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

[magnet]

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.

This statement implies that God purposely designs imperfectly in order to enhance His/Her own glory. How selfish!

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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?

Suffering means complete concern towards love. We suffer because we want things to be better. We think them better. We seek them better. Love is this continual process for suffering.

It is impossible for a creature to feel no pain. Even Buddhists suffer. (they don’t admit it but they do).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This statement implies that God purposely designs imperfectly in order to enhance His/Her own glory. How selfish!

What evidence have you that the design is imperfect?

And imperfect from whose point of view? Yours? How selfish!

 

[magnet]

What evidence have you that the design is imperfect?

And imperfect from whose point of view? Yours? How selfish!

Sacred Heart in post #736 claimed this. It is not my idea.

 

[cfauster]

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?

If I read Aquinas correctly, he would agree that loss to living beings (especially humans) caused by natural events do not necessarily mean that God creates poorly, or doesn’t exist, or is evil, or is lacking in power, knowledge, or love.

Aquinas and the Thomists that followed him have presented multiple valid arguments defending against conclusions of a “flaw” in God, and/or in God’s creation, based on the existence of natural disasters in the world.

These defenses, however, are just that: defenses, rather than any single solution to the problem of natural evil. The latter - a single explanation for why God permits natural evil - would require more information. The information we have shows that the question remains open, but it is not sufficient to close the question.

At least that’s how I read Aquinas.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sacred Heart in post #736 claimed this. It is not my idea.

It doesn’t seem to be Sacred Heart’s idea either.

“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.”

The seeming flaws are actually built in pathways to challenge us on the road to perfection.

Think Stephen Hawking, a man who was blessed by God with powerful gifts of intellect, whose lifelong disease is a challenge to trust in God, as the sufferings of Job were a challenge to trust in God’s mercy. Hawking, at last declaring himself an atheist, fails the challenge comparable to the challenge Jesus had on the Cross, to offer up his sufferings to an ultimately merciful God when he passes from this life into the next.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

So much for “miracles”.

Touche.

So much for dialectic.

It ought to be noted that Solmyr disregarded the point that tonyrey wrote after the one above.

For one thing, the consistency of physical laws can be mitigated or impacted by other physical laws. For example, the speed of light is a constant, but is affected by other factors existent within matter, space and energy.

As far as we know the physical laws do not permit certain actions like walking on water or turning water into wine. However, we do not possess the full picture regarding the physical laws. There may be other laws – yet unknown to us – which might be accessed and effected by someone merely knowledgeable of those laws, to say nothing of the God who ordained them.

For instance, the likelihood of launching a 900 000 pound 747 airliner into the air would, on the face of it, seem impossible for anyone who understands the implications of the law of gravity but who is not familiar with aerodynamics. Yet, with particular knowledge of design and airflow, it is possible to keep a 900 000 pound 747-400 in the air for hours on end. The law of gravity would appear to rule out that possibility, though in combination with knowledge of other physical laws, there is a way even for human beings to overcome what seems an impossibility – floating a massive piece of machinery with the addition of several hundred human beings.

It is conceivable that some advanced alien species or future human technology might arrive at the capacity to manipulate nuclear or gravitational forces in a way that, for example, could part the waters of a river, lake or sea. Surely, if that were possible to human beings making use of some new knowledge and advanced technology, why wouldn’t it be possible for the God who created and fixed the natural laws? I mean just to establish those laws and make them consistent would require complete control over all the requisite aspects impacted by the laws themselves.

The power to establish, ordain or set the laws of physics logically requires, a fortiori, the capacity to interfere with them.

 

[Solmyr]

As far as we know the physical laws do not permit certain actions like walking on water or turning water into wine.

Any half-competent stage magician can perform these acts - with today’s technology.

 

[Nixbits]

And any sufficiently advanced technology (compared to our own) would seem to us like supernatural or even divine power.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Any half-competent stage magician can perform these acts - with today’s technology.

Well, no; any half-competent stage magician cannot ACTUALLY carry out the specific act, they can give the appearance of “performing these acts” without actually doing them. Big difference.

 

[Solmyr]

Well, no; any half-competent stage magician cannot ACTUALLY carry out the specific act, they can give the appearance of “performing these acts” without actually doing them. Big difference.

How would you know that? You cannot actually go and examine the acts, especially not the 2000 years old stories.

Of course this is not the point. Tony said that God’s omnipotence is limited by the physical laws. As such he declares those alleged miracles to be magical tricks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How would you know that? You cannot actually go and examine the acts, especially not the 2000 years old stories.

What appeared to happen as far as those witnessing the events and what actually happened to explain them are two different things.

The acts that a magician appears to perform and the actualities that explain them are two different things as well. Yet, you completely fail to see the distinction.

Of course this is not the point. Tony said that God’s omnipotence is limited by the physical laws. As such he declares those alleged miracles to be magical tricks.

Of course. So YOUR point is that keeping a 900 000 pound 747 in the air is merely a “magical trick” performed by aeronautical engineers to make it appear to those in the airplane and those on the ground that the airliner is in the air when, in fact, it isn’t.

Clearly, you don’t understand – or, at least, are hesitant to admit – the implications of your own rhetoric.

 

[GEddie]

And any sufficiently advanced technology (compared to our own) would seem to us like supernatural or even divine power.

Any sufficiently advanced technology (compared to our own) is indistinguishable from bad science fiction.

—Unknown

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Many of the miracles performed in both Testaments might not have been needed in the 2000s, given that our improved knowledge of the human body and life generally would negate the need leading to the miracle.

And it could be that the natural catastrophes that now lead to criticism of the creation are damaging to us only insofar as we lack knowledge to deal with them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

If I read Aquinas correctly, he would agree that loss to living beings (especially humans) caused by natural events do not necessarily mean that God creates poorly, or doesn’t exist, or is evil, or is lacking in power, knowledge, or love.

Aquinas and the Thomists that followed him have presented multiple valid arguments defending against conclusions of a “flaw” in God, and/or in God’s creation, based on the existence of natural disasters in the world.

These defenses, however, are just that: defenses, rather than any single solution to the problem of natural evil. The latter - a single explanation for why God permits natural evil - would require more information. The information we have shows that the question remains open, but it is not sufficient to close the question.

At least that’s how I read Aquinas.

A single explanation is that it is a lesser evil to create the world as it is than to create it differently. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage: the more sensitive we are, for example, the more we can suffer but J S Mill pointed out that it is better to be a person rather than a pig (although that doesn’t mean we necessarily behave better than our fellow creatures…

 

[tonyrey]

Of course this is not the point. Tony said that God’s omnipotence is limited by the physical laws. As such he declares those alleged miracles to be magical tricks.

To be precise I pointed out that if God constantly intervened to prevent disasters it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly, predictable world. There has to be a limit to miracles which are not “magical tricks” but suspension of the laws of nature by their Creator. The most notorious instance of magic is the materialist’s derivation of intelligence from mindless molecules…

 

[tonyrey]

And any sufficiently advanced technology (compared to our own) would seem to us like supernatural or even divine power.

It doesn’t follow that all activity in the world has a natural explanation. Can nature account for itself?

 

[tonyrey]

And any sufficiently advanced technology (compared to our own) would seem to us like supernatural or even divine power.

It doesn’t follow that all activity in the world has a natural explanation. Can nature account for itself?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The laws of nature are inflexible in the sense that they do not adapt to the needs of individuals but they seem miraculous in all the grace and beauty they have produced.

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

The Catechism teaches that we are subject to the limitations of life in this world. The laws of nature are not infallible or changeable yet the plasticity of biological organisms is undeniable. That is where a mechanistic explanation fails miserably because it ignores the teleological aspect of the biosphere.

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?

Spot on!

 

[tonyrey]

So much for dialectic.

It ought to be noted that Solmyr disregarded the point that tonyrey wrote after the one above.

For one thing, the consistency of physical laws can be mitigated or impacted by other physical laws. For example, the speed of light is a constant, but is affected by other factors existent within matter, space and energy.

As far as we know the physical laws do not permit certain actions like walking on water or turning water into wine. However, we do not possess the full picture regarding the physical laws. There may be other laws – yet unknown to us – which might be accessed and effected by someone merely knowledgeable of those laws, to say nothing of the God who ordained them.

For instance, the likelihood of launching a 900 000 pound 747 airliner into the air would, on the face of it, seem impossible for anyone who understands the implications of the law of gravity but who is not familiar with aerodynamics. Yet, with particular knowledge of design and airflow, it is possible to keep a 900 000 pound 747-400 in the air for hours on end. The law of gravity would appear to rule out that possibility, though in combination with knowledge of other physical laws, there is a way even for human beings to overcome what seems an impossibility – floating a massive piece of machinery with the addition of several hundred human beings.

It is conceivable that some advanced alien species or future human technology might arrive at the capacity to manipulate nuclear or gravitational forces in a way that, for example, could part the waters of a river, lake or sea. Surely, if that were possible to human beings making use of some new knowledge and advanced technology, why wouldn’t it be possible for the God who created and fixed the natural laws? I mean just to establish those laws and make them consistent would require complete control over all the requisite aspects impacted by the laws themselves.

The power to establish, ordain or set the laws of physics logically requires, a fortiori, the capacity to interfere with them.

:clapping: The principle of inadequate explanation seems to be the hallmark of materialism.