Good design, mediocre design, lousy design

[Spock]

Take a designer, who wishes to create a complex system - for whatever purpose. The system he has in mind must behave in a specific way to fulfill that purpose. The designer has several ways to achieve this, depending on his competence.

Model 1: The best way is leave absolutely no freedom to deviate from the design parameters. The system is perfectly balanced, it will do exactly what it is intended to do, and will not do anything what it is not supposed to do. That kind of design I would call “perfect”. Any intelligent designer, who is capable of doing it, would do it.

Model 2: Another way is to allow some limited freedom in the system, but it is curtailed. The limitations would allow some deviation from the expected behavior, but this deviation cannot exceed the limits which the designer considers acceptable. It is more complex, and less reliable than the first solution, since random fluctuations can lead to undesired consequences.

Model 3: The worst way is to allow significant freedom of action, which can disrupt the intended workings of the system. Only an incompetent designer would create such a system. Then this designer could try to “cover up” his incompetence by issuing “commands” and try to restrict the behavior of the system to stay within the desired tolerance limits. Of course, if the freedom granted to the system is significant enough to exceed the tolerance limits, chances are that they will do so.

Now there are two possible consequences from these premises - when applied to our world.

It is obvious that our world is not designed according to Model 1. We do have certain freedom.

It is possible that the world is designed according to Model 2; its behavior is within the tolerance limits as God intended it. Our freedom of action is limited (of that there can be no doubt), but the limitations are within the design parameters. Both we and our inanimate surroundings can do “good” and “bad” things (according to our limited value system), but we cannot do anything that God does not want us to do (they are all “good” according to God’s value system). All the suffering and “bad” stuff is built in into the system, foreseen and allowed (and thus designed) by God.

Or it can be that we have significant freedom of action, and we can do what God does not want us to do; that is the world was created according to Model 3. In that case God is not a good designer and/or creator. Why create something that the designer does not want?

Any arguments?

 

[Drawmack]

Or it can be that we have significant freedom of action, and we can do what God does not want us to do; that is the world was created according to Model 3. In that case God is not a good designer and/or creator. Why create something that the designer does not want?

Any arguments?

You simply misrepresent what the designers wants. The designer wants us to love Him and He wants us to do good because we love Him. You cannot have love without also having hate, antipathy, indifference, etc. You cannot have good without evil. Thus if God did not allow hate, antipathy, indifference, evil, etc. The designed system would be incapable of creating what He wanted.

 

[Spock]

You simply misrepresent what the designers wants. The designer wants us to love Him and He wants us to do good because we love Him. You cannot have love without also having hate, antipathy, indifference, etc. You cannot have good without evil. Thus if God did not allow hate, antipathy, indifference, evil, etc. The designed system would be incapable of creating what He wanted.

First, I did not make any assumption of the designer’s purpose. Neither you, nor I can speak authoritatively about this purpose. It can be anything, it can be what you say, for all I care.

However, what you say is simply not true. Love can exist without hate. Doing good can happen without doing evil. Maybe they would not be perceived as such… after all if the whole surface of the Earth would be evenly distributed from the center, there would be no “hills” and “valleys” but the level would be “high” without the “negative” valleys (this is just a metaphor, of course, which attempts to equate “good” with high ground and “bad” with low ground).

From what you say it follows that it would be impossible to do a good deed, unless the same person also did some bad deeds. Or maybe the “goodness” of some person’s action would be good only because someone else did some “bad” things, which is simply absurd.

 

[HelenaMT]

Take a designer, who wishes to create a complex system - for whatever purpose. The system he has in mind must behave in a specific way to fulfill that purpose. The designer has several ways to achieve this, depending on his competence.

Model 1: The best way is leave absolutely no freedom to deviate from the design parameters. The system is perfectly balanced, it will do exactly what it is intended to do, and will not do anything what it is not supposed to do. That kind of design I would call “perfect”. Any intelligent designer, who is capable of doing it, would do it.

Model 2: Another way is to allow some limited freedom in the system, but it is curtailed. The limitations would allow some deviation from the expected behavior, but this deviation cannot exceed the limits which the designer considers acceptable. It is more complex, and less reliable than the first solution, since random fluctuations can lead to undesired consequences.

Model 3: The worst way is to allow significant freedom of action, which can disrupt the intended workings of the system. Only an incompetent designer would create such a system. Then this designer could try to “cover up” his incompetence by issuing “commands” and try to restrict the behavior of the system to stay within the desired tolerance limits. Of course, if the freedom granted to the system is significant enough to exceed the tolerance limits, chances are that they will do so.

Now there are two possible consequences from these premises - when applied to our world.

It is obvious that our world is not designed according to Model 1. We do have certain freedom.

It is possible that the world is designed according to Model 2; its behavior is within the tolerance limits as God intended it. Our freedom of action is limited (of that there can be no doubt), but the limitations are within the design parameters. Both we and our inanimate surroundings can do “good” and “bad” things (according to our limited value system), but we cannot do anything that God does not want us to do (they are all “good” according to God’s value system). All the suffering and “bad” stuff is built in into the system, foreseen and allowed (and thus designed) by God.

Or it can be that we have significant freedom of action, and we can do what God does not want us to do; that is the world was created according to Model 3. In that case God is not a good designer and/or creator. Why create something that the designer does not want?

Any arguments?

Your question presupposes two things. That you know what perfect is, and that you know what constitutes perfection for the designer.

It also presupposes that the designer is more like a computer programmer than an entity that interacts with his creation.

Model #1 describes what a game designer would do. Without knowing the purpose for the creation though, it’s hard to define what would be perfect for the design. I guess if the designer worked for a software company, Model #1 would be perfect. But if he was an intelligent being interacting with creation, this seems pretty boring and pointless.

Model #2 does seem to describe the world we live in ,the parameters being the laws of nature. But again, without knowing the true purpose behind creation, it’s hard to say whether the bad stuff was actually meant to be or was just an unforseen by-product of the wiggle room built into creation. Again, this model presupposes that the designer must be like a computer programmer and not an interactive participant.

Model #3 actually makes the most sense to me, and I don’t come to your conclusion that it makes for an "incompetent " designer. What competency scale could you use to rate designing the only reality we know? Unless I had some other universe to compare it to, I’d have to rate it on the orderliness of the laws of the natural world and the way the whole of reality is self-sustaining. If I started seeing holes in reality cropping up, like falling under the board in Grand Theft Auto or something, then I might start doubting the designer’s competence.

I assume that “this designer could try to “cover up” his incompetence by issuing “commands” and try to restrict the behavior of the system to stay within the desired tolerance limits.” means to refer to religious moral restrictions. I doubt you’re suggesting that God actually tweaks the laws of physics to fix mistakes (and how would we know what constituted a mistake?). Since human beings seem to have much of their moral code built into them naturally, these behavioral restrictions seem to be part of the design parameter anyway.

Many (obviously not all) religious “commands” are often encouragements to do things we all know are right to begin with.

I will admit if I believed that total omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence were true possibilities, this post would cause me more grief.

 

[Eucharisted]

You have a nice name

I’m going to tell you a secret about God’s ways. This is something God told me.

God created a world with a lot of freedom in it. God also allows His plans to be almost ruined by His creatures. And God dose not rush to victory but takes His sweet time. Why is this? Because God is just.
He knows what would happen to His creation before He even created the world, and He permitted it, because He knows how to draw out of evil a greater good: it is as with a general who knows all of his opponent’s moves, all of the possible outcomes in a war, and everything that will happen. Because of this, he is able to guide the war in his favor, bring out of an enemy attack an even grearer good for himself, and be triumphant.
He knows that nothing can distrupt His work. Nothing can hurt His Will. So He is not afraid of anything; in fact, He allows creatures to go their merry way and foolishly try to destroy His work: it is as with an engineer who allows lots of little bad things to happen to his design as he is building it, fully aware that these little bad things will not hurt the design. These little bad things will seem huge and menancing to the people who don’t understand engineering, but he knows what’s he’s doing.
He knows the end of all things, that His Justice will triumph over every injustice, so He dose not rush to the end, as if to give evil little time to work. No, He works slowly, patiently, and many times we think of this as Him ignoring us or trying to annoy us. But for God, time dose not bind Him; He dose not, as we do, see suffering but not remedy to it: instead, He sees both the suffering and the remedy to it. All things happen at once to Him: It is as with a storyteller who dose not rush over details leading up to the final fight but merrily takes his time, slowly progressing from one action to the next and one event to the next, for he already has planned what will happen.

If God were unjust, He would rush to the end, without even caring for how we might mature, or even what the possible negative outcome of history moving quickly might have on us; if God were unjust, He would not have permitted us to have free-will but instead make us like robots; if God were unjust, He would not draw out of evil a greater good but allow evil free reign in His creation.

You might object, “If God is all-knowing and just, than why dose He permit people to go to Hell?” And I would answer that Hell is the ultimate consequence of evil. A murderer goes to prison for committing murder; you do not ask “Why dose he have to go to prison?” But God dosen’t send every sinner to Hell: Only those who reject His Mercy go to Hell. That is, only those who want to go to Hell can go to Hell. If a sinner dose not want to go to Hell, and this shown by repetance, than he will not go to Hell. For God dose not want anyone to go to Hell. Now you might object, “If God is all-knowing and just, than why not just not create Hell, forgive everyone, and let all go to Heaven?” And I would answer that you cannot force someone to choose something they don’t want. You cannot force a man who dose not want God’s Mercy to accept God’s Mercy, nor can you force a man who dose not want to stop sinning to cease sinning. God forces noone to Heaven, because He respects our responsibility and our choices. He gave us free-will so we can choose to do good. But some people use their freedom to will to do evil. Evil is punished by the consequences of its own actions. Hence, those who reject God’s Mercy will go to Hell. They have chosen Hell. God gives them what they want, even if it isn’t what He wants: it is as with a man who loves a woman, but he lets the woman go because she wants to go.

 

[slyOne]

God created a world with a lot of freedom in it. God also allows His plans to be almost ruined by His creatures. And God dose not rush to victory but takes His sweet time. Why is this? Because God is just.
He knows what would happen to His creation before He even created the world, and He permitted it, because He knows how to draw out of evil a greater good: it is as with a general who knows all of his opponent’s moves, all of the possible outcomes in a war, and everything that will happen. Because of this, he is able to guide the war in his favor, bring out of an enemy attack an even grearer good for himself, and be triumphant.
He knows that nothing can distrupt His work.{/QUOTE]

First, you just said that He permitted evil, where he could easily have avoided it, so unnecessary evil is produced. You claim that this is used to bring about a greater good. Implicit in your claim is that God is not able to draw out the greater good without the help of evildoing. Basically, God as general should win the war with no casualties, yet he seems to allow a few bloody massacres along the way like its really nothing.

If God were unjust, He would rush to the end, without even caring for how we might mature

 

[Drawmack]

First, I did not make any assumption of the designer’s purpose. Neither you, nor I can speak authoritatively about this purpose. It can be anything, it can be what you say, for all I care.

However, what you say is simply not true. Love can exist without hate. Doing good can happen without doing evil. Maybe they would not be perceived as such… after all if the whole surface of the Earth would be evenly distributed from the center, there would be no “hills” and “valleys” but the level would be “high” without the “negative” valleys (this is just a metaphor, of course, which attempts to equate “good” with high ground and “bad” with low ground).

From what you say it follows that it would be impossible to do a good deed, unless the same person also did some bad deeds. Or maybe the “goodness” of some person’s action would be good only because someone else did some “bad” things, which is simply absurd.

Nope, you’re still misrepresenting. You’re on a Catholic message board talking about God. I am assuming you mean the Christian God. The Bible tells us that the Christian God wants us to choose to love Him and choose to do Good because we love Him. We cannot choose to love Him unless something, or many things, other than love also exist. We cannot choose to to good unless something, or many things, other than good exist. If only love and good exist then we must do good and we must love because we cannot choose anything else.

 

[slyOne]

If only love and good exist then we must do good and we must love because we cannot choose anything else.

If every choice necessarily includes both good and evil, then there can be no such thing as indulgences.

“Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them” Council of Trent

I can choose to abstain on Friday or I can fast. One obviously requires more sacrifice than the other, but that does not mean abstinence is an evil choice. Not everything in this world is necessarily evil, only God permits the ability and temptation to evil to cause real pain in this world.

 

[geometer]

I’m going to tell you a secret about God’s ways. This is something God told me.

God created a world with a lot of freedom in it. God also allows His plans to be almost ruined by His creatures. And God dose not rush to victory but takes His sweet time. Why is this? Because God is just…

…Evil is punished by the consequences of its own actions. Hence, those who reject God’s Mercy will go to Hell. They have chosen Hell. God gives them what they want, even if it isn’t what He wants: it is as with a man who loves a woman, but he lets the woman go because she wants to go.

What you wrote seems inspired. God doing engineering is wonderful as a metaphor. We live in a world which he has allowed, be cause he enjoys solving the great problem of the whole thing. I studied engineering for awhile and got to know some good engineering students, who I assume became pretty good engineers. Psychologically engineers are the most well balanced on university campuses, which is demonstrated in the house, tree, person drawing test. The human figures that they tend to draw are most realistically proportioned.

The law that god has given in the decalogue helps us make the most efficient use of our actual design. If we do not follow the ten commandments we will degrade important relationships between the five systems of our design.

The five systems are pointed to in the shema, heart, soul, might - where ‘might’ is expanded in Mark as mind and strength. the fifth system is the whole envelope of the body, which is out fitted with the senses. Heart, soul, mind, and strength all exist within a shape which is sensory.

Sensations are the most basic elements of existence.

And, love is the essence of the continuum that He has created, love brings forth new reality.

---

My over all thought from what you wrote is that perhaps people who are choosing hell maybe designers themselves, who are unhappy with the way that they are designed…

 

[Drawmack]

If every choice necessarily includes both good and evil, then there can be no such thing as indulgences.

“Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them” Council of Trent

I can choose to abstain on Friday or I can fast. One obviously requires more sacrifice than the other, but that does not mean abstinence is an evil choice. Not everything in this world is necessarily evil, only God permits the ability and temptation to evil to cause real pain in this world.

I said that you couldn’t do good if good was the only choice.

Your example of fasting and abstaining is not a proper one. Fasting and abstaining both fall into the category of self-denial for God’s glory. These are not good vs. evil, they are self-denial vs. self-gratification choices. In this situation you would have to take out one of these to apply it to what I was saying.

Good try though.

 

[jorgeraul3]

As a designer I can tell you the OP logic is flawed. What designer in their right mind would create an inflexible system. Maybe someone right out of school with no experience might try to do this.

Method 1, the so-called “perfect” system is seriously flawed. A “perfect” system will do one thing, and one thing only. With no room for changing conditions or changing trends. What about changing (name removed by moderator)uts, what if the desired output is different.

Usually the problem here at work isn’t our % efficiency because our designs are not “perfect”. The problem is usually the lack of flexibility in design and too restrictive parameters.

 

[slyOne]

I said that you couldn’t do good if good was the only choice.

Your example of fasting and abstaining is not a proper one. Fasting and abstaining both fall into the category of self-denial for God’s glory. These are not good vs. evil, they are self-denial vs. self-gratification choices. In this situation you would have to take out one of these to apply it to what I was saying.

Good try though.

I understand what you were saying. I argued that you actually could do good if it was the only choice. I gave two examples of good in order to say that evil need not be present to choose it and actually be making a choice. So no, if I removed one of these then it would agree with what you say, yet it essentially misses the point I am making.

Also, if I may equate evil with sin, let me make the following argument. Sin is the disobedience of God. So in order to sin we have to disobey God. Disobey. Obey means to follow a command to the letter, disobey means to deviate from it. Therefore the only way we can actually disobey God is if he gives us anything to obey. If obedience is not inserted into the equation by God, we can choose to become nearer to him, but if don’t choose him it is no harm, thus no sin and no evil and no eternal torture of frail human beings.

 

[Drawmack]

I understand what you were saying. I argued that you actually could do good if it was the only choice. I gave two examples of good in order to say that evil need not be present to choose it and actually be making a choice. So no, if I removed one of these then it would agree with what you say, yet it essentially misses the point I am making.

Also, if I may equate evil with sin, let me make the following argument. Sin is the disobedience of God. So in order to sin we have to disobey God. Disobey. Obey means to follow a command to the letter, disobey means to deviate from it. Therefore the only way we can actually disobey God is if he gives us anything to obey. If obedience is not inserted into the equation by God, we can choose to become nearer to him, but if don’t choose him it is no harm, thus no sin and no evil and no eternal torture of frail human beings.

But that is not the choice. The choice is to choose him or to not choose him, not to choose to become closer to him or not. If there is no choice beside God then there is no way to not choose God.

 

[buffalo]

Here is a challenge - you be the designer.

How would you do it?

 

[slyOne]

But that is not the choice. The choice is to choose him or to not choose him, not to choose to become closer to him or not. If there is no choice beside God then there is no way to not choose God.

Here let me provide another flawed example. Say a man decides to take two wives. This as taught by the Church is sin. But what if polygamy did not separate you from God? What if it is a neutral choice? Neutral choices are made all the time that are not a matter of choosing God or not. Choosing whether to have PBJ or baloney is indeed a choice, but there are no moral stakes. It only contains moral stakes when God attaches them, which is in the case of defining choosing God and simply not choosing Him. Not rejecting him, just not choosing Him.

 

[Dameedna]

You simply misrepresent what the designers wants. The designer wants us to love Him and He wants us to do good because we love Him. You cannot have love without also having hate, antipathy, indifference, etc. You cannot have good without evil. Thus if God did not allow hate, antipathy, indifference, evil, etc. The designed system would be incapable of creating what He wanted.

Yeah the whole problem with this is, why would an infinite being…WANT anything?

 

[buffalo]

Yeah the whole problem with this is, why would an infinite being…WANT anything?

Correct- He does not want in the sense of something lacking or incomplete. He is love itself and shares this love with His creatures.

" He loved the world so much He sent His only Son to save us"

God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)

 

[tonyrey]

Yeah the whole problem with this is, why would an infinite being…WANT anything?

The whole problem with not believing in an infinite Creator is that we are left without an adequate explanation of human creativity, free will and capacity for love. All love implies a yearning for the well-being of the beloved. Yet all love entails taking a risk. The Creator’s love is no exception. Our freedom gives us the power to reject divine love. Indifference to our lack of love would imply that the Creator does not really love us. Shakespeare summed it up in that wonderful line:

“Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds…”

 

[Spock]

Here is a challenge - you be the designer.

How would you do it?

I presume you directed this challenge to me. As DameEdna wisely remarked, in the light of the traditional view of God - a being infinitely self-sufficient - the creation simply makes no logical sense. For someone who has no needs it is illogical to do anything.

If God would be “perfect” (whatever that means), then adding the inferior conglomerate of the world simply detracts from the “perfection”. After all, all roads lead downhill from the pinnacle.

If we accept that God created the world, then God cannot be self-sufficient, God must have lacked something that the creation fulfilled. As some posters insinuated, it could have been the desire to love and to be loved. Not a satisfying proposition. The “love” between such vastly different beings is not (and cannot be) the love of equals, after all there is no equal to God.

Such love is more akin to the relationship of a master and a pet. The pet “adores” or “worships” the master, and the master feels some kind of attraction to the pet. To assume that this is what God “wanted” is a very anthropomorphic picture. Besides, the world, as wee see it, refutes this propsition. God - the master - does not even show himself to us, and most definitely does not take care of our needs. He leaves us strictly alone. Why should we, the pets, feel anything toward God? And if our “worship” is what God wanted, that paints a pretty sad picture of him - an infinite being who craves the worship of such inferior beings, and who does nothing to earn that worship.

Now to the question itself. If I were God as perfect as the traditional view suggests, I would not do anything.

However, if I were God who had some need, and to fulfill that need I would have had to resort to creation, I would create exactly and precisely what I wanted.

 

[Spock]

" He loved the world so much He sent His only Son to save us"

I was sure this will come up eventually. Good old John 3:16 being quoted ad nauseam.

It demands the question: “why could not have God simply forgiven our trespasses, without going through that charade of sacrificing ‘himself’?” After all a parent can and does simply forgive his children, without demanding a sacrifice. And moreover: “save” from what? From the hell, he himself created? What a ridiculous proposition!