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

[tonyrey]

The evidence is God’s alleged omnipotence, which is only limited by logical inconsistencies.

It is also limited by the need for consistency of intention and purpose.

I am not talking about predation, but the problem of how to tell if seemingly “malevolent” action is actually benevolent.

How does that problem arise if malevolent activity exists? No one has claimed it is an illusion.*

How could it ensured that a person with free will never commits an evil act?

Simply: “by NOT allowing that level of freedom”. By creating everyone with disposition of goodwill. Let’s take one example. The pope would not dream about kidnapping and raping a girl, because such an act would not be compatible with his nature. And he is not unique in this respect. Most people share this attitude.

Genuine freedom doesn’t exist if no one ever contemplates or commits a crime. “compatible with his nature” implies that a person doesn’t have free will.

The handful of others would not be missed if God would simply send them a quick heart attack. It is amazing that only Christians defend the existence of psychopaths and sociopaths - in the name of “free will”.

Not all criminals are mentally unbalanced.

Human freedom is not "

unbridled"but it is sufficient to allow us to choose what to believe and how to live - which is the purpose of life. The alternative is to create zombies… If you don’t see the difference between limited freedom and zombies, then I am just wasting my time.

Anyone who is compelled to conform to moral principles is not genuinely committed and is simply acting like a zombie. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed that out.

“An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy” is an **objective **

statement. *

It is only your opinion.

We are all expressing our opinions unless one of us claims to be infallible!

If that were the case free will wouldn’t exist as far as moral decisions are concerned. Everyone would be a “do-gooder” and no one would be a criminal. There would be no merit in being noble or virtuous.

**Now that is true.** Just like the Virgin Mary and Jesus were  not "noble" and "virtuous", because they were created without sin and  without concupiscence. And I would bet that many of others were without  the desire (equivalent of "free will") of committing atrocities and who  never even contemplated them. But they had the "free will" of doing it,  if they wanted to. A world filled with such people would be infinitely  better than this one.

Genuine freedom implies unconditional power-sharing which enables us to reject God and defy His Will at any moment. After a lifetime of virtuous behaviour even the most saintly people can give way to temptation. We are not created good or evil: we shape our own destiny according to the way we choose to live - a fact recognised and respected by every law court in the world. We cannot evade responsibility for our behaviour unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Jesus and His mother were sinless because they both chose to suffer for our sake and liberate us from the power of evil: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” and “Be it done unto me according to thy word”.

Anyone who is compelled to conform to moral principles is not genuinely committed and is simply acting like a zombie. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed that out.

You better read up on the word zombie. It is a re-animated corpse (like Lazarus, and… and…ya’ know…wink…) It is a robot which is assumed to be fully programmed without any freedom.

Precisely! “like a zombie” = “compelled to conform”.

And pointing out your errors is not a lack of courtesy, it is a sign of helpfulness.

“errors” in your opinion implies your superiority…

Ah, and a question is not a personal remark. Elementary grammar my dear Watson.

“Pot calling a kettle black?” is obviously a personal remark because it refers to your interlocutor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The evidence is God’s alleged omnipotence, which is only limited by logical inconsistencies. Do you understand this principle?

Well, no, actually. If God’s omnipotence were ONLY limited by “logical inconsistencies” this would completely ignore that God’s alleged omnipotence is also limited by his alleged omniscience and alleged omnibenevolence – i.e., what it means for God to be God.

This implies that God is not compelled to do whatever is logically possible merely because it is logically possible.

Omnipotence is not a stand alone feature of God.

It isn’t as if God is merely an all-powerful super-being akin to Arnold Schwartzenager - all brawn and no brain – who carries out feats of power merely because he can.

This is NOT a “principle.” What it is is an arbitrary rule made up by you which no one – least of all God – is logically compelled to live by.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, no, actually. If God’s omnipotence were ONLY limited by “logical inconsistencies” this would completely ignore that God’s alleged omnipotence is also limited by his alleged omniscience and alleged omnibenevolence – i.e., what it means for God to be God.

This implies that God is not compelled to do whatever is logically possible merely because it is logically possible.

Omnipotence is not a stand alone feature of God.

It isn’t as if God is merely an all-powerful super-being akin to Arnold Schwartzenager - all brawn and no brain – who carries out feats of power merely because he can.

This is NOT a “principle.” What it is is an arbitrary rule made up by you which no one – least of all God – is logically compelled to live by.

Unanswerable! Might is not right…

 

[tonyrey]

You are mistaken. I am only asking for the allegedly coherent parts of the definition.

Please check my signature. I am only talking about your (general you) concept of God. And your definition of God is definitely NOT more intelligent than you. And that is fine.

To speak of “mysteries” is the implicit admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Even in science there are mysteries unless the scientist is divine!

 

[Solmyr]

Every scientists worth his salt speaks of mysteries.

Playing word games? A “mystery” in science is something we don’t know and try to investigate. That is not the same kind as the “trinity” or the “transubstantiation” - which are beyond comprehension and logically contradictory.

 

[Solmyr]

Genuine freedom implies unconditional power-sharing which enables us to reject God and defy His Will at any moment.

Sure. I said that the freedom to curse or blaspheme God is “fine”. There is no need to allow torturing other human beings. God’s alleged “will” is unknown. Of course I do not “reject” God, just like I do not reject the Easter Bunny.

Jesus and His mother were sinless because they both chose to suffer for our sake and liberate us from the power of evil: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” and “Be it done unto me according to thy word”.

Nevertheless, there are people who are free and yet do not commit atrocities.

“errors” in your opinion implies your superiority…
“Pot calling a kettle black?” is obviously a personal remark because it refers to your interlocutor.

Personal remarks are allowed, even unavoidable in a one-on-one conversation. Rude, uncharitable remarks are not. If I would call someone a “drooling idiot” that would be an uncharitable remark. To point out that someone is in error is acceptable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Playing word games? A “mystery” in science is something we don’t know and try to investigate. That is not the same kind as the “trinity” or the “transubstantiation” - which are beyond comprehension and logically contradictory.

They are not logically contradictory unless you bind God to human logic.

Which is certainly not possible.

 

[cfauster]

The laws of nature [are] contingent on the creator - in the Catholic worldview. And God can create anything and everything except logical contradictions.
There is only one true obstacle to this utopia. It is the unbridled freedom given to the inhabitants. But only an uncaring, indifferent (or downright evil) creator would make such a blunder.

The problem of evil - moral (caused by humans acting immorally) and natural (what the insurance industry terms “acts of God”) - presents a vexing challenge to monotheism, including Christianity. Pat answers seem insufficient. So do any answers, for that matter.

We won’t solve the ancient problem here. Our failure does not mean we’re stupid, lazy, ignorant, or uncaring. Those seeking answers, and those frustrated with such seekers, will both have their patience and forbearance tested.

Several posts have mentioned freedom (free will) and love as constraints on the exercise of power (especially God’s divine power) that might otherwise prevent some or all evil in the world.

I wonder what people think of how “Open and Relational Theology” deals with the issue. Here is a new essay by Oord entitled “Divine Action as Uncontrolling Love,” and here are some essays by others on Oord’s blog.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Playing word games? A “mystery” in science is something we don’t know and try to investigate. That is not the same kind as the “trinity” or the “transubstantiation” - which are beyond comprehension and logically contradictory.

Actually, they may be beyond “comprehension” in the sense that the natural intellectual capacity of human beings is not up to the task of completely understanding the Trinity or transubstantiation.

However, to claim these are “logically contradictory” implies that you, as the claimant, COMPLETELY comprehend the nature of both and are competent to rule them contradictory.

Somehow, I find that to be a nonsensical claim and inherently self-refuting.

You are claiming that the ideas are completely beyond your ability to comprehend (i.e., incomprehensible) but – at the same time – you sufficiently comprehend the nature of the internal workings of the Trinity and transubstantiation to KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that BOTH are logically self-contradictory.

Seems very peculiar that you would KNOW with that kind of assurance so much about that which you claim is UNKNOWABLE.

Forgive us for not taking your claims very seriously.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem of evil - moral (caused by humans acting immorally) and natural (what the insurance industry terms “acts of God”) - presents a vexing challenge to monotheism, including Christianity. Pat answers seem insufficient. So do any answers, for that matter.

We won’t solve the ancient problem here. Our failure does not mean we’re stupid, lazy, ignorant, or uncaring. Those seeking answers, and those frustrated with such seekers, will both have their patience and forbearance tested.

Several posts have mentioned freedom (free will) and love as constraints on the exercise of power (especially God’s divine power) that might otherwise prevent some or all evil in the world.

I wonder what people think of how “Open and Relational Theology” deals with the issue. Here is a new essay by Oord entitled “Divine Action as Uncontrolling Love,” and here are some essays by others on Oord’s blog.

No one has mentioned the problem of goodness which is insurmountable in a Godless universe where everything would be not only purposeless but also valueless and meaningless…

 

[tonyrey]

Sure. I said that the freedom to curse or blaspheme God is “fine”. is no need to allow torturing other human beings. God’s alleged “will” is unknown. Of course I do not “reject” God, just like I do not reject the Easter Bunny.

An atheist who rejects God’s existence as if it is a certainty is obviously highly presumptuous.

God’s alleged omnipotence is not only limited by logical inconsistencies but the need for **consistency **of intention and purpose.

What evidence would there be that genuine freedom doesn’t exist if no one ever contemplates or commits a crime. Nor are criminals are mentally unbalanced.
Genuine freedom implies unconditional power-sharing which enables us to reject God and defy His Will at any moment. It does not follow from the fact of freedom that no one will ever commit atrocities. People would wonder why they are free in every other respect except that…

Personal remarks are allowed, even unavoidable in a one-on-one conversation. Rude, uncharitable remarks are not. If I would call someone a “drooling idiot” that would be an uncharitable remark. To point out that someone is in error is acceptable.

It is presumptuous to regard the other person as undoubtably mistaken when the subject is highly contentious.

 

[Solmyr]

They are not logically contradictory unless you bind God to human logic.

There is only ONE logic… unless you are joking about “military logic”. God is bound by the law of non-contradiction, and as such cannot create married bachelors, or sit on his own right-hand side. (Apostle’s creed)

Actually, they may be beyond “comprehension” in the sense that the natural intellectual capacity of human beings is not up to the task of completely understanding the Trinity or transubstantiation.

Or fathoming the “mystery” of married bachelors.

However, to claim these are “logically contradictory” implies that you, as the claimant, COMPLETELY comprehend the nature of both and are competent to rule them contradictory.

Just like I totally understand and reject that ONE EQUALS THREE.

Seems very peculiar that you would KNOW with that kind of assurance so much about that which you claim is UNKNOWABLE.

Actually it is the theologians who claim them unknowable. Among the large amount of the alleged attributes of God is “ineffable” and “incomprehensible”.

Forgive us for not taking your claims very seriously.

No problem. I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. You are most welcome to reciprocate it.

No one has mentioned the problem of goodness which is insurmountable in a Godless universe where everything would be not only purposeless but also valueless and meaningless…

That is not a problem. No matter how many times you repeat it. Of course the universe itself is purposeless and valueless and meaningless… but WE can add purpose and value and meaning to some of our actions.

An atheist who rejects God’s existence as if it is a certainty is obviously highly presumptuous.

Maybe it escaped your attention that I did NOT reject God’s existence. I simply reject what SOME believers SAY about God. Read my signature.

God’s alleged omnipotence is not only limited by logical inconsistencies but the need for **consistency **of intention and purpose.

Both of which you have no idea about.

What evidence would there be that genuine freedom doesn’t exist if no one ever contemplates or commits a crime. Nor are criminals are mentally unbalanced.

So our freedom is logically contingent upon other people’s committing crimes. Not much of a “freedom”.

Genuine freedom implies unconditional power-sharing which enables us to reject God and defy His Will at any moment. It does not follow from the fact of freedom that no one will ever commit atrocities. People would wonder why they are free in every other respect except that…

Let them worry. The potential victims who did not become actual victims would benefit from the lack of comprehension of the criminals-to-be. I would be grinning from ear to ear when I overhear a rapist-to-be complaining: “What rotten luck! Every time I try to kidnap a juicy little girl, some policeman must show up! How can I be soooo unlucky every time?”

It is presumptuous to regard the other person as undoubtably mistaken when the subject is highly contentious.

I will stay “presumptuous” as long as I hear logically contradictory ideas masquerading as “mysteries”. And I am constantly amazed when I hear good, God-fearing people arguing for the existence of violent criminals - in the name of “free will”.

 

[DCNBILL]

It would seem the use of the term mystery, as far as the Church understanding comes from the word mysterium and a particular use of the word, see below.

mysterium tremendum et fascinans | mysticism | Britannica.com
www.britannica.com/topic/mysterium-tremendum-et-fascinans
Encyclopædia Britannica
…the “numinous” (the spiritual dimension), the utterly ineffable, the holy, and the overwhelming. The “holy” is manifested in a double form: as the mysterium.

Not like a puzzle that needs to be solved.

 

[magnet]

Does God recognize crime? This concept was invented by people.

I have observed that in a litter of field mice, some animals attack others and eat them. It has also been recognized that male lions will kill the young of a female so that she will be again receptive to sex with the males. Is this criminal behavior?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is only ONE logic… .

And apparently that one logic is yours.

 

[tonyrey]

Does God recognize crime? This concept was invented by people.

I have observed that in a litter of field mice, some animals attack others and eat them. It has also been recognized that male lions will kill the young of a female so that she will be again receptive to sex with the males. Is this criminal behavior?

Crime is a legal concept but it is based on human rights which stem from Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father in heaven. In a Godless universe we would be related solely by an accident of birth and have no moral obligations whatsoever…

 

[tonyrey]

There is only ONE logic… unless you are joking about “military logic”. God is bound by the law of non-contradiction, and as such cannot create married bachelors, or sit on his own right-hand side. (Apostle’s creed)

Or fathoming the “mystery” of married bachelors.

Just like I totally understand and reject that ONE EQUALS THREE.

Actually it is the theologians who claim them unknowable. Among the large amount of the alleged attributes of God is “ineffable” and “incomprehensible”.

No problem. I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago. You are most welcome to reciprocate it.

That is not a problem. No matter how many times you repeat it. Of course the universe itself is purposeless and valueless and meaningless… but WE can add purpose and value and meaning to some of our actions.

Maybe it escaped your attention that I did NOT reject God’s existence. I simply reject what SOME believers SAY about God. Read my signature.

Both of which you have no idea about.

So our freedom is logically contingent upon other people’s committing crimes. Not much of a “freedom”.

Let them worry. The potential victims who did not become actual victims would benefit from the lack of comprehension of the criminals-to-be. I would be grinning from ear to ear when I overhear a rapist-to-be complaining: “What rotten luck! Every time I try to kidnap a juicy little girl, some policeman must show up! How can I be soooo unlucky every time?”

I will stay “presumptuous” as long as I hear logically contradictory ideas masquerading as “mysteries”. And I am constantly amazed when I hear good, God-fearing people arguing for the existence of violent criminals - in the name of “free will”.

The only significant statement in your answer is:

Of course the universe itself is purposeless and valueless and meaningless… but WE can add purpose and value and meaning to some of our actions.

“WE”, “can”, “add” and “some” are the key words. In the sceptic’s scheme of things there are no categorical imperatives. Criminals are just as entitled to their views as law-abiding citizens. Morality is merely an inconvenient convention that can be safely ignored when it conflicts with personal ambition.

 

[tonyrey]

You are thinking and feeling right now. Whatever it is that compels you to post here, is a complicated vastness of past experiences, pleasant and painful situations, action and reaction, people behaving well and then behaving badly, those and others which a psychoanalyst might tease out to explain your behaviour and the emotional factors that contribute to your decision. All that stuff exists. God is the Font of existence - all moments in time, one Source in eternity. Personally and through Jesus Christ, God reveals Himself as being Love. He sees you as you are; there’s no hiding and no excuses are necessary since He knows and loves the reality of you. This stuff gets personal, there is nothing more personal, more intimate than our relationship with God, who knows how very hair and every thought that comes out of our head. That’s who you want as judge, someone who truly knows and loves you. But the judgement, as merciful as it can be rests on choice. In rejecting God, one rejects the mercy and the love, one condemns oneself to hell basically.

Evidently unanswerable!

 

[tonyrey]

It would seem the use of the term mystery, as far as the Church understanding comes from the word mysterium and a particular use of the word, see below.

mysterium tremendum et fascinans | mysticism | Britannica.com
www.britannica.com/topic/mysterium-tremendum-et-fascinans
Encyclopædia Britannica
…the “numinous” (the spiritual dimension), the utterly ineffable, the holy, and the overwhelming. The “holy” is manifested in a double form: as the mysterium.

Not like a puzzle that needs to be solved.

Indeed. Those who dispose of God are disposing of their own value and significance. Their intellectual pride is the fatal flaw that leads them to see flaws in Creation.

 

[Solmyr]

“WE”, “can”, “add” and “some” are the key words. In the sceptic’s scheme of things there are no categorical imperatives. Criminals are just as entitled to their views as law-abiding citizens. Morality is merely an inconvenient convention that can be safely ignored when it conflicts with personal ambition.

Well, I think that there are other, highly significant parts of my post (otherwise I would not have made them), but your remark is worthy of an answer.

Your error is that you disregard that humans are social animals, so our behavior is not solely contingent upon our individual desires, but also on the community we live it. There are no categorical imperatives, criminals are entitled to their VIEWS, but NOT to act on those views. Morality is a CONVENIENT convention, and smart people balance their personal ambitions with the needs of others. (No one is an island.)

However, no God is needed for this balancing act. Most people understand that cooperation is more efficient than bull-headed competition, that it is better to give-and-take rather than selfishly grabbing whatever they can. And if you wish to set up a correlation matrix between the socially positive behavior and the religious affiliation of people, the NOT surprising result will be that there is no correlation.

Strange, that you disregard my remark that freedom of the good people cannot be logically contingent upon the actions of criminals (sociopaths and psychopath among them) because “contingent freedom” is an oxymoron. Oh, well…