Good design, mediocre design, lousy design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
liquidpele said:
Well, technically the scholars in Alexandria knew it was round in the BC era, but as for 99.99% of people the Earth was perceived to be round far into the Medieval Europe time period. In this particular case, I’m talking about the Jews and (as far as I’m aware) those writing the books in the bible. The idea in Christian theology circles stared around 300-400 AD (source). Besides, you’re missing the main point. The people at that time believed in a lot of stuff not believed now, and didn’t know very much about the way things worked. To deny that is to deny history and the progression of humanity.
Click to expand...
The Myth of the Flat Earth

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are even under the impression that Galileo’s trial centred on the subject rather than whether the Earth orbited the sun.
It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

more…
 
buffalo said:
Check out the Fiji islands until Catholic missionaries arrived.
Click to expand...
Oh, it stills goes on in parts of the Congo too. I’m not sure what some small examples do to show that all atheists would be eating one another if given the chance though. Surely our species would not have survived before Christianity, or perhaps we are all Jewish and don’t know it.
 
buffalo said:
The Myth of the Flat Earth

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are even under the impression that Galileo’s trial centred on the subject rather than whether the Earth orbited the sun.
It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

more…
Click to expand...
I’m aware of that. I said people believed it into the Medieval period, which started around the 6th or 7th century AD. Columbus was born at the very end of what was described as this period (if not after it) so I’m not sure why you’re bringing him up. I also stated that Christian theologians started believing the Earth was round at about 400 AD or so, which coincides with many Christians in the middle ages knowing it. However, all these time periods are still centuries after the books of the bible were written… especially the old testament.
 
liquidpele

*I also stated that Christian theologians started believing the Earth was round at about 400 AD or so, which coincides with many Christians in the middle ages knowing it. However, all these time periods are still centuries after the books of the bible were written… especially the old testament. *

Again, are you blaming the “flat earth” theory on ancient religion or ancient science?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
liquidpele

*I also stated that Christian theologians started believing the Earth was round at about 400 AD or so, which coincides with many Christians in the middle ages knowing it. However, all these time periods are still centuries after the books of the bible were written… especially the old testament. *

Again, are you blaming the “flat earth” theory on ancient religion or ancient science?
Click to expand...
I’m not *blaming *it on anything. It was the ignorance of the times, just as we have ignorance in these.
 
Spock said:
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.
Click to expand...
Didn’t have time to read the whole thread but wanted to answer:

Freedom must have been one of the “intended workings” that God had in mind when he designed us. It wasn’t a means to an end, it was one of the ends.
 
Spock said:
It is easy to further minimize the harm just by preventing one more criminal act.
Click to expand...
This is precisely what you are not prepared to do. You are prepared to reproduce, knowing full well that many of your descendants will become victims of horrific crimes and thousands of them will be perpetrators of horrific crimes. You argue that we have children because nature imbued us with the irrational desire to procreate. That excuse would not be accepted in a court of law because you are deemed to have control of your actions and desires. If you are a normal person your “irrational” desire to procreate is not regarded as irresistible .

Your only other possible excuse is that God should not have given you control of your actions and desires. Would you really prefer to be a biological robot?
Code: 
             *We cannot understand the nature of free will. All we know is that it is the power to transcend physical causality in a way that is impossible for any other creature. For the atheist there is no explanation.*
                             Sure there is. We don't know the precise mechanism of it, but free will can be adequately explained as an emerging attribute, stemming from the complexity of the brain
Click to expand...
As an atheist you must believe that the laws of nature alone have determined the course of events. It is impossible that within 100,000 years homo sapiens has acquired the power to control brain processes and infringe the law of the conservation of energy. For you free will must be an illusion. An increase in complexity is not an adequate explanation of self-control. No matter how complex the brain becomes it remains a physical organ which functions according to physical laws and it cannot control itself.
The problem is that without free will you cannot choose what to think and you are incapable of rational activity. So you are wasting your time trying to prove anything!🙂
Where precisely do you obtain this moral code?
I don’t want to be hurt. Therefore I do not hurt others.
Click to expand...
It does not follow from the fact that you don’t want to be hurt you will not hurt others. Many people do precisely this. It is because you believe in the principle of equality, but you have not explained why you believe in equality.
I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need.
Click to expand...
In other words your morality boils down to expediency. You do things because you expect something in return. In reality you have inherited this belief and you have never questioned whether it has a rational foundation. For the atheist, it has no rational foundation because the value of life is no more than a human idea. You cherish life because of your survival instinct and if it comes to a choice between your life and another person’s you will choose your own - if you are a consistent atheist. After all, you believe this is the only life you have and therefore you must cling to it at all costs unless you can give a good reason for sacrificing yourself…
 
Spock said:
First a welcome, as I see you are new to the board.

Then a few questions: what do you mean by “suffering”? Physical pain, mental anguish, or both? Whose suffering is “beautiful”? Your own? Other people’s suffering? The suffering of animals? Please elaborate…

And a remark: God could have just created us directly in heaven and bypass all this charade. We all would enjoy whatever joy that brings. As is, many people will only “enjoy” the everlasting torture in hell - which they do NOT want, and allegedly God does not want either. The current arrangement is definitely suboptimal, thus not the sign of a “good” and capable creator.
Click to expand...
KIRK: (Off camera.) Kirk’s log, star date 123456789… Much of the crew of the Enterprise, including myself have retired to the Federation Retirement Home located on the planet Liverspot, in the double star system of Bush and Cheney. There, my old friends Spock, Bones, Sulu, Scotty, and I enjoy the ancient game of golf mixed with some lively conversation.

(Cut to the golf course. Scotty is busy examining the innards of a 23rd century antimatter golf cart. Kirk and the rest look on.)

SCOTTY: I dunno, Capt’n, I think it’s gonna take a miracle to get this thing going again!

KIRK: (Sighs.) Oh, alright Scotty. Just do the best you can—it’s not like we’re under attack by the Klingons. So take your time.

BONES: (Chuckling.) Some things never change, do they Jim. We get older, but the rest of the universe stays the same.

SPOCK: So it would appear, Doctor.

KIRK: Spock, Chekov was telling me the other day that you came up with some sort of proof that a Supreme Being exists?

SPOCK: That is correct.

BONES: Oh! I’ve got to hear this!

KIRK: Well…go on then…tell us. We’re all ears.

SPOCK: Imagine that you have beamed down to a deserted Class M planet. There are no detectable life forms. The only things remaining are what appear to be habitat structures. What inferences can you make from this evidence?

BONES:(Chuckling.) Someone was late paying the rent, and the landlord evicted ‘em.

SPOCK: Very funny, Doctor. Now if I may continue. We can infer one of two things: The structures sprang up by themselves as a result of a series of random events…

BONES: Or?

SPOCK: …or there was intelligent life inhabiting the planet…

KIRK: And it was they who built the structures.

SPOCK: That is correct.

BONES: Well what the blazes does that prove?!

SPOCK: The point I’m making here Doctor is that we cannot detect the life forms responsible for erecting the structures, but it is perfectly logical to hypothesize that the life forms exist, or at least existed at one time.

KIRK: Oh, I see where you are going with this: If we can find some “structures” that only a Supreme Being could have built, then we can infer that such a being exists—even though our sensers don’t detect its existence.

SPOCK: Not exactly. First, we have to eliminate the possibility that the “structures” sprang up by pure chance.

BONES: Then by process of elimination we can conclude that only intelligent life—a Supreme Being—created the “structures”…

SPOCK: Or a race of Supreme Beings.

KIRK: So Spock, how do we eliminate the possibility of pure chance?

SPOCK: We must first imagine we live in a universe where everything happens by pure chance.

BONES: Well, obviously that would be impossible, since we exist, we are intelligent life, and we make things happen on purpose. So to some extent, things don’t happen purely by chance.
 
SPOCK: You are correct, Doctor. It is logical to infer from the evidence of our existence that it is possible that other intelligent life in the form of a Supreme Being also exists. However, let us continue to examine pure chance: Let us suppose that we are flipping a coin. The coin keeps landing on its edge, which is highly improbable. The coin should land on heads or tails most of the time. If it continues to land on its edge, we can infer that someone or something unseen and unknown to us is interfering with the coin’s probable outcomes.

KIRK: So if we can find something analogous in our universe to the “coin” and “structures,” we have our proof of a Creator…a Supreme Being?

SPOCK: Yes, I believe we will have as much proof as we are ever going to have short of direct contact.

BONES: Spock, you green-blooded, pointed-eared freak! Tell us already what in our universe is analogous to your “structures” and “coin” illustrations!

SPOCK: You’re familiar with mathematics and Science, Doctor. If our universe were pure chaos and pure chance, then mathematics and Science would have no value.

KIRK: But Spock everyone knows that math and science are products of us—not a Supreme Being.

SPOCK: So it appears, Captain. The laws of physics are like the “coin” . They consistently work for us, but they don’t have to. Pure chance and chaos dictate that physical laws should not work for us consistently. Therefore, something or someone is interfering with the probable outcomes. Light always travels the same speed, large masses always warp space, and protons are always attracted to electrons. These phenomena are like the coin consistently landing on its edge. Such determinism should not exist in a chaotic universe.

BONES: Even the chaos we do have seems to have stacked odds that we can master with math, science and technology.

SPOCK: Precisely, Doctor. Therefore, pure chance can be eliminated as a possible cause of the “structures.”

KIRK: So what is analogous to the “structures” in your deserted planet illustration?

SPOCK: Why the universe’s design and structure. Now that we have eliminated pure chance as the cause of the universe’s design…

BONES: There must be a God—I knew it!

KIRK: Spock, why do you suppose we have never made direct contact with this Supreme Being?

SPOCK: I have a theory…

BONES and KIRK: Let’s here it!

SCOTTY: Capt’n, the golf cart is ready to go!

(Kirk, Bones, Spock, Scotty climb into the golf cart. Sulu is in the driver’s seat)

KIRK: To the first tee, warp factor 100000…, Mr. Sulu!

SULU: Aye, sir.

KIRK: Now where were we? Oh yes…Spock continue…

SPOCK: I believe that we can no more make contact with the Supreme Being than the characters in a play can make contact with the playwright.

KIRK: Spock, are you suggesting that we are just characters in a writer’s script?

SPOCK: Yes, Captain—

BONES: Holy Gene Roddenberry, Spock, that’s absurd! I think, therefore I am! I have free will! I refuse to believe that I am nothing more than a character in a play!

(Laughter erupts in the golf cart at Spock’s expense.)

SPOCK: (With a slightly perturbed countenance, Spock raises his eyebrows) Humans.
 
tonyrey said:
This is precisely what you are not prepared to do. You are prepared to reproduce, knowing full well that many of your descendants will become victims of horrific crimes and thousands of them will be perpetrators of horrific crimes. You argue that we have children because nature imbued us with the irrational desire to procreate. That excuse would not be accepted in a court of law because you are deemed to have control of your actions and desires. If you are a normal person your “irrational” desire to procreate is not regarded as irresistible .
Click to expand...
The error is that we have responsibility where we have control, not just knowledge. We are only responsible for our direct children’s behavior, and only until they become adults. We are not responsible for our grandchildren’s behavior, much less for our other descendants. God has both knowledge and power, so his responsiblity is “absolute”.

Nothing else you say is pertinent to the question at hand. Please stick to the topic.
 
Spock said:
The error is that we have responsibility where we have control, not just knowledge. We are only responsible for our direct children’s behavior, and only until they become adults. We are not responsible for our grandchildren’s behavior, much less for our other descendants. God has both knowledge and power, so his responsiblity is “absolute”.
Click to expand...
You are not responsible for the behaviour of your descendants but you know perfectly well that many of them will be the perpetrators of horrific crimes and the victims of horrific crimes. You have the power to prevent these crimes by not having any children. You are not forced to have children.You also believe that these crimes can never be rectified. Therefore your responsibility is absolute.
Nothing else you say is pertinent to the question at hand. Please stick to the topic.
Click to expand...
That is a facile evasion of the statements I have made. I append them so that others may judge whether they are pertinent or not:

You argue that we have children because nature imbued us with the irrational desire to procreate. That excuse would not be accepted in a court of law because you are deemed to have control of your actions and desires. If you are a normal person your “irrational” desire to procreate is not regarded as irresistible .

Your only other possible excuse is that God should not have given you control of your actions and desires. Would you really prefer to be a biological robot?
We cannot understand the nature of free will. All we know is that it is the power to transcend physical causality in a way that is impossible for any other creature. For the atheist there is no explanation.
Sure there is. We don’t know the precise mechanism of it, but free will can be adequately explained as an emerging attribute, stemming from the complexity of the brain.
Click to expand...
As an atheist you must believe that the laws of nature alone have determined the course of events. It is impossible that within 100,000 years homo sapiens has acquired the power to control brain processes and infringe the law of the conservation of energy. For you free will must be an illusion. An increase in complexity is not an adequate explanation of self-control. No matter how complex the brain becomes it remains a physical organ which functions according to physical laws and it cannot control itself.
The problem is that without free will you cannot choose what to think and you are incapable of rational activity. So you are wasting your time trying to prove anything!
Where precisely do you obtain this moral code?
I don’t want to be hurt. Therefore I do not hurt others.
Click to expand...
It does not follow from the fact that you don’t want to be hurt you will not hurt others. Many people do precisely this. It is because you believe in the principle of equality, but you have not explained why you believe in equality.
I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need.
Click to expand...
In other words your morality boils down to expediency. You do things because you expect something in return. In reality you have inherited this belief and you have never questioned whether it has a rational foundation. For the atheist, it has no rational foundation because the value of life is no more than a human idea. You cherish life because of your survival instinct and if it comes to a choice between your life and another person’s you will choose your own - if you are a consistent atheist. After all, you believe this is the only life you have and therefore you must cling to it at all costs unless you can give a good reason for sacrificing yourself…

You believe in responsibility and evil but you have explained neither the one nor the other…
 
tonyrey said:
You are not responsible for the behaviour of your descendants but you know perfectly well that many of them will be the perpetrators of horrific crimes and the victims of horrific crimes. You have the power to prevent these crimes by not having any children. You are not forced to have children.You also believe that these crimes can never be rectified. Therefore your responsibility is absolute.
That is a facile evasion of the statements I have made. I append them so that others may judge whether they are pertinent or not:
Click to expand...
Well in a way you are. Epigenetics is showing your lifestyle habits can indeed be passed down.
 
buffalo said:
Well in a way you are. Epigenetics is showing your lifestyle habits can indeed be passed down.
Click to expand...
It is necessary to distinguish between direct responsibility and ultimate responsibility. God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe because he created it. He foresees everything that happens but He is not directly responsible for the choices and decisions human beings make. Similarly we are ultimately responsible for the choices and decisions of our descendants but we are not directly responsible. In both cases whether the person who has ultimate responsibility is innocent or guilty depends on whether the good outweighs the evil of the consequences. No one has demonstrated that in either case the amount of evil outweighs the immense value of life.
 
tonyrey said:
It is necessary to distinguish between direct responsibility and ultimate responsibility. God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the universe because he created it. He foresees everything that happens but He is not directly responsible for the choices and decisions human beings make. Similarly we are ultimately responsible for the choices and decisions of our descendants but we are not directly responsible. In both cases whether the person who has ultimate responsibility is innocent or guilty depends on whether the good outweighs the evil of the consequences. No one has demonstrated that in either case the amount of evil outweighs the immense value of life.
Click to expand...
Except we are not around when those possible evil things happen, which invalidates whatever “responsibility” you think we have. God is supposedly around - at least according to you.
 
Your premise is flawed. You’re presuming that the motive God had for designing creation was purely utilitarian in nature when in fact it was for the free will choice to love Him. You’re comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you’re going with the premise that the items being designed do not have their own intrinsic value; they’re just tools for God’s use. On the other, you have items (us) with a definite intrinsic value; to choose to love Him. You can’t make the comparison, therefore you can’t draw the conclusion.

You might as well compare a glass cutter with a diamond wedding ring and say the wedding ring was poorly designed to cut glass.
 
Spock said:
Except we are not around when those possible evil things happen, which invalidates whatever “responsibility” you think we have. God is supposedly around - at least according to you.
Click to expand...
Whether we are around or not does not alter the fact of guilt. Death does not exonerate a person. We regard Hitler as guilty of crimes committed after his death as the result of decisions he made while he was alive.
Fortunately for you whether the person who has ultimate responsibility is innocent or guilty depends on whether the good outweighs the evil consequences. No one has demonstrated that the amount of evil outweighs the immense value of life. The fact that you cherish life and choose to have children shows you consider the value of life to outweigh its drawbacks. Otherwise you are being irrational…
 
tonyrey said:
The fact that you cherish life and choose to have children shows you consider the value of life to outweigh its drawbacks. Otherwise you are being irrational…
Click to expand...
Ive been saying this for years!!👍. I mean how dare you bring kids in to a world that you believe will potentially scar them, ruin them, abuse them, use them, rape them, and kill them, a world in which they will face the horrors of life and the horrors of ceasing to exist, and then turn around a say that God is evil for bringing us into existence!!!

Its ridiculous hypocrisy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top