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

[Peter_Plato]

It has been stated that before the “Big Bang”, the whole universe was compressed into a tiny sphere smaller than the size of a pin head. Did Creation of the Universe occur at the time of the “Big Bang”?

I wouldn’t suppose that creation occurs in time. Space-time, itself, is an aspect or facet of creation. There is no necessary implication that the universe itself is within any schema of time, merely that time is a dimension inherent to it.

By imagining the process of expansion we carry time into the perspective which attempts to envision what happened. That would be our limitation and not God’s, necessarily.

Your use of “at the time of the ‘Big Bang,’” assumes and squirrels in a time constrained process not an eternal one.

Classical theism has always proposed God as eternal and not constrained by or within time. As difficult as that is to imagine, I can think of no reason to merely grant you that assumption.

Time and space would together have been compressed into that “pin head.”

So what was your point going to be?

 

[tonyrey]

This level of irrationality is almost too painful to see. There is nothing in the JOKE put into the mouth of a TOY TIGER which would indicate that life is “nasty, brutish and short”. What it actually means that many people are incredibly irrational, and intelligent beings would not seek to mingle with them. Of course this is a tongue-in-cheek JOKE, not to be taken too seriously. Savvy?

Joke?

For Hobbes, the state of nature is characterized by the “war of every man against every man,” a constant and violent condition of competition in which each individual has a natural right to everything, regardless of the interests of others. Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes famously states, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The only laws that exist in the state of nature (the laws of nature) are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation. What Hobbes calls the first law of nature, for instance, is
"that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."

britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory

In other words might = right

 

[Solmyr]

Joke?

Of course it was a joke. I was referring to the comic strip of “Calvin and Hobbes” (by the way Calvin is NOT the theologian, just a kid) google.com/#q=calvin+and+hobbes and one of its cute cartoons where Hobbes - the TOY TIGER - who is actually very smart says the quoted sentence. I guess you were not familiar with it, though a simple Google search of “Calvin and Hobbes” would have pointed you in the right direction.

The whole à-propos for the remark is that I don’t think that the world is designed at all, much less by an intelligent designer. Looking at the state of affairs I agree with the Toy-Tiger (Hobbes) and with his remark that intelligent designers would not have made such a sorry mess of reality. In other words, the actual reality cannot be reconciled with the existence of an “intelligent designer”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Looking at the state of affairs I agree with the Toy-Tiger (Hobbes) and with his remark that intelligent designers would not have made such a sorry mess of reality. In other words, the actual reality cannot be reconciled with the existence of an “intelligent designer”.

Many people looking at the same world you are looking at would not say God had made a sorry mess of reality. One man’s mess is another man’s paradise.

Would you rather be alive or dead? If alive, reality cannot be such a sorry mess after all.

 

[Aloysium]

BTW: I understand that Bill Watterson did name his characters after theologian John Calvin and philosopher Thomas Hobbes.

View attachment 23264

 

[Solmyr]

Many people looking at the same world you are looking at would not say God had made a sorry mess of reality. One man’s mess is another man’s paradise.

How right you are! The sadistic rapist feels in high heaven, the one who is being raped … not so much.

Would you rather be alive or dead? If alive, reality cannot be such a sorry mess after all.

But I am not alone in the world. And I do feel compassion for those who are being raped and tortured. If only I had the power to eliminate the freedom to perform such acts, I would gladly do so.

A long time ago I submitted a poll and asked what would people vote for if some advanced technology could be used to prevent such actions, the answers were very interesting - though unfortunately not surprising. The atheists all answered “yes”, such a technology should be used. Some of them even added: “to HELL with the free will of the rapists”. The Christians all answered “no” and they added that the “free will” of the rapists is more important and/or more valuable than a few atrocities. And they also asked: “would you prefer to live in a utopia, where everything is nice smelling roses”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But I am not alone in the world. And I do feel compassion for those who are being raped and tortured. If only I had the power to eliminate the freedom to perform such acts, I would gladly do so.

A long time ago I submitted a poll and asked what would people vote for if some advanced technology could be used to prevent such actions, the answers were very interesting - though unfortunately not surprising. The atheists all answered “yes”, such a technology should be used. Some of them even added: “to HELL with the free will of the rapists”. The Christians all answered “no” and they added that the “free will” of the rapists is more important and/or more valuable than a few atrocities. And they also asked: “would you prefer to live in a utopia, where everything is nice smelling roses”?

You seem to be o.k. with totalitarian control of every human action.

Well, I’m not surprised. Most atheists do not believe in free will anyway, unless it is the free will of those who would be the totalitarian dictators.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The sadistic rapist feels in high heaven, the one who is being raped … not so much. . . And I do feel compassion for those who are being raped and tortured. If only I had the power to eliminate the freedom to perform such acts, I would gladly do so. . .

An atheist heaven to be sure - transient, filled with emotion, get it while you can, power even if only destructive. I think you paint quite clearly the good in a Godless world. You would control, deny anyone of their freedom to gain the peace you imagine. Compassion as an emotion? Don’t worry, you’ll get over it. Actually, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Solmyr]

You seem to be o.k. with totalitarian control of every human action.

I wish I would be allowed to express my feelings when I read post like yours. But the rules of charitable behavior prevent me to do it. So, with extreme self-restraint, let me answer with mild words:

Every human action? Nope. Only a miniscule percentage of the actions, those which attempt to do gratuitous evil to others. Most actions are neutral, there is no need to interfere. Many actions are beneficial, there is even less reason to interfere. And if you think that “evil” actions are necessary for true free will, then… what the heck… let’s allow all the blasphemy and other acts of non-love toward God. After all God cannot be hurt.

And then you have the best of both worlds, lots of good, yummy, juicy “evil” toward God and benevolence toward other humans. Problem solved!

An atheist heaven to be sure - transient, filled with emotion, get it while you can, power even if only destructive. I think you paint quite clearly the good in a Godless world. You would control, deny anyone of their freedom to gain the peace you imagine. Compassion as an emotion? Don’t worry, you’ll get over it. Actually, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Strange. On one hand you say that I paint clear picture of a “Godless” heaven, on the other hand you say that I have no idea what I am talking about… can’t have both. Make up your mind, buddy.

I think it is you who has no idea what I am talking about. I am talking about the elimination of power to be destructive. To make sure that the kind, positive actions go unhindered, and only the “evil”, destructive behavior is eliminated.

As I already told to Charlie, if you believe that some kind of “evil” is necessary to have “true free will”, don’t worry. I would not dream of preventing the “evil of evils”, “not loving God”, and even allow the expression of this “non-love”. You would be free to blaspheme, to curse God’s name. So you would have free will, also evil and yet no rape, no torture, no murder for humans targets.

Why is that picture “abhorrent” to you, I have no idea. When I asked this question, I never received an answer.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course it was a joke. I was referring to the comic strip of “Calvin and Hobbes” (by the way Calvin is NOT the theologian, just a kid) google.com/#q=calvin+and+hobbes and one of its cute cartoons where Hobbes - the TOY TIGER - who is actually very smart says the quoted sentence. I guess you were not familiar with it, though a simple Google search of “Calvin and Hobbes” would have pointed you in the right direction.

On a philosophy forum Hobbes is not usually associated with a cartoon but perhaps you’re not acquainted with his ideas.

The whole à-propos for the remark is that I don’t think that the world is designed at all, much less by an intelligent designer. Looking at the state of affairs I agree with the Toy-Tiger (Hobbes) and with his remark that intelligent designers would not have made such a sorry mess of reality. In other words, the actual reality cannot be reconciled with the existence of an “intelligent designer”.

The onus is on you to produce a **feasible **blueprint of a superior world, a feat that has never been achieved by sceptics. Piecemeal improvements are not an adequate substitute for an orderly system with autonomous beings who shape their own destiny.

 

[Aloysium]

M. . . Strange. On one hand you say that I paint clear picture of a “Godless” heaven, on the other hand you say that I have no idea what I am talking about… can’t have both. Make up your mind, buddy.
I think it is you who has no idea what I am talking about. I am talking about the elimination of power to be destructive. To make sure that the kind, positive actions go unhindered, and only the “evil”, destructive behavior is eliminated.
As I already told to Charlie, if you believe that some kind of “evil” is necessary to have “true free will”, don’t worry. I would not dream of preventing the “evil of evils”, “not loving God”, and even allow the expression of this “non-love”. You would be free to blaspheme, to curse God’s name. So you would have free will, also evil and yet no rape, no torture, no murder for humans targets.
Why is that picture “abhorrent” to you, I have no idea. When I asked this question, I never received an answer.

Actually this is further proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

I was originally referring to your statement that a rapist would be in the highest heaven.
You’ve been on these forums long enough to have heard that heaven is a giving of oneself to God. A person becomes Christ-like in their capacity to love.

Now it very well could be said that the rapist joins the Man on the cross. Christ takes on all our sins and dying to them, sets us free. If one chooses not to repent, not to walk in the Way of love, it could be understood that such a person will forever remain on that cross alone. It’s difficult to convey the message and I believe you are not interested.

A Godless world is one of lies and illusions. The picture you paint lacks truth. The elimination of the others’ power in real life is evil. And, as happens with all tyrannies, it brings about a more horrific evil.

I do understand that you are describing the world as it never was, one without the choice to give or take, where everything lacks meaning, where there is no connection but only personal pleasure. That is the core of atheism; its (lack of) belief simple wish fulfillment in the face of the greatness that is to be found in the truth.

 

[Solmyr]

On a philosophy forum Hobbes is not usually associated with a cartoon but perhaps you’re not acquainted with his ideas.

Why should I care?

The onus is on you to produce a **feasible **blueprint of a superior world, a feat that has never been achieved by sceptics. Piecemeal improvements are not an adequate substitute for an orderly system with autonomous beings who shape their own destiny.

And that is your “idee fixe”. Catholics say: “with God all things are possible”. That should be sufficient for you. But even small, piecemeal improvements are sufficient to show that the world does not LOOK LIKE the result of the work of an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

 

[Solmyr]

I was originally referring to your statement that a rapist would be in the highest heaven.

Aren’t you familiar with the colloquial usage of the phrase “to be in high heaven”?

A Godless world is one of lies and illusions. The picture you paint lacks truth.

Why don’t you present arguments for this? I would really like that kind of world. And only masochists would prefer pain and suffering in the name of “free will”… fortunately there are NO such masochists.

The elimination of the others’ power in real life is evil. And, as happens with all tyrannies, it brings about a more horrific evil.

Really… is it “evil” to protect people by eliminating the freedom of the criminals by placing them in jail?

I do understand that you are describing the world as it never was, one without the choice to give or take, where everything lacks meaning, where there is no connection but only personal pleasure. That is the core of atheism; its (lack of) belief simple wish fulfillment in the face of the greatness that is to be found in the truth.

I guess I am just wasting my time. You don’t realize that in the world I described there are zillions of choices, even choice between the “good and evil”…

 

[tonyrey]

Why should I care?

Why should you care about anything? What is the basis of your scheme of things?

And that is your “idee fixe”.

Personal remarks are irrelevant in a rational discussion.

Catholics say: “with God all things are possible”. That should be sufficient for you.

A constant spate of miracles is possible but it would defeat the purpose of creating a physical universe in which we can choose what to believe and how to live.

But even small, piecemeal improvements are sufficient to show that the world does not LOOK LIKE the result of the work of an omnipotent and omniscient creator.

“LOOK LIKE” gives the game away! Appearances are very often highly deceptive. It needs to be explained how piecemeal improvements would be implemented in an orderly universe without undermining its predictability. The archsceptic David Hume pointed out that the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. In other words an earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually this is further proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

I was originally referring to your statement that a rapist would be in the highest heaven.
You’ve been on these forums long enough to have heard that heaven is a giving of oneself to God. A person becomes Christ-like in their capacity to love.

Now it very well could be said that the rapist joins the Man on the cross. Christ takes on all our sins and dying to them, sets us free. If one chooses not to repent, not to walk in the Way of love, it could be understood that such a person will forever remain on that cross alone. It’s difficult to convey the message and I believe you are not interested.

A Godless world is one of lies and illusions. The picture you paint lacks truth. The elimination of the others’ power in real life is evil. And, as happens with all tyrannies, it brings about a more horrific evil.

I do understand that you are describing the world as it never was, one without the choice to give or take, where everything lacks meaning, where there is no connection but only personal pleasure. That is the core of atheism; its (lack of) belief simple wish fulfillment in the face of the greatness that is to be found in the truth.

Free will is the insurmountable stumbling block for those with a mechanistic view of reality in which we are merely cogs incapable of controlling ourselves, let alone anything else! If only matter exists nothing matters.

 

[inocente]

I’m bored hearing you talk about me and that paper. Nothing to see here folks; let’s move on.

I’m been away from home for the last few days and come back to see this uncharitable post. You were the one who started talking about me, and in return I told you that usurping God is a sin. It could be fairly argued that posters who make personal remarks and then run away when answered back show a lack of integrity.

 

[inocente]

The following is an excerpt from Neil deGrasse Tyson’s article detailing the nature of the universe:
haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

Turns out that some celestial bodies give off more light in the invisible bands of the spectrum than in the visible. And the invisible light picked up by the new telescopes showed that mayhem abounds in the cosmos: monstrous gamma-ray bursts, deadly pulsars, matter-crushing gravitational fields, matter-hungry black holes that flay their bloated stellar neighbors, newborn stars igniting within pockets of collapsing gas. And as our ordinary, optical telescopes got bigger and better, more mayhem emerged: galaxies that collide and cannibalize each other, explosions of supermassive stars, chaotic stellar and planetary orbits. Our own cosmic neighborhood—the inner solar system—turned out to be a shooting gallery, full of rogue asteroids and comets that collide with planets from time to time. Occasionally they’ve even wiped out stupendous masses of Earth’s flora and fauna. The evidence all points to the fact that we occupy not a well-mannered clockwork universe, but a destructive, violent, and hostile zoo.

How does this fit in with the intelligent design idea?

Well, in line with Tyson’s thesis, the answer seems to be:

1. Ignore any tested science in textbooks which you find inconvenient, by arguing that it’s improbable. Concentrate instead on unconfirmed hypotheses written in specialist jargon which few can even understand.
2. Ignore that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while H. sapiens has only been around perhaps 200,000 years, which if my math is correct is 0.0015% the age of the universe. Ignore also all the billions of other galaxies, and the other billion stars in our galaxy, and everything outside the thin habitable zone near the surface of our planet. And by doing so, confirm that the universe was made for you and you alone.
3. Gloss over the fact that no two design fans can agree on a testable hypothesis (even the small number on this thread) on the basis that anyone who doesn’t agree with your broad ideology doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Personally, I’m unsure how many posters took the time to read the whole of Tyson’s thesis rather than just the short quote above, and although he may overstate his case at times I agree with his conclusion:

“I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don’t understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.” - haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all” - Charles Alfred Coulson

 

[inocente]

Well, in line with Tyson’s thesis, the answer seems to be:

1. Ignore any tested science in textbooks which you find inconvenient, by arguing that it’s improbable. Concentrate instead on unconfirmed hypotheses written in specialist jargon which few can even understand.
2. Ignore that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while H. sapiens has only been around perhaps 200,000 years, which if my math is correct is 0.0015% the age of the universe. Ignore also all the billions of other galaxies, and the other billion stars in our galaxy, and everything outside the thin habitable zone near the surface of our planet. And by doing so, confirm that the universe was made for you and you alone.
3. Gloss over the fact that no two design fans can agree on a testable hypothesis (even the small number on this thread) on the basis that anyone who doesn’t agree with your broad ideology doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Personally, I’m unsure how many posters took the time to read the whole of Tyson’s thesis rather than just the short quote above, and although he may overstate his case at times I agree with his conclusion:

“I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don’t understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.” - haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2005/11/01/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all” - Charles Alfred Coulson

 

[tonyrey]

Being inextricably united rules out the arbitrary separation of the spiritual and biological aspects of our nature. Modern medicine, for example, is holistic…

On the contrary. “infused” implies that the human body is transformed. Animals don’t have free will or a conscience.

How else could the soul emerge? When would it appear?

I see it a little differently. The following masterpiece is in the Library of Congress, as it’s the first recording of a musician playing a tune without ever actually playing the tune. To me he makes a true statement about the relationship of body and soul.

Body & Soul, Coleman Hawkins (1939) - youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7J4PgrRsY

How does it explain when the soul emerges? Do babies not have a soul?

Your argument would seem to turn on whether there have been events so improbable that they are otherwise inexplicable. If that’s where you’re headed then it’s an hypothesis based on statistics, and such arguments are notorious, but I’d object to it on the grounds that God cannot be tested or made the subject of statistical analysis.

God is not the subject. It is the origin and development of living beings that is the issue. There is no reason why Creation should not have multiple causes. The all or nothing approach is simplistic:

The ongoing process of development planned and directed by God from start to finish, not a haphazard series of events explicable **solely **

by fortuitous combinations of molecules, random mutations and natural selection.
NB The term “solely” is significant.There’s one God, so Creation has one cause.

Creation has one Ultimate Cause but God does not cause every event directly. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the evil in the world. St Thomas pointed out that natural evil is incidental unlike Calvin who believed every drop of rain is willed by God…

Your disparaging comment is out of place in what should be an objective discussion…

Except I wasn’t being disparaging.

Then why did you bring up the subject which has nothing to do with the topic?
*

As I said, God has intervened in my life so no to all the above, not based on theories but on experience.

Is your Christian belief based solely on your personal experiences?

So all the reports of miracles worked by the Apostles and saints are false? Jesus was misleading everyone when He promised that our prayers would be answered? Our loving Father in heaven does absolutely nothing to prevent or mitigate suffering? The Beatitudes apply solely to what hapsopens after we die? As far as this life is concerned God leaves us entirely to our own devices? Why doesn’t He ever help us when we are in desperate need?

Errr, look again at your list. Did you really want me to answer yes to “1. Do you believe God never intervenes?” or yes to “6. Never gives strength to those who face temptation?”? Would you answer differently and say yes, you believe God never intervenes?

Please answer each question individually so that we have a clearer understanding of your position.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m been away from home for the last few days and come back to see this uncharitable post. You were the one who started talking about me, and in return I told you that usurping God is a sin. It could be fairly argued that posters who make personal remarks and then run away when answered back show a lack of integrity.

I’m glad to see you get the last word. Oh wait, I have. Your turn.