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

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

It is the argument of atheists against God that some perish when God might have saved them. But as you say, we are all going to perish from this world, to be born again into another one. This is why atheists find death by earthquake or tsunami so poignant. They believe it is the literal end. It is not. Those who are attached to divinity have a future life with God. The atheist has put all his eggs in one basket, when they might have been put in two, and the second basket is more full of promise than the first.

 

[tonyrey]

So if the eruption is never due to Chance then it must be due to Design, as those are your only two categories.

That is a simplistic interpretation of my views. Most events are in neither category because they have physical causes. Design is the ultimate category because the universe is planned and created by God. Chance is restricted to such events as apparently fortuitous combinations of molecules, random genetic mutations and rare coincidences which are dysteleological. In other words purposeful activity is more fundamental and successful than purposeless events; otherwise the progressive development of living organisms would never have occurred in such a violent universe.

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.

If it doesn’t make sense to say God works miracles the teaching of Jesus is false.

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.

Sheer nonsense! You go from one extreme to the other.

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.

You are assuming it is false without explaining why… A very weak argument.

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?

Another nonsensical argument! You go to absurd extremes in a futile attempt to deny that the universe is immensely complex, so complex in fact that it is impossible for scientists to predict precisely when and where disasters are going to occur - not to mention the element of free will…

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.

The very fact that disasters occur. Do you believe God wills them?
Do you have any other explanation? If so produce it.

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.

Since you claim to be a Christian you should know what they are. Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?

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.

False dilemma! You reject but have no alternative explanation of natural evil.

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?

You don’t seem to be arguing for anything…

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

On the basis that His power is not so limited as you seem to think.

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. Y

All the purposes you mention are compatible and not mutually exclusive. If you don’t believe they are true how can you be a Christian?

our 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.

Even in a smaller universe there would still be accidents. The onus is on you to explain how every single accident could be prevented without disrupting natural laws and making life even more unpredictable than it is already. It is easy to concoct objections but to justify them is a much more difficult proposition, not surprisingly when we consider that it amounts to criticising God’s handiwork… A feasible blueprint of Utopia still remains to be produced by those who belittle the wonder and the beauty of the universe. Those who have lost loved ones in earthquakes generally realise such disasters are bound to happen sooner or later and don’t blame God for not preventing them. Common sense prevails more often among most people than in philosophical discussions where individuals go to absurd lengths to find far-fetched objections and difficulties to support their views…

 

[tonyrey]

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…

It is very easy to criticise the world but to create it is infinitely more difficult. If it is so simple to prevent disasters why don’t you present a feasible blueprint of the entire process from start to finish instead of suggesting piecemeal improvements to the existing system? You know of course you can’t have your cake and eat it - and to begin with you have to mix it and bake it which you haven’t even begun to do…

If the world is so terrible you should agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet and tell everyone you know and meet not to bring any more children into such a horrific environment - and of course advise them to take an overdose when they feel things are getting too tough. The sooner we disappear the better!
After all what do we have to look forward to?

 

[inocente]

That is a simplistic interpretation of my views. Most events are in neither category because they have physical causes. Design is the ultimate category because the universe is planned and created by God. Chance is restricted to such events as apparently fortuitous combinations of molecules, random genetic mutations and rare coincidences which are dysteleological. In other words purposeful activity is more fundamental and successful than purposeless events; otherwise the progressive development of living organisms would never have occurred in such a violent universe.

In April (#138) you said: "**Positive **aspects of reality like the beauty of a butterfly and the harmony in nature are designed.

**Negative **aspects like disease and disasters are caused by unfortunate coincidences like exposure to radiation or being in an earthquake zone.".

In June (#853) you repeated: “Those are certainly the only alternatives: Chance or Design”.

Now you say “Most events are in neither category”.

*If it doesn’t make sense to say God works miracles the teaching of Jesus is false.

Sheer nonsense! You go from one extreme to the other.

You are assuming it is false without explaining why… A very weak argument.

Another nonsensical argument! You go to absurd extremes in a futile attempt to deny that the universe is immensely complex, so complex in fact that it is impossible for scientists to predict precisely when and where disasters are going to occur - not to mention the element of free will…

The very fact that disasters occur. Do you believe God wills them?
Do you have any other explanation? If so produce it.
Since you claim to be a Christian you should know what they are. Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?

False dilemma! You reject but have no alternative explanation of natural evil.
You don’t seem to be arguing for anything…
On the basis that His power is not so limited as you seem to think.
All the purposes you mention are compatible and not mutually exclusive. If you don’t believe they are true how can you be a Christian?*

You’ve gone from “Those are certainly the only alternatives: Chance or Design” back in June to “Most events are in neither category” today.

I think there’s no point pursuing any of this until you clarify what your claim actually is.

Even in a smaller universe there would still be accidents. The onus is on you to explain how every single accident could be prevented without disrupting natural laws and making life even more unpredictable than it is already. It is easy to concoct objections but to justify them is a much more difficult proposition, not surprisingly when we consider that it amounts to criticising God’s handiwork… A feasible blueprint of Utopia still remains to be produced by those who belittle the wonder and the beauty of the universe. Those who have lost loved ones in earthquakes generally realise such disasters are bound to happen sooner or later and don’t blame God for not preventing them. Common sense prevails more often among most people than in philosophical discussions where individuals go to absurd lengths to find far-fetched objections and difficulties to support their views…

You say "Most events are in neither category [chance or design] because they have physical causes ". Yet you say “Even in a smaller universe there would still be accidents”.

Let’s take the smallest possible universe, just empty space. Or the next smallest, containing a single proton and nothing else. No accidents possible. The next smallest is, say, two protons and nothing else. Is that just physical causes or are accidents now possible? At what point are what you call accidents possible?

Your claim rests on a number of assumptions about complexity and so on which are not self-evident and for which you’ve provided no supporting arguments.

 

[Bradski]

It is very easy to criticise the world but to create it is infinitely more difficult. If it is so simple to prevent disasters why don’t you present a feasible blueprint of the entire process from start to finish instead of suggesting piecemeal improvements to the existing system?

Infinitely more difficult? For God? What the…? You want me to tell you how God should do it?

Hey, read the post. I just did. Let the world cool a little more, or MAKE it cool a little more, or don’t make one with a molten core in THE FIRST PLACE and you are good to go.

Or bring us into being on a planet that DOESN’T HAVE EARTHQUAKES.

Hell’s teeth, this is ridiculously Easy. And God can’t apparently do it. Whoops, another tsunami…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let the world cool a little more, or MAKE it cool a little more, or don’t make one with a molten core in THE FIRST PLACE and you are good to go.

Or bring us into being on a planet that DOESN’T HAVE EARTHQUAKES.

Hell’s teeth, this is ridiculously Easy. And God can’t apparently do it. Whoops, another tsunami…

Or maybe God could make us all impervious, like Superman, to earthquakes and lava?

J.F. Haught, Theologian

“Remarkable as it may seem, if God is to create a world truly distinct from the divine Self, such a world would have to have an internal “self-coherence” or autonomy. Simply in order to be the “world” and not God, the creation has to be different from its Creator. This implies, then, that divine creativity allows the world to be itself.”

An Earth with a cool rather than hot center would not be Earth, and there would be no people nor earthquakes nor tsunamis nor volcanos.

That’s the atheist paradise … nothingness on a grand scale.

 

[IWantGod]

Or maybe God could make us all impervious, like Superman, to earthquakes and lava?

J.F. Haught, Theologian

“Remarkable as it may seem, if God is to create a world truly distinct from the divine Self, such a world would have to have an internal “self-coherence” or autonomy. Simply in order to be the “world” and not God, the creation has to be different from its Creator. This implies, then, that divine creativity allows the world to be itself.”

I like this argument. It supports the notion of a natural world with its own natural order.

 

[tonyrey]

It is very easy to criticise the world but to create it is infinitely more difficult. If it is so simple to prevent disasters why don’t you present a feasible blueprint of the entire process from start to finish instead of suggesting piecemeal improvements to the existing system?

You write as if you have had experience of creating universes. May we know when and where you had that opportunity?

Once again you have conveniently evaded the question:

Why don’t you present a feasible blueprint of** the entire process** from start to finish instead of suggesting piecemeal improvements to the existing system? If it’s “ridiculously Easy” why don’t you** explain **how to do it? One thing you need to learn is that actions speak louder than words. Otherwise your claims are worthless…

Another fact you have to remember is that we cannot understand what omnipotence implies unless we are omniscient. Could God destroy Himself for example? If not why not?

 

[GEddie]

Let the world cool a little more, or MAKE it cool a little more, or don’t make one with a molten core in THE FIRST PLACE and you are good to go.

Without the molten core, there would be no magnetic field, and so no protection from life-slaying cosmic radiation, which given enough time, will cook the atmosphere from the planet, as seen on Mars where the core hardened eons ago.

Or bring us into being on a planet that DOESN’T HAVE EARTHQUAKES.

Without tectonic motion, erosion would wear the continents into the ocean. Not good news for non-waterbreathing beings.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

That is a simplistic interpretation of my views. Most events are in neither category because they have physical causes. Design is the ultimate category because the universe is planned and created by God. Chance is restricted to such events as apparently fortuitous combinations of molecules, random genetic mutations and rare coincidences which are dysteleological. In other words purposeful activity is more fundamental and successful than purposeless events; otherwise the progressive development of living organisms would never have occurred in such a violent universe.

There is no conflict whatsoever.Although Design is the ultimate category it is reflected in the wonder and beauty of objects like a butterfly or the night sky. God generally creates through the laws of nature but there is no reason why He doesn’t intervene whenever necessary. They are not a replacement for divine power but instruments that can be suspended and supplemented. God isn’t the Supreme Mechanic but the Supreme Artist.

If it doesn’t make sense to say God works miracles the teaching of Jesus is false.

Sheer nonsense! You go from one extreme to the other.

You are assuming it is false without explaining why… A very weak argument.

Another nonsensical argument! You go to absurd extremes in a futile attempt to deny that the universe is immensely complex, so complex in fact that it is impossible for scientists to predict precisely when and where disasters are going to occur - not to mention the element of free will…

The very fact that disasters occur. Do you believe God wills them?
Do you have any other explanation? If so produce it.
Since you claim to be a Christian you should know what they are. Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?

False dilemma! You reject but have no alternative explanation of natural evil.
You don’t seem to be arguing for anything…
On the basis that His power is not so limited as you seem to think.
All the purposes you mention are compatible and not mutually exclusive. If you don’t believe they are true how can you be a Christian?

You’ve gone from “Those are certainly the only alternatives: Chance or Design” back in June to “Most events are in neither category” today.

I think there’s no point pursuing any of this until you clarify what your claim actually is.

I have already refuted that objection and you have failed to answer my questions:
Do you believe God wills disasters?
Do you have any other explanation? If so produce it.
Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?

Even in a smaller universe there would still be accidents. The onus is on you to explain how every single accident could be prevented without disrupting natural laws and making life even more unpredictable than it is already. It is easy to concoct objections but to justify them is a much more difficult proposition, not surprisingly when we consider that it amounts to criticising God’s handiwork… A feasible blueprint of Utopia still remains to be produced by those who belittle the wonder and the beauty of the universe. Those who have lost loved ones in earthquakes generally realise such disasters are bound to happen sooner or later and don’t blame God for not preventing them. Common sense prevails more often among most people than in philosophical discussions where individuals go to absurd lengths to find far-fetched objections and difficulties to support their views…

You say "Most events are in neither category [chance or design] because they have physical causes ". Yet you say “Even in a smaller universe there would still be accidents”.

Let’s take the smallest possible universe, just empty space. Or the next smallest, containing a single proton and nothing else. No accidents possible. The next smallest is, say, two protons and nothing else. Is that just physical causes or are accidents now possible? At what point are what you call accidents possible?

Your claim rests on a number of assumptions about complexity and so on which are not self-evident and for which you’ve provided no supporting arguments.

Once again you are going to absurd extremes in a futile attempt to prove accidents and coincidences never occur. I shall leave others to decide whether you are being reasonable…

 

[inocente]

There is no conflict whatsoever.Although Design is the ultimate category it is reflected in the wonder and beauty of objects like a butterfly or the night sky. God generally creates through the laws of nature but there is no reason why He doesn’t intervene whenever necessary. They are not a replacement for divine power but instruments that can be suspended and supplemented. God isn’t the Supreme Mechanic but the Supreme Artist.
I have already refuted that objection and you have failed to answer my questions:
Do you believe God wills disasters?
Do you have any other explanation? If so produce it.
Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?
Once again you are going to absurd extremes in a futile attempt to prove accidents and coincidences never occur. I shall leave others to decide whether you are being reasonable…

Sorry, I really can’t tell what your claim is anymore. A butterfly is created by the laws of nature but ultimately Design. Or by intervention. Ditto presumably a bacterium. Unless that’s Chance. :ehh:

Then when I try to probe the logic of how you decide these things, you say I’m going to absurd extremes.

I’ll call it a day. I like Charle’s quote from J.F. Haught in post #921: “Simply in order to be the “world” and not God, the creation has to be different from its Creator. This implies, then, that divine creativity allows the world to be itself.” Note Creator not Designer. Note allows the world to be itself.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . A butterfly is created by the laws of nature but ultimately Design. . . I like Charle’s quote from J.F. Haught in post #921: “Simply in order to be the “world” and not God, the creation has to be different from its Creator. This implies, then, that divine creativity allows the world to be itself.” Note Creator not Designer. Note allows the world to be itself.

I can’t say I agree with the learned professor. The world by itself did not produce a butterfly. It required Divine intervention. An evolutionary theory of instincts gets very iffy, especially when dealing with the appearance of beauty in nature. Even feelings of desire, they have a very different character than simple molecular interactions. Of course there are some who, to salvage a simplistic position, will go so far as denying that such phenomena as beauty and feelings exist.

In butterflies we have the male emitting pheromones to attract the females and courting them with visual displays. In some species the males wait for females to fly by, while others follow female pheromone trails. We are talking about animals, not human beings, so consent is not required. The males of some species will locate female caterpillars, wait for them to pupate and mate when the female butterfly emerges unable to fly. Their instincts choose beauty, which is not synonymous with health, although a lack of beauty tends to suggest ill-health. Not sure if I made my point. The world seeks beauty, to be beautiful. As do we ourselves, all creation reaches out for its Creator.

As an aside, just speculating, I wonder if perhaps there too something went wrong. I don’t know as it hasn’t been revealed.
I also wonder what those angels who fell are all about. They are messengers to what?

 

[inocente]

I can’t say I agree with the learned professor. The world by itself did not produce a butterfly. It required Divine intervention. An evolutionary theory of instincts gets very iffy, especially when dealing with the appearance of beauty in nature. Of course there are many who, to salvage their belief will deny that it exists, but we, who have eyes and maybe moreso those who don’t, see it very clearly. In butterflies we have the male emitting pheromones to attract the females and courting them with visual displays. In some species the males wait for females to fly by, while others follow female pheromone trails. We are talking about animals, not human beings, so consent is not required. The males of some species will locate female caterpillars, wait for them to pupate and mate when the female butterfly emerges unable to fly. Their instincts choose beauty, which is not synonymous with health, although a lack of beauty tends to suggest ill-health. Not sure if I made my point. The world seeks beauty, to be beautiful. As do we ourselves, all creation reaches out for its Creator.

As an aside, just speculating, I wonder if perhaps there too something went wrong. I don’t know as it hasn’t been revealed.
I wonder too what all those angels who fell are all about. They are messengers to what?

… I never mentioned evolution. But looking up the theologian Charles quoted and I re-quoted, in the court case which intelligent design fans lost, he testified "that the effect of the intelligent design policy adopted by the Dover School board would “be to compel public school science teachers to present their students in biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific in nature”. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught. He goes up in my estimation.

I don’t know if your theory is the same as Tony’s. Does Tony agree that all animals have a sense of aesthetics? We’re over 900 posts and I don’t remember seeing a clear and stable statement of any argument for intelligent design.

On what you say: Is there real-world evidence linking mating behavior in all animal species to a sense of aesthetics? Is there real-world evidence that all species are even capable of a sense of aesthetics? Does a dung beetle have a big enough brain to be capable of seeing beauty? Does a dung beetle really seek beauty or does it seek dung? Does a male frog really see beauty in a fairy-tale princess? What about species we find repulsive? Are they created by nature, by Design, by intervention and/or by Chance? How do such categories contribute one cent to the sum of human knowledge? Etc.

Lots of questions but as this thread has over 900 posts, I suggest anyone who has the answers start a new thread so all those interested can contribute.

 

[Aloysium]

… I never mentioned evolution. But looking up the theologian Charles quoted and I re-quoted, in the court case which intelligent design fans lost, . . . I don’t know if your theory is the same as Tony’s. . . . Lots of questions but as this thread has over 900 posts, I suggest anyone who has the answers start a new thread so all those interested can contribute.

I wrote what I wrote. People think and believe what they think and believe. I’m glad at the very least, it raised some questions. I approach this from the hope that we are here to grow in faith.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no conflict whatsoever. Although Design is the ultimate

1. God plans and and creates the universe with the laws of nature, i.e. Design.
2. Inevitably some aspects of the universe are more beautiful - and reflect God’s glory more - than others, i.e. the results of Design.
3. Due to the limitations of creatures and natural laws aspects of the universe are dysteleological, i.e. they are purposeless and even destructive,.i.e. Chance.
4. Conflict and interference are bound to occur when many creatures are pursuing different goals, i.e. the results of Chance.

I’ll call it a day. I like Charle’s quote from J.F. Haught in post #921: “Simply in order to be the “world” and not God, the creation has to be different from its Creator. This implies, then, that divine creativity allows the world to be itself.” Note Creator not Designer. Note allows the world to be itself.

Creation doesn’t exclude Design; it implies Design because God has reasons for creating the universe. He certainly allows the world to be itself in accordance with natural laws which are intended to enable His creatures to develop and fulfil themselves as individuals and social beings.

Do you believe God wills disasters? If not why do they occur?
Do you think Christ’s teaching tells us nothing about God’s plan?
What do the Beatitudes imply?

 

[tonyrey]

1. God plans and and creates the universe with the laws of nature, i.e. Design.
2. Inevitably some aspects of the universe are more beautiful - and reflect God’s glory more - than others, i.e. the results of Design.
3. Due to the limitations of creatures and natural laws aspects of the universe are dysteleological, i.e. they are purposeless and even destructive,.i.e. Chance.
4. Conflict and interference are bound to occur when many creatures are pursuing different goals, i.e. the results of Chance.

Creation doesn’t exclude Design; it implies Design because God has reasons for creating the universe. He certainly allows the world to be itself in accordance with natural laws which are intended to enable His creatures to develop and fulfil themselves as individuals and social beings.

I should add that God also helps us whenever He chooses because He is not a slave of the universe He creates - as those who reject miracles imply. Being a loving Father implies that He doesn’t leave us to suffer or die without any form of consolation, mitigation or intervention. The saints were well aware of His constant presence and activity in our lives. He certainly doesn’t leave us to fend entirely for ourselves like the God of deism but it depends on us how receptive we are to His grace. In that respect we get what we deserve and that is where prayer comes in - as Jesus stressed so often…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Creation doesn’t exclude Design; it implies Design because God has reasons for creating the universe. He certainly allows the world to be itself in accordance with natural laws which are intended to enable His creatures to develop and fulfil themselves as individuals and social beings.

It doesn’t make sense that a creator would not design the creation.

What would be the point of creating if not for a designated purpose?

God did not create the universe without planning humans to occupy it. And so a planet fitting for human habitation had to be also designed.

Whether that creature on its planet should arrive by design or by chance is not even a question. The creature has arrived, and could not have arrived without God’s fiat.

Even those who say evolution is a byproduct of chance combinations, as if human resulted only from a throw of the dice, can be allowed to surmise, contrary to Einstein, that God loaded the dice in favor of man on his own hospitable planet.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Talk about god loading the dice.

Paul Davies, Physicist:

“It is one of the universal miracles of nature that huge assemblages of particles, subject only to the blind forces of nature, are nevertheless capable of organizing themselves into patterns of cooperative activity.”

---

 

[Aloysium]

Talk about god loading the dice.

Paul Davies, Physicist:

“It is one of the universal miracles of nature that huge assemblages of particles, subject only to the blind forces of nature, are nevertheless capable of organizing themselves into patterns of cooperative activity.”

---

With all due respect to such learned professors and acknowledging my shortcomings, I cannot see the dice being loaded. God has created life which is the organizing principle that brings blind forces of nature, that could not possibly do so themselves, together in the formation of beings whose components are thereby able to act in a cooperative fashion.

 

[tonyrey]

With all due respect to such learned professors and acknowledging my shortcomings, I cannot see the dice being loaded. God has created life which is the organizing principle that brings blind forces of nature, that could not possibly do so themselves, together in the formation of beings whose components are thereby able to act in a cooperative fashion.

In addition to which the blind forces become capable of controlling themselves and understanding how blind they are… Miracles certainly never cease!