Overwhelming evidence for Design?


#1
  1. Design implies that neither reason nor the universe is an accident.

  2. An accidental universe is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence.

  3. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…


#2

Read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”. The evidence for God is so overwhelming that it will shock you. Strobel interviews experts in various fiels, biochemistry, astronomy, physics and many more. Strobel has done free thinkers a great service with this compilation of interviews. Enjoy! :smiley: Rob


#3

Cheers for Tonyrey’s post number 1. It sums up the way to belief in God.

I’ll comment on post 2

Read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”. The evidence for God is so overwhelming that it will shock you. Strobel interviews experts in various fiels, biochemistry, astronomy, physics and many more. Strobel has done free thinkers a great service with this compilation of interviews. Enjoy! :smiley: Rob

With three degrees in the sciences, I KNOW this can’t be all an accident. It was designed.
Don’t ask me to explain further. I’d have to get you to take all the science courses I had.

Take it from me. There wouldn’t be a rock drifting in space if God hadn’t stacked the deck in favor of the universe we see.


#4

[quote="RACJ, post:2, topic:290386"]
Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". The evidence for God is so overwhelming that it will shock you. Strobel interviews experts in various fields, biochemistry, astronomy, physics and many more. Strobel has done free thinkers a great service with this compilation of interviews. Enjoy! :D Rob

[/quote]

Thanks for that reference, Rob. It launches this thread with a Big Bang! :)


#5

[quote="empther, post:3, topic:290386"]
Cheers for Tonyrey's post number 1. It sums up the way to belief in God.

I'll comment on post 2

With three degrees in the sciences, I KNOW this can't be all an accident. It was designed.
Don't ask me to explain further. I'd have to get you to take all the science courses I had.

Take it from me. There wouldn't be a rock drifting in space if God hadn't stacked the deck in favor of the universe we see.

[/quote]

Thanks for that scientific support, empther! I'm overwhelmed already. ;)


#6
  1. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.

  2. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

  3. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

  4. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.


#7

George Smoot on the design of the universe.

"If you're religious," said Smoot at the press conference after the formal announcement, "it's like seeing God."


#8

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


#9
                             4. Facts and logic presuppose the power of reason which requires explanation.
  1. Science cannot explain the power of reason because science is a product of the power of reason.

  2. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality because facts and logic are intangible.

  3. The remarkable success of science is overwhelming evidence for Design.

  4. Design implies that reason is a fundamental reality.

  5. Materialism claims that reason is a product of unreasoning processes.

  6. The materialist is determined (in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience.

  7. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.

  8. The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **of “mental activity”.

  9. “mental activity” becomes a **superfluous **term because it is equated with physical activity.

  10. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.

  11. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events

  12. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.

  13. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes **insight **of which subatomic events are incapable.


#10

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


#11

[quote="Filippo_Bruno, post:10, topic:290386"]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[/quote]

What is your view?

What are your answers to the points I have made?


#12

:thumbsup:
I think that since individuals possess a unique quality within themselves that makes it possible for them to realize and to understand the existence of their own being, and since the firing of neurons do not have that unique quality to realize and understand themselves - or anything else for that matter, it makes logical sense to believe that God created human beings with an immaterial mind designed for the purpose of understanding and realizing not only the material world, but also the immaterial world.


#13

The idea that intelligence and self awareness is caused only by the fact that meaningless non-rational atoms move within a particular sequence or pattern has always struck me as nonsense. Physics cannot explain everything, and there has never been any scientific evidence in favour of the idea that it can. .:thumbsup:


#14

:thumbsup: The alternative is an unintelligible world without intelligent beings - or with beings who only imagine they’re intelligent!


#15

:thumbsup:It’s a preposterous claim based on blind faith in the power of physical energy to create an explanation of its own power!


#16

I’ve been reading Edward Feser’s excellent book on Aquinas. One of the first subjects he addresses is modern science’s rejection of metaphysics–the very philosophical reason for its existence–and the subsequent misunderstandings and shortsightedness it has produced. For me, it affirmed in much more rigorous detail what I always tell materialists: metaphysics, for a human observer, is unavoidable and it is not empirical science. Anyone who says they base all their beliefs on experimental evidence is naive at best and dishonest at worst. As soon as one allows himself to pull his eye away from the microscope, the evidence is all around him. Using science alone to inform something infinitely more complex–the self–is a bit like pressing one’s nose against a painting: you see the little bit you can observe in amazing relief and detail, but it doesn’t seem to mean anything as you fail to see the greater whole of which it is a part!


#17

[quote="prodigalson2011, post:16, topic:290386"]
I've been reading Edward Feser's excellent book on Aquinas. One of the first subjects he addresses is modern science's rejection of metaphysics--the very philosophical reason for its existence--and the subsequent misunderstandings and shortsightedness it has produced. For me, it affirmed in much more rigorous detail what I always tell materialists: metaphysics, for a human observer, is unavoidable and it is not empirical science. Anyone who says they base all their beliefs on experimental evidence is naive at best and dishonest at worst. As soon as one allows himself to pull his eye away from the microscope, the evidence is all around him. Using science alone to inform something infinitely more complex--the self--is a bit like pressing one's nose against a painting: you see the little bit you can observe in amazing relief and detail, but it doesn't seem to mean anything as you fail to see the greater whole of which it is a part!

[/quote]

:thumbsup: It's amazing that the preSocratic atomism of Leucippus is now dominating so many minds as if nothing had been discovered about the power of the mind! The tragic feature of this delusion is that the interior life is being externalised to such an extent it will eventually cease to exist.

Hume's legacy that he couldn't find him**self **when he introspected will succeed in making people live as if only their bodies matter. In other words it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you believe only matter exists that is all you will get out of life! If you condemn yourself to live - as far as one can - like a mindless body your interior life disappears altogether.

Hume's legacy is the antithesis of Socrates's "Know thyself". There is nothing to know about a self that doesn't exist! The pursuit of perfection is replaced with the pursuit of pleasure which is bound to end in frustration. Mill's dictum that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied makes the point that a person who lives like a pig will cease to be a person.

When truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love cease to be our goals our spiritual development also ceases and life becomes valueless and meaningless. It is fitting that the materialist regards this life as the be-all-and-end-all of existence. What would the point of surviving after death if life is pointless right from the start?

Another of the predictions of Design is fulfilled: we get exactly what we deserve at the psychological and spiritual level. Every positive or negative thought and action has a positive or negative consequence. Every virtue brings its reward and every vice incurs its punishment. Selfishness enslaves us and love liberates us. The laws of personal development are similar to the laws of physical development in that every event has an inexorable consequence. The difference is that personal development is determined by choice without the element of chance. Cosmic justice does exist!


#18

If a universe exists, then it has properties, by definition. And properties, by definition, are an explanation of something. If that something appears to be chaotic, it simply means that you don’t have an accurate explanation. And why can’t chaos be unnatural. Why do you think the opposite is the case?

Value? The universe has no value in itself except that which we designate to it. And it is most definitely purposeless and meaningless.

Unpredictable? You’re repeating yourself. Same as chaotic unless you want to offer another definition.

Unintelligible? Why would a natural universe be unintelligable? Assuming that there was someone there to interpret it. But if you’re suggesting that we are here as a result of design, you are begging the question.

Irrational? Not the same as ‘without reason’ ?


#19

Interesting point. It’s true - in order to call something “a universe” we have to refer to intelligible properties. This is “by definition” because we assume that everything we can observe can be explained and has potentially intelligible properties. Also, the activity of defining things carries the assumption that things are stable and predictable. But that’s exactly the problem that we’re looking at. Why should there be stable, definable properties in anything? Why not have radically different properties in all things – and properties that continually and unpredictably change? Where did the order and stability and definably of things come from? It can’t come from the non-order, the non-stability and the non-definability of accidental chance.

If that something appears to be chaotic, it simply means that you don’t have an accurate explanation. And why can’t chaos be unnatural. Why do you think the opposite is the case?

We only understand that things appear to be chaotic because we have reference points in order, stability, regularity, predictability, rationality, intelligibility, purpose, meaning and value. If everything was chaotic, we would not be able to know or observe this at all because we could know nothing at all.
The origin of all things, as proposed, is entirely chaotic, unintelligent and meaningless. Is it reasonable to conclude that order, stability and predictability resulted from that kind of origin?

Value? The universe has no value in itself except that which we designate to it. And it is most definitely purposeless and meaningless.

We are part of the universe. We possess purpose and meaning. We see purpose and meaning in many aspects of the universe. This does not follow at all from an accidental origin.

Unintelligible? Why would a natural universe be unintelligable?

As above, intelligence is not a property of chaos. In order for something to be intelligible, there has to be intelligence. But reason and intelligence are the opposite of accidental-chance.

Irrational? Not the same as ‘without reason’ ?

What’s the difference?


#20

[quote]If that something appears to be chaotic, it simply means that you don’t have an accurate explanation. And why can’t chaos be unnatural. Why do you think the opposite is the case?

We only understand that things appear to be chaotic because we have reference points in order, stability, regularity, predictability, rationality, intelligibility, purpose, meaning and value. If everything was chaotic, we would not be able to know or observe this at all because we could know nothing at all.
The origin of all things, as proposed, is entirely chaotic, unintelligent and meaningless. Is it reasonable to conclude that order, stability and predictability resulted from that kind of origin?
[/quote]

[quote]Value? The universe has no value in itself except that which we designate to it. And it is most definitely purposeless and meaningless.

We are part of the universe. We possess purpose and meaning. We see purpose and meaning in many aspects of the universe. This does not follow at all from an accidental origin.
[/quote]

[quote]Unintelligible? Why would a natural universe be unintelligable?

As above, intelligence is not a property of chaos. In order for something to be intelligible, there has to be intelligence. But reason and intelligence are the opposite of accidental-chance.

[/quote]

[quote]Irrational? Not the same as ‘without reason’ ?

What’s the difference?
[/quote]

Thanks, Reggie. You’ve done my work for me! :slight_smile:

I would just add that irrational means either “without the faculty of reason” or " not in accordance with reason" - which are obviously related. Both apply to an accidental universe.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.