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

[tonyrey]

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

Perception is not knowledge. Sense data have to be interpreted by the mind in order to constitute intelligible information about physical objects, i.e. empirical knowledge which is only one branch of knowledge…

 

[tonyrey]

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

I agree, Eddie, with the proviso that an avalanche like that in Galtür in 1999 killed villagers who were living in what was considered a safe zone. Such tragedies are not due to a design flaw but the inevitable limitations of natural laws which do not take individual lives into account. Sooner or later unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur in an immensely complex physical system.

 

[GEddie]

I agree, Eddie, with the proviso that an avalanche like that in Galtür in 1999 killed villagers who were living in what was considered a safe zone. Such tragedies are not due to a design flaw but the inevitable limitations of natural laws which do not take individual lives into account. Sooner or later unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur in an immensely complex physical system.

Point taken about Galtur.

Sometimes we suffer from natural events simply because we lack adequate knowledge or perception to avoid their effects.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solmyr]

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.

The phrase is not to be taken verbatim. Of course we have never actually experienced a “unicorn” either, but we use our phantasy to make make-believe worlds. But there must be some actual starting point to begin the fantasy. Even the Jabberwocky is built upon some actual animals.

The starting point of this side-conversation was that allegedly in a world without violence people would start wondering if some benevolent entity prevented the violence. Suppose that there is a world covered by clouds and its has a constant spring due to the axial tilt being zero. The inhabitants would never start to wonder, if there is a benevolent deity which prevents hailstorms (for example).

 

[Solmyr]

To test your idea, you’d need to be able to repeat the decision-making procedure with the same initial conditions each time.

That process is just a thought experiment. The only way to actually decide if there is a “free will”, would be to take a snapshot of the universe, then “rewind” it to a prior state and then let the events unfold. At the very same instant we could compare the actual state of affairs to the snapshot. If there would be a discrepancy, then there would be some freedom. If there would be no discrepancy, the question would stay undecided.

Of course this experiment cannot be carried out.

 

[Solmyr]

God is constrained by the need for the consistency of physical laws.

So much for “miracles”.

 

[GEddie]

The phrase is not to be taken verbatim. Of course we have never actually experienced a “unicorn” either, but we use our phantasy to make make-believe worlds. But there must be some actual starting point to begin the fantasy. Even the Jabberwocky is built upon some actual animals.

The starting point of this side-conversation was that allegedly in a world without violence people would start wondering if some benevolent entity prevented the violence. Suppose that there is a world covered by clouds and its has a constant spring due to the axial tilt being zero. The inhabitants would never start to wonder, if there is a benevolent deity which prevents hailstorms (for example).

Actually, if the axial tilt were zero, climatic conditions would be governed by the latitude, with the equatorial zone being in eternal summer, and eternal winter at the poles. So they might wonder why some places got weather conditions that others did not.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

So much for “miracles”.

Well no. He can break the physical laws at will, witness our LORD bypassing the law of buoyancy in order to join His friends on the water, or reversing the law of entropy to get Himself out of death.

But in general, it seems more important to Him that the laws of nature be such that we can learn them, which would not be the case if miracles were the norm.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solmyr]

Actually, if the axial tilt were zero, climatic conditions would be governed by the latitude, with the equatorial zone being in eternal summer, and eternal winter at the poles. So they might wonder why some places got weather conditions that others did not.

I did not want to elaborate on all the details. If the habitable zone of that imaginary planet would be limited to a narrow strip around the equator, the change in temperature and meteorology would be negligible. The point still is the same. If you would live in a constant environment, you would take it for granted.

 

[magnet]

The solar system with all its planets was never designed for humans. It behaves consistently with the physical laws of the universe. The earth is unique among the planets of our solar system in that it has a high amount of liquid water. The cooling of the earth, the solar energy bombarding the earth, the earth’s revolution around the sun and its rotation on its axis are all part of the normal physical process. Any large phenomena occurring on the earth such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, tornadoes are not catastrophes. They are all part of earth processes.

If large animal life, including that of humans, gets trapped by these events, its because of inadvertent being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The earth was not designed for humanity. Humans were able to fit into certain ecological niches, some of which have no catastrophes. Other niches are riskier. It is not a design flaw that these riskier niches were not as ideal for humanity as others. Clearly bone-dry deserts and permanent ice sheets are not conductive to thriving humanity. Is this a design flaw? As for the earth as a whole, these are not design flaws. What is the goal of the design? Natural phenomena have no design. They just develop naturally.

 

[tonyrey]

The solar system with all its planets was never designed for humans. It behaves consistently with the physical laws of the universe. The earth is unique among the planets of our solar system in that it has a high amount of liquid water. The cooling of the earth, the solar energy bombarding the earth, the earth’s revolution around the sun and its rotation on its axis are all part of the normal physical process. Any large phenomena occurring on the earth such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, tornadoes are not catastrophes. They are all part of earth processes.

If large animal life, including that of humans, gets trapped by these events, its because of inadvertent being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The earth was not designed for humanity. Humans were able to fit into certain ecological niches, some of which have no catastrophes. Other niches are riskier. It is not a design flaw that these riskier niches were not as ideal for humanity as others. Clearly bone-dry deserts and permanent ice sheets are not conductive to thriving humanity. Is this a design flaw? As for the earth as a whole, these are not design flaws. What is the goal of the design? Natural phenomena have no design. They just develop naturally.

Unsubstantiated assertions are worthless. Where is the evidence that the physical laws of the universe appeared out of the blue for no reason whatsoever? Do you have any **reason **for implicitly claiming that everything is unreasonable?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

This is why Bradski’s point is a moot one. By declaring “everything” is the same he lumps into “everything” ALL of the factors that brought about the event or act and hides the fact that the freely-willed decision of the agent was part of what brought about the result behind the premise that “everything” is the same.

Well, if everything is the same then so was the freely-made decision and what led up to it the same. That, however, does not demonstrate that the choice was caused, but merely that choices are not indeterminate. Nor does it prove that having good reasons for carrying an act is exactly like having been caused to carry it out.

This doesn’t analyze what it means to will an action or come to a decision, it seeks to bury that analysis behind a causal curtain by having us assume in the example what Bradski needs to show, namely that human agency is an essentially caused process.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The solar system with all its planets was never designed for humans. It behaves consistently with the physical laws of the universe.

It is a logical non sequitur to claim the universe was never designed for humans BECAUSE it behaves consistently with the laws of nature.

An automobile behaves consistently with the laws of nature and yet it was clearly designed.

You assumption is that whoever designed the solar system, then had to have also designed the laws of nature in order for the solar system to have been designed for humans.

Clearly, the designers of automobiles did not design the universe but still designed automobiles that act consistently with the laws of physics.

What you haven’t shown, but merely assumed is that the designer of the solar system did not design the universe.

The argument for fine-tuning of the universe argues, quite compellingly, that the laws which govern the universe and the constants to which they are tuned had to have been designed with intent BECAUSE the chances of them being tuned to each other as they are is vanishingly, mind-numbingly small – effectively zero, given the number of zeroes involved.

 

[inocente]

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.

Don’t see how you can say the laws of nature are inflexible when they’ve led to such a diverse world. Especially as without them, persons and animals couldn’t exist.

From what you’ve said on this thread, my impression is you’re claiming that (a) it’s logically impossible for the intelligent designer to create anything perfect, (b) his omnipotence is compromised by his omniscience and omnibenevolence, and (c) he designed the laws of nature so that their “inflexibility is a major flaw as far as the lives and well-being of persons and animals are concerned”.

Am I misunderstanding you or is that correct? If so, is that standard Catholic teaching?

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

I see what you’re getting at but if the laws of nature didn’t cater for avalanches then avalanches would be completely inexplicable, yet we explain avalanches by the very laws which Tony says don’t cater for them.

I think Tony means that the laws of nature are not conscious of the effects they produce, or if they are conscious then they don’t exhibit any guilt. But why should anyone expect otherwise? How is it possibly a flaw that avalanches are amoral?

 

[inocente]

That process is just a thought experiment. The only way to actually decide if there is a “free will”, would be to take a snapshot of the universe, then “rewind” it to a prior state and then let the events unfold. At the very same instant we could compare the actual state of affairs to the snapshot. If there would be a discrepancy, then there would be some freedom. If there would be no discrepancy, the question would stay undecided.

Of course this experiment cannot be carried out.

I think we’ve done the thought experiment by working out that a physical experiment is impossible (unless Brad knows a way).

I’m never sure what’s meant by free-will. If it’s just that sometimes we might say yes and other times no, we could flip a coin to make the decision for us and no one would know. But that seems more like fate than freedom.

 

[Bradski]

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

Ye gods and little fishes.

I am not saying we CAN repeat conditions. I am saying that IF conditions were repeated, the decisions would be the same.

 

[Bradski]

So much for “miracles”.

Touche.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The solar system with all its planets was never designed for humans.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Disabilities in people and animals, diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s, as well as other things which seem to be design flaws.

If he could not create the world without these things, he is not all powerful. Or would He want suffering in the world? Then He would be evil.

How can we reconcile these seemingly flaws of design with possible intelligent design by God?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong sub forum, mods please move it if it is!)

In the gospel there was a man born blind and Jesus was going to heal him. His disciples asked, “was this man born blind because he sinned?”. Jesus replied, “it was not because of sin that the man was born blind but because the mystery of God would be revealed”… when Jesus opened the blind man’s eyes.

God is all-wise. He permits what seems like flaws to exist in order that His glory may be made manifest when he heals such flaws.

Just think a man who was blind his entire life is finally able to see–the wonder in that blind man’s eyes. It is quite wise for God to manifest himself in this way. Many people are sick from a multitude of ailments. Some worst than others. The miracle in the healing is the opening of belief towards God. If everyone was perfect then what would be the purpose of believing in Mercy, God’s mercy. In order for God to be merciful the condition for his mercy must exist. Divine mercy is a gift. Mercy can only come from affliction.

 

[magnet]

What does suffering mean? If a creature feels no pain, can it suffer?

Certain invertebrates can purposely cut off their own limbs. Is suffering involved?