Dilemma of intelligent design and free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
I disagree with your definition. Here, you haven’t defined ‘design’, you’ve defined ‘programming’. Yes, if a being is ‘programmed’ to have a specific response to a specific stimulus, then you’re right: no free will. However, just as in the case of ‘free will’, you’ve defined one thing, and are attempting to use it in an application of something else entirely. That dog just don’t hunt… 🤷
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I was thinking; when I read Bahman’s OP I thought he was describing a robot, not a human being.

Bahman, you’ve started many, many threads trying to disprove the Catholic concept of free will. Do you not believe you have free will? Or do you not believe that you are designed?
 
seagal said:
That’s exactly what I was thinking; when I read Bahman’s OP I thought he was describing a robot, not a human being.

Bahman, you’ve started many, many threads trying to disprove the Catholic concept of free will. Do you not believe you have free will? Or do you not believe that you are designed?
Click to expand...
I do exist with the absolute certainty and I am a conscious being hence I have free will. I don’t think that conscious being could be designed since a conscious being by definition is absolutely free. Creation is impossible without design hence the concept of creation is false.
 
Bahman said:
I do exist with the absolute certainty and I am a conscious being hence I have free will.** I don’t think that conscious being could be designed** since a conscious being by definition is absolutely free. Creation is impossible without design hence the concept of creation is false.
Click to expand...
And that is precisely where we differ. The God I believe in is omnipotent and therefore absolutely has the power to create a being (me) with free will.
 
Bahman said:
Ok, here is a new version:

A) Design by definition is form in mind to produce something with a specific function, have desired output giving (name removed by moderator)ut.
B) Free will is ability to freely decide after realizing options.

Here is the basic questions:

How something could have free will if it is fully designed?

To me that is logically impossible.

How something could be created without design?

To me that is logically impossible.

Hence the concept of creation is false.
Click to expand...
again you describe programming. Note the bolded above.

No one here argues for intelligent programming. Or creation by computer programmer and we are just a series of 1’s and 0’s. (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

I’m guessing your a programmer,but God and creation are far more like the design of a political system or legal system or a park, and far less like a computer program.
 
Jon_S said:
again you describe programming. Note the bolded above.

No one here argues for intelligent programming. Or creation by computer programmer and we are just a series of 1’s and 0’s. (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

I’m guessing your a programmer,but God and creation are far more like the design of a political system or legal system or a park, and far less like a computer program.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of design?
 
Bahman said:
I do exist with the absolute certainty and I am a conscious being hence I have free will. I don’t think that conscious being could be designed since a conscious being by definition is absolutely free. Creation is impossible without design hence the concept of creation is false.
Click to expand...
I believe you define both the words creation and design too narrowly. Take for example, I can create a book full of information. Books are designed for the purpose of disseminating knowledge. You having free will, can choose to use the book for a purpose other than what it was designed for. Maybe you get cold and choose to use the book as firewood, in the hope that it keeps you warm. Now, I didn’t create the book for the purpose of keeping you warm. I intended for you to read it and extrapolate from it. Your choice to use it for something other than its design, does not contradict its creation. It was a book, and intended to be used for a specific purpose. Free will lets you use it as firewood, or a coaster, or to burn to make some political statement. Doing any, or all of those things, doesn’t mean the book was never created with a specific purpose or intent.
 
Bahman said:
You mean this:

purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
Click to expand...
Bahman said:
That is a big list. Which one did you exactly mean?
Click to expand...
Read it like this:
(purpose, planning, or intention) = [synonyms]
that
(exists or is thought to exist) = [either actual or virtual]
behind
(an action, fact, or material object) = [3 different but equal states]
 
Bahman said:
That is a big list. Which one did you exactly mean?
Click to expand...
I mean design is: creating, making, or setting in motion a plan on how something should work, function or be utilized.

I can design a park to be a place where families have picnics, but it may end up being used for sports or gangs to sell drugs or who knows what.

So in your definition a park for picnics equals park for picnics. Any other result would prove logically inconsistent and you would say that parks cannot be designed.

Perhaps in Sim City computer style games your definition works, but not in real life.
 
Took2Long said:
I believe you define both the words creation and design too narrowly. Take for example, I can create a book full of information. Books are designed for the purpose of disseminating knowledge. You having free will, can choose to use the book for a purpose other than what it was designed for. Maybe you get cold and choose to use the book as firewood, in the hope that it keeps you warm. Now, I didn’t create the book for the purpose of keeping you warm. I intended for you to read it and extrapolate from it. Your choice to use it for something other than its design, does not contradict its creation. It was a book, and intended to be used for a specific purpose. Free will lets you use it as firewood, or a coaster, or to burn to make some political statement. Doing any, or all of those things, doesn’t mean the book was never created with a specific purpose or intent.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to create a conscious being? Your example of book does not entail as a good example.
 
seagal said:
Read it like this:
(purpose, planning, or intention) = [synonyms]
that
(exists or is thought to exist) = [either actual or virtual]
behind
(an action, fact, or material object) = [3 different but equal states]
Click to expand...
Thanks for narrowing it down. But which of these three do you have in mind as a right definition of design?
 
Bahman said:
Is it possible to create a conscious being? Your example of book does not entail as a good example.
Click to expand...
Somehow you exist so yes it is…whether that’s God or the universe or biology, you are conscious and thus it is possible.
 
Jon_S said:
I mean design is: creating, making,** or setting in motion a plan on how something should work, function or be utilized**.
Click to expand...
The design should be prior to making or creating. I like the second part of your definition (the bold part), meaning that exist a set of laws which dictates how the system should work. Yet, how the system should be free if it is dictated? This is the ability that we call it consciousness which can grant free will.
Jon_S said:
I can design a park to be a place where families have picnics, but it may end up being used for sports or gangs to sell drugs or who knows what.

So in your definition a park for picnics equals park for picnics. Any other result would prove logically inconsistent and you would say that parks cannot be designed.

Perhaps in Sim City computer style games your definition works, but not in real life.
Click to expand...
And does your park can be conscious and act freely based on consciousness?
 
Bahman said:
Thanks for narrowing it down. But which of these three do you have in mind as a right definition of design?
Click to expand...
All of them: purpose, planning, and intention
Once makes a design with purpose of mind, for a purpose, with a plan and with intention to carry out the plan.
 
Bahman said:
Lets have definitions first:

A) Design by definition is form in mind to produce something with a specific function, have desired output giving (name removed by moderator)ut.
B) Free will is ability to freely decide after realizing options.
Click to expand...
I do not see any conflict between these two definitions as given…
If the “specific function” and “desired (design) output” IS the “ability to freely choose after realizing options”…then all is in harmony. There is no conflict.

It appears that your problem is that you simply have not considered that a designer might WANT and INTEND “Free Will” to be a desired output of a design.

Hope this helps to resolve your dilemma.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top