Intelligent Design

[Openmind]

Well, they are "proofs" in a logical sense. Again, they are not "evidence," which is a particular kind of proof (specifically, proof of a material phenomenon). But they are certainly sound metaphysical arguments.

But then there are many things we know to be true without evidence, merely with logical proofs. There are some things we know to be true without even the benefit of logical proofs: Euclid's axioms are a good example of this (they are axioms, after all).



I have always understood the notion that God created man in his image to refer to the fact that God endowed man with reason and independent will -- those things which are the sole and exclusive provenance of the human creature, shared by nothing else in the animal kingdom.

And of course, teleology tells us that we have reason that we might discern truths, and will that we might act in accordance with them. If there is anything worth being dogmatic about, it is truth.

I agree about the likeness. I do not agree that the only truth worth considering is contained in Christian manmade dogmas.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

but not proofs based in empirical data that can be tested and independently verified. The existence of a creator god is more in the realm of philosophy, as are metaphysical arguments.

That is precisely correct.

Science is a narrow field of inquiry. It is concerned only with material phenomena. God is not a material phenomenon. Therefore, science is insufficient to detect Him.

Metaphysics and philosophy are necessary.

Are they really the sole and exclusive provenance of humans? There is evidence that the dolphins, apes, elephants, and other higher animals share the ability to reason, though not on the same level as human beings.

What they demonstrate is less like reason (in the classical sense that governs man's interfacing with the universe) and more like self-recognition and problem-solving skills. Obviously they are greater than what are possessed by, say, ants, but nothing like the reason which man alone possesses.

Which is why science is so dogmatic about proving hypotheses before accepting them as true, i.e., theories. Religion/philosophy, on the other hand, tends to believe what its adherents want to believe, then try to find an argument to support their beliefs.

The philosophy I expound here follows precisely the sort of deductive reasoning found in mathematics. You proceed with an unprovable but self-evidently true axiom (e.g., "for every two points in space, there is exactly one straight line connecting them") and reasons forward from there. If A is true, and B follows logically from A, then B must be true as well; and so on till we arrive at Z. If there is a flaw in the logic somewhere, then it can be demonstrated and thus the argument invalidated.

That it is not evidential does not make it deficient. This is simply not an evidential field of inquiry.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

I agree about the likeness. I do not agree that the only truth worth considering is contained in Christian manmade dogmas.

But natural law is not manmade; it simply arises from nature.

Consider a triangle. A triangle is any closed-plane shape consisting of three straight lines. Anything that meets this definition will exhibit certain properties, such as having angles that sum to 180 degrees.

Now, obviously, not every triangle I draw will live up to this standard (which we can call "triangularity"). If I draw it hastily, it may not be perfectly closed, or its lines may not be perfectly straight, and therefore its angles will sum to something other than 180 degrees. We could say that an exceptionally badly-drawn triangle is a "bad triangle," because it fails to instantiate the essence of triangularity. By contrast, a triangle drawn with a straight edge and a rapidograph will come much closer to instantiating the essence of triangularity and so will be, by comparison, a "good" triangle.

It would be foolish to say that this springs from an irrational value preference for triangles with 180 degrees. Triangles simply have 180 degrees -- it is a fact arising from nature. (We can, of course, quantify it differently, say by changing how much a degree counts for; but all the relationships would be preserved as a result of this change). These are not values we make up, they are facts we discover.

That is the key finding that comes out of classical essentialism, the foundation on which the Church is built: that everything which exists can be said to have a more perfect form or essence which it resembles but imperfectly; in short, that there are norms which arise not merely from convention but from nature itself. This is no less true of material things, rather than abstractions like shapes. If a pen writes very well, I might say "this is a good pen." If my dog is very loyal and friendly (that being the purpose for which that particular breed of dog has been selected), I might say "this is a good dog." If a dramatic movie moves me to tears, or a comedy moves me to laughter, I might say "this is a good movie."

It applies to people as well: people have an essence, which can be discerned by examining the features that compose them. They have hearts that pump blood and lungs that process air; eyes to see and ears to hear. But their most distinctive feature is that they have reason to discern the truth, and will to act in accordance with it.

It is unsurprising that this is one of the first truths that civilized man discerned.

 

[Openmind]

But natural law is not manmade; it simply arises from nature.

Consider a triangle. A triangle is any closed-plane shape consisting of three straight lines. Anything that meets this definition will exhibit certain properties, such as having angles that sum to 180 degrees.

Now, obviously, not every triangle I draw will live up to this standard (which we can call "triangularity"). If I draw it hastily, it may not be perfectly closed, or its lines may not be perfectly straight, and therefore its angles will sum to something other than 180 degrees. We could say that an exceptionally badly-drawn triangle is a "bad triangle," because it fails to instantiate the essence of triangularity. By contrast, a triangle drawn with a straight edge and a rapidograph will come much closer to instantiating the essence of triangularity and so will be, by comparison, a "good" triangle.

It would be foolish to say that this springs from an irrational value preference for triangles with 180 degrees. Triangles simply have 180 degrees -- it is a fact arising from nature. (We can, of course, quantify it differently, say by changing how much a degree counts for; but all the relationships would be preserved as a result of this change). These are not values we make up, they are facts we discover.

That is the key finding that comes out of classical essentialism, the foundation on which the Church is built: that everything which exists can be said to have a more perfect form or essence which it resembles but imperfectly; in short, that there are norms which arise not merely from convention but from nature itself. This is no less true of material things, rather than abstractions like shapes. If a pen writes very well, I might say "this is a good pen." If my dog is very loyal and friendly (that being the purpose for which that particular breed of dog has been selected), I might say "this is a good dog." If a dramatic movie moves me to tears, or a comedy moves me to laughter, I might say "this is a good movie."

It applies to people as well: people have an essence, which can be discerned by examining the features that compose them. They have hearts that pump blood and lungs that process air; eyes to see and ears to hear. But their most distinctive feature is that they have reason to discern the truth, and will to act in accordance with it.

It is unsurprising that this is one of the first truths that civilized man discerned.

I agree with all you say here.

But if you are referring to homosexuality as a "bad triangle," that's where you loose me.
At the least, I would argue that a gay couple who has spend the last 25 years loning each other, in aonogamous relationship, in spite of the social stigma attached to their life style is a far more perfect "triangle" than a man and a women, both divorced a couple of times, living in an abusive relatioship based on lust an/or greed alone.


one of the first truth that a person should be cocerned about is to live in harmony with his/her conscience, listen to his/her own inner voice, and be guided by the God within.

 

[PLC1]

That is precisely correct.

Science is a narrow field of inquiry. It is concerned only with material phenomena. God is not a material phenomenon. Therefore, science is insufficient to detect Him.

Metaphysics and philosophy are necessary.



What they demonstrate is less like reason (in the classical sense that governs man's interfacing with the universe) and more like self-recognition and problem-solving skills. Obviously they are greater than what are possessed by, say, ants, but nothing like the reason which man alone possesses.



The philosophy I expound here follows precisely the sort of deductive reasoning found in mathematics. You proceed with an unprovable but self-evidently true axiom (e.g., "for every two points in space, there is exactly one straight line connecting them") and reasons forward from there. If A is true, and B follows logically from A, then B must be true as well; and so on till we arrive at Z. If there is a flaw in the logic somewhere, then it can be demonstrated and thus the argument invalidated.

That it is not evidential does not make it deficient. This is simply not an evidential field of inquiry.

No, it is not evidential. Without evidence, you are making a system of proof much like mathematical proofs. I'm not so sure you can apply mathematics to the question of god, but then, I never went past algebra and geometry, so perhaps I'm the one who lacks understanding.

Now, as to your self evidently true axiom, there may be some in mathematics, but not so much in philosophy. What may be self evident to one person, may not be to another.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, it is not evidential. Without evidence, you are making a system of proof much like mathematical proofs. I'm not so sure you can apply mathematics to the question of god, but then, I never went past algebra and geometry, so perhaps I'm the one who lacks understanding.

Now, as to your self evidently true axiom, there may be some in mathematics, but not so much in philosophy. What may be self evident to one person, may not be to another.

well it was not in advanced algebra or Statistics as well ...not even Physics ( it used alot of math lol)

 

[dahermit]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth...with a big bang. And then... he went away and was never heard from again. And man looked at what was created and saw that it was good...too good. So man said to himself, "Let us screw things up, we will create something we will call: 'Religion' "

 

[Openmind]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth...with a big bang. And then... he went away and was never heard from again. And man looked at what was created and saw that it was good...too good. So man said to himself, "Let us screw things up, we will create something we will call: 'Religion' "

I like your sense of humour!
It almost comes too close to the truth, though!

 

[Apathy]

My problem with ID is as such. It is not science it is mythology rebranded as a science. When they say a complex a deity created the universe they mean God with a big G, Yahweh the genocidal deity of the desert. But they don't say it because they know damn well if they did it wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being taught in the classroom. When they say that a deity designed the universe they really mean is Genesis is literally true and god made Adam out of clay said abracadabra and life was made. This has no place in any classroom.. It is like replacing plate tectonics with the story of atlas.

 

[Openmind]

My problem with ID is as such. It is not science it is mythology rebranded as a science. When they say a complex a deity created the universe they mean God with a big G, Yahweh the genocidal deity of the desert. But they don't say it because they know damn well if they did it wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being taught in the classroom. When they say that a deity designed the universe they really mean is Genesis is literally true and god made Adam out of clay said abracadabra and life was made. This has no place in any classroom.. It is like replacing plate tectonics with the story of atlas.

I may be wrong, but I think our point of views on this subject are quite similar.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

I agree with all you say here.

But if you are referring to homosexuality as a "bad triangle," that's where you loose me.
At the least, I would argue that a gay couple who has spend the last 25 years loning each other, in aonogamous relationship, in spite of the social stigma attached to their life style is a far more perfect "triangle" than a man and a women, both divorced a couple of times, living in an abusive relatioship based on lust an/or greed alone.


one of the first truth that a person should be cocerned about is to live in harmony with his/her conscience, listen to his/her own inner voice, and be guided by the God within.

But romantic love is ordered toward procreation, too. Men and women fall in love because this is nature's way of compelling them toward procreation. Those who feel passion will have more sex. Those who have more sex will have more kids.

Therefore, romantic love that is not ordered to procreation is as disordered as sex that is not ordered to procreation.

To live according to our conscience and reason is, of course, our highest calling as human persons. But we have an obligation to mold our conscience around what reason discerns for us is true: and to discern what is true we need a coherent methodology. This is where philosophy comes in.

No, it is not evidential. Without evidence, you are making a system of proof much like mathematical proofs. I'm not so sure you can apply mathematics to the question of god, but then, I never went past algebra and geometry, so perhaps I'm the one who lacks understanding.

Now, as to your self evidently true axiom, there may be some in mathematics, but not so much in philosophy. What may be self evident to one person, may not be to another.

I would not say it's applying mathematics to the question of God. It's merely using the same principles and rational methods used to uncover mathematical truths to uncover metaphysical truths. Mathematics are, after all, metaphysical truths -- they correspond to real-world realities but exist independent of them. I can see that 2 + 2 = 4; but that truth would exist even if I did not (or any person).

Of course, it is an axiom only if self-evidently true. If there is reason to doubt it, the argument falls apart. But this is why philosophy begins with such self-evidently true statements as: "Everything which changes must be acted upon by something outside itself." The obvious example being that a rock does not spontaneously begin to move through space but must be pushed by someone's hand, or pulled down a slope by gravity.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth...with a big bang. And then... he went away and was never heard from again. And man looked at what was created and saw that it was good...too good. So man said to himself, "Let us screw things up, we will create something we will call: 'Religion' "

I disagree. As the Unmoved Mover argument demonstrates, God could not have walked away. He must necessarily be sustaining all of existence in every moment.

My problem with ID is as such. It is not science it is mythology rebranded as a science. When they say a complex a deity created the universe they mean God with a big G, Yahweh the genocidal deity of the desert. But they don't say it because they know damn well if they did it wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being taught in the classroom. When they say that a deity designed the universe they really mean is Genesis is literally true and god made Adam out of clay said abracadabra and life was made. This has no place in any classroom.. It is like replacing plate tectonics with the story of atlas.

That may be the case with certain individual proponents of ID or even the whole of the modern ID movement. But William Paley, the man who first argued ID, himself was simply making a probabilistic argument, in perfect accordance with the assumptions underlying modern statistical analysis: given a purely materialistic universe, it is highly unlikely for complexity to emerge (the probability is vanishingly small); therefore, it is highly unlikely that the universe is purely materialistic. As you can see, there is nothing in the argument itself that necessitates the supposed designer to be anything but in existence.

I see no reason to concede the notion of a mechanistic and deterministic universe to the materialists. It is foolish precisely because it veers out of the realm of metaphysics.

 

[Dr.Who]

Apologies for the thread necromancy but I felt this was a worthwhile topic.

Empirical evidence of a phenomenon that, if it exists, must necessarily exist outside of space and time? That's rather silly.

I do not believe we have defined a supreme being to be necessarily outside of space and time. But let us pretend that we are discussing the Christian God. At times He operates within space and time therefore is subject to empirical observation. After all the bible is a testimony of eyewitnesses who actually used their senses to observe and then wrote things down.

There are plenty of things we know to be true which we cannot confirm via the scientific method. Euclid's axioms are a good example. Science at the end of the day is confined purely with analyzing material phenomena and the laws that govern them: it cannot be used, should not be used, and to my knowledge no one respectable has ever claimed it could be used to answer questions of metaphysical importance.

That is a limitation of science but that does not mean that it can make no observation regarding a supreme being. We do not know that such a supreme being does always operate outside of space and time until we prove it. (as a technical point if we cannot confirm the axioms of science then as scientists we do not actually know them to be true - we can only assume)

 

[Apathy]

I do not believe we have defined a supreme being to be necessarily outside of space and time. But let us pretend that we are discussing the Christian God. At times He operates within space and time therefore is subject to empirical observation. After all the bible is a testimony of eyewitnesses who actually used their senses to observe and then wrote things down.

You are aware that the senses are fallible and people are capable of giving false testimony. The bible is an unreliable source if you are looking for the truth.

That is a limitation of science but that does not mean that it can make no observation regarding a supreme being. We do not know that such a supreme being does always operate outside of space and time until we prove it.

meh

(as a technical point if we cannot confirm the axioms of science then as scientists we do not actually know them to be true - we can only assume)

Fail, the difference being that scientific theories have been demonstrated to be true time and time again. Scientific experiments can be repeated however your pet deity has not been demonstrated even once.

Furthermore we do not "assume" that when we jump off of building we will fall we have seen it demonstrated time and time again that gravity will bring that person crashing to the ground. If you believe the scientific theories are just assumption then I invite you to preform your own experiment. Drop a pen off of your table repeatedly and when it begins to float let me know.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
-Einstein

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

I do not believe we have defined a supreme being to be necessarily outside of space and time. But let us pretend that we are discussing the Christian God. At times He operates within space and time therefore is subject to empirical observation.

There is already a rational proof of God that stems from His sustenance of universal motion and change. I provided that proof earlier -- the Unmoved Mover argument.

That is a limitation of science but that does not mean that it can make no observation regarding a supreme being. We do not know that such a supreme being does always operate outside of space and time until we prove it. (as a technical point if we cannot confirm the axioms of science then as scientists we do not actually know them to be true - we can only assume)

That is correct. Scientific axioms, like metaphysical ones, are by definition unprovable.

You could even dare to say they are articles of faith.

Fail, the difference being that scientific theories have been demonstrated to be true time and time again. Scientific experiments can be repeated however your pet deity has not been demonstrated even once.

It is not a question of theories (about which no one here has spoken) but of axioms, which are entirely different. You leap to irrelevant discussion about theories because you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of axioms.

How do you prove that for every two points in space there is exactly one (and only one) line connecting them? You don't. You simply accept it as a given and work from there. Metaphysical arguments work exactly the same way.

And again, there are at least five arguments (that I'm aware of) for His existence. You refuse to accept them because you've already a priori rejected belief in God. This is the problem with nearly all modern philosophers, to the extent they philosophize at all: their discomfort with the conclusions of natural law and the rational arguments for God lead them to reject reason (a la Hume) and reality (a la Descartes) entirely.

 

[Lagboltz]

The first four arguments of Aquinas: Unmoved mover, First cause, Contingency, and Degree are all based on an infinite regress of one sort or another. If I'm not mistaken I understand some of you believe that these arguments sort of apply as a regress to origin of the universe. The fifth Teleological argument seems to involve some kind of intelligence at the beginning of the regress.

Currently what happened just before the big bang is largely a mystery to science. If Aquinas or anyone else wants to label it as a regress to "God", I have a real problem with that. That same word "God" also applies to some entity that people fear, pray to, or worship. Religious people believe that God micromanages events such as hurricanes and death and we can beseech him to control events to our advantage.

I would like to distinguish definitions of God, the "first cause", and God, the micromanager. The first definition is just a label for a theological and scientific mystery. The second definition is totally theology.