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

[magnet]

Repeat the same conditions EXACTLY and the result will always be the same. That is to say, the conditions at any one time only have ONE possible outcome.

You have not included random phenomena. In a certain process, randomness cannot result in only one outcome. Water swirling in a toilet bowl exhibits varying patterns with each flush even though the same flush is occurring repeatedly.

“Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or “trials”) is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

 

[Bradski]

You have not included random phenomena. In a certain process, randomness cannot result in only one outcome. Water swirling in a toilet bowl exhibits varying patterns with each flush even though the same flush is occurring repeatedly.

It’s not the same flush. The conditions are different. The slight difference in pressure, water temp, quantity…everything changes slightly to affect a different outcome.

But if all conditions were exactly the same, then the result would be exactly the same.

 

[tonyrey]

Does nothing ever go wrong in your version of Utopia? Are there no deaths or accidents?

What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented?

Introspection does not happen in a vacuum. Our first thoughts are reflections of the observed reality. Later we can build upon them and create a whole hierarchy of knowledge.

Observed reality consists of our** perceptions**. We do not have direct knowledge of the physical world. We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and infer the existence of persons and things.

So they would be morally perfect but imperfect in other respects? Ignorant for example? Or would they never make mistakes?

Of course. The word “morally perfect” is not applicable here. People simply would not think about violent actions, much less performing them.

Couldn’t they do them accidentally or by making a mistake? What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented from thinking about them?

There is a very good book, written by Stanislaw Lem, title: “Return from the Stars”, which deals with the questions of such a society. I bet you would enjoy it. A fascinating subject of “normal” people who find a “utopia” (meaning violence-less society) after having spent a long time on an interstellar expedition.

Science fiction is entertaining but unfortunately it doesn’t count as evidence.

So in that respect people would be infallible?

Infallibility does not even come into the picture.

If people cannot believe violence is evil they must be infallible in that respect because they would distinguish it from other forms of evil.

Well, our beliefs are not under volitional control, but we certainly can choose whether to act on them…

Can you explain **how **our mental activity would be restricted to what we think but not what we do? Surely our actions depend on our decisions which stem from what we think we should do?

 

[tonyrey]

If there are defects then God’s power, knowledge and/or goodness must be compromised by chance and circumstance, therefore God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Whereas Thomas argues that because God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, ultimately there are no defects.

“ultimately” is the key word. God permits defects because only He is perfect in every respect. Every created world has its limitations.

But the laws of nature do cater for every contingency. If they didn’t, and if any unexpected contingency arose then the laws wouldn’t be able to cope with it and the universe would stop working. But whole galaxies can collide and whatever happens the universe never breaks down, never needs a reboot, the laws cater for every contingency.
A law of nature is defined to be omnipotent. For example, the law of gravity has power over everything with mass, there is no known defect to the law, nothing can escape its power. Surely God is even more powerful?

If the laws of nature catered for every contingency there would never be any disasters caused by earthquakes, avalanches, hurricanes and tidal waves. The laws of nature are certainly not omniscient or concerned about the welfare of life on earth. The universe never breaks down but in nature there is much violence and destruction.

 

[tonyrey]

If everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live you have no choice in your belief that everything we believe is the result of what we have been taught and the conditions in which we live… Why should your belief be superior to others who disagree with you?

Amongst others scientists and philosophers make unexpected discoveries .

And beliefs must be justified by reasonable arguments. I do not understand why I have to waste a few seconds of my life actually typing that out.

Pascal pointed out that the “heart has its reasons that reason doesn’t know”.

If we have different beliefs on any matter, then they must have been formed for both of us by being taught or by investigation into the facts of the matter.

What about intuition and inspiration?

Be that global warming, gods and demons, contraception…whatever the case may be. If your belief is different to mine, then we simply put forward what we know about the subject and see who has the best reasons for their belief.

However logical and reasonable we attempt to be there is always a limit to our knowledge and insight. The best test of any belief is how it works in practice. To regard life as valueless, purposeless and meaningless leads nowhere - except depression and often suicide…

And again, if your reason is: ‘God says so’ and you have nothing else to bring to the table, then you will be ignored. Well, by me, at least.

That applies to scientists and everyone else as well! If we deny that reason is the fundamental key to the interpretation of reality we should certainly be ignored.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, what I suggest is falsifiable. But saying that ‘even a small change’ doesn’t detract from my point. In fact, it clarifies it. Small changes have effects. Zero changes have none.

Repeat the same conditions EXACTLY and the result will always be the same. That is to say, the conditions at any one time only have ONE possible outcome.

You are assuming that a causal paradigm applies across the board to decision-making by human agents, thus begging the question. Your assumption is that reasons act exactly like causes when autonomous agents “decide” on an action.

You haven’t demonstrated that to be true, merely assumed that it is by concocting a story in which the hidden variables which make autonomous agency distinctive simply disappear behind the framing of the narrative.

Still assuming what you need to demonstrate and thus engaging in circular reasoning.

The conditions being the same ignores the (name removed by moderator)ut of the agent, him or herself. If the free will of the agent alters the decision, then the conditions haven’t been the same, but it was the free choice of the agent which made the difference.

Yes, I understand that you will insist that something “different” must have made the agent change their mind, but that difference may not have been external to the agent, but integral to the will of the agent who made the different decision – I.e., the agent chose an alternative course merely because the alternative course was a live option. The power to do so resided in the agent, not in any causal factor outside –*meaning that the live options existed the first time and a different course could have been chosen even the first time. Ergo, that there was “only one possible outcome,” the first time hasn’t been demonstrated by you.

There may be a plethora of live options with every choice made and so there is never, ever, only one possible outcome – only the fallacy of retrospective determinism, which need not be committed by you every time if you choose not to. But of course, you may choose not to exercise your free will in the matter and will fall into the RD trap every time.

Sisyphus didn’t happen to be a member of the rational rat pack, did he?

 

[Solmyr]

What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented?

Irrelevant. God’s omnipotence is not constrained by the physical laws.

Observed reality consists of our** perceptions**. We do not have direct knowledge of the physical world. We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and infer the existence of persons and things.

Perception by our organs is direct knowledge. The nerve endings belong to us, and we directly experience the signals travelling out nerves.

Couldn’t they do them accidentally or by making a mistake? What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented from thinking about them?

Irrelevant.

Science fiction is entertaining but unfortunately it doesn’t count as evidence.

It is not offered as evidence, rather the thoughts of the greatest thinker of the last 100 years about a society without violence. You keep asking about “how” is something possible, and I offer the thoughts of a great thinker. Besides, it is a great book.

If people cannot believe violence is evil they must be infallible in that respect because they would distinguish it from other forms of evil.

They cannot even imagine violence.

Can you explain **how **our mental activity would be restricted to what we think but not what we do? Surely our actions depend on our decisions which stem from what we think we should do?

If you have never experienced something, and no one has ever experienced it, then you could not even imagine it. Nihil est in intellectu…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Irrelevant. God’s omnipotence is not constrained by the physical laws.

No but it is constrained by his omnibenevolence and omniscience, which you seem to conveniently ignore every time you argue the point.

If you have never experienced something, and no one has ever experienced it, then you could not even imagine it. Nihil est in intellectu…

This assumes that the human intellect can never be directly infused with a revelatory experience or certain knowledge by an outside agent or God himself.

The nature of “experience” is thus not inherently tied to sensory experience. Even the ancients understood that the human intellect could be inspired by God or “the gods” directly.
If some kind of telepathic infusion or impartation of information to the mind is possible, then the “experience” would consist of a direct awareness or knowledge of an idea or concept without the necessity of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

Again, you have to show that this is impossible. How can you do that without assuming that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the brain and totally dependent upon the senses for source data? You can’t, and thus you make the assumption, begging the question entirely.

 

[DCNBILL]

When I say that you will always make the same decision every time if the conditions are EXACTLY the same, I am not saying that the decion will be perfect. Or even the right one. It may even turn out to be a very bad decision indeed.

But it will be the only decision that you can make. If you gain further knowledge and you can gradually exclude that which is irrelevant, then your decision making will improve. But if those new condions are repeated EXACTLY, then that decision, the better one, will again be repeated.

If that is not the case, then someone needs to explain to me what is different that allows a change. And if all conditions are exactly the same, no change is possible. It would be like re-running a film.

According to chaos theory conditions can never be exactly reproduced, for one thing time has changed.

 

[Nixbits]

Solmyr:

If you have never experienced something, and no one has ever experienced it, then you could not even imagine it. Nihil est in intellectu.

On the face of it, this statement would seem to be contradicted by any number or science fiction authors and by their readers.

For example, I have never instantaneously travelled back in time to a period far in the past and, as far as I know, no-one else has either. Yet I can imagine doing so and imagine the brief temporal dissonance that I might experience upon my arrival.

 

[Aloysium]

According to chaos theory conditions can never be exactly reproduced, for one thing time has changed.

One may draw an analogy to computer programming in explaining the workings of the world. This is where the analogy fails, not only because of the complexity of phenomena but the very fact that events are being played out in different times means that there may be a significant change in the variables that are at play. There’s always noise in a system, and a big part of getting clear results comes from minimizing its influence. We don’t have to appeal to chaos theory; we need simply look at real life - When are things ever the same? The statement that things would transpire in the exact same way under the exact same conditions not only presupposes, counter to common sense, that it is possible, but that the rules that govern the world are fixed; that is, no God and no free will. It’s actually not an argument but a statement of faith. Nothing can prove it true or false.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, what I suggest is falsifiable. But saying that ‘even a small change’ doesn’t detract from my point. In fact, it clarifies it. Small changes have effects. Zero changes have none.

Repeat the same conditions EXACTLY and the result will always be the same. That is to say, the conditions at any one time only have ONE possible outcome.

This is akin to saying we do what we do which is correct but useless,

 

[inocente]

Yes, what I suggest is falsifiable. But saying that ‘even a small change’ doesn’t detract from my point. In fact, it clarifies it. Small changes have effects. Zero changes have none.

Repeat the same conditions EXACTLY and the result will always be the same. That is to say, the conditions at any one time only have ONE possible outcome.

To test your idea, you’d need to be able to repeat the decision-making procedure with the same initial conditions each time. But the initial conditions include the exact state of the subject’s brain and body, and you’ve no way of recording and resetting them, that’s not even remotely feasible (or ethical ).

So unless you have a viable experiment in mind, your idea isn’t open to falsification, and all we can do is express opinions. Mine is a maybe, as there’s a lot we don’t yet know.

 

[inocente]

“ultimately” is the key word. God permits defects because only He is perfect in every respect. Every created world has its limitations.

If the laws of nature catered for every contingency there would never be any disasters caused by earthquakes, avalanches, hurricanes and tidal waves. The laws of nature are certainly not omniscient or concerned about the welfare of life on earth. The universe never breaks down but in nature there is much violence and destruction.

Earthquakes, avalanches, hurricanes and tidal waves all obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature cater for every circumstance, nothing can disobey them.

If avalanches etc. were somehow prohibited from ever occurring, then for all we know, life may never have come into existence. Most planets in the universe are probably unoccupied anyway, so while your concern for the safety of humans is admirable, it’s a little disproportionate to expect the laws of nature to cater for the needs of 21st century society.

They’re not a flaws, the Creator doesn’t do flaws.

 

[inocente]

No but it is constrained by his omnibenevolence and omniscience, which you seem to conveniently ignore every time you argue the point.

You seem to have not noticed my previous post. Please cite the teaching on vatican.va, or if you prefer a passage in the bible, which states that God’s omnipotence is constrained by His omnibenevolence and omniscience.

 

[tonyrey]

Earthquakes, avalanches, hurricanes and tidal waves all obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature cater for every circumstance, nothing can disobey them.

If avalanches etc. were somehow prohibited from ever occurring, then for all we know, life may never have come into existence. Most planets in the universe are probably unoccupied anyway, so while your concern for the safety of humans is admirable, it’s a little disproportionate to expect the laws of nature to cater for the needs of 21st century society.

They’re not a flaws, the Creator doesn’t do flaws.

Their inflexibility is a major flaw as far as the lives and well-being of persons and animals are concerned, i.e. they cannot and do not cater for every circumstance.

 

[tonyrey]

What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented?

God is constrained by the need for the consistency of physical laws. Constant intervention would wreck the order in the world and the predictability of events.

Observed reality consists of our perceptions. We do not have direct knowledge of the physical world. We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and infer the existence of persons and things.

Perception by our organs is direct knowledge. The nerve endings belong to us, and we directly experience the signals travelling out nerves.

Indeed. We have direct experience of the signals not of that which causes them. We infer the existence of persons and things.

Couldn’t they do them accidentally or by making a mistake? What is the physical mechanism by which they would be prevented from thinking about them?

Irrelevant.

Inability to explain wrecks an explanation!

Science fiction is entertaining but unfortunately it doesn’t count as evidence.
It is not offered as evidence, rather the thoughts of the greatest thinker of the last 100 years about a society without violence. You keep asking about “how” is something possible, and I offer the thoughts of a great thinker. Besides, it is a great book.

It still doesn’t count as scientific evidence.

If people cannot believe violence is evil they must be infallible in that respect because they would distinguish it from other forms of evil.

They cannot even imagine violence.

They witness unintended violence caused by people hurting others by accident and deliberate violence caused by animals. We live in a violent universe…

Can you explain how our mental activity would be restricted to what we think but not what we do? Surely our actions depend on our decisions which stem from what we think we should do?

If you have never experienced something, and no one has ever experienced it, then you could not even imagine it.

What about scientific discoveries? Our experience is not static but constantly increases and it varies from one person to another. You reject science fiction as evidence but you regard it as useful and informative…

Nihil est in intellectu…

What about introspection?** Our experience is not restricted to sense data.**

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Jerry Bowyer, Author

“The argument is that mathematical laws, in order to be properly relied upon, must have attributes which indicate an origin in God. They are true everywhere (omnipresent), true always (eternal), cannot be defied or defeated (omnipotent), and are rational and have language characteristics (which makes them personal). Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, personal… Sounds like God. Math is an expression of the mind of God. Sound strange? It isn’t. Modern natural science was created by people who said that they were trying to ‘think God’s thoughts after Him.’”

If God is a mathematician, he is the Supreme Mathematician. It hardly serves us well to say that his mathematics is flawed or defective, or that we have detected the flaw in his mathematical designs. It serves us considerably better to say that, just as most people suffer understanding mathematics, we are right to suffer understanding God.

 

[cfauster]

inocente wrote:
“Earthquakes, avalanches, hurricanes and tidal waves all obey the laws of nature. The laws of nature cater for every circumstance, nothing can disobey them. If avalanches etc. were somehow prohibited from ever occurring, then for all we know, life may never have come into existence … They’re not flaws, the Creator doesn’t do flaws.”

tonyrey wrote: “Their inflexibility is a major flaw as far as the lives and well-being of persons and animals are concerned, i.e. they cannot and do not cater for every circumstance.”

Perfectly compatible statements, I think, if instead of the word “cater” in what inocente wrote, the word “apply” is used instead.

Here are a few nuggets from Herbert McCabe in his book God and Evil in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“A creation consisting simply of angels, for example … would not be subject to this kind of evil. Given, however, that we have a material word that is a field of becoming, then the coming to be of one thing, and its continued existence, depend upon the perishing of other things… It is not, therefore, an evil for the world as a whole that there should be evils for particular things in the world…It is for this reason that, since God made the world to be material, and since he intends the good of this material world, we can say that he is the cause of this kind of evil per accidens. It is not weakness that prevents him from making a material world in which there is no corruption, but the logical impossibility of an incorruptible contingent world.”

 

[GEddie]

Were it not for avalanches, mountain snow could not return to the lowlands. Over decamillenniums, all the continental fresh-water would lock up in the mountains.

For the most part, human beings die in avalanches because of the human love of needless dangers like skiing and mountain climbing, neither of which our somas are designed to do. In this context, it makes no sense to call avalanches a design flaw in the earth, just as sticking your hand in a lightbulb socket and getting zapped does not imply a design flaw in the electrics.

ICXC NIKA