How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Aloysium]

. . . Any more we can add?

Sure, lots.

How about:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

As far as we are concerned, this is what this is all about.
This is what everything is designed around.
As opposed to the misery, that comes with a “worldly” life, we are meant for the eternal joy that comes with faith, hope and love.
This game is so amazing! It is real! There are no design flaws.

 

[Michael19682]

Clever in finding fault? Good Lord, you would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks not to realise the problems inherent in our existence.

But here we have the two sides of the same argument: there are no flaws v well, OK there are flaws but they are part of the design (versus the trite: ‘Come up with something better why doncha’).

If you think there are none, then go spend some time with Peter and Tony and come to some agreement between yourselves. Because this is impossible to debate on two fronts. Pick a position, stick to it, then we can talk.

And incidentally, what is with this trite ‘design something better’ call. There was something better at the beginning. Pre Adam and Eve. You don’t have to believe it actually happened. But I’ll go with that. If it was good enough for God then it’s good enough for me. And you have to accept that it was better than we have now, because if it wasn’t, there is no concept of a ‘fall’ where things get worse.

But then we slip in yet another argument. It was fine, God made is perfectly but…it was our fault that it turned out the way it did. God did all the work, set it up so there were no incongruencies, no faults, no rediculous design features, but then we screwed it all up.

So where are we now…

There are no faults, it’s designed perfectly.
There are faults but they are part of the design (quick, the card…the card).
There are faults but they are down to us (‘searching for knowledge’ apparently…how bizarre).

Any more we can add?

I must be dumb as a rock. I used to think there were lots of problems with existence. Now my perception has improved. Perhaps all problems are simply the result of negativistic fault finding, and chronic pessimism. Maybe in 200 years it will all be better. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Bradski]

I must be dumb as a rock.

 

[Aloysium]

. . .

 

[Peter_Plato]

Clever in finding fault? Good Lord, you would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks not to realise the problems inherent in our existence.

But here we have the two sides of the same argument: there are no flaws v well, OK there are flaws but they are part of the design (versus the trite: ‘Come up with something better why doncha’).

If you think there are none, then go spend some time with Peter and Tony and come to some agreement between yourselves. Because this is impossible to debate on two fronts. Pick a position, stick to it, then we can talk.

And incidentally, what is with this trite ‘design something better’ call. There was something better at the beginning. Pre Adam and Eve. You don’t have to believe it actually happened. But I’ll go with that. If it was good enough for God then it’s good enough for me. And you have to accept that it was better than we have now, because if it wasn’t, there is no concept of a ‘fall’ where things get worse.

But then we slip in yet another argument. It was fine, God made is perfectly but…it was our fault that it turned out the way it did. God did all the work, set it up so there were no incongruencies, no faults, no rediculous design features, but then we screwed it all up.

So where are we now…

There are no faults, it’s designed perfectly.
There are faults but they are part of the design (quick, the card…the card).
There are faults but they are down to us (‘searching for knowledge’ apparently…how bizarre).

Any more we can add?

From your perspective as a rational rat, you may have a great deal to complain about: not enough luctious garbage around to scavenge and it gets a little too cold in winter, etc. etc. A perfect rat world is not a perfect platypus world or perfect penguin world. Even though we are (speaking for myself) to some degree more advanced life forms, there is still a part of us that pictures a “perfect” world relative to the kind of biological creature that we are.

Now according to the Word of God he didn’t make us merely biological creatures, we have a far higher destiny. Ergo, a world – even a perfect one – designed merely for biological creatures will not satisfy. Minimally, this is why we do recognize the insufficiency of the world to meet our needs. We have a higher calling.

A creature completely blind to light does not know it is in the dark – it must have the experience of light in order to conceptualize the fact that it is in the dark. Otherwise it isn’t aware of the darkness as darkness.

Perhaps, our awareness that this is an imperfect world comes about brought to us courtesy of shafts of light breaking through the darkness?

A hint here: I am not speaking of the world around us, I am speaking of the quality of who or what we are. The world, even with its natural disasters, droughts and winter storms is not “poorly designed” because of those. We view it as inadequate because of our biological, social and moral expectations.

Perhaps the poor designs we rage against all around us have more to do with enlightening our internal disorders than they do with being design flaws. I.e., they are there to make us more keenly aware that we live in the dark even as we have gotten so used to being blind that we don’t recognize the light except as painfully blinding. As Lewis pointed out, God is shouting to us amidst that apparent pain that we are indeed blind as naked mole rats, even though we think of ourselves as a rational pack of naked mole rats.

 

[inocente]

inocente;13887146:

Where does Thomas hold with Tony’s theory that “Positive aspects of reality like the beauty of a butterfly and the harmony in nature are designed” while “Negative aspects like disease and disasters are caused by unfortunate coincidences”?

Eden was designed by God to be a place of beauty and harmony. This is Scriptural. If you believe Scripture, you must believe that God designed Eden to be a place of beauty and harmony. and that it didn’t just get that way by accident. .Again, if you believe Scripture,
you believe that as a result of sin God’s guarantee of beauty and harmony was removed when the first parents were expelled from Eden. Natural evils like "disease and disasters and the consequence of sin, because man was no longer protected from them and they became part of the new design of man’s existence, that he should be subjected to moral and natural evils; and that, even so, God would permit these evils (misfortunes) in order that good may come from them.

This is Aquinas’ view, but I will oblige you to read the whole of the Summa Theologica to find out where he says it.

Nope, neither scripture nor Thomas agree with Tony that positive aspects are designed while negative aspects are “caused by unfortunate coincidences”.

Thomas says that chance can be beneficial rather than unfortunate. He gives the example of a grave digger who by luck finds treasure.

But Thomas also says that while some things may seem to happen by luck or chance, in reality “all that happens here below is subject to Divine Providence, as being preordained, and as it were fore-spoken.”

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP116.html

But thank you for having a go at answering my question.

(btw I’ve not read Thomas but took it on faith that he wouldn’t claim bad things are outside God’s control.)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . (btw I’ve not read Thomas but took it on faith that he wouldn’t claim bad things are outside God’s control.)

The other day a friend and I were discussing the tragic situation in Fort McMurray. She asked me how big it was, to which I answered that it was the size of Grimsby, a town near her home. “You don’t have a clue, do you?” She observed. “Nope, but always an opinion.” We laughed. Not sure why this quote reminded me of that incident.

 

[inocente]

The other day a friend and I were discussing the tragic situation in Fort McMurray. She asked me how big it was, to which I answered that it was the size of Grimsby, a town near her home. “You don’t have a clue, do you?” She observed. “Nope, but always an opinion.” We laughed. Not sure why this quote reminded me of that incident.

Not sure why it reminded you either. I mean I agree with you that it’s a matter of opinion whether Thomas talks sense, but as the Church obviously thinks he does, I had faith I was onto a winner. Chalk another one up to faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nope, neither scripture nor Thomas agree with Tony that positive aspects are designed while negative aspects are “caused by unfortunate coincidences”.

Where do they disagree with Tony?

Any logical inference is based on fundamentally valid axioms.

If we die in an earthquake it is not because God wanted us to die in an earthquake, but because we unknowingly and unfortunately chose the coincidence of living in precisely the place where an earthquake was going to occur.

Where is that denied by Scripture or Aquinas?

 

[tonyrey]

Appearances are very often deceptive? Did you actually just write that down? Well, you must have. There it is at the top of this post.

Isn’t your argument, your complete and all encompassing argument, that things have the appearance of having been designed? Isn’t that it? ‘Look’, you shout, ‘isn’t it bloody obvious?’

And the rest of us patiently point out that, yes, it DOES have the appearance of being designed. And then you hit us all with the zinger and finish the sentence yourself: ‘…but Appaearance Are Very Often Decpeptive’.

Can you print that out in something like a thirty point font, Gothic would be good, in bright red, and stick it on the wall above your screen. Read it every time you log on. Commit it to memory.

And you and Peter keep me in giggles so often.

‘The universe is designed. It is God’s perfect creation!’
‘Well, actually, it’s full of things that look very badly designed indeed’
'Mmm. Well…that’s because all those problems are part of the design!

That ‘Who Can Know God’s Mind’ card needs replacing. Dog eared and worn. Barely legible. It’s used so often. You seem to think it trumps everything, when all it says it that you have no idea how to respond (quick, Pete, show him the card!).

You have evaded the main issue:

You grossly underestimate the immense complexity of the universe with countless individuals and projects, events and coincidences occurring at every moment. **It is very easy to criticise but to create is a far different proposition. **How about a feasible blueprint?

How about it?

 

[tonyrey]

Nope, neither scripture nor Thomas agree with Tony that positive aspects are designed while negative aspects are “caused by unfortunate coincidences”.

Thomas says that chance can be beneficial rather than unfortunate. He gives the example of a grave digger who by luck finds treasure.

But Thomas also says that while some things may seem to happen by luck or chance, in reality “all that happens here below is subject to Divine Providence, as being preordained, and as it were fore-spoken.”

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP116.html

But thank you for having a go at answering my question.

(btw I’ve not read Thomas but took it on faith that he wouldn’t claim bad things are outside God’s control.)

So you believe God wills people to be maimed and killed by earthquakes and other natural disasters?

NB There is a difference between permitting and “being outside God’s control”.

 

[tonyrey]

Where do they disagree with Tony?

Any logical inference is based on fundamentally valid axioms.

If we die in an earthquake it is not because God wanted us to die in an earthquake, but because we unknowingly and unfortunately chose the coincidence of living in precisely the place where an earthquake was going to occur.

Where is that denied by Scripture or Aquinas?

Precisely!

 

[tonyrey]

The Catechism sums up the solution succinctly:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to** the limitations proper to creatures**: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[tonyrey]

From your perspective as a rational rat, you may have a great deal to complain about: not enough luctious garbage around to scavenge and it gets a little too cold in winter, etc. etc. A perfect rat world is not a perfect platypus world or perfect penguin world. Even though we are (speaking for myself) to some degree more advanced life forms, there is still a part of us that pictures a “perfect” world relative to the kind of biological creature that we are.

Now according to the Word of God he didn’t make us merely biological creatures, we have a far higher destiny. Ergo, a world – even a perfect one – designed merely for biological creatures will not satisfy. Minimally, this is why we do recognize the insufficiency of the world to meet our needs. We have a higher calling.

A creature completely blind to light does not know it is in the dark – it must have the experience of light in order to conceptualize the fact that it is in the dark. Otherwise it isn’t aware of the darkness as darkness.

Perhaps, our awareness that this is an imperfect world comes about brought to us courtesy of shafts of light breaking through the darkness?

A hint here: I am not speaking of the world around us, I am speaking of the quality of who or what we are. The world, even with its natural disasters, droughts and winter storms is not “poorly designed” because of those. We view it as inadequate because of our biological, social and moral expectations.

Perhaps the poor designs we rage against all around us have more to do with enlightening our internal disorders than they do with being design flaws. I.e., they are there to make us more keenly aware that we live in the dark even as we have gotten so used to being blind that we don’t recognize the light except as painfully blinding. As Lewis pointed out, God is shouting to us amidst that apparent pain that we are indeed blind as naked mole rats, even though we think of ourselves as a rational pack of naked mole rats.

In other words we tend to take all the good things in life for granted and focus on natural evils - as illustrated by the negativity of the OP.

NB “natural” excludes those caused by human activity.

 

[tonyrey]

Appearances are very often deceptive? Did you actually just write that down? Well, you must have. There it is at the top of this post.

Isn’t your argument, your complete and all encompassing argument, that things have the appearance of having been designed? Isn’t that it? ‘Look’, you shout, ‘isn’t it bloody obvious?’

And the rest of us patiently point out that, yes, it DOES have the appearance of being designed. And then you hit us all with the zinger and finish the sentence yourself: ‘…but Appaearance Are Very Often Decpeptive’.

Can you print that out in something like a thirty point font, Gothic would be good, in bright red, and stick it on the wall above your screen. Read it every time you log on. Commit it to memory.

And you and Peter keep me in giggles so often.

‘The universe is designed. It is God’s perfect creation!’
‘Well, actually, it’s full of things that look very badly designed indeed’
'Mmm. Well…that’s because all those problems are part of the design!

That ‘Who Can Know God’s Mind’ card needs replacing. Dog eared and worn. Barely legible. It’s used so often. You seem to think it trumps everything, when all it says it that you have no idea how to respond (quick, Pete, show him the card!).

The problem with your posts is that you constantly refer to individuals instead of concentrating on the issues. The argument is quite simply that the advantages of life for the vast majority far outweigh the disadvantages. Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be far better if life had never existed on this planet? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

It isn’t perfect! There are flaws. There are aspects of existence that simply don’t work very well. There are redundancies. The whole thing looks exactly as it would if it had simply evolved naturally with all the fault lines and make-do, patched up incongrancies that you would expect.

And you want to claim that if God put the whole shebang together, the omnipotent God who can do anything, a God who can create existence itself ex nihilo, would be expected to make it all with a few defects. A few misfortunes. A couple of limitations.

A we talking about the same God?

It is illogical to conclude from “There are flaws. There are aspects of existence that simply don’t work very well. There are redundancies” to “The whole thing”.

Some + some + some <> the whole

 

[tonyrey]

I believe God is greater than we can conceive, not that God is made in the image of a high IQ human.

If we know nothing about God Jesus was wasting His time… Why He contrast Solomon’s fine clothes with the lilies in the field?

 

[tonyrey]

To repeat: first you claimed “Jesus Himself referred to the beauty of lilies as evidence of Design” then you changed your mind and said “Jesus pointed to the beauty of the lilies as unmistakable evidence that we have a loving Father in heaven.”

What is the inconsistency between Design and a loving Father in heaven? Didn’t your father plan things for you or did he leave everything to chance?

 

[inocente]

Where do they disagree with Tony?

Any logical inference is based on fundamentally valid axioms.

If we die in an earthquake it is not because God wanted us to die in an earthquake, but because we unknowingly and unfortunately chose the coincidence of living in precisely the place where an earthquake was going to occur.

Where is that denied by Scripture or Aquinas?

Did you not read the section of the Summa I linked?

Thomas is very clear that if you die in an earthquake then you die by Divine Providence - he writes “all that happens here below is subject to Divine Providence, as being preordained, and as it were fore-spoken”.

Do you believe that God designed you for a purpose, and that you have a destiny planned by God? Then when and how you die is the will of God. God wouldn’t be omnipotent if His plans for you could be destroyed by one of Tony’s “unfortunate coincidences”, would He?

You are saying God is in control of designing things but not in control over what happens to them, whereas Thomas is saying God is in control of both - “Nothing hinders certain things happening by luck or by chance, if compared to their proximate causes: but not if compared to Divine Providence, whereby “nothing happens at random in the world,” as Augustine says”.

 

[inocente]

So you believe God wills people to be maimed and killed by earthquakes and other natural disasters?

NB There is a difference between permitting and “being outside God’s control”.

The point was about what Thomas says, and I’ll repeat what I just wrote to Charles:

I linked this section of the Summa.

Thomas is very clear that if you die in an earthquake then you die by Divine Providence - he writes “all that happens here below is subject to Divine Providence, as being preordained, and as it were fore-spoken”.

Do you believe that God designed you for a purpose, and that you have a destiny planned by God? Then when and how you die is the will of God. God wouldn’t be omnipotent if His plans for you could be destroyed by one of your “unfortunate coincidences”, would He?

You are saying God is in control of designing things but not in control over what happens to them, whereas Thomas is saying God is in control of both - “Nothing hinders certain things happening by luck or by chance, if compared to their proximate causes: but not if compared to Divine Providence, whereby “nothing happens at random in the world” as Augustine says”.

inocente;13886922:

I believe God is greater than we can conceive, not that God is made in the image of a high IQ human.

If we know nothing about God Jesus was wasting His time… Why He contrast Solomon’s fine clothes with the lilies in the field?

I was quoting Anselm - “we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”. Anselm doesn’t mean we can know nothing about God.

What is the inconsistency between Design and a loving Father in heaven? Didn’t your father plan things for you or did he leave everything to chance?

In one post you said if you die in an earthquake, God just left that up to chance, now you say God has a plan for you. And you want me to believe that’s not inconsistent?

Divine Providence = everything that occurs is under God’s sovereign guidance and control. The “everything” is important, because if there is anything which occurs outside of God’s control, then God is not omnipotent.