and the idea of unconditional love would not exist.

No, I didn’t say any of those things.

So, what are you saying? Sex is only physical? Is that still to say that the fact that the whole loving family and start of a new life have nothing to do with it? The idea of sex being completely separate from love and life is only possible through man’s interference in contraception.

your first post, which said that the feeling people get after being raped is evidence that sex is sacred, is false, because feelings about an issue have nothing to do with the actual truth of the issue.

It may be that the manner through which I was writing was not clear enough in that I was not necessarily limiting the notion of rape to it’s sacred violation. My intent with that comment was to say that the pain of rape is related to the shear goodness of love. The greatest sources of our happiness (love, with sex being the physical expression of love) can also be our greatest source of pain (rape taking what is truly meant to be love, and using it for control or whatever other purposes). Thus, considering God is the creator (I know, I know, you do not believe that) and He made it so that our part in creating new life is through the physical expression of love (sex), it leads to the conclusion that sex sacred.

I know, I know. You do not believe that anything is sacred. So why are you discussing with me what is sacred?

I think that part of our difficulty in discussing this is that I am starting with a combination of human experience and the belief that God is the Designer. I did not approach this as a question of evolution. I’ll definitely agree with you that if evolution were the only truth to the beginning of humanity and the earth, then the idea that God is love/love is sacred/sex is sacred, would not be true.

 

[Justin1982]

I don’t think it was as intense as most people have been lead to believe. I wrote about why we shouldn’t conclude that any of the twelve chose to go to their death rather than give up Jesus here, if you’d like to debate that topic. I’d like to write more about the exaggerated martyrdom rumors, but I haven’t found the time yet.

I never said that early Christians or specifically the Apostles didn’t deny Jesus. Jesus himself said they would do that in fear of their lives. The fact I was pointing at was the point that all the way until the year 380 Christians were persecuted for being Christian yet it still managed to become the worlds largest religion.

Ah. Well that is not disputed.

I’m glad we can agree on something.

 

[MrZetterlund]

No… That’s a necessary part of survival of the species. If it wasn’t so fundamentally important then, you might have had something.

 

[Call_Me_V]

For the roller coaster thing, even with the disclaimer, it is still a very ridiculous argument. If those people believe their roller coaster experience honestly compares to the value of sex, then there is something wrong.

In this day and age, some people, particularly the youth, just don’t take it seriously anymore. It’s just a fun game for them.

I find that comment very interesting. So you are saying that if something is sacred to God, it is not inherently sacred to those made in His image?

It is sacred to those made in his image. But that’s relative, not objective, objective (in the way that I’m using the term) means that it would be sacred even of neither God nor humans considered it sacred. It would just “be sacred” to no one in particular, which I think is untrue.

So, what are you saying? Sex is only physical? Is that still to say that the fact that the whole loving family and start of a new life have nothing to do with it? The idea of sex being completely separate from love and life is only possible through man’s interference in contraception.

It’s physical and emotional.

I know, I know. You do not believe that anything is sacred. So why are you discussing with me what is sacred?

You made the claim. I disagreed with you, so I challenged the view.

I think that part of our difficulty in discussing this is that I am starting with a combination of human experience and the belief that God is the Designer. I did not approach this as a question of evolution. I’ll definitely agree with you that if evolution were the only truth to the beginning of humanity and the earth, then the idea that God is love/love is sacred/sex is sacred, would not be true.

Then we are in agreement, and the only significant issue becomes, again, the existence of God. Which was my point. If you need to use God to prove that sex is sacred, then you can’t use the fact that sex is sacred to prove the existence of God. That’s circular logic.

V

 

[Formosus]

The idea that sexual characteristics are proof for a designer or creator is identical to the Teleological argument. Namely that things have purposes, so therefore there is a creator. This theory runs into a big problem though. Claiming that things have purposes means that you are saying a future event (the purpose) is causing a past event (the thing). It only really works if you believe in God, but then you can’t use the teleological argument to prove God’s existence.

 

[anns82]

In this day and age, some people, particularly the youth, just don’t take it seriously anymore. It’s just a fun game for them.

The youth often do not know what to value in life. Any adult who still has the same priorities as when they were teenagers, or even their early 20’s has stopped learning in life. I would not present “youth” as an authority on the matter.

It is sacred to those made in his image. But that’s relative, not objective, objective (in the way that I’m using the term) means that it would be sacred even of neither God nor humans considered it sacred. It would just “be sacred” to no one in particular, which I think is untrue.

Interesting again. Ok, I give you that it is not “objective” in that it is dependent on the existence of God, but I also present “objective” as not being reality.
What I was doing was working from the reality of human experience; the experience of love. Granted, love is not objective, but it is a part of reality that all humans experience. The relationship between love and the creation of life (human life being sacred - which I know does not fit with the all-so-objective theory of evolution, but I still contend in reality, is true) leads me to believe that the act which brings about the life of sacred beings is in itself, sacred.

Although my original intention with my post was simply to continue the thought of sexuality informing us on the “Designer” rather than establish it as proof of the Designer, I think it would be better to clarify love as evidence for God (granted, not the unquestionable empirical “proof” that people want to exist). It is through the human experience of love that people know there is something profound beyond tangible existence. I would contend that the saying “love exceeds understanding” is very true. I think people have difficulty accepting that human understanding is not infinite.

 

[anns82]

I’m sorry, I appear to be a typing Hallmark card sometimes ; )

 

[Call_Me_V]

The youth often do not know what to value in life. Any adult who still has the same priorities as when they were teenagers, or even their early 20’s has stopped learning in life. I would not present “youth” as an authority on the matter.

Well, considering that the vast majority of people lose their virginity prior to age 20 you just threw out most of the data.

Although my original intention with my post was simply to continue the thought of sexuality informing us on the “Designer” rather than establish it as proof of the Designer, I think it would be better to clarify love as evidence for God (granted, not the unquestionable empirical “proof” that people want to exist).

Why would love be evidence for the existence of God?

It is through the human experience of love that people know there is something profound beyond tangible existence.

It is through the human experience of love that people come to believe there is something profound beyond tangible existence.

I would contend that the saying “love exceeds understanding” is very true.

For now. Neuroscientists have been studying the origins of the emotions we call love, and have been able to identify that it is caused by certain chemicals in the brain, etc. I think that understanding love is well within human capabilities, and will likely happen within my lifetime.

I think people have difficulty accepting that human understanding is not infinite.

It is not infinite, but a word of caution, we should not assume that because science can’t explain something, therefore God did it. That’s called a god of the gaps argument, and is recognized even by most theists as being flawed.

V

 

[anns82]

Well, considering that the vast majority of people lose their virginity prior to age 20 you just threw out most of the data.

That’s fine by me. We are discussing the meaning of sex, and presenting people who’s concept of meaning will hopefully mature as they get older and develop a better understanding life is not productive in getting to the truth in the matter.

Why would love be evidence for the existence of God?

Because it shows that something exists beyond the definition of science. Yes, science can watch the chemical changes in the brain as a person “experiences the emotions” but limiting love to chemicals is not true. If that were true, then there would be no qualms with people simply taking the necessary drugs to induce those chemicals. Then everyone would be happy.
No, love involves free will and the willing sacrifice of one self. If you really believe that in reality, it is just a chemical/hormonal reaction, then I truly believe you do not know what love is.

It is through the human experience of love that people come to believe there is something profound beyond tangible existence.

I have no problem with that word change.

For now. Neuroscientists have been studying the origins of the emotions we call love, and have been able to identify that it is caused by certain chemicals in the brain, etc. I think that understanding love is well within human capabilities, and will likely happen within my lifetime.

Again, science can watch it happen, explain the chemical reaction, etc, but it can not explain it because it is outside the language of science. Science is good because it explains a lot about our physical nature, allowing us to make great medical and technological progress, but it is limited to that. Positivism is the belief that science will someday have answers to all of our questions. But it does not provide meaning or a true understanding of human nature. Have your blind belief in science for as long as you want, but it will not lead you to the truth in human life.

we should not assume that because science can’t explain something, therefore God did it. That’s called a god of the gaps argument, and is recognized even by most theists as being flawed.

I am not approaching it as “god of the gaps,” I am approaching it through a phenomenological study of human experience. There is a big difference.

 

[vera_dicere]

Let me quickly note that this argument is not a proof against evolution; but rather it is a proof regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

I have a penis and she has a virgina.
we are men and women for the “purpose” of sex; therefore there is a designer.

Forgive me if this sounds a bit rude.

According to evolutionary texts, et al, when life was simply confined to cellular organisms, they mutated or evolved and one evolved to be large (ovum) and another cell grew a tail, became smaller and more mobile (sperm).

From then the cells grew and changed and did whatever they did and from them came the development of male and female.

Of course, that’s an incredibly simplistic overview of it all and I’m sure someone has a better descriptive.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Because it shows that something exists beyond the definition of science. Yes, science can watch the chemical changes in the brain as a person “experiences the emotions” but limiting love to chemicals is not true. If that were true, then there would be no qualms with people simply taking the necessary drugs to induce those chemicals. Then everyone would be happy.

Many people do just take chemicals to make themselves happy, and if the “formula” for love was ever discovered, I have no doubt that people would try to induce it by chemical means. I’m not sure exactly what love is, but I see no reason to believe that we won’t understand it in the future.

You say that love is beyond science. I’d like to see some evidence for that.

No, love involves free will and the willing sacrifice of one self. If you really believe that in reality, it is just a chemical/hormonal reaction, then I truly believe you do not know what love is.

And you don’t think that your brain, which governs everything your body does through the chemical reactions that run through it, could be induced to all of these feelings and actions through such chemical reactions?

Again, science can watch it happen, explain the chemical reaction, etc, but it can not explain it because it is outside the language of science.

You continue to assert this. What makes you think that it is beyond the language of science?

Science is good because it explains a lot about our physical nature, allowing us to make great medical and technological progress, but it is limited to that.

Why? You don’t think that it can help us understand our thoughts, emotions, and feelings through the study of the brain which produces our thoughts, emotions, and feelings?

Positivism is the belief that science will someday have answers to all of our questions.

And I do not believe that.

But it does not provide meaning or a true understanding of human nature. Have your blind belief in science for as long as you want, but it will not lead you to the truth in human life.

I don’t claim it allows us to understand all of human nature. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. How would you propose we try and understand meaning and human nature.

The common theme seems to be that you think your emotions, like love, are so powerful that they couldn’t possibly be a result of chemical reactions in your brain. Considering that every thought, word, and action you take are a result of such reactions, I don’t quite understand your incredulity, but it’s your choice. My point is that there is no reason to believe that love transcends the brain. The only reason for believing that love transcends the brain is the intensity and power of the emotions… which is the exact thing we would expect to find if it was being caused by chemicals that were affecting the brain, which is responsible for our emotions.

V

 

[anns82]

Many people do just take chemicals to make themselves happy, and if the “formula” for love was ever discovered, I have no doubt that people would try to induce it by chemical means. I’m not sure exactly what love is, but I see no reason to believe that we won’t understand it in the future.

Yes, that is Postivist thinking

If you think that drug induced chemical reactions are in truth/meaning comparable to love, then, again, you do not know what love is.

You say that love is beyond science. I’d like to see some evidence for that.

By me saying that love is beyond science, I am also saying that there is no materialistic evidence - it is something known through human experience. So essentially, don’t hold your breath for this “evidence” - I hope you find the profound love which will teach you it’s true meaning.

And you don’t think that your brain, which governs everything your body does through the chemical reactions that run through it, could be induced to all of these feelings and actions through such chemical reactions?

I would say that your soul, which governs your brain, which governs the rest of your body does through the chemical reactions…etc. At the same time, I hope you realize that if you continue to look for material evidence for the soul you will never be able to have a full understanding of the reality of life.

Why? You don’t think that it can help us understand our thoughts, emotions, and feelings through the study of the brain which produces our thoughts, emotions, and feelings?

It can help us understand somethings, but it is also important to try to not let science overstep it’s boundaries. It can not fully understand the meaning of love.

Let me put it this way; science can depict and record the areas of your brain which are active as you hands are in the process of typing your response, but it is limited in its ability to tell you the meaning of the sentences you compose.

I don’t claim it allows us to understand all of human nature. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. How would you propose we try and understand meaning and human nature.

So, out of curiosity, what do you believe is in human nature that lies outside the realm of science?
The tricky thing is, with believing that there is no God when you are made in His image (meaning you possess a life which exists beyond the physical world), there is no way for you to come to better understand your soul. When you remove any recognition of the soul (simply due to lack of physical evidence, which logic provides is not possible), it makes the opportunity to see humans simply as “creative” animals.

Considering there are no other animals who are creative beyond their instincts, humans are distinct from other creatures in the animal kingdom. As can be seen with people who have mental disabilities such as autism, their intrinsic value lies deeper than their mental capabilities. Unless you are of the understanding that they are “lesser humans,” and you are ethically okay with offering them for scientific testing to the extent that we allow animal testing. The people who subscribed to the eugenics movement followed that philosophy, which was also a very influential factor on Hitler and the Nazis. There is a very real problem when people believe science has all the answers and there is no meaning beyond the material world. If we are simply animals or a bundle of chemical reactions, in the long run, it doesn’t really matter; everyone will die at some point anyway. If there is no meaning to life, then how can we “objectively” say that something is bad. Are the Nazi’s bad? There is no meaning to life.

I bring up the “Nazi card” because you are insisting that “objective” reality is the only thing we have proof for, so it is the only thing we should believe in. If that is the case, calling the Nazi’s “bad” is relative. Yes, people have done bad things in the name of religion, yet the fact that many of the religions have admitted to their wrong doings is only possible if we can acknowledge that something is right or wrong. Science, or “objective reality” tells us nothing of that.

Do not limit your beliefs to what science tells you. If you want to go the route of philosophy, which based on your quote, you are already interested in, then I am happy that you are in the right direction. But through philosophy, you are acknowledging that there is something that does not lend itself to science, which means that God is a possibility. No, it will not necessarily provide concrete answers, but concrete answers do not exist for everything.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

According to evolutionary texts, et al, when life was simply confined to cellular organisms, they mutated or evolved and one evolved to be large (ovum) and another cell grew a tail, became smaller and more mobile (sperm).

From then the cells grew and changed and did whatever they did and from them came the development of male and female.

Of course, that’s an incredibly simplistic overview of it all and I’m sure someone has a better descriptive.

My argument does not deny that a form that proceeds to a definite purpose can arise according to a process or series of secondary events that are not themselves “intentional”. I am in complete agreement with the theory of evolution in so far as it pertains to physical events. I disagree, however, with the idea that the physical reality thus accounts for the purposeful appearance of organisms. What my argument identifies is that there are two kinds of events involved in the formation of an organism and that there is a distinct difference involved between the form of a particular organism and the parts or matter that makes up that particular form. I.e you can meaningfully identify arms and legs in terms of the function they perform in respect of the “whole” organism. But a leg that has been torn off can no-longer be defined as a leg, because its definition is derived from the act of the whole organism. Thus the function of a leg cannot simply be reduced to the matter involved; but rather it is “information based”. Matter cannot act to multiple different ends without preexistent information.

The reality of my leg is a leg in respect of the information that matter requires in-order to perform as my leg. An example; i can command that my arm moves, and it moves because its function is for the purpose of moving according to my command or desire in so far as i am a particular form of matter. That we identify evolutionary processes is irrelevant to the fact that the information we find in a particular form exists irrespective of the matter involved. What i mean to say here is that there is a transcendent objective and meaningful language that makes my arms movement meaningful in regards to my commanding it; and in-order for my body to understand it, there has to be a predefined objective language that recognizes purpose and exists regardless of evolutionary or physical changes. There has to be a plan or map of sorts that already has purposeful commands as apart of its language. The matter itself has no knowledge of my command that it should by chance act according to my commanding it. Neither can objective meaning evolve, since its meaning is objective and not chance related.

The information involved thus only makes sense in terms of a purpose or plan that physical events have been ordered to perform according to the particular forms that they manifest. The same is true with sexuality; Sexuality is the manifestation of meaningful objective information; and has very little to do with the matter that makes up a particular form. I am a man for the purpose of having sex with a women; and this is made evident by the fact that there are women that i desire to have sex with and that they have the apparatus that defines that desire - their sexual organ. In terms of purposeful effect, the form is not reducible to its parts even though the form is made up of parts. Purposeful forms are holistic or purely information. The information is defining the matter; it is not the matter that is defining the information. To put it another, the form defines the actual ends of matter. Therefore physical events are subject to pre-existent purposeful information; not the other way round. Thus what we have is an evolution based teleology that is perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution and cannot be overthrown by the theory of evolution. The idea that physical reality creates the illusion of purpose is false, since it cannot create the purposeful information that it requires in order to act.

 

[Justin1982]

Great post, took a couple times reading to get my head fully wrapped around it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Great post, took a couple times reading to get my head fully wrapped around it.

Sorry to bother you, i just want to know which post you are talking about?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

True. However I think the OP is trying to make the point that there must be a Designer because He made two sexes instead of 200. Sorry if I put words in your mouth MOM2

Its okay, i need all the help i can get. Your help is welcome, right or wrong.

Peace be with you.

 

[Justin1982]

Sorry to bother you, i just want to know which post you are talking about?

I was referring to your previous post.