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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zadeth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are the laws of nature judged to be fallible in relation to life? They were in existence before vertebrate life appeared. Life evolved in presence of the laws of nature. In that respect, life became successful in the presence of the laws of nature. So can’t we say that the laws of nature are infallible?

When a meteorite strikes earth and extinguishes dinosaurs, how is that in any way related to support or ruin of life? After the extinction of dinosaurs, mammals began to proliferate. So can we say this event was in support of mammalian life at the expense of reptilian life?
The laws of nature are neutral in respect of life. The same laws operate on Earth and Venus; but Earth holds life in profusion while Venus is lifeless.

The same laws of buoyancy and oxygenation allow an Olympic swimmer to excel, and a bound-handed pirate victim to drown; just as the changed climate after a meteor strike allowed small mammals to become profuse whilst the dinosaurs perished.

“Infallible” doesn’t really apply to natural laws; it describes a human statement or faculty that is free of error (error being a specifically human thought limitation). Rather say that natural laws insofar as known are stable, predictable, and neutral to life.

ICXC NIKA
 
The “supposed design flaws” exist only in . . . flawed reasoning . . .
. . . Most of the great philosophers and scientists believed the universe exists for a purpose. . .
. . . and the not so great, and pretty much everybody who behaves as if their lives have meaning. It causes great anxiety to feel there is no purpose to one’s existence. And, that purpose cannot be just dreamed up, it has to be real. However, most of the time we are unaware of the purposes that govern our lives. Even those who escape in drugs and alcohol end up making it their sole focus; every thought revolves around it. To carry on living, one will need a palpable reason to do so; it can so easily become too hard.

On these forums and elsewhere we witness the apparent purpose of many atheists to stamp out such “flaws” as irrationality, which is projected onto religion. There are likely all sorts of psychological reasons for such an inclination but a rational one would be would be as an aspect of a general desire to fix perceived deficiencies in our culture. These would include sexism and racism, issues that touch on the freedom and equality of the individual. Socially active atheists probably have less interest in defining humanity in terms of bosons and such. They are attempting to grapple with what constitutes the meaningful reality of day-to-day.

And of course, at some point everything becomes personal. Check out this video by Rebecca Watson, particularly the couple of minutes after 4:15. youtu.be/uKHwduG1Frk Interestingly and not unexpectedly, it led to years of hate on the internet, with two sides going at it, both blaming the other for taking the matter too seriously - Muslima vs misogyny. No one likes to feel like slime, and the slime flew fast and thick.

What I’m trying to get at is that the meaning of life has to do with love, mutual caring, respect and human dignity. Purpose is at the same time personal and universal. It is an imperative built in us all to achieve and maintain these goals. Without that accomplishment, we cannot be happy, since everything else is transitory and illusory.
 
. . . and the not so great, and pretty much everybody who behaves as if their lives have meaning. It causes great anxiety to feel there is no purpose to one’s existence. And, that purpose cannot be just dreamed up, it has to be real. However, most of the time we are unaware of the purposes that govern our lives. Even those who escape in drugs and alcohol end up making it their sole focus; every thought revolves around it. To carry on living, one will need a palpable reason to do so; it can so easily become too hard.

On these forums and elsewhere we witness the apparent purpose of many atheists to stamp out such “flaws” as irrationality, which is projected onto religion. There are likely all sorts of psychological reasons for such an inclination but a rational one would be would be as an aspect of a general desire to fix perceived deficiencies in our culture. These would include sexism and racism, issues that touch on the freedom and equality of the individual. Socially active atheists probably have less interest in defining humanity in terms of bosons and such. They are attempting to grapple with what constitutes the meaningful reality of day-to-day.

And of course, at some point everything becomes personal. Check out this video by Rebecca Watson, particularly the couple of minutes after 4:15. youtu.be/uKHwduG1Frk Interestingly and not unexpectedly, it led to years of hate on the internet, with two sides going at it, both blaming the other for taking the matter too seriously - Muslima vs misogyny. No one likes to feel like slime, and the slime flew fast and thick.

What I’m trying to get at is that the meaning of life has to do with love, mutual caring, respect and human dignity. Purpose is at the same time personal and universal. It is an imperative built in us all to achieve and maintain these goals. Without that accomplishment, we cannot be happy, since everything else is transitory and illusory.
Irrefutable. “personal” is the most formidable difficulty for those who reject God. Try as they might they cannot find a credible reason for regarding themselves and everyone else as extraordinary freaks of nature which only imagine they are controlling themselves - and above all their thoughts. What are thoughts worth if they emerge from mindless events? 😉
 
Ultimately the notion of “design flaws” is based on fantasy, not merely about a few events but the very structure of the universe. The laws of nature would have to be modified to such an extent it would be unrecognisable. In fact there is not one law that would remain unscathed if all disasters are to be eliminated. The magnitude of the task is grossly underestimated by those who believe all tragedies could be prevented by a few minor adjustments to the present system.They fail to take into account the immense number and complexity of factors which determine the course of events. The butterfly effect alone could cause an unparallelled tragedy in the history of the universe.

We take it for granted that order and stability will continue to exist indefinitely but there is no guarantee they will. The extinction of all life on earth is an ever-present possibility yet it has survived for almost four billion years. That fact alone demonstrates that any alteration to the existing laws of nature could have devastating and unpredictable effects. In other words to criticise the existing system is extremely presumptuous because there is not one jot of evidence that it could be changed without doing more harm than good. No one has ever presented a detailed description of a feasible universe without major disasters, let alone a flawless Utopia. As life has already come close to extinction on several occasions without any alterations it is highly probable that even one apparent improvement could do far more harm than good.
 
It is ironic that those who criticise and condemn the drawbacks of life take advantage of all its joys and pleasures without uttering a word of gratitude and appreciation. Their negativity reveals an irrational and unbalanced view of reality.
 
It is ironic that those who criticise and condemn the drawbacks of life take advantage of all its joys and pleasures without uttering a word of gratitude and appreciation. Their negativity reveals an irrational and unbalanced view of reality.
Its true what you say. Its tough. Its hard to appreciate the good even when you do believe in God. We are flawed creatures indeed.
 
It is ironic that those who criticise and condemn the drawbacks of life take advantage of all its joys and pleasures without uttering a word of gratitude and appreciation. Their negativity reveals an irrational and unbalanced view of reality.
I’ve had over twenty narrow escapes from death in my life and I usually thank God I’m still alive when I wake up but even now I sometimes forget and think of the problems I face - which are nothing compared to the hardships many people have to endure. It’s so easy to take everything for granted. In fact the more we have the less we seem to appreciate…
 
The laws of nature are neutral in respect of life. The same laws operate on Earth and Venus; but Earth holds life in profusion while Venus is lifeless.

The same laws of buoyancy and oxygenation allow an Olympic swimmer to excel, and a bound-handed pirate victim to drown; just as the changed climate after a meteor strike allowed small mammals to become profuse whilst the dinosaurs perished.

“Infallible” doesn’t really apply to natural laws; it describes a human statement or faculty that is free of error (error being a specifically human thought limitation). Rather say that natural laws insofar as known are stable, predictable, and neutral to life.

ICXC NIKA
That is true, Eddie, but natural laws are finely adjusted to the emergence and survival of life. That fact alone calls for explanation…
 
The term “design flaws” is a moral judgment as well as an allegation of inefficiency. It presupposes a difference between good and evil which is nonsensical in a universe which exists for no reason or purpose. An undesigned system is essentially amoral and meaningless.
 
The term “design flaws” is a moral judgment as well as an allegation of inefficiency. It presupposes a difference between good and evil which is nonsensical in a universe which exists for no reason or purpose. An undesigned system is essentially amoral and meaningless.
The very word “system” implies organisation and integration which are inadequately explained by the notion of physical necessity. There is no obvious reason for believing any event is inevitable and the more coincidences there are the less likely it is that they are fortuitous. No wonder Jacques Monod in his book “Chance and Necessity” found himself wondering whether his explanation corresponds to reality. The details are far less significant than the result. If nothing is significant the conclusion that nothing is significant is obviously self-destructive. A Nobel prize is not only worthless but also meaningless in an undesigned universe.
 
The term “design flaws” is a moral judgment as well as an allegation of inefficiency. It presupposes a difference between good and evil which is nonsensical in a universe which exists for no reason or purpose. An undesigned system is essentially amoral and meaningless.
The atheist is pointing out that if God designed (Put together) every aspect of the universe, it has a very poor design compared to what it could have been. Implying that therefore God probably didn’t do it.

I think God let the universe freely evolve in to what it is today, which would explain the apparent design flaws.
 
. . . I think God let the universe freely evolve in to what it is today, which would explain the apparent design flaws.
I don’t quite see that but then I really see no design flaws.
Also, I would use the present tense “lets” rather than “let” if I believed the above to be the case. This is because God is right here, as He is everywhere and in every time, presently involved in our discussion, being the Source of our existence as relational beings on a journey toward Him.
 
That is true, Eddie, but natural laws are finely adjusted to the emergence and survival of life. That fact alone calls for explanation…
Are they really though, seeing that lifeless worlds are profuse while, as far as is known, the profusely life-bearing Earth is alone?

Had the interplanetary impactor that supposedly created Luna been much larger, there would have been no Earth, and as far as we know, no biological life. That doesn’t sound like a universe “fine tuned for life.”

ICXC NIKA
 
That is true, Eddie, but natural laws are finely adjusted to the emergence and survival of life. That fact alone calls for explanation…
The rarer life is the more miraculous is its existence! If worlds with life were widespread it would be evidence that the probability of their existence is not so remote after all.
 
The term “design flaws” is a moral judgment as well as an allegation of inefficiency. It presupposes a difference between good and evil which is nonsensical in a universe which exists for no reason or purpose. An undesigned system is essentially amoral and meaningless.
You are dead right! The creation of the universe with natural laws implies a degree of independence because God relinquishes direct control of events except when He considers it necessary to intervene. Why? Because physical existence is immensely valuable and it would lose its beauty and richness if the laws of nature didn’t exist. It would be unpredictable and unintelligible if all events conformed to the need for constant success and supreme efficiency because it would necessitate an unending spate of miracles to ensure that nothing ever goes wrong. A lawless universe is not a solution but a fantasy!
 
The central purpose being the communion of humanity with its Creator, the prime opportunity would have been at the begining of mankind’s presence on earth. Our choosing otherwise made necessary the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. An infinite complexity of interactions involving beings who decided their own actions, perfectly balanced from outside of time, the way this plays out, as I see it, the central point around which all else happens, is the life of Jesus. The alignment of the stars, the Big Band, the final breath of creation, or whatever, is what it is because the moment that encompasses His life was the way it should be. Played forward or played back, it revolves around that moment. I am sufficiently convinced of it myself, but I would not even begin to try and prove this to anybody. The moon is where it is because Christ was where He was, and it entered into earth’s orbit or was emitted from the earth whenever it was that it happened, for that very reason. That is how it was played out to get what we got, a chance for all who choose, to enter paradise.

If one believes it is random, it will all appear random. If one is not so inclined, one cannot but see everywhere, the Hand of God.
 
The central purpose being the communion of humanity with its Creator, the prime opportunity would have been at the begining of mankind’s presence on earth. Our choosing otherwise made necessary the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. An infinite complexity of interactions involving beings who decided their own actions, perfectly balanced from outside of time, the way this plays out, as I see it, the central point around which all else happens, is the life of Jesus. The alignment of the stars, the Big Band, the final breath of creation, or whatever, is what it is because the moment that encompasses His life was the way it should be. Played forward or played back, it revolves around that moment. I am sufficiently convinced of it myself, but I would not even begin to try and prove this to anybody. The moon is where it is because Christ was where He was, and it entered into earth’s orbit or was emitted from the earth whenever it was that it happened, for that very reason. That is how it was played out to get what we got, a chance for all who choose, to enter paradise.

If one believes it is random, it will all appear random. If one is not so inclined, one cannot but see everywhere, the Hand of God.
Those are certainly the only alternatives: Chance or Design. Yet contrary to what many people believe they are not mutually exclusive in every respect. There is inevitably an element of disorder within the framework of order. Sooner or later unintended events are bound to occur in an immensely complex system where countless beings are pursuing their own goals or even the same goals with the best motives. Two nurses may unintentionally give a patient an overdose which proves fatal in circumstances for which neither is responsible, the technical term being “death by misadventure”. Unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur even in the best planned world…
 
Those are certainly the only alternatives: Chance or Design. Yet contrary to what many people believe they are not mutually exclusive in every respect. There is inevitably an element of disorder within the framework of order. Sooner or later unintended events are bound to occur in an immensely complex system where countless beings are pursuing their own goals or even the same goals with the best motives. Two nurses may unintentionally give a patient an overdose which proves fatal in circumstances for which neither is responsible, the technical term being “death by misadventure”. Unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur even in the best planned world…
I tend to assume that things unfold as they should except for what we individually and as one humanity are called to do.

Looking about at the world around us, it is undeniably clear that we participate in systems: geological, astronomical, and biological, whose powers dwarf mankind. And we here, universally suffer and die. While frustrating our plans and desires, none of this interferes with God’s will for us.

Our losses are accompanied by a grief through which we come to see the truth more clearly of who we are and what is of real importance in our lives. Life confronts us head-on, and no illusion can satisfy the hurt. The emotional turmoil motivates us to change ourselves and the world, for the better. We are brought closer to the Foundation of our being, from earliest bargainings, to a full-fledged dialogue that brings peace and piercing insights into the nature of existence.

As the things of the world are revealed for the dross that they are, we have a choice, to cling to worthless flaws or follow the never-ending Source of joy and Life.
 
Is there a problem with that?
It would mean that love, would not at all be extraordinary, but only madness, and for all the passion, just hormonal imbalances, which you will get over. In other words, it would be a waste of time, if anything were not. Just one among the multitude of mediocre things in life, Love shouldn’t be; but that would be its truth. Is there a problem with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top