Fine Tuning Of The Universe

[Seven77]

16 hours ago, Socrates said:

The concept of "Intelligent Design" is in no way contrary to the Catholic Faith.  I believe in "Intelligent Design," as I believe all creatures to be created purposefully by a loving God with intellect and free will.  

I do not believe the creation of the physical universe to be simply a series of random, purposeless occurrences.  Such a view would be closer to atheism.

 I think that you're misunderstanding. No one is necessarily saying that a loving God has NOT created all that is, and that he created with  intellect and free will. Intelligent design in the popular sense comes with a lot of baggage--- baggage that goes against the Catholic faith and the Catholic way of thinking that can be found in teachings and encyclicals when it comes to faith and reason. I don't believe that creation is a series of random purposeless occurrences but neither is it merely a work of an artisan.

 I'm sure Socrates, that you understand what is meant by “God is not a being," but rather he is Being itself.  You've mentioned it somewhere in this thread… think in terms of that and I think that you will begin to understand what Era is getting at.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Seven77

[Guest]

No one is advocating creationism or there being no evolution. I'm puzzled why this keeps getting brought up. I'm only pointing out how pinpoint specific the laws of nature and constants governing the universe are. I understand if you don't believe human life is made in God's image and we're just some random occurrence of evolution. But for that "accident" to even be able to occur took the "fine tuning" of laws and constants that made it possible. The  numbers could of been anything.The numbers are so exact you cant say they just ended up that way by chance. Perhaps the multiverse will be proven some day and this will explain why the laws and constants are the way they are in this universe. But I've heard from really smart atheist scientists that they probably will never be able to explain why these laws and constants are the way they are. If you don't think it points to the Creator aka God the Father that's cool. And myself personally I'm not basing my faith in God on this. I do find it interesting though and seeing it point towards God the Father being involved. As far as bad things happening and death I believe life isn't perfect because of original sin. Do I have a ton of questions for God on pain and suffering? Yeah of course but it is what it is. He's God and this is reality. And I don't need science to experience God but atheist and believers alike have views on this. A lot of believer's feel it points to a Creator who set the laws and constants at the Big Bang and a lot of atheist think the multiverse explains this away and makes sense of it. And most people really don't care and I can't say I don't blame them. The Holy Spirit is much easier contacted by means completely devoid of science.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Guest

[Seven77]

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

No one is advocating creationism or there being no evolution. I'm puzzled why this keeps getting brought up. I'm only pointing out how pinpoint specific the laws of nature and constants governing the universe are. I understand if you don't believe human life is made in God's image and we're just some random occurrence of evolution. But for that "accident" to even be able to occur took the "fine tuning" of laws and constants that made it possible. The  numbers could of been anything.The numbers are so exact you cant say they just ended up that way by chance. Perhaps the multiverse will be proven some day and this will explain why the laws and constants are the way they are in this universe. But I've heard from really smart atheist scientists that they probably will never be able to explain why these laws and constants are the way they are. If you don't think it points to a creator that's cool. And myself personally I'm not basing my faith on God on this. I do find it interesting though and seeing it point towards God the Father being involved. I believe life isn't perfect because of original sin. Do I have a ton of questions for God on pain and suffering? Yeah of course but it is what it is. He's God and this is reality. And I don't need science to experience God but atheist and believers alike have views on this. A lot of believer's feel it points to a Creator who set the laws and constants at the Big Bang and a lot of atheist think the multiverse explains this away and makes sense of it. And most people really don't care and I can't say I don't blame them. The Holy Spirit is much easier contacted by means completely devoid of science.

   Yeah,  I pretty much agree with this. I think that Era could too but it seems to me that he's trying to get at it in philosophical terms.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Seven77

[Anomaly]

Josh and Socrates, 

if you would read the article that 7 linked to, you would have a better understanding of the issues Catholicism has with what is generally called Intelligent Design by some evangelicals and secular/atheists. 

For example, Are they saying that Gid created an imperfect machine that requires his tweaking and tuning? Is his plan imperfect that requires His actions to correct anomalies?   Is God separate from some of the events in the machine that His occasional interaction points to his presence, etc.?   

Ultimately, ID as identified by evangelicals and secularism is no different than bible literalists and is at odds with Aquainis' version of God being in constant, intentional, and solely responsible for any and all perfect existence.   

[Pia Jesu]

The ad hominem direction of some of these post responses are a bit dismaying--but not unexpected.  In the course of human history no universally accepted proof of God's existence has been developed.  The classical proofs of reason were proposed by philosophers such as Aristotle (plus other notables mentioned in the posts) and by those already committed to a belief in a Judeo-Christian God.  Atheists remain unconvinced by them, and many theists from different traditions view them as incomplete.  Paul Tillich's statement, for example,  that "there is no reality, thing, or even which cannot become the bearer of revelation" is even debatable.  Likewise, teleological arguments--or the argument from design or purpose in the world--assumes an order and design.  The counter-position can be offered that disorder, chance or even chaos does, indeed, exist and that human perceptions of reality are generally unaware of the fundamental disorder in the universe.  Even if it could be proven that order exists, the problem (noted in some posts) of inferring a Transcendent God as its creator remains.  Thus, I always prefaced my lectures on World Religions with the following quote:

Religious thinking, believing, feeling are among the most deceptive activities of the human spirit.  We often assume it is God we believe in, but it may be a symbol of personal interests we dwell upon.  We may assume that we feel drawn to God, but in reality, it may be a power within the world that is the object of our adoration.  We may assume it is God we care for, but it may be our own ego we are concerned with."  A.J. Heschel, God In Search of Man

It is interesting to note that in biblical literature,  the deity never compels belief.  Insisting on preserving human freedom to choose faith, the writers-of-old portray God's encounters with human beings in ways that permit doubt.  To do otherwise, to compel belief, would violate the sacredness of human freedom, a major motif in biblical thought.

[Socrates]

On 6/5/2016 at 6:25 PM, Era Might said:

Man, you so wrong I can't spend the time to explain why. God has no reality, but you will take that statement as atheism or nihilism, or accuse me of flaunting my learning. You have no context for what reality means, so what can I say? You're using words and have no idea what they mean philosophically. God has no reality. Take it as you will.

Bless your heart.

 

Quote

Keep drinking the Kool aid. Your Americanism is turning you into a Protestant and  heretic.

Da, Comrade! Must resist Americanist Bourgeois Pigs!

The notion that God's creation is simply a blind, mindless accident and cannot reflect the mind of the Creator, certainly does not belong to the Catholic Faith I was taught.  Modernist heresy, yes, but not Catholic orthodoxy.

Your modernism has already turned you into an atheist.  'Nuff said.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Socrates

[Socrates]

On 6/6/2016 at 10:27 AM, Seven77 said:

 I think that you're misunderstanding. No one is necessarily saying that a loving God has NOT created all that is, and that he created with  intellect and free will. Intelligent design in the popular sense comes with a lot of baggage--- baggage that goes against the Catholic faith and the Catholic way of thinking that can be found in teachings and encyclicals when it comes to faith and reason. I don't believe that creation is a series of random purposeless occurrences but neither is it merely a work of an artisan.

 I'm sure Socrates, that you understand what is meant by “God is not a being," but rather he is Being itself.  You've mentioned it somewhere in this thread… think in terms of that and I think that you will begin to understand what Era is getting at.

I'm not sure exactly what "baggage" you're talking about, but I think most of the negative "baggage" comes from attacks on Intelligent Design theory (which almost never accurately represent it, but present straw-men), rather than the actual ID arguments themselves.

"Intelligent Design" in reality is basically the idea that the creation and evolution of life on earth cannot be entirely explained only by the classical Darwinist process of random mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest).  The idea that there can be a divine "plan" (for want of a better word) is certainly not contrary to the Catholic Faith.

In fact, one of the foremost proponents of ID theory, Dr. Michael Behe, is in fact a devout Catholic.  I actually heard him lecture in person as a guest at an orthodox Catholic college, where his speech was generally well-received.  I've also read one of his books, and find his arguments quite interesting and convincing.  I'd strongly recommend reading his works before you further criticize ID theory as being somehow contrary to the Faith.  

I'm not sure what "teachings and encyclicals" you are talking about, but I am aware of no Catholic teachings that deny or condemn the ideas found in "intelligent design theory."  In fact, historically, the Church has been quite skeptical and cautious regarding evolutionary theories.  You might want to check out Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.  Darwinism should certainly not be confused with Catholic dogma.

I'm not saying you have to agree with all Behe's ideas or ID theory, but to condemn it as somehow inherently heretical or contrary to the Faith is complete nonsense.

Yes, I'm aware Era is making some fine philosophical distinctions regarding words such as "being" and "reality," but he knows what I mean when I say "the reality of God."  He's an atheist who doesn't believe in God, period, and he's just playing semantic games here in an attempt to be "clever."

[Socrates]

On 6/6/2016 at 11:01 AM, Anomaly said:

Josh and Socrates, 

if you would read the article that 7 linked to, you would have a better understanding of the issues Catholicism has with what is generally called Intelligent Design by some evangelicals and secular/atheists. 

For example, Are they saying that Gid created an imperfect machine that requires his tweaking and tuning? Is his plan imperfect that requires His actions to correct anomalies?   Is God separate from some of the events in the machine that His occasional interaction points to his presence, etc.?   

Ultimately, ID as identified by evangelicals and secularism is no different than bible literalists and is at odds with Aquainis' version of God being in constant, intentional, and solely responsible for any and all perfect existence.   

First of all, it's not "Catholicism" that has issues with ID theory, but the author of that particular magazine article.  He is giving his own opinion, and does not speak officially for the Church nor for all Catholics.  Most serious Catholics I know are not Darwinists.  And, as I pointed out to Seven77, one of ID's most prominent proponents in the scientific world is himself Catholic.

Secondly, I don't really see God's creation as a "machine" that He built, then left to run on it's own, accept to occasionally tinker with.  That is more similar to the Deist "Watchmaker" concept of the Supreme Being, who is likened to a watchmaker who made a watch, wound it up, then left it alone to run on it's own.  I'd see the evolution of life (if we accept evolution) as more of a continuous creative process of God, in which He remains involved throughout.  He's never "separate" from His creation, which Catholics believe could not even continue to exist without God.  The only anomaly that need's correcting is the one I'm responding to.

And your last sentence shows that you understand neither ID theory nor Thomism.

[Era Might]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Bless your heart.

 

Da, Comrade! Must resist Americanist Bourgeois Pigs!

The notion that God's creation is simply a blind, mindless accident and cannot reflect the mind of the Creator, certainly does not belong to the Catholic Faith I was taught.  Modernist heresy, yes, but not Catholic orthodoxy.

Your modernism has already turned you into an atheist.  'Nuff said.

Bless your heart, you're a grown CCD schoolboy. It's charming, really.

Anyway, it's been fun and funny, if pointless as usual.

Bernie 2016

Edited June 8, 2016 by Era Might

[Guest]

Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?

https://youtu.be/jremlZvNDuk

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Josh said:

Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?

https://youtu.be/jremlZvN

"Michio Kaku is a pantheist like Einstein so he doesn't quite believe in an individual personal God but as he states: When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. Throughout his career he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine order existed in the universe. His life’s calling, he would say, was to ferret out his thoughts, to determine whether he had any choice in creating the universe. Einstein repeatedly referred to this God in his writings, fondly calling him “the Old Man. When stumped with an intractable mathematical problem, he would often say, God is subtle, but not malicious."

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Guest

[Pia Jesu]

One of the ironies of this thread is that Socrates uses the fallacious argumentation (ad hominem attacks, appeals to popular belief, emotion and guilt by association) that his screen name philosopher Socrates abhorred!  After his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, Greece, the latter would pay the ultimate price for demonstrating (in public forums) that the powerful and influential Sophists didn't know what they claimed to know.  The Greek philosopher, on the other hand, had the humility to say that he knew that he didn't know anything!  Socrates (of old) was more interested in ethics and epistemology than metaphysics!  It's also ironic that Socrates (of the forum) accuses Era of being an atheist.  The Greek philosopher (at his trial) expressed concern that his speculation/views about the nature of the heavens and earth (more specifically, what was beneath the earth) would lead people to think that HE was an atheist!  His pursuit of truth--through logical, deeply thought-out debate/lectures never employed personal attacks (though his adversaries felt otherwise!).

I might be naive, but isn't there a connection of sorts between forum members and their avatars?
 

 

[Anomaly]

30 minutes ago, Pia Jesu said:

I might be naive, but isn't there a connection of sorts between forum members and their avatars?

Of course there is a connection and a window to their personalities.    It would be a great thread to psychoanalyze members based on their avatar.  

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Of course there is a connection and a window to their personalities.    It would be a great thread to psychoanalyze members based on their avatar.  

That sounds like fun.

[Pia Jesu]

Non alios suo modulo metire...