Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Gaber

I'd agree with that, but how is it due God? Can you, in this dualistic language of English, state that?

God gave man the power to achieve greatness.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by einfopedia

man can you tell me that why you write this.
its true...give me the reasons????

A warm welcome to the forum!

Buddhism will always be considered superior to materialism because it is based on belief in spiritual development.

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

God gave man the power to achieve greatness.

To me that is a statement void of meaning, despite my lack of atheism. Can you clarfy that any?

[tonyrey]

[quote=Gaber;9251649]

God gave man the power to achieve greatness.

To me that is a statement void of meaning, despite my lack of atheism. Can you clarfy that any?

Don't you believe God created man?

[Gaber]

[quote=tonyrey;9252525]

Originally Posted by Gaber

Don't you believe God created man?

I think that in common English, given the general ignorance of what is beyond the mystical stage of "spiritual" life, that may be the best that can be said until there are greater grounds for knowing better. It will suffice for now to say that "God" "created" "man." From another perspective that would be durned near impossible to say with any degree of accuracy. English is a very dualistic language, not true to fact in many or most of its gramatical assumptions, which are mostly linear and mechanical, reflecting, as does most religion, the age in which it came to ascendency, as useful as they are at the moment.

As an example, only the present tense, singular, of the verb "to be" in English is true to fact. The rest of the conjugation is relative. But that sort of distinction is not yet made in the language, and neither the need for that distinction nor its reason has entered the considerations of any but a comparative handful of speakers, native or otherwise. Consequently, it is very difficult to say or even point to certain kinds of subtlties in our language. But that will change.

It is kind of like the man in a remote village who, until he learned more of the outside world and a greater vocabulary, had no idea that he was homosexual. He had no word for it, and there was not cultural acknowledgement of that orientation in his village. Expanding his language, as any expanding of language does, resulted in the expanding of his awareness comprehension of existence.

Similarly, the refusal to change language can limit expereience, as well as reveal some of the assumptions behind limitations. A very good example of that is one I heard about a lady who refused to learn a foreign language because "God writ the Bible in English, an' that's good enough for me!"

So we see that words are important, and like Music, we can have various tonal sytems and modalities, and acording to them we can be expressive of many things, or not. English, for all its glory, is yet getting on its feet. Just imagine what might be to come!

[tonyrey]

[quote=Gaber;9253109]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

I think that in common English, given the general ignorance of what is beyond the mystical stage of "spiritual" life, that may be the best that can be said until there are greater grounds for knowing better. It will suffice for now to say that "God" "created" "man." From another perspective that would be durned near impossible to say with any degree of accuracy. English is a very dualistic language, not true to fact in many or most of its gramatical assumptions, which are mostly linear and mechanical, reflecting, as does most religion, the age in which it came to ascendency, as useful as they are at the moment.

As an example, only the present tense, singular, of the verb "to be" in English is true to fact. The rest of the conjugation is relative. But that sort of distinction is not yet made in the language, and neither the need for that distinction nor its reason has entered the considerations of any but a comparative handful of speakers, native or otherwise. Consequently, it is very difficult to say or even point to certain kinds of subtlties in our language. But that will change.

It is kind of like the man in a remote village who, until he learned more of the outside world and a greater vocabulary, had no idea that he was homosexual. He had no word for it, and there was not cultural acknowledgement of that orientation in his village. Expanding his language, as any expanding of language does, resulted in the expanding of his awareness comprehension of existence.

Similarly, the refusal to change language can limit expereience, as well as reveal some of the assumptions behind limitations. A very good example of that is one I heard about a lady who refused to learn a foreign language because "God writ the Bible in English, an' that's good enough for me!"

So we see that words are important, and like Music, we can have various tonal sytems and modalities, and acording to them we can be expressive of many things, or not. English, for all its glory, is yet getting on its feet. Just imagine what might be to come!

It is true that words cannot possibly do justice to the reality of God but I'm sure you'll agree that "God creates man" is closer to the truth than "God doesn't create man". (I use the present tense because Creation is continuous rather than an isolated event.)

[tonyrey]

The appalling lengths to which the scientific Establishment will resort to suppress the publication of articles producing evidence for Design is evidence of its prejudice, injustice and lack of objectivity. There is a fascinating account by one of its victims who won a law suit against the publisher, received $10,000 in damages and received an apology but his article was still refused publication even though a rebuttal had appeared in another journal!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04...nti059011.html

[Gaber]

[quote=tonyrey;9253473]

Originally Posted by Gaber

It is true that words cannot possibly do justice to the reality of God but I'm sure you'll agree that "God creates man" is closer to the truth than "God doesn't create man". (I use the present tense because Creation is continuous rather than an isolated event.)

Not necessarily. Linguistically they have about equal value in this matter. But I do agree that Creation IS.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The appalling lengths to which the scientific Establishment will resort to suppress the publication of articles producing evidence for Design is evidence of its prejudice, injustice and lack of objectivity. There is a fascinating account by one of its victims who won a law suit against the publisher, received $10,000 in damages and received an apology but his article was still refused publication even though a rebuttal had appeared in another journal!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04...nti059011.html

"The Branding of a Heretic" in the Wall Street Journal summed up the situation perfectly:

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist -- a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives -- he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...738917,00.html

[tonyrey]

The classic example of a scientist out of his depth is Steven Weinberg when he made his famous comment: "The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless." The whole point of science is that it is restricted to pointless activity! It does not make allowance for "Why?" but only for "How?"

Yet the pursuit of science is not pointless! If it were there would be no point in pursuing it - or anything else for that matter. It is absolutely impossible for a sane person to live as if life is pointless. Even to claim life is pointless implies that the claim is not pointless! Otherwise why bother to make it?

In other words there are reasons for what we think and what we do. But science isn't concerned with reasons. It deals only with causes. It even ignores the intelligent causes on which science is based. The reason why science exists is the desire and need to know and understand physical reality. Its purpose is the search for truth but only one aspect of the truth: the truth about physical reality.

Truth itself is not physical because it is intangible and cannot be observed by the senses. It is entirely beyond the scope of science and reveals the falsity of scientism, i.e. the belief that science can in principle explain everything. It is a waste of time trying to explain anything to a person who denies the reality of truth. And that is what Design is all about...

Truth presupposes minds capable of understanding reality. Understanding reality presupposes purposeful activity. Purposeful activity presupposes understanding reality! Further than that we cannot go nor is it necessary. As Keats said about truth and beauty:

"That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know."

Design is simply the fact that reasons are more fundamental than physical causes.
To abandon reason is to commit intellectual suicide...

[Gaber]

[quote=tonyrey;9253473]

Originally Posted by Gaber

It is true that words cannot possibly do justice to the reality of God but I'm sure you'll agree that "God creates man" is closer to the truth than "God doesn't create man". (I use the present tense because Creation is continuous rather than an isolated event.)

Uh... proceedural note: The quote in post 576 is mis=attributed. That is my post #575 that is quoted.

[tonyrey]

The most powerful evidence for Design is the vacuity of non-Design. There is a reason why the universe exists or there isn't. Existence is purposeful or purposeless. Reality is rational or absurd. The Big Bang was caused intentionally or it was a colossal accident. There is no other possibility apart from these alternatives.

Opponents of Design fail to grasp the full implications of their position. They attempt to introduce reason, value and purpose where they do not exist. If they were consistent they would admit that nothing is reasonable, valuable or purposeful - not even their own activity. In effect they are committing intellectual suicide by denying the primacy of thought. They are implicitly rejecting the validity of their own conclusions!

They are also disposing of their own identity by reducing persons to particles. They are no longer justified in regarding themselves as rational entities. They have transformed themselves - in their imagination - into irrational freaks of nature. David Hume aptly (according to his misguided logic) described a person as "a bundle of perceptions". A more modern view is "a bundle of electrical impulses" but both reveal the insanity of materialism.

To derive the power of reason from permutations of subatomic events is the most colossal conjuring trick in the intellectual history of mankind. The main reason why so many educated, intelligent scientists don't grasp its absurdity is that they don't see the wood for the trees. They are victims of the occupational hazard of all specialists: to be so preoccupied with the minutiae of their subject that they are unaware of its true perspective. Their obsession with analysis overlooks the need for synthesis. They substitute causes for reasons. They explain everything in terms of the past and ignore the future. Their atomistic approach replaces a panoramic view of reality. As a result the creators of science become its creatures and are devoured by their own presumption of infallibility! The borderline between lucidity and lunacy is easily traversed...

[Gaber]

This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: intelligent design. The term suggests that some entity, endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods. An interesting hypothesis. But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence? And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system? Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature’s default, but it’s ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it’s a good antidepressant to think so. But it’s not science-not now, not in the past, not ever. -Neil degrasse Tyson

Religious fundamentalists may deny that evolution exists, but in the natural world it is religion that does not exist. -John Maisey of American Museum of Natural History

It's really pretty much how things are. And while I'm quoting atheists, which I'm not, in this case regarding "design," their statements apply with great accuracy. As has been stated repeatedly, "design" as applied to Creation is an anthropomorphization easily overcome by inquiry into the nature of your own mind, the very "tool" used to come up with so many ideas that fall short of Reality. Don't believe me or agrgue--go find out for yourself. In the mean time, substituting a hypothesis such as "design" is demeaning to the God way most of the piuos, imo and experience, ignorantly worship.

[James224]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

A completely new dimension of reality is opened up by the view that the universe is the product of Design. It implies that purpose is not a rare phenomenon but fundamental and widespread. Even inanimate objects are valuable and significant because without them life would be impossible. This is where science is entirely uninformative and insignificant because it tells us nothing about the reasons for our existence. To leave people with the impression that science explains everything is to leave them with no authentic purpose at all. It doesn't tell us how we should behave towards others or even towards ourselves. It doesn't distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. In other words it leads to a dead end....

One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection. A typical secular interpretation of life is given by Clarence Darrow:

- A Modern Introduction to Philosophy - edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, p. 453.

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of purpose which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don't believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live as if we don't exist by Chance.

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don't regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how useful we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:

"He also serves who only stands and waits..."

The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

"By their fruits you shall know them..."

It is the fertility of Design that makes it far superior to its rival.

This is very good. It's amazing how we begin to think when listening to the media and the world. We being to think that science is the end all. Science is to the atheists as the bible is to the fundamentalists. They try to shoehorn everything into it. If it's not a part of science, they say, it doesn't exist. Decartes, if I'm reading him correctly, sort of personalized truth with the scientific method. In other words, truth began to be considered an individual belief rather than something outside of oneself that all would agree with.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Gaber

This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: intelligent design.

Design is not concerned with gaps, It is a comprehensive explanation of reality.

The term suggests that some entity...

"some entity" is a grossly inadequate description of the Supreme Being.

... endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods.

"all the things in the physical world " is inaccurate and misleading because Design also applies to non-scientific aspects of reality like persons, truth, beauty,freedom, justice and love.

An interesting hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis but an explanation which is far more cogent and fertile than materialism.

But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence?

We don't!

Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

It is absurd to expect Utopian perfection in a finite, physical world.

And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?

The only comedian around here is the ignorant philistine to fails to appreciate the grace and beauty of the human body which have inspired so many great artists to produce masterpieces which will endure long after Mr Tyson is forgotten. No doubt he would prefer the genitals and anus to be non-existent or situated at opposite extremities!

Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself.

Stupidity is revealed in the hubris of a person who imagines he has the insight and knowledge to design a superior universe.

It may not be nature’s default, but it’s ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason.

They are certainly far more positive than the prophets of doom and gloom who criticise but cannot create and continue to cling inconsistently to a life they supposedly condemn and detest as ill-designed...

Maybe it’s a good antidepressant to think so.

The only depressant around here is the author of this gratuitous nonsense!

But it’s not science-not now, not in the past, not ever. -Neil degrasse Tyson

Only a deluded person thinks science can explain everything.

Religious fundamentalists may deny that evolution exists, but in the natural world it is religion that does not exist. -John Maisey of American Museum of Natural History
It's really pretty much how things are.

The natural world is not the sum total of reality.

And while I'm quoting atheists, which I'm not, in this case regarding "design," their statements apply with great accuracy.

What makes you think that?

As has been stated repeatedly, "design" as applied to Creation is an anthropomorphization easily overcome by inquiry into the nature of your own mind, the very "tool" used to come up with so many ideas that fall short of Reality.

Where do you think your mind comes from? The dust beneath your feet?

Don't believe me or agrgue--go find out for yourself. In the mean time, substituting a hypothesis such as "design" is demeaning to the God way most of the piuos, imo and experience, ignorantly worship.

It is certainly demeaning to regard God as a Creator who has no idea of what He is doing, has no particular purpose for His creatures and produces the Big Bang without taking any further interest in the proceedings! To believe in an unDesigned universe is tantamount to atheism.