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.
There obviously **seem **to be Design flaws from a human point of view but the onus is still on the critic to produce convincing evidence that they could be prevented. For example how could children be made immune to all the misfortunes which afflict adults?
 
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.
Indeed. The fundamental message of Jesus is that suffering liberates us from evil if we have faith, hope and love. What appear to be flaws are the means by which we can follow His example and be united to Him. Pascal believed Jesus is in agony until the end of world because He has compassion for everyone who is afflicted whether they believe in him or not. The purpose of His mission on earth was to inspire us to follow His example in accepting whatever trials and tribulations we have to endure. He has transformed evil into a blessing…
 
Christians are often accused of being anthropocentric in believing the world (or even the universe) is designed for our benefit. Nothing can be further from the truth. God wouldn’t create anything that is valueless or purposeless. Even before the human race existed other forms of life were precious not only because they were our precursors but in their own right. Jesus wouldn’t have mentioned the sparrows if they are valueless and insignificant. Some aspects of nature seem ugly and even repulsive to us because we have been brought up in an artificial environment. Yet predators generally kill their prey swiftly and efficiently because otherwise they would risk being injured. It is a more merciful end than a lingering death as the result of injury or disease. Animals do not live in fear and trembling but generally with pleasure and excitement. The value and beauty of nature are far more significant than the drawbacks of life.
 
tonyrey;14024951:
Aren’t both sides of the argument irrelevant?
In a meaningless universe everything is irrelevant! 🙂
We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we would come and to which we would return…
 
lemondiesel;14033947:
In a meaningless universe everything is irrelevant! 🙂
We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we would come and to which we would return…
Correction:

We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we **would have **come and to which we would return…
(unfulfilled condition)
 
Correction:

We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we **would have **come and to which we would return…
(unfulfilled condition)
But you’re the only one who has tried to impose meaning by insisting there’s a purpose to everything.
 
But you’re the only one who has tried to impose meaning by insisting there’s a purpose to everything.
In previous posts I have pointed out misfortunes often serve no useful purpose whatsoever. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. I have criticised Calvin’s statement that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God, a view which makes the Creator directly responsible for all the disasters in the world.
 
Correction:
Aren’t both sides of the argument irrelevant?
In a meaningless universe everything is irrelevant! 🙂 We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we would come and to which we would return…
 
Correction:

In a meaningless universe everything is irrelevant! 🙂 We could impose meaning but it would be wishful thinking in a futile attempt to conceal the eternal darkness from which we would come and to which we would return…
C.S. Lewis: Christian Apologist

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

 
C.S. Lewis: Christian Apologist

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
Plain common sense! What people don’t mention is often far more significant than all their statements. Our power of reason is taken for granted but it is one of the greatest miracles in the universe…
 
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?
Taking your example of cancer, one may look at the disease not as a design flaw but rather as an invader that causes design degradation.

Something foreign to the design introduces itself into that which was designed and working well. In time, the foreign substance rapidly replicates itself, disguises itself as self and overwhelms the design such that it no longer works well.
*
Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned (Romans 5:12).*
 
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!)
The reference to death pertains to humans. Humans are capable of sin.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.
 
Please cite my statement to that effect.
The CAF search finds your post #112 etc. But why do you ask? If you believe God is a designer then surely no designer can design without purpose. And so essence would precede existence, and all people would inevitably find the same purpose and meaning.

But we don’t, each person works out his own meaning, it seems that existence precedes essence, and “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards” (Sartre). Did God give us free will to have meaning imposed on us or to each find our own meaning?
 
The CAF search finds your post #112 etc. But why do you ask? If you believe God is a designer then surely no designer can design without purpose. And so essence would precede existence, and all people would inevitably find the same purpose and meaning.
God’s plan **includes **purposeless coincidences which are inevitable in an immensely complex universe.
But we don’t, each person works out his own meaning, it seems that existence precedes essence, and “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards” (Sartre).
It doesn’t follow that everyone finds precisely the same purpose and meaning because everyone is different in some respect or other. We have different talents and vocations but we all have the same fundamental purpose: to know, love and serve God and His creatures.
Did God give us free will to have meaning imposed on us or to each find our own meaning?
A false dilemma as I have just pointed out.
 
A false dilemma as I have just pointed out.
👍

Meanings are not imposed on us, but they are objective nonetheless. God invites us to discover those objective meanings, not to invent them willy-nilly out of our own imagination or preference, which is the method of protestantism and atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top