Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #2326  
Old Feb 25, '12, 5:33 am
Al Moritz Al Moritz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2011
Posts: 1,878
Religion: Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sair View Post
If anything, I've experienced a greater sense of wonder, indeed, felt truly humbled, at the capacity for nature to shape itself,
I share with you the same sense of wonder, but I believe that God designed nature to accomplish this.

Quote:
without the input of an essentially anthropomorphic God.
Well, like you I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God.
  #2327  
Old Feb 25, '12, 5:59 am
cho pilo cho pilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2010
Posts: 589
Religion: It's complicated
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh View Post
Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Objective truth does not depend on a person's approval or acceptance. Objective truth has been in existence since the dawn of human history. However, humans can reject objective truth. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective and objective reasoning. However, when one decides that the only way to know the spiritual world is to limit its knowledge to one's personal experiences, then truth becomes either my chosen way of knowing or nothing. What is being omitted is not the spiritual world, but rather the opportunity to know the spiritual world.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem "Christmas" by George Herbert
What theory of truth are you operating with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
  #2328  
Old Feb 25, '12, 6:14 am
tonyrey tonyrey is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,100
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
There is no absolute guarantee the sun will move tomorrow. Our belief is based on the principle of induction but many people have chosen to reject that belief (thinking the end of the world is nigh) and others because they are solipsists or idealists.
I should clarify that in the past many people have chosen to reject the belief that the sun will move tomorrow (not the principle of induction) because they thought the end of the world was nigh. Others did so because they were solipsists or idealists who didn't believe there is anything to induce!
  #2329  
Old Feb 25, '12, 6:41 am
grannymh grannymh is offline
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 15,302
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cho pilo View Post
What theory of truth are you operating with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
When I am talking about an objective truth, I am not operating with any particular theory of truth. Choose whatever "theory" you wish.

An objective truth means that it exists independently of anyone's approval. Gravity is an objective truth.
  #2330  
Old Feb 25, '12, 7:24 am
cho pilo cho pilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2010
Posts: 589
Religion: It's complicated
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh View Post
When I am talking about an objective truth, I am not operating with any particular theory of truth. Choose whatever "theory" you wish.
If you want to talk like that, then we need to be clear that this is not meant to be a philosophical discussion of any kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh View Post
An objective truth means that it exists independently of anyone's approval. Gravity is an objective truth.
In that case, it seems that by "objective," you mean something like 'pertaining to objects, to the material as opposed to persons.'
  #2331  
Old Feb 25, '12, 7:26 am
cho pilo cho pilo is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2010
Posts: 589
Religion: It's complicated
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Moritz View Post
Aah, but now we are talking about something different, where I entirely agree with you (surprise!). If you go back to my original post on this,

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....postcount=2196

you will see that while I (and with me, the scientific community) assert that DNA is a code, I also claim that it is is undesigned -- nature itself 'wrote' the code; it was not directly written by a designer.

For the slow growth of complexity from simple beginnings, see also chapter 4 in my article on the evolution website Talkoriginis.org:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abio...ginoflife.html
After seeiing this post, it seems I misread your position.
You gave credit to nature (not a divine designer) for the developement from the zygote, onward.
  #2332  
Old Feb 25, '12, 7:38 am
tonyrey tonyrey is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,100
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Moritz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Moritz View Post
"From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world."

The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. No reason has ever been given for the increase in complexity.

2. There is no guarantee of success without rational control and direction.

3. The greater the complexity of an entity the greater the probability of failure.

4. W
ithout rational direction there are overwhelming odds against the development of the most complex known structures in the universe.

5. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.

6.
Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

7. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which
cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of physical events.

8. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.

9. If the laws of nature were
self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

10.
If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.




  #2333  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:07 am
Al Moritz Al Moritz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2011
Posts: 1,878
Religion: Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post

The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. No reason has ever been given for the increase in complexity.

2. There is no guarantee of success without rational control and direction.

3. The greater the complexity of an entity the greater the probability of failure.

4. W
ithout rational direction there are overwhelming odds against the development of the most complex known structures in the universe.

5. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.
In other words, you still stubbornly think that God is not smart enough to plan everything with almighty foresight and then simply say "Bang!" and let it happen from the Big Bang onward. So your view of God is that He is an impotent, anthropomorphic God who, just like human designers, cannot foresee all contigencies and needs to correct all the time. What a miserable image.


Quote:

6.
Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

7. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which
cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of physical events.

8. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.

9. If the laws of nature were
self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

10.
If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.




After +150 pages of discussion you still stubbornly fail to see that 'self-sufficient' in that context means that God gave secondary causes the "dignity of acting on their own" -- literally quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, see paragraph 306:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c1p4.htm

It does not mean that secondary causes could exist without God. As the Catechism (and classical metaphysics) says: "God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes" (paragraph 308).
  #2334  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:13 am
Al Moritz Al Moritz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2011
Posts: 1,878
Religion: Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cho pilo View Post
After seeiing this post, it seems I misread your position.
That's what I thought, no harm done. I am misread all the time, perhaps because my thinking does not follow stereotype (as you can see in the top part of my posts, I self-identify as Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic). But if my discussion partners were more attentive, this should not happen.

Quote:
You gave credit to nature (not a divine designer) for the developement from the zygote, onward.
I gave credit to nature for the development of the first cell, as well.

(Compare also my previous post # 2333; read carefully.)
  #2335  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:13 am
grannymh grannymh is offline
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 15,302
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sair View Post
The either/or reasoning squares with logic itself - things cannot be simultaneously what they are and what they're not. According to logic, something is either true or false - it cannot be both at the same time and in the same circumstances.
Yes, something cannot exist and exist simultaneously. Nonetheless, in addition, the "either-or" view can pertain to two existing possibilities. One can choose to either wear the red dress or the blue dress, both of which are hanging in the closet. Which is true or false, the blue dress or the red dress? What happens when one focuses on only the two dress possibilities and fails to take into consideration the temperature outdoors?


Quote:
For the record, I don't consider myself the only source of truth - but I do consider myself the only one capable of perceiving truth for myself.
When I wrote about the "source" of truth, I gave the example of limiting truth to one's own experiences (plural intended) of material/physical surroundings. Humans have five senses which can be used to experience their material/physical surroundings such as what happens when one wears a light weight dress because blue is a favorite color out into a snow storm.

Of course you do not consider yourself as the only source of truth. You have the gift of common sense. And it is reasonable for you to consider yourself the only one capable of perceiving truth for yourself if I understand you correctly in terms of human nature. Human nature is rational because it has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. And of course you consider others' explanations of reality. For example, the weather man's explanation of the temperature in a snow storm.

To return to the initial sentence in post 2319 which refers to the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth, the operative phrase is "considering oneself" in the sense that one weighs explanations of reality --

"I weigh them against my own experience and then consider whether their explanation squares with what I perceive to be the case." is your comment from post 2323. Because I see both subjective and objective reasoning as being two method's of evaluating a belief, I do go along with your comment. Especially since I often rely on my own subjective thinking based on experiences, memories, learnings, emotions, capabilities, and so on.

In addition, I do go outside of my subjective self and study the belief objectively. i.e., evaluating the independent existence of what the belief is based on. I try not to limit my knowledge to subjective choice.

When it comes to the existence of God, my suggestion is to go beyond the idea of "no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me." because that indicates that only personal subjective reasoning is taking place. The nothing in either it is my experience in the material/physical world or nothing excludes the spiritual, non-material, supernatural realm flat out. However, it is possible for both non-theists and theists to recognize the possibility of a non-material realm.

Quote:
I certainly don't doubt that subjective reasoning has an objective basis - we can only perceive the world as subjects of our own sensory experience.
In my humble opinion, you would be better off doubting that subjective reasoning has an objective basis. That would free you to explore life, natural and supernatural, objectively. Note: just because one is able to use objective skills does not automatically mean that one has to believe what is learned. The freedom to deny is part of human nature.

Last edited by grannymh; Feb 25, '12 at 8:28 am.
  #2336  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:51 am
Al Moritz Al Moritz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2011
Posts: 1,878
Religion: Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
10. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.


Nonsense.

1. Your belief in divine Providence does not appear to entail that it is almighty and can foresee and plan everything, see my post above. It appears that I put more, not less, confidence in divine Providence than you do -- contrary to all your assertions.

2. God can work miracles whenever He wants, and I have asserted before that He does. However, I refuse to believe that He has to work miracles -- when the laws of nature allegedly do not suffice to bring about the ends He envisioned with respect to the development of the natural world and He allegedly has to intervene.
  #2337  
Old Feb 25, '12, 9:07 am
grannymh grannymh is offline
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 15,302
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote from granny. Objective truth, such as the existence of the spiritual non-material world, can be demonstrated by both subjective and objective reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sair View Post
How? I understand how subjective perceptions can marry with objective observations, but I don't see how this lends weight to the claim that a supernatural realm actually exists; especially when we have no avenue to claim we know everything about physical reality, such that we can delimit its capabilities in favour of non-physical entities.
First, subjective perceptions are totally different from objective observations so interbreeding is impossible.

Second, when I first used the objective method to discover the non-material realm (via the peerless human species) I did not include any non-physical entities living there. I posted that it was not my intention to debate the existence of God per se. Philosophers could take over if they wished.

Third, my proposal supported various elements of evolutionary theory at the same time that it recognized the presence of the immaterial or spiritual component in the human species and only the human species. It was my humble opinion that the spiritual principles in human nature were sufficient to infer the possibility that the human species descended from one mating couple.

For a number of different reasons, I did not continue posting on that subject. One reason was that I had to verify my impressions of biological theories regarding human nature. By the time I was ready to continue posting, being comfortable with both the biological science realm and the Catholic realm, the ban on evolution discussions was in place.

It is my intention to respect the ban on evolution discussions.
  #2338  
Old Feb 25, '12, 10:34 am
tonyrey tonyrey is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,100
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Moritz View Post
Quote:
The laws of nature are not self-sufficient for the following reasons:

1. No reason has ever been given for the increase in complexity.

2. There is no guarantee of success without rational control and direction.

3. The greater the complexity of an entity the greater the probability of failure.

4. W
ithout rational direction there are overwhelming odds against the development of the most complex known structures in the universe.

5. The laws of nature do not explain how the urge to survive exists in inanimate objects.
In other words, you still stubbornly think that God is not smart enough to plan everything with almighty foresight and then simply say "Bang!" and let it happen from the Big Bang onward. So your view of God is that He is an impotent, anthropomorphic God who, just like human designers, cannot foresee all contigencies and needs to correct all the time. What a miserable image.
You have failed to refute every single one of my statements...


Quote:
Quote:
6. Belief in the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature presupposes physicalism which is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality.

7. The laws of nature are simply purposeless regularities which cannot possibly cater for every contingency because they are restricted to a limited range of physical events.

8. The laws of nature do not explain how consciousness, rationality, autonomy and purposeful activity are produced by purposeless regularities.

9. If the laws of nature were
self-sufficient there would be no need to postulate the existence of a Creator.

10.
If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.
After +150 pages of discussion you still stubbornly fail to see that 'self-sufficient' in that context means that God gave secondary causes the "dignity of acting on their own" -- literally quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, see paragraph 306:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c1p4.htm

It does not mean that secondary causes could exist without God. As the Catechism (and classical metaphysics) says: "God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes" (paragraph 308).
You have still failed to refute any of my statements...

The fact that God gave secondary causes the "dignity of acting on their own" does not imply that they are "'self-sufficient" nor that they can cater for every contingency nor that God never intervenes.

BTW Personal remarks like "you still stubbornly think" and "you still stubbornly fail to see" are unnecessary and out of place in a philosophical as well as a scientific discussion. They do precisely nothing to further your argument in addition to being discourteous...

Last edited by tonyrey; Feb 25, '12 at 10:46 am.
  #2339  
Old Feb 25, '12, 11:07 am
tonyrey tonyrey is online now
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,100
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Moritz View Post
Quote:
10. If the laws of nature were self-sufficient Christian belief in divine Providence and miracles would be undermined.


1. Your belief in divine Providence does not appear to entail that it is almighty and can edforesee and plan everything, see my post above. It appears that I put more, not less, confidence in divine Providence than you do -- contrary to all your assertions.
Please explain how my belief in divine Providence entails that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. He does far more in my view than in your view because He is not restricted by His own laws. He has the power to intervene and He does so on every possible occasion without revealing His Presence.

You reveal less confidence in divine Providence because you reject the teaching of Jesus that God will answer our prayers and work miracles in His name.You also seem to reject the miracles recognised by the Church when saints are canonised.

Quote:
2. God can work miracles whenever He wants, and I have asserted before that He does.
You have asserted that He does so on very rare occasions even when His children are in desperate need of His help and in spite of His power to do so... Only a diabolical monster would watch and do absolutely nothing when His creatures are being maimed and crushed to death.

Quote:
I refuse to believe that He has to work miracles -- when the laws of nature allegedly do not suffice to bring about the ends He envisioned with respect to the development of the natural world and He allegedly has to intervene.
It is undeniable that the blind laws of nature do not suffice to bring about the development and happiness of all His creatures.

It is not God but the blind laws of nature that are not almighty - although you believe they are in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Why is there so much unnecessary suffering in the world? There is only one possible answer: the world is not directly controlled by God and it is blind natural laws that are undeniably the cause.

Would you leave anyone at their mercy without intervening when possible and necessary?
  #2340  
Old Feb 25, '12, 11:30 am
LittleSoldier's Avatar
LittleSoldier LittleSoldier is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2009
Posts: 5,673
Religion: ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH - Revert
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cho pilo View Post
There are no instructions on a DNA molecule, as there is no intelligence to read, interpret or carry out those instructions. What there is in DNA molecules are templates for forming molecules. The machinery of the cell is not intelligent, so code or instructions can not be used. It is exactly the same for a Carbon atom, it has a number of bonds it can form, which bonds are formed are determined by the environment it is in. Some elements are called catalists because they force chemical reactions to go certain ways and not others, do you think they are following instructions to do so? DNA can be seen as a very large and complex catalist which forces chemicals within the cell to conform to a certain pattern(DNA is an acid)creating specific proteins, there are no instructions, no intelligence, no code, there is only chemical reactions. Information and codes are simply constructs to model what is going on in those chemical reactions. They are our maps, they are not the territory being described.
There are instructions on a sequence of DNA molecules. These instructions are translated and then carried out. There is no intelligence in a blueprint but there are certainly instructions there. There is no intelligence in Morse code but there are certainly instructions there. There is no intelligence in the little booklet that comes with a rice cooker but it certainly contains instructions. Your statement that "the machinery of the cell is not intelligent, so code or instructions can not be used" is illogical. Since when is intelligence required for the use of codes or instructions?

I think we all know that DNA is an acid (deoxyribonucleic acid to be exact). I don't know why that is important to you.

Both DNA and RNA contain instructions. That is the reason they exist. This is very elemental biology. They don't need to be "intelligent" in order to contain instructions.

And BTW, there is no intelligence in a map but it certainly provides instructions. Isn't that why people use maps (at least road maps) - to obtain the instructions that will allow them to reach their destinations? Otherwise they are just large pieces of paper which are very difficult to fold back to the way they were originally folded, especially when one is trying to drive at the same time, and which are sometimes interesting enough to thumb-tack to the wall as a kind of art.

Do you limit life to chemical reactions and nothing more?
__________________
He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8304Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5071CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4356Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: johnthebaptist2
4035OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3853SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3616Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3264Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3212Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3201Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3069For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Theresa DeSensi



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:36 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.