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

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Actually, God – the actual Final Good – is positively required for “this balancing act.” Otherwise, what you have is, indeed, “bull-headed competition,” since the goods as defined by society towards which “socially positive behaviours” are aimed cannot assure that those alleged behaviours are actually, in the end, “socially positive.” It all becomes a shot in the dark actually because the purported “cooperation” is simply that between dominant social groups competing against one another for perceived temporal and contingent “ends.”

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…

This remark was likely disregarded because there isn’t much to answer.

Freedom, by itself, is a meaningless idea. Freedom from what to do what? In that sense, freedom is contingent upon the definable ends towards which freedom is aimed or freed from the constraints which prevent those ends from being achieved.

Pure freedom to do whatever one wishes for no reason besides purely that one wishes to do what one intends is a nonsensical notion. Why would anyone want that kind of freedom to begin with?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Or fathoming the “mystery” of married bachelors.

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

No one claimed one God equals three Gods. The claim is that one God is made up of three PERSONS.

Do you likewise reject that light is both particle and wave on the grounds that one (light) cannot equal two (particle and wave?)

And do you reject that matter and energy are transposable because TWO CANNOT EQUAL ONE?

Or to take a much simpler example…

Do you insist that three drops of water on a window CANNOT converge into one larger drop on the premise that three CANNOT equal one?

Mathematical literalist fundamentalist, are you?

 

[Solmyr]

Their intellectual pride is the fatal flaw that leads them to see flaws in Creation.

There is no need for pride to realize the problem with the “creation” when one can plainly see that the water-pipe is broken - due to poor workmanship on part of the plumber and the choice of an inferior material.

 

[magnet]

Is mathematics God’s creation? Is logic God’s creation?

My interpretation of mathematics is that it is eternal. It was not created. It was there before and exists after the Big Bang.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no need for pride to realize the problem with the “creation” when one can plainly see that the water-pipe is broken - due to poor workmanship on part of the plumber and the choice of an inferior material.

Adam and Eve were not evidence of poor workmanship or inferior material, and they, not God, broke the water-pipe.

So what is your answer to the fact that most people cling to life, no matter how broken they are? If life is the pits, why don’t we all just flush ourselves down the universal toilet?

 

[tonyrey]

There is no need for pride to realize the problem with the “creation” when one can plainly see that the water-pipe is broken - due to poor workmanship on part of the plumber and the choice of an inferior material.

To compare the universe with a broken pipe is absurd… To be convinced one could have designed and created a better universe is an excellent example of overweening pride. It implies a degree of insight and knowledge that no human being has ever possessed. To produce a feasible blueprint of Utopia has never been accomplished and there is no prospect that it ever will be - and that is the acid test of such a claim. How about it?

 

[magnet]

The concept of utopia implies that defects do not exist. Was the Garden of Eden supposed to be a utopia? When God created humanity, He/She also included the needs of humanity which are defects in that both positive and negative effects were created. Each human inherently has an impact on other humans as well as the non-human elements in its vicinity. If one person needs food and water, he must necessarily subtract it from adjacent humans. If one person creates waste matter, this must be dealt with, preferably in a manner which does not negatively impact the environment nor adjacent people. Unless work is done to handle these defects in creation, utopia can never be achieved. Any idea of a utopia implies that it is a condition that automatically happens if managed properly.

Utopias are hard to approximate in difficult circumstances, especially if these include shortages of anything that is life sustaining. A bone-dry desert and a place where ice and snow are constant can hardly be places where utopias are achievable.

 

[Solmyr]

So what is your answer to the fact that most people cling to life, no matter how broken they are? If life is the pits, why don’t we all just flush ourselves down the universal toilet?

Ask them.

To compare the universe with a broken pipe is absurd…

I don’t have to be a plumber to recognize the errors the plumber made.

To be convinced one could have designed and created a better universe is an excellent example of overweening pride. It implies a degree of insight and knowledge that no human being has ever possessed.

I did not claim to be able to fabricate a better plumbing system. It is not my job. But that does not prevent me from seeing the errors the actual plumber made.

To produce a feasible blueprint of Utopia has never been accomplished and there is no prospect that it ever will be - and that is the acid test of such a claim. How about it?

This is your recurring question. (Pointing out this FACT is not a personal attack, merely a small criticism.) And it is rather boring after a while, especially it has already been answered many times.

What is impossible on a stone-age level of technology is easy task for a bronze-age technician. Likewise the problem, which is unsolvable for a bronze-age creator is no problem for a space-age manufacturer.

What is “feasible” and what is “not feasible” is contingent on the technology which is used. And since there is no technology superior than omnipotence, for an omnipotent creator it is a child’s play to create a utopia. After all, omnipotence is only limited by logical impossibilities.

Besides, we are not interested in a full-blown utopia. A better universe, where humans would not be interested in violence would be more than satisfactory. We, even with our very limited technology keep on improving on the existing reality. More and more illnesses are cured. Technology helps us to lead a better life; produce more food than ever before. If you think about the changes in last 50 years, the improvement will take your breath away. I am sure that you will lament about the still existing problems - which are many - but that does no refute that the system is getting better, much better. And it has nothing to do with the original “creator”.

 

[tonyrey]

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.)

In other words morality boils down to expedience. There is nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it. Is that what children should be taught? That sacrificing our life for others is sheer madness because we stand to gain nothing except a feeling of satisfaction that we shall be admired for our heroism and self-sacrifice?

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.

Please produce evidence for that assertion. If we are to judge by the immense amount of injustice in the world many people do ignore the needs of others and put themselves, friends and relatives first. The law of the jungle exists where trade and finance are concerned…

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…

The freedom of good people is not logically contingent on the actions of criminals but if there were no criminals we would be justified in believing freedom is an illusion. Why would people conform only when confronted with moral issues and not in other respects? How could science explain such a strange phenomenon?

The insurmountableproblem for materialists is the law of conservation of energy which applies to persons as well as animals. If all our mental activity has physical causes there is no such thing as freedom. We are all cogs in the machine of nature…

 

[DCNBILL]

Is mathematics God’s creation? Is logic God’s creation?

My interpretation of mathematics is that it is eternal. It was not created. It was there before and exists after the Big Bang.

Where did it exist, as far as I can observe any mathematical principals exist only if they spring from something like a mind. No mind to perceive them, no mathematics.

The same goes for logic if there is logically no mind to bring forth its existence it remains unthought.

This is actually, come to think of it, part of one of the proofs for the existence of God

 

[magnet]

Where did it exist, as far as I can observe any mathematical principals exist only if they spring from something like a mind. No mind to perceive them, no mathematics.

The same goes for logic if there is logically no mind to bring forth its existence it remains unthought.

This is actually, come to think of it, part of one of the proofs for the existence of God

Mathematical relationships existed before minds discovered them. It’s the same as the prior existence of the planet Pluto. It was there all along.

Many stars several billion years old were there before humans discovered their existence.

Euclidean geometry was discovered by the Greeks. The principles of triangles were in existence before humans discovered them.

 

[Solmyr]

In other words morality boils down to expedience.

I am sure that your usage of morality is different from mine.

There is nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it.

Our upbringing has a lot with it. The old nature or nurture debate is probably unsolvable. We are influenced both by our genes and our upbringing. You cannot create a racehorse from a pig, but you can create a very fast pig.

Please produce evidence for that assertion.

Just Google it. Looking at statistics, there almost no correlation between religious affiliation and committed crimes. The very weak correlation - which is NOT causation - shows that in modern societies less religious people commit fewer crimes. In other words, no one has first dibs on good, compassionate, “moral” behavior.

If we are to judge by the immense amount of injustice in the world many people do ignore the needs of others and put themselves, friends and relatives first. The law of the jungle exists where trade and finance are concerned…

If you use selective sampling, you can “prove” anything.

The freedom of good people is not logically contingent on the actions of criminals…

AHA!!! Now you are on the right track.

…but if there were no criminals we would be justified in believing freedom is an illusion.

What of it? Actually, we would think that that is natural, and would never even think about it at all. If you would be confined to live in naturally ill-smelling (stinking) environment, you would not wonder “why” is it so - not having something else to compare to. Only if something is deviant from the usual, urges you to think. But even if you were right, it would be a very small price to pay for the lack of violence. The unbridled “free will” is not just overrated, from the standpoint of a designer it is a BUG, not a FEATURE. But this has been explained many times.

The insurmountableproblem for materialists is the law of conservation of energy which applies to persons as well as animals. If all our mental activity has physical causes there is no such thing as freedom. We are all cogs in the machine of nature…

You have no idea what is a “problem” for materialists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Carl Sundell, Author

“There is a conviction among some that what is not demonstrable is not to be believed.
Now, while the moment the Big Bang began is to a degree demonstrable, say about 14 billions of years ago, what we cannot demonstrate precisely how or why how it began. That is clouded in mystery. And it is clouded in a mystery that we shall probably not ever be able to solve in scientific terms. Therefore, it may reasonably be concluded that the origins of all beings in the universe may be traced back to a mystery. Science at this point joins religion in having to face the limitations of human reason that must resort to God to explain everything, or it must resort to the absurdity of no explanation whatever. In either case, all things end in mystery, and this can be believed because it is demonstrable.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Mathematical relationships existed before minds discovered them. It’s the same as the prior existence of the planet Pluto. It was there all along.

Many stars several billion years old were there before humans discovered their existence.

Euclidean geometry was discovered by the Greeks. The principles of triangles were in existence before humans discovered them.

I think you may have missed his point.

The only reason Pluto, mathematical relationships, stars, and Euclidean geometry were discovered by human minds is because these were discoverable by mind all along. The formal structure of reality can be apprehended by minds precisely because it has a formal (i.e., informed or informational) structure which minds can access.

It is in the nature of mind to apprehend form and in the nature of form to be apprehensible by mind.

Sure, mathematical relationships may have been there all along. The question is, “In what sense have they actually ‘been there’?”

Think carefully and completely about anything in the sphere of reality that surrounds you – that thing exists to the extent that you apprehend it mentally. How is it possible for the existence of something to depend – for you and as far as you can tell – on your mental ability to apprehend it?

Yet, you have no control over how your mind actually does apprehend any object in your field of view. You are not the active agent in constructing reality, you are the passive recipient of the way things are. Your capacity to apprehend real objects, however, does depend upon your intellectual capacity – otherwise these objects within the field of reality around you would not exist for you. Their existence does depend upon your intellectual capacity to apprehend them.

It is not a stretch to think that their existence as apprehensible objects is made possible by Mind which underwrites the very consciousness that permits us to experience that which can be known or grasped by mind because of its formal structure.

 

[magnet]

It is not a stretch to think that their existence as apprehensible objects is made possible by Mind which underwrites the very consciousness that permits us to experience that which can be known or grasped by mind because of its formal structure.

What if it has no formal structure? Does the Pacific Ocean have a formal structure? Does the disease we label as cancer have a formal structure? How about an ecosystem? Does it have a formal structure? Do three rain drops on a window which later merge into one blob of water have a formal structure?

The human mind is able to grasp ideas about the natural world by creating mental constructs which are artificialities. Are ocean currents concrete objects, or were they defined for the purpose of discussing them? Is Wisconsin any different from Illinois other than the properties assigned to those entities by humans.

Does God have a formal structure? Humans believe in such a phenomenon, but nobody has been able to establish definitively His/Her structure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What if it has no formal structure? Does the Pacific Ocean have a formal structure? Does the disease we label as cancer have a formal structure? How about an ecosystem? Does it have a formal structure? Do three rain drops on a window which later merge into one blob of water have a formal structure?

Clearly, the answer to all of the above is, yes. Otherwise, there would be no capacity to predict anything based upon what we know. Scientific hypotheses assume a consistent predictable structure.

The human mind is able to grasp ideas about the natural world by creating mental constructs which are artificialities. Are ocean currents concrete objects, or were they defined for the purpose of discussing them? Is Wisconsin any different from Illinois other than the properties assigned to those entities by humans.

Well, now you are muddying the water. Merely because our ability to comprehend formal structures permits us to apply them artificially and to create new artifacts does not imply every structure has merely the appearance of intelligibility. The appearance would, at some point, give way or not hold up when it must give way to the underlying reality. Yet, that reality shows no signs of being unintelligible. The fact that genetics and biochemistry are simply becoming more and more formally precise and that the laws of physics have complex mathematical systems underneath them means these are inherent and not merely projected by human thought patterns.

Does God have a formal structure?

Mind as mind must have a structure. The consistency of God has been characterized as Logos, Nous or Word – through whom all things came to be. Yes, God has a structure. Now whether that structure is completely accessible to human thinking capacities is another question. The Holy Spirit will lead us to all Truth. Jesus called himself the Truth.

Humans believe in such a phenomenon, but nobody has been able to establish definitively His/Her structure.

God is Love. God is Truth. God is Actus Purus. God is the Pure Act of Being Itself.

Now merely because you do not accept or comprehend what has been established is not an argument that “nobody has been able to establish definitively [to your liking and agreement] His structure.” By the way, God is referred to using masculine terms (and not as her) precisely because masculine and feminine have definitive forms of their own and it is more appropriate to use a masculine word to describe God’s structure since God is active and not receptive. Merely because humans have made both of these into negative terms as if it is an awful thing to be either, is neither here nor there regarding the nature of God and of creation. Him and his are more appropriate in terms of capturing who God is.

 

[DCNBILL]

Mathematical relationships existed before minds discovered them. It’s the same as the prior existence of the planet Pluto. It was there all along.

Many stars several billion years old were there before humans discovered their existence.

Euclidean geometry was discovered by the Greeks. The principles of triangles were in existence before humans discovered them.

It is absurd to think that concepts were in existence before they could be perceived,

I agree that they preceded humanity but there is no such thing as a truth unless there is a mind to know it.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words morality boils down to expedience.
I am sure that your usage of morality is different from mine.

The version of morality you have described boils down to expedience.

There is nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it.

Our upbringing has a lot with it. The old nature or nurture debate is probably unsolvable. We are influenced both by our genes and our upbringing. You cannot create a racehorse from a pig, but you can create a very fast pig.

In the version of morality you have described there is still nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it.

Please produce evidence for that assertion.

Just Google it. Looking at statistics, there almost no correlation between religious affiliation and committed crimes. The very weak correlation - which is NOT causation - shows that in modern societies less religious people commit fewer crimes. In other words, no one has first dibs on good, compassionate, “moral” behavior.

In a secular society such as the UK there are far more needless abortions, suicides, one parent families, neglected children and people living on their own.

If we are to judge by the immense amount of injustice in the world many people do ignore the needs of others and put themselves, friends and relatives first. The law of the jungle exists where trade and finance are concerned…

If you use selective sampling, you can “prove” anything.

One third of the world’s population is hardly a case of selective sampling.

The freedom of good people is not logically contingent on the actions of criminals…

AHA!!! Now you are on the right track.

I have never implied otherwise.

…but if there were no criminals we would be justified in believing freedom is an illusion.

What of it? Actually, we would think that that is natural, and would never even think about it at all. If you would be confined to live in naturally ill-smelling (stinking) environment, you would not wonder “why” is it so - not having something else to compare to. Only if something is deviant from the usual, urges you to think.

There is a vast difference between a natural ill-smelling (stinking) environment and** free will** which is a **personal **attribute which determines our whole attitude to life.

But even if you were right, it would be a very small price to pay for the lack of violence. The unbridled “free will” is not just overrated, from the standpoint of a designer it is a BUG, not a FEATURE. But this has been explained many times.

The “small price” is the inability to choose what to think and how to live…
Moral decisions affect every detail of our lives.

The insurmountable problem for materialists is the law of conservation of energy which applies to persons as well as animals. If all our mental activity has physical causes there is no such thing as freedom. We are all cogs in the machine of nature…

You have no idea what is a “problem” for materialists.

If all our mental activity has physical causes we are helpless cogs in the machine of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

To compare the universe with a broken pipe is absurd…

The context is different in every respect.

To be convinced one could have designed and created a better universe is an excellent example of overweening pride. It implies a degree of insight and knowledge that no human being has ever possessed.

I did not claim to be able to fabricate a better plumbing system. It is not my job. But that does not prevent me from seeing the errors the actual plumber made.

There are bound to be defects in an immensely complex system which has developed over an immense period of time. The laws of nature cannot possibly cater for every contingency.

To produce a feasible blueprint of Utopia has never been accomplished and there is no prospect that it ever will be - and that is the acid test of such a claim. How about it?

This is your recurring question. (Pointing out this FACT is not a personal attack, merely a small criticism.) And it is rather boring after a while, especially it has already been answered many times.

Please cite an example of a feasible blueprint of Utopia.

What is impossible on a stone-age level of technology is easy task for a bronze-age technician. Likewise the problem, which is unsolvable for a bronze-age creator is no problem for a space-age manufacturer.

What is “feasible” and what is “not feasible” is contingent on the technology which is used. And since there is no technology superior than omnipotence, for an omnipotent creator it is a child’s play to create a utopia. After all, omnipotence is only limited by logical impossibilities.

It has been pointed out that consistency and predictability are also necessary. It is not child’s play to create a universe in which rational beings are capable of self-determination.

Besides, we are not interested in a full-blown utopia. A better universe, where humans would not be interested in violence would be more than satisfactory. We, even with our very limited technology keep on improving on the existing reality. More and more illnesses are cured. Technology helps us to lead a better life; produce more food than ever before. If you think about the changes in last 50 years, the improvement will take your breath away. I am sure that you will lament about the still existing problems - which are many - but that does no refute that the system is getting better, much better. And it has nothing to do with the original “creator”.

You are taking for granted the existence of an immensely complex system with many exquisite mechanisms which are still not understood by teams of scientists who have been working for decades in expensive laboratories with the most sophisticated equipment. “child’s play” is a hopelessly inadequate description of the creation of the biosphere. No human artefact can compare with the beauty, plasticity, efficiency and independence of just one minute living organism.

 

[Bradski]

In other words morality boils down to expedience. There is nothing to stop us from committing a crime if we’re sure we can get away with it. Is that what children should be taught?

Morality exists whether you have free will or not.

If you bring someone up to believe that stealing is wrong and they accept that, then that belief forms part of their moral outlook. So that person has, efectively, no choice in making a decision to take the money from the till when the shopkeeper turns his back.

All the facets of every decision that you have made, all the criteria, all the specific circumstances, were set in place before you made the decisions. You had no control over them. The world turned in such a way as to fix those circumstances in a particular way at the moment you made you dcision.

Whatever that decision was, if the circumstances were EXACTLY the same at any other moment, you would make EXACTLY the same decision. Because whatever call you made, you made one of a number of options. Even if the only other option was to do nothing.

If you insist that you could have made a different decision, then you need to explain to me why you would pick anything less than the best available option. It would mean that any decision you make is not necessarily the best one, but one you make…well, because you have free will and you want to exercise it. Which then becomes the best reason for that reason in itself.

Even the response that you make to this post is, as far as you are concerned, the best option considering all the circumstances. You cannot make another one.

Here’a quick test for you. Tell your wife, purely in the spirit of a philosophical argument you are having, that if the circumstances were exactly the same in regard to you two meeting, there would be no guarantee that you would ask her to marry you again. I mean, if you have free will, you’d have that free will option.

After the obvious response, you could tell here, hand on heart, that it was the best option at the time. But free will dictates that if the situation were to be repeated, it might not then be the option you would choose.

Let me know how you get on.