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

[Aloysium]

. . .“Fact is that to love is imposed on us”? Don’t see how. 1 Cor 13 says “Love is patient, love is kind”, which seems the opposite of imposed. . . Seems the only way to avoid the trap is to not impose meaning.

I did not convey well (perhaps not at all) what I intended to say; or I am not grasping what you wish to communicate.
My proof that to love is imposed upon us would be in the pudding. Live a life without anyone to love and discover what fulfillment you will derive by its end. There is a moral structure to existence and it is in the form of a journey, a Way that is Christ Himself. What makes us truly, eternally actually, happy is loving others and loving God.
But then I agree that what is not imposed on us is the meaning we choose for ourselves. If one’s aim is to avoid suffering, one may by the grace of God achieve that end. Similarly, if one’s goal is to it is to accept God’s will. Actually, we can even go after what is not good for us. Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, as an extreme example, decided on what was to be meaningful for him, living and dying as the broken, vain, empty and hated man he chose to be.
Hopefully, I’ve managed to convey my thoughts more clearly. You obviously may still disagree but at least it will be with what I’m thinking.

 

[inocente]

No response…

Yes, you forgot to respond to my point “that you would need to demonstrate that everything falls into one or the other category.”

For instance, an erupting volcano produces new fertile land out of the ash. Do you class the eruption as Chance if it kills people but Design if it doesn’t? Isn’t a volcano instead just the perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics?

An earthquake which occurs in an inhabited location is an example of an inexplicable coincidence. There is no reason for the conjunction of events.
What is the purpose of an earthquake which destroys a city?

I’m finding it hard to believe an educated person is saying such things. Of course earthquakes are explicable, even the intro level series on Wikipedia has over 30 articles. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake

And of course they are not a coincidence, a coincidence is “a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”. Here there’s a blindingly obvious causal connection - when people live where there is “stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane” it’s almost certain they’ll be in an earthquake sooner or later.

Do you believe every natural disaster is intended by God as a punishment for sin?
If not why does He permit them to occur?

Earthquakes are nothing to do with us. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The universe doesn’t revolve around us. A human lifespan goes unnoticed by geological timescales.

As I understand it, with no plate movements there would be no Himalayas, no Alps, no Appalachians, and most if not all of the planet would be under the sea. Humans would never have existed.

“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt 5). Same with earthquakes.

 

[inocente]

I did not convey well (perhaps not at all) what I intended to say; or I am not grasping what you wish to communicate.
My proof that to love is imposed upon us would be in the pudding. Live a life without anyone to love and discover what fulfillment you will derive by its end. There is a moral structure to existence and it is in the form of a journey, a Way that is Christ Himself. What makes us truly, eternally actually, happy is loving others and loving God.
But then I agree that what is not imposed on us is the meaning we choose for ourselves. If one’s aim is to avoid suffering, one may by the grace of God achieve that end. Similarly, if one’s goal is to it is to accept God’s will. Actually, we can even go after what is not good for us. Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, as an extreme example, decided on what was to be meaningful for him, living and dying as the broken, vain, empty and hated man he chose to be.
Hopefully, I’ve managed to convey my thoughts more clearly. You obviously may still disagree but at least it will be with what I’m thinking.

OK, if I understand correctly, I’d say it differently.

As humans we all have traits in common, one of which is to love (some) others. It’s part of our nature, and anyone who can’t form emotional attachments is diagnosed as ill with psychopathy. So I’m not sure we can say that to love is imposed when it’s just part of who we are. Whether Gaddafi was ill or not I don’t know.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, you forgot to respond to my point "that you would need to  demonstrate that everything falls into one or the other category."

For instance, an erupting volcano produces new fertile land out of the ash. Do you class the eruption as Chance if it kills people but Design if it doesn’t? Isn’t a volcano instead just the perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics?

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people. There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence.

An earthquake which occurs in an inhabited location

is an example of an inexplicable coincidence. There is no reason for the conjunction of events.

I’m finding it hard to believe an educated person is saying such things. Of course earthquakes are explicable, even the intro level series on Wikipedia has over 30 articles.

Irrelevant.
%between%

And of course they are not a coincidence, a coincidence is “a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection”. Here there’s a blindingly obvious causal connection - when people live where there is “stored elastic strain energy to drive fracture propagation along a fault plane” it’s almost certain they’ll be in an earthquake sooner or later.

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people. There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence. **There is no causal connection between the ******precise location of the earthquake and the precise location of the inhabited area.

Do you believe every natural disaster is intended by God as a punishment for sin?
If not why does He permit them to occur?

Earthquakes are nothing to do with us. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The universe doesn’t revolve around us. A human lifespan goes unnoticed by geological timescales.

As I understand it, with no plate movements there would be no Himalayas, no Alps, no Appalachians, and most if not all of the planet would be under the sea. Humans would never have existed.

“He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt 5). Same with earthquakes.

Why does God allow earthquakes to occur in inhabited locations? Could He have designed a universe without earthquakes? Wouldn’t it be superior to this one?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

 Why does God allow earthquakes to occur in inhabited locations? Could He have designed a universe without earthquakes? Wouldn't it be superior to this one?

Frederik Josef Belifante, Physicist

“If I get the impression that nature itself makes the decisive choice what possibility to realize, where quantum theory says that more than one outcome is possible, then I am ascribing personality to nature, that is, to something that is always everywhere. Omnipresent eternal personality which is omnipotent in taking the decisions that are left undetermined by physical law is exactly what in the language of religion is called God.”

Whether a universe without earthquakes would be superior to this one is arguable. But such a universe would have to have different physical laws. The absence of earthquakes might result in physical conditions that are not even hospitable to life itself. We cannot know whether a universe without earthquakes would be better or worse than the universe we live in. But if we believe in God, we have to believe in his omniscient and omnipotent will to create the best possible physical universe, and even allow for omniscient natural selection to make “decisions that are left undetermined by physical law.”

 

[inocente]

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people.

You didn’t answer my questions: I wrote “For instance, an erupting volcano produces new fertile land out of the ash. Do you class the eruption as Chance if it kills people but Design if it doesn’t? Isn’t a volcano instead just the perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics?”

What are your answers?

• There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence*.

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people. There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence. **There is no causal connection between the ******precise location of the ****earthquake and the precise location of the inhabited area.

Are you being serious?

There are almost one million earthquakes every year worldwide, but only a hundred or so are high enough magnitude to kill. - geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html

That’s the main reason some earthquakes kill, magnitude. This year so far, Japan has had 800 magnitude 1.5 or greater earthquakes. - earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/recent

Japan is an earthquake hot spot and people live in Japan, so sometimes people in Japan get killed by earthquakes. No coincidence, there’s a direct and blindingly obvious causal link between people living in an earthquake hot spot and people sometimes being killed in earthquakes in that earthquake hot spot.

Why does God allow earthquakes to occur in inhabited locations? Could He have designed a universe without earthquakes? Wouldn’t it be superior to this one?

As I understand it, high magnitude earthquakes were necessary to create continents. Without dry land humans wouldn’t exist. If you would prefer no humans and no dry land, then by all means tell God His plan was flawed. Please let me know how you get on.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people.

I have pointed out many times there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design, i.e. God’s plan. Tragic coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex universe.

Now do you agree that there is no reason why an earthquake kills some people and not others? There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence.

There is no reason why an earthquake kills people or doesn’t kill people. There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence. There is no causal connection between the precise location of the earthquake and the precise location of the inhabited area.

Are you being serious?

Unnecessary personal question.

There are almost one million earthquakes every year worldwide, but only a hundred or so are high enough magnitude to kill. - geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/magnitude.html

That’s the main reason some earthquakes kill, magnitude. This year so far, Japan has had 800 magnitude 1.5 or greater earthquakes. - earthquaketrack.com/p/japan/recent

Japan is an earthquake hot spot and people live in Japan, so sometimes people in Japan get killed by earthquakes. No coincidence, there’s a direct and blindingly obvious causal link between people living in an earthquake hot spot and people sometimes being killed in earthquakes in that earthquake hot spot.

What about all those who are killed in places which are not hotspots? Is there “a direct and blindingly obvious causal link” then?

Why does God allow earthquakes to occur in inhabited locations? Could He have designed a universe without earthquakes? Wouldn’t it be superior to this one?

As I understand it, high magnitude earthquakes were necessary to create continents. Without dry land humans wouldn’t exist. If you would prefer no humans and no dry land, then by all means tell God His plan was flawed. Please let me know how you get on.

Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

 

[tonyrey]

Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

I forgot to ask whether you believe God has any plan. In other words does He have reasons for creating the universe? If so what are they?

 

[cfauster]

Frederik Josef Belifante, Physicist

“If I get the impression that nature itself makes the decisive choice what possibility to realize, where quantum theory says that more than one outcome is possible, then I am ascribing personality to nature, that is, to something that is always everywhere. Omnipresent eternal personality which is omnipotent in taking the decisions that are left undetermined by physical law is exactly what in the language of religion is called God.”

Whether a universe without earthquakes would be superior to this one is arguable. But such a universe would have to have different physical laws. The absence of earthquakes might result in physical conditions that are not even hospitable to life itself. We cannot know whether a universe without earthquakes would be better or worse than the universe we live in. But if we believe in God, we have to believe in his omniscient and omnipotent will to create the best possible physical universe, and even allow for omniscient natural selection to make “decisions that are left undetermined by physical law.”

Excellent and very relevant quotation!

 

[inocente]

I have pointed out many times there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design, i.e. God’s plan. Tragic coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex universe.

That didn’t answer my questions. Again: For instance, an erupting volcano produces new fertile land out of the ash. Do you class the eruption as Chance if it kills people but Design if it doesn’t? Isn’t a volcano instead just the perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics?

What are your answers?

Now do you agree that there is no reason why an earthquake kills some people and not others? There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence.

No. Under “cause of death” on a death certificate, medics tend not to write “no reason” as it tends to upset family and coroners.

What about all those who are killed in places which are not hotspots? Is there “a direct and blindingly obvious causal link” then?
Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

Somehow I think that after thousands of years of debate, the onus is not on me to solve the Problem of Evil in a few lines.

Your case is that “God’s plan includes purposeless coincidences which are inevitable in an immensely complex universe”. You’ve never proven that’s logically necessary. In other words can you prove:

(a) That the universe is immensely complex? (Please say by what measure you gauge immense complexity).

(b) That purposeless coincidences are necessarily inevitable in every logically possible complex universe?

and (c) That God’s plan must include an immensely complex universe, if a simpler universe would avoid these tragic coincidences?

Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

Again, the onus is not on me to solve the Problem of Evil, and you’re the one making the claims.

I think if you can make the above three proofs, then you are justified in saying you believe God’s plan is not flawed, since you will have shown that God had no logical choice other than to do as you say.

I forgot to ask whether you believe God has any plan. In other words does He have reasons for creating the universe? If so what are they?

I’ve seen many ideas on why God creates the universe, but none of them seem grand enough for such a big place.

 

[tonyrey]

I have pointed out many times there is an element of Chance within the framework of Design, i.e. God’s plan. Tragic coincidences are inevitable in an immensely complex universe.

False dilemma. The eruption is caused by natural laws designed and created by God who is not directly responsible for events - unless He intervenes miraculously. The eruption per se is never due to Chance but if it happens to kill people or animals the coincidence is fortuitous and not due to the “perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics.” Tragic coincidences are in a different category from normal events because they are rare and most coincidences do not cause injury or death.

Now do you agree that there is no reason why an earthquake kills some people and not others? There is no doubt whatsoever that if it happens to kill people it is a tragic coincidence.

No. Under “cause of death” on a death certificate, medics tend not to write “no reason” as it tends to upset family and coroners.

That is not a good reason for believing there is no reason! If you believe there is a reason what is it? Does God intend people to be killed by earthquakes? Or does He permit them knowing that sooner or later such events are inevitable?

What about all those who are killed in places which are not hotspots? Is there “a direct and blindingly obvious causal link” then?
Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

Somehow I think that after thousands of years of debate, the onus is not on me to solve the Problem of Evil in a few lines.

In other words you don’t know why God permits tragedies? You have no explanation.

Your case is that “God’s plan includes purposeless coincidences which are inevitable in an immensely complex universe”. You’ve never proven that’s logically necessary. In other words can you prove:

(a) That the universe is immensely complex? (Please say by what measure you gauge immense complexity).

There are an immense number of events and individuals in an immense number of locations and circumstances. Isn’t that sufficient? Do you believe the universe is not immensely complex? If so why not?

(b) That purposeless coincidences are necessarily inevitable in every logically possible complex universe?

Irrelevant. The issue is this universe not every logically possible complex universe.

and (c) That God’s plan must include an immensely complex universe, if a simpler universe would avoid these tragic coincidences?

It certainly does. Can you explain how the universe could be made simpler and fulfil the same purposes? If not why not?

Why ask when you know perfectly well I don’t believe God’s plan is flawed? The onus is on you to explain why God permits anyone to be maimed or killed by earthquakes.

Again, the onus is not on me to solve the Problem of Evil, and you’re the one making the claims.

In other words you don’t know why God permits tragedies. You have no explanation yet you reject the explanation that unfortunate coincidences are inevitable sooner or later without giving a good reason for doing so.

I think if you can make the above three proofs, then you are justified in saying you believe God’s plan is not flawed, since you will have shown that God had no logical choice other than to do as you say.

God could have - and probably has - created other universes for different reasons but the issue is this universe with its blessings and drawbacks. The onus is on you to explain how the apparent flaws in this universe could be prevented.

I forgot to ask whether you believe God has any plan. In other words does He have reasons for creating the universe? If so what are they?

I’ve seen many ideas on why God creates the universe, but none of them seem grand enough for such a big place.

So you don’t believe God creates the universe for the benefit of His creatures? You reject Christ’s teaching that we have a heavenly Father who loves His creatures because the universe seems too immense for such a parochial purpose?

 

[Bradski]

It certainly does. Can you explain how the universe could be made simpler and fulfil the same purposes? If not why not?

You have, on many occasions, been a staunch defender of fine tuning. That God has fine-tuned existence to a degree that is literally unimaginable. Down to millions of decimal points for umpteen facets of the natural world. And not just for this tiny blue dot but for the whole of existence for all time. And the reason for this…is to result in a world that is suitable for us in which to live.

And you say He has no control over a few eruptions or earthquakes. That He can build the whole of existence itself so that you and I emerge blinking into the warm sunlight 5 billion years after he lights the blue touch paper yet has no way of preventing tens of thousands being killed by a simple slip in geographical formations.

Oops. Now THAT was unfortunate! Didn’t see that coming. And hey, there was no way I could have prevented it anyway. What do you think I am? Omnipotent? I mean, gee…give a guy a break why doncha.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those who tell us that the universe is imperfect, that people are killed by earthquakes which God could have intelligently designed not to exist, are looking for heaven on earth.

The wrong place to look for it. But then they don’t believe it exists anywhere anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

It certainly does. Can you explain how the universe could be made simpler and fulfil the same purposes? If not why not?

Your objection is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that God never intervenes to prevent natural disasters whereas it is very rare that earthquakes affect highly populated areas. Nor do you take into account human responsibility for building cities in danger zones like Mexico City which is a disaster waiting to happen. Do we have to be protected like children from predictable events or should we use our intelligence to avert tragedies? It is a common failing to blame others for our own defects and of course God is always the prime target for those who take for granted all the blessings of life. It is an excellent example of “filial ingratitude”…

Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet? If not why not?

 

[tonyrey]

(b) That purposeless coincidences are necessarily inevitable in every logically possible complex universe?

Purposeless coincidences are inevitable in every logically possible complex physical universe. The onus is on you to explain how they could be prevented without interfering with natural laws thereby defeating the purpose of creating an orderly universe which enables us to make predictions and lead a rational existence.

 

[Aloysium]

There’s no “fine tuning” necessary. God created all this as it is. The idea that there was some sort of adjustment, calculating the constants to the nth decimal point, comes up when one believes in randomness and the possibility that all this, all the galaxies, the what-approaches-infinite number of quantum particles, all the properties and interactions of matter, this capacity for thought, the beauty of it all, that all this wonder was present in a to-be-determined state within a “particle” having no dimensions, perhaps as some ever-present, out of nowhere multiverse. This is not a description of what God does but rather to demonstrate the ludicrousness of the randomness argument.

It is all God’s will, “Let there be light . . .” Once molecules are brought into existence from the light, from the ॐ, followed by planets with tectonic plates as their solid crust, like a symphony of cosmic events it plays out. Mankind, moulded of the earth and animated by God’s breath, has one role - to do the will of its Father, which is to share in His eternal joy. He does our will when it serves that end.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Mariano Artigas, Physicist, Philosopher, Theologian:

“The existence of disorder and evil is the most serious objection against the theistic view. Indeed, it seems that the existence of an omnipotent God who governs the world should entail a perfection of his works that should not leave room for natural disorder. Thus, a central prediction of theism would be false. The classical answer to this well-known objection lies in remembering that disorder and evil can be included within God’s plan if preventing their existence would entail greater evils or prevent the existence of greater goods. The present scientific worldview adds an important argument. Indeed, if the natural world is the result of evolution, then the existence of disorder and physical evil in nature seems unavoidable except by a continuous miracle. In addition, evolution seems reasonable if God wants to produce the world by using and respecting natural causes.”

 

[Bradski]

Nor do you take into account human responsibility for building cities in danger zones like Mexico City which is a disaster waiting to happen. Do we have to be protected like children from predictable events or should we use our intelligence to avert tragedies? It is a common failing to blame others for our own defects…

Yeah, the quarter of a million people killed by the Boxing Day tsunami were at fault. Fancy living on the coast. What WERE they thinking…

You do realise that earthquakes will gradually lessen as the planet gets older. How simple would that be to organise for an omnipotent God. And that’s what you asked.

Piece. Of. Cake.

Do you think that He couldn’t manage it. Or do you want to deflect from that answer by asking another. And if not, why not?

 

[Aloysium]

We are eternal beings, who will all die, each and everyone here, blame it on tsunamis and other forms of trauma, viruses and bacterial infections, cancer, cardiovascular disease, toxins, or whether we simply shrivel up. It’s all about what we do in the short time we are here, because it truly matters, regardless of what we may think or desire. And It is around that, that the design is centred.

 

[inocente]

False dilemma. The eruption is caused by natural laws designed and created by God who is not directly responsible for events - unless He intervenes miraculously. The eruption per se is never due to Chance but if it happens to kill people or animals the coincidence is fortuitous and not due to the “perfectly explicable unplanned working of geophysics.” Tragic coincidences are in a different category from normal events because they are rare and most coincidences do not cause injury or death.

So if the eruption is never due to Chance then it must be due to Design, as those are your only two categories. But even though he designed it, sometimes God intervenes to override his design. And even though we know all the causes, you say it’s inexplicable. None of this makes any sense to me.

That is not a good reason for believing there is no reason! If you believe there is a reason what is it? Does God intend people to be killed by earthquakes? Or does He permit them knowing that sooner or later such events are inevitable?

Well according to you, the reason is that God designed humans so we cannot withstand big earthquakes. So by that logic, you appear to be saying God intends people to be killed by earthquakes.

In other words you don’t know why God permits tragedies? You have no explanation.

As you well know, the trouble with the Problem of Evil is there are many “explanations”, none of which are sound. You’re trying to add yet another of your own invention.

There are an immense number of events and individuals in an immense number of locations and circumstances. Isn’t that sufficient? Do you believe the universe is not immensely complex? If so why not?

You’ve not answered my question. Could God make a universe one billion times as complicated as this one? Yes of course, he’s omnipotent. So on God’s scale this universe isn’t complicated. So by what measure do you claim this is an immensely complex universe, by your measure or by God’s?

Irrelevant. The issue is this universe not every logically possible complex universe.

You’re talking about God’s plan, and it wouldn’t be much of a Design if he never considered other logically possible universes before creating this one. But fine, start with the simpler task, please show your proof that purposeless coincidences are necessarily inevitable in this universe.

It certainly does. Can you explain how the universe could be made simpler and fulfil the same purposes? If not why not?

You’ll have to give me your proof of what God’s purposes are before I can do that.

In other words you don’t know why God permits tragedies. You have no explanation yet you reject the explanation that unfortunate coincidences are inevitable sooner or later without giving a good reason for doing so.

I don’t reject that, I reject your twin categories Design and Chance.

God could have - and probably has - created other universes for different reasons but the issue is this universe with its blessings and drawbacks. The onus is on you to explain how the apparent flaws in this universe could be prevented.

I’ve never said they are flaws or apparent flaws, I’m not arguing for design, remember?

On what basis do you say God probably has created other universes?

So you don’t believe God creates the universe for the benefit of His creatures? You reject Christ’s teaching that we have a heavenly Father who loves His creatures because the universe seems too immense for such a parochial purpose?

As I said to another poster on this thread, googling around, I found some Christians saying the fundamental meaning of life is to worship God (Is 43:7), others to trust God (Matt 11:28-30), others to love/serve God and people (Matt 22:34-40). No doubt Christians also differ on God’s purpose. Your chosen purpose, for instance, may not be accepted by those who have lost loved ones in earthquakes. You would need to prove that what you say is in fact God’s purpose, and that he couldn’t have designed a smaller universe to fulfill that purpose.