Why are WE here?

[buffalo]

PRATT. You can claim it, but you can’t demonstrate it. There is no evidence for Creationism, whether you misleadingly call it “design” or not.

A reasonable person looking at the probabilities will rationally conclude design. Only the holdouts submit themselves to the ridiculous idea that any possibility of an event happening gives them basis.

 

[tonyrey]

Because we can look around us and see such chance events occurring all the time.

 

[wanstronian]

How do you know they were chance factors? Is it impossible that your belief is motivated by your personal desires - given that you are human?

Yes, it’s possible. However, my belief aligns with the reams of disparate but concurring scientific evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, independently verified and documented; so it’s a reasonable and rational belief. In fact, I’d go so far as to call it “confidence,” as that distinguishes it from the blind and irrational faith practiced by those who believe what they wish were true.

 

[wanstronian]

A reasonable person looking at the probabilities will rationally conclude design. Only the holdouts submit themselves to the ridiculous idea that any possibility of an event happening gives them basis.

Oh dear. Poor you. Er, you do realise that every single piece of “evidence” offered in support of the pseudo-scientific brand of Creationism that is known as “Intelligent Design,” has been shown to be nothing but speculation? Utterly without evidence, completely devoid of any scientific qualities.

But you go ahead and believe in it, if its conclusions meet with your desires.

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t been paying attention to the kind of misleading websites you clearly frequent. your sources are lying to you.

			 					[Interview WIth Lynn Margulis](http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68)

And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.
The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web…

 

[wanstronian]

Chance events occur with an intelligible framework of order, hence the success of science.

Indeed - this detracts nothing from my previous statement though. The existence of the “laws of nature” does not imply intelligent oversight.

It is not so reasonable to infer that an intelligible framework of order is due to chance events…

Yes it is. It’s perfectly reasonable.

Then it would be more long-winded but more accurate to say “I believe that there should be no reasonable doubt…” Otherwise you are establishing a false contrast with those who disagree with you. Ultimately we are all in the same boat regarding the ultimate nature of reality. No reasonable person can claim to have privileged insight…

And nor have I. I have simply pointed out the findings of science which, as you admit, has been inordinately successful. It points directly to the answer of “chance,” and doesn’t come anywhere near the answer of “God.” This is partly because the whole concept of “God” is incoherent except as a vague abstract and subjective notion, which makes it immune to the strict methodological protocols of proper science (which actually finds stuff out, rather than just making stuff up and pretending it’s true).

 

[buffalo]

Oh dear. Poor you. Er, you do realise that every single piece of “evidence” offered in support of the pseudo-scientific brand of Creationism that is known as “Intelligent Design,” has been shown to be nothing but speculation? Utterly without evidence, completely devoid of any scientific qualities.

But you go ahead and believe in it, if its conclusions meet with your desires.

Does design exist?

 

[wanstronian]

Does design exist?

Oh, don’t start on that. The conversation has been had a thousand times, and the irrefutable answer is that the existence of design by humans does not indicate the existence of design by some universal creator. Complexity does not equal design.

If you’re still holding onto that knackered old pack-mule, it’s time to let go and do some reading. If you’re as serious about knowing stuff as you pretend you are.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, don’t start on that. The conversation has been had a thousand times, and the irrefutable answer is that the existence of design by humans does not indicate the existence of design by some universal creator. Complexity does not equal design.

If you’re still holding onto that knackered old pack-mule, it’s time to let go and do some reading. If you’re as serious about knowing stuff as you pretend you are.

So you admit design exists. Is it detectable?

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know

Scientific evidence by its very nature cannot lead to your metaphysical conclusion - which presupposes that physical reality is the sole reality. Science doesn’t explain itself…

In fact, I’d go so far as to call it “confidence,” as that distinguishes it from the blind and irrational faith practiced by those who believe what they wish were true.

It is blind and irrational to assume that your faith in blind and irrational processes - which you don’t practise in the way you live - is superior to faith in the primacy of reason…

 

[tonyrey]

Chance events occur with an intelligible framework of order, hence the success of science.

They are more akin to intelligent oversight than chaos and chance events.

It is not so reasonable to infer that an intelligible framework of order is due to chance events…

Yes it is. It’s perfectly reasonable.

Why?

Then it would be more long-winded but more accurate to say "I believe

that there should be no reasonable doubt…" Otherwise you are establishing a false contrast with those who disagree with you. Ultimately we are all in the same boat regarding the ultimate nature of reality. No reasonable person can claim to have privileged insight…
And nor have I. I have simply pointed out the findings of science which, as you admit, has been inordinately successful. It points directly to the answer of “chance,” and doesn’t come anywhere near the answer of “God.”

The success of science points directly to the power of intelligence and nowhere near blind chance. Which do you rely on when you’re having a discussion or solving your day to day problems?

This is partly because the whole concept of “God” is incoherent except as a vague abstract and subjective notion, which makes it immune to the strict methodological protocols of proper science (which actually finds stuff out, rather than just making stuff up and pretending it’s true).

“stuff” is the key word. The most important “things” in life are unknown to science - which tells us nothing about persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, purpose or love. You cannot and do not base your entire life on " the strict methodological protocols of proper science" and its discoveries. You may pretend it will explain everything but it won’t not explain you or anyone else!

 

[jochoa]

You address the fringe of the truth, but I’m NOT SURE, the fullness of the truth?

**Isaiah 43:7 **" every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made." and verse 21: “the people whom I formed for myself
that they might declare my praise.”" ITS A FREEWILL CHOICE WE ARE ALL CALLED TO MAKE.

IF we don’t love God First; foremost, and primarily; then we are msissing the very purpose of humanities exclusive ability to love.:irish3:

God Bless you,
Pat

Thank you very much for taking the time to help me grow in consideration and understanding. I will try to offer understandings which are more indicative of the Glorification of God. Please know that I encourage you to simply edit my words to help guide me towards fullness, for I am having some difficulty seeing your perspective and where I need to alter the understandings.

God’s Desire is for Man to share in His Blessings (Absolute Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom), and for Man to add pleasure to His Life.
God’s Will is Love. God’s Love is Patience and Kindness and Motivation for Each One of Us and Knowledge with all of His Body, Mind, Will, and Spirit towards Everyone and Himself.

Therefore, A Man’s precise reason for existence is to Freely choose to Perfectly Love - Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for God and Knowledgeable with All the Body, Mind, Will, and Spirit towards others and the self as to achieve and “spread the means to” Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom.

Humanity’s precise reason for existence is to achieve Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom as a Society.

In order to Perfectly Achieve and “Spread the Means to” the Purpose, One Must Learn and Master the concepts of the Holy Bible, the Love of Jesus Christ, and the Sacraments of Catholicism.

My alterations are:

1. Indicating that Free Loving Man will bring God to experience Greater Pleasure.
2. Ridding of redundancy in the last statement - “understand” and “one must learn”
3. More Direct with Glorification of God by means of His Church, His Way, and His Word.

Considerations regarding your statements:
Regarding “whom I created for my glory”
There are many definitions for glory, however, I perceive this use of glory as to state that, “we are created for God’s pleasure.” Meaning We will add to God’s Pleasure.

Regarding “they might declare my praise.”
I agree with your analysis of it is Free Will, which is why I have indicated that “Man…is to Freely choose…”
I also perceived that you were encouraging me to indicate Greater Glorification of God, therefore I tried to be more direct on method of Achieving The Purpose.

Regarding “IF we don’t Love God First…”
When you read my definition of Perfect Love, do you recognize that I am saying Perfect Love is Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for God with All the Person? By this I am trying to demonstrate that we should not just Love God first, we should Love Him all the time with All our Person. Everybody and Everything else, including our self, should be the recipient of the Patience and Kindness, but not the Motivation.

Thank you very much for the excellent considerations!

Thoughts?

 

[PJM]

=wanstronian;8459753]No. It’s an accident.

Are you willing to explain what religion has to do with your supersition? I fail to see a connect:blush:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=wanstronian;8459954]Oh, don’t start on that. The conversation has been had a thousand times, and the irrefutable answer is that the existence of design by humans does not indicate the existence of design by some universal creator. Complexity does not equal design.

If you’re still holding onto that knackered old pack-mule, it’s time to let go and do some reading. If you’re as serious about knowing stuff as you pretend you are.

REALLY, so my friend you have a more informed reason for the Universe? The sun and moon alternating? The fact that humanity ALONE can reason and love due to SPIRITUAL gifts of a mind, intelect, and freewill?

So it’s just luck? Coincedience?

God Bless,
THANKS,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=jochoa;8460674]Thank you very much for taking the time to help me grow in consideration and understanding. I will try to offer understandings which are more indicative of the Glorification of God. Please know that I encourage you to simply edit my words to help guide me towards fullness, for I am having some difficulty seeing your perspective and where I need to alter the understandings.

God’s Desire is for Man to share in His Blessings (Absolute Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom), and for Man to add pleasure to His Life.
God’s Will is Love. God’s Love is Patience and Kindness and Motivation for Each One of Us and Knowledge with all of His Body, Mind, Will, and Spirit towards Everyone and Himself.

Therefore, A Man’s precise reason for existence is to Freely choose to Perfectly Love - Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for God and Knowledgeable with All the Body, Mind, Will, and Spirit towards others and the self as to achieve and “spread the means to” Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom.

Humanity’s precise reason for existence is to achieve Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom as a Society.

In order to Perfectly Achieve and “Spread the Means to” the Purpose, One Must Learn and Master the concepts of the Holy Bible, the Love of Jesus Christ, and the Sacraments of Catholicism.

My alterations are:

1. Indicating that Free Loving Man will bring God to experience Greater Pleasure.
2. Ridding of redundancy in the last statement - “understand” and “one must learn”
3. More Direct with Glorification of God by means of His Church, His Way, and His Word.

Considerations regarding your statements:
Regarding “whom I created for my glory”
There are many definitions for glory, however, I perceive this use of glory as to state that, “we are created for God’s pleasure.” Meaning We will add to God’s Pleasure.

Regarding “they might declare my praise.”
I agree with your analysis of it is Free Will, which is why I have indicated that “Man…is to Freely choose…”
I also perceived that you were encouraging me to indicate Greater Glorification of God, therefore I tried to be more direct on method of Achieving The Purpose.

Regarding “IF we don’t Love God First…”
When you read my definition of Perfect Love, do you recognize that I am saying Perfect Love is Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for God with All the Person? By this I am trying to demonstrate that we should not just Love God first, we should Love Him all the time with All our Person. Everybody and Everything else, including our self, should be the recipient of the Patience and Kindness, but not the Motivation.

Thank you very much for the excellent considerations!

Thoughts?

I understood your between the lines message. However in that this forum is read by such a wide audience; a clear articulation of God first is essential to exposing the entire truth.

Humanity did not “make us”; God Created humanity as the ONLY Creation from His WANT, so that humanity MIGHT choose to know, love and serve Him. Which is only fully completed when “we choose to love eveyone else” as we love ourselves.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Julia_Mae]

Does humaity have a precise reason for existence?

1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father’s only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.

Do get to the Divine Beatitude, we have to come here and pursue our vocation as hard as we can.

I wish I was better at it.

 

[PJM]

=Julia Mae;8462765]1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father’s only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.

Do get to the Divine Beatitude, we have to come here and pursue our vocation as hard as we can.

I wish I was better at it.

WELL DONE! Thanks,
God Bles you,
Pat

 

[jochoa]

I understood your between the lines message. However in that this forum is read by such a wide audience; a clear articulation of God first is essential to exposing the entire truth.

Humanity did not “make us”; God Created humanity as the ONLY Creation from His WANT, so that humanity MIGHT choose to know, love and serve Him. Which is only fully completed when “we choose to love eveyone else” as we love ourselves.

God Bless,
Pat

I have began work on a couple methods to Know God. I will definitely share as soon as I can find the simplicity in my complex understanding.

 

[PJM]

=jochoa;8463655]I have began work on a couple methods to Know God. I will definitely share as soon as I can find the simplicity in my complex understanding.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH,

Please send me a Private message when your ready.

God Bless you!

Pat

 

[wanstronian]

So you admit design exists. Is it detectable?

I think I know where you’re going with this, and higher-profile ID creationists than yourself have been slapped down. I suspect you just like repeating the same old arguments anyway, even though they’ve been refuted, because they still sound good to you.

But to play along until it all gets too ridiculous - generally yes, it’s detectable. I’m not sure how you could say that “design exists” without being able to detect it.

So go ahead… is your next question going to be, “How do we detect design?”