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

[GEddie]

So far as AIDS goes, God could have designed us so that nobody could get it.

But that would go against the omnimax designer’s moral law that actions have consequences.

We are free to choose or refuse behavior that leads to AIDS.

Some choose to refuse. Some don’t. The ones who don’t are proud of their stupidity.

They even march in costumes to celebrate their stupidity.

I suppose you would lay that also on a feeble design by the omnimax designer?

He does have somewhat of a point, Charlemagne.

Babies who get HIV in the womb made no choice that led to it. Neither did those who in the 1980s, got it from bad blood transfusions. Etc.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ruqx]

He does have somewhat of a point, Charlemagne.

“Somewhat” is an understatement.

Babies who get HIV in the womb made no choice that led to it. Neither did those who in the 1980s, got it from bad blood transfusions. Etc.

I am on your side here. What about the miners who are trapped underground, and all the efforts of the rescuers are insufficient to reach them. They die a slow and agonizing death. Moreover their relatives are deprived of the possibility to give them a decent funeral, which “might” give them a sense of closure.

 

[GEddie]

“Somewhat” is an understatement.

I am on your side here. What about the miners who are trapped underground, and all the efforts of the rescuers are insufficient to reach them. They die a slow and agonizing death. Moreover their relatives are deprived of the possibility to give them a decent funeral, which “might” give them a sense of closure.

Feelings and good-byes are IMINWHO far overrated. Death is death.

Having your last memory of someone be the dead body can be even worse than losing them.

As to your example itself, sadly, we can’t blame it upon any higher being. When human life goes where it doesn’t belong – under the ocean, into the sky, on 8000-meter peaks, or beneath the ground – there is a tacit acceptance that there may be no safe return.

In fact, there is no safe life, even lying in bed. (You’d get life-ending blood clots if you stayed in bed.)

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He does have somewhat of a point, Charlemagne.

Babies who get HIV in the womb made no choice that led to it. Neither did those who in the 1980s, got it from bad blood transfusions. Etc.

ICXC NIKA

The baby’s parents apparently did make the choice.

That’s why the old adage applies: “The sins of the father are visited upon their children.”

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary you need to explain **how **

You have overlooked the need for consistency by assuming a physical universe can exist without any flaws. Precisely how could **all **unfortunate coincidences be prevented without interfering with the laws of nature? How could it be ensured, for example, that no one is ever injured or killed in an accident or natural disaster? An earthly Utopia is nothing but a fantasy given that everything and everyone has limitations of one type or another.

Not at all. You are judging by vague impressions rather than precise facts. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity but consistency. There is no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be continually suspended to cater for particular contingencies.

The immune system, could have been created to allow for all contingencies. If the same designer is responsible for both, then the laws could be designed to cover many general contingencies, with immune systems designed to cover all remaining specific contingencies. An omnimax designer could easily specifically tailor the immune system of every newborn to cover all the diseases that particular organism would encounter in its lifetime. We already see that some organisms have pre-immunity to particular pathogens, while others do not. That pre-immunity could easily be spread by design into all organisms that would need it in future.

You have not explained the precise biological mechanism by which pre-immunity could be extended to all organisms nor considered the side effects to which such interference could lead. To believe we are capable of creating a superior universe reveals excessive confidence in our intelligence, knowledge and understanding of nature. Human attempts to “improve” the biosphere have often ended in ecological disaster. There are many examples of such folly such as the diseases of civilisation, the pollution of the entire planet and the prospect of extinction by nuclear warfare. The virtue of humility is sadly lacking in those who believe they are capable of designing a better world than the one we inhabit…

 

[Cheiron]

You are **assuming **things could be better and fulfil the same purposes as this universe. Omnipotence doesn’t entail absurdity but consistency.

I assumed no such thing. I’ve never said or implied that there is purpose in nature. Also, leaving out terrible disease when creating the universe isn’t absurd.

 That is an excellent example of a  piecemeal improvement for which you have given no indication whatsoever of **how** i**t could have been implemented **in the process of development.

God himself could come down here and vaccinate everyone. Secondly, He did not have to implement anything. He imply could have left smallpox out. Also, I’m very confused about your opinion of God. You seem to think He created everything, yet had no idea how He could possibly have left smallpox out from the very start. God seems to be simultaneously omnipotent (or at least very powerful), yet more constrained than humans. After all, humans did eradicate smallpox - something God wasn’t able to. Pick one.

But you know what: let’s assume that God is a benevolent god and created the best possible universe for us. Let’s assume He could not have done a better job. Then we’re left with a planet that for a large part is either too hot or too cold, the Holy Land being one of the most miserable places on earth today, the most important source of light and energy also the cause of skin cancer. In the words of George Carlin: If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

The eradication of smallpox presupposes that it was not inevitable in the first place, an assertion that needs justification given the existing laws of nature. Nor is it a positive advantage like wealth, power, fame, intelligence, beauty or sensitivity…

You missed the point. You assumed earlier that every corresponding advantage needed to have a corresponding disadvantage and that we can’t have one without the other. Now that we’ve lost the disadvantage of smallpox, we’ve presumably lost an advantage too. If not, then we can advantages without disadvantages, then we can improve our lives - and you’re wrong.

There is such a thing as a thought experiment which helps us to see reality in perspective. Assuming we could choose whether or not to exist what would you have chosen - and why or why not?

Your thought experiment makes no sense. If I were faced with that choice, then I would exist already. So I would choose to continue to exist because I like existence.

 

[rossum]

The baby’s parents apparently did make the choice.

Not if the mother was raped by an infected man. Not if the mother needed a blood transfusion during pregnancy. Not if the father was infected by a blood transfusion and in turn infected his wife.

That’s why the old adage applies: “The sins of the father are visited upon their children.”

So, you agree that innocent children should be punished for the sins of their parents. Like aborting babies that result from rape perhaps?

You need to be more consistent here; AIUI the Catholic Church is against abortion in case of pregnancy due to rape precisely because that would punish the innocent child for the sin of the father.

rossum

 

[cfauster]

In the gospels (John Chapter 9, Luke Chapter 13), Jesus is asked about this. In John 9 he’s asked why an individual was born blind. The two theories suggested by those asking the question were that the individual himself had sinned, or that his parents had sinned. Jesus replied that neither theory was correct. He gave some additional examples too, of people who died due to accident (the tower of Siloam falling on them) or violence (the Roman governor executing innocents to make a point). He asked his followers: Do you think these people were worse sinners than you? Jesus answered his rhetorical question with “No.” He said we all are equally in need of repentance and forgiveness, and that we cannot interpret the occurrence of calamities - in our own lives or in the lives of others - as evidence of God’s favor or disfavor.

 

[GEddie]

You need to be more consistent here; AIUI the Catholic Church is against abortion in case of pregnancy due to rape precisely because that would punish the innocent child for the sin of the father.

YDNUI.

The Church does not oppose abortion in this situation for the reason stated. It opposes it for the same reason as in all other abortions; namely, that the fetus is a human life that should not be murdered.

The sins committed by the parents don’t factor in.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not if the mother was raped by an infected man. Not if the mother needed a blood transfusion during pregnancy. Not if the father was infected by a blood transfusion and in turn infected his wife.

rossum

God chooses not to interfere with our choices. The rapist cannot be stopped. If you think the existence of rapists is evidence of an imperfect design by God, why not go even farther and argue that God could have prevented all sinning, making us saints without any choice in the matter.

There you raise a problem that betrays your Buddhist heritage. You even believe, as you have said so often in this forum, that the gods can be safely ignored. And that is why Buddhism is essentially atheistic, so it seems thoroughly inconsistent that you believe the gods can be safely ignored.

Atheism condemns the Christian God as a poor designer of his creation, yet atheism consigns human beings to a meaningless existence ultimately no more significant than any other animals on earth. So in terms of a benefit to human beings, God gives humans immortality, and the right to choose between two kinds of immortality. This means that the death of anyone, even the infant who dies from abortion, still has a soul and everlasting life. Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[rossum]

God chooses not to interfere with our choices.

The people I listed had no choices, so there was no choice to interfere with. They were infected with HIV through no fault of their own If anything it was the fault of the designer who did not design the HIV virus to be killed when stored in blood for transfusions.

The problem here is entirely down to the designer. It shows either sloppy design or a designer who is not interested in punishment for certain behaviours.

There you raise a problem that betrays your Buddhist heritage. You even believe, as you have said so often in this forum, that the gods can be safely ignored. And that is why Buddhism is essentially atheistic, so it seems thoroughly inconsistent that you believe the gods can be safely ignored.

Do you believe in the existence of kangaroos? Do you believe that kangaroos can be safely ignored? I do not see why you are seeing an inconsistency here. God cannot attain nirvana for me, that is something I have to do for myself.

Atheism condemns the Christian God as a poor designer of his creation, …

I am Buddhist, as you have stated. All of your paragraph is irrelevant to me. I suggest you copy it into your next post to an atheist. My existence is meaningful because I have a task to perform: avoiding suffering. The presence of suffering in the world indicates that if there is a designer, then his/her/its/their design is very obviously imperfect.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am Buddhist, as you have stated. All of your paragraph is irrelevant to me. I suggest you copy it into your next post to an atheist. My existence is meaningful because I have a task to perform: avoiding suffering. The presence of suffering in the world indicates that if there is a designer, then his/her/its/their design is very obviously imperfect.

rossum

Avoiding suffering is also a Christian task, as the many charities devoted to helping the poor, the sick, the ignorant, those in prison, etc. etc.

But in a broken world, suffering is a given and cannot be defeated altogether.

In the Christian gospel we believe there is eternal light or eternal darkness at the end of the tunnel. We believe God the creator has assured us of our victory over darkness if we cooperate with his love and deserve his mercy.

This is a plan that comes from God, not from a human who thinks that on his own he has figured it all out, and whose disciples think their gods can be safely ignored.

That what atheists think too.

 

[Aloysium]

Avoiding suffering is also a Christian task, as the many charities devoted to helping the poor, the sick, the ignorant, those in prison, etc. etc. . . .

The task is to care for one another as you rightly identify. One may in fact, end up increasing one’s own suffering to attain that end. As to HIV and other infectious disorders, another big at-risk group are health care providers. In those situations, one is brought to the level of those whose ills one is tending; one is not some superior person caring for those we pity. To carry on one’s life seeking an end to one’s own suffering is a fruitless pursuit that can only end in greater misery. Even to help the poor, when they will be always with us, would be futile in itself were it not for the loving connection that is made when people meet desiring the good for each other. Everything of this world will end. What is eternal is the love through which we and all creation are brought into existence, and in which we participate when we give of ourselves to one another. Suffering only ends in transcendence.

 

[rossum]

Avoiding suffering is also a Christian task, as the many charities devoted to helping the poor, the sick, the ignorant, those in prison, etc. etc.

But in a broken world, suffering is a given and cannot be defeated altogether.

The Buddhist world is not as broken as the Christian world. The Buddha defeated suffering when he attained enlightenment. We can follow his guidance and do the same.

In the Christian gospel we believe there is eternal light or eternal darkness at the end of the tunnel. We believe God the creator has assured us of our victory over darkness if we cooperate with his love and deserve his mercy.

You are in a five star luxury hotel with every service you need at your fingertips. Being a good Christian you love your neighbours as you love God. However your neighbours are in the room next to yours screaming in hideous pain as they are tortured. For ever. Are you happy?

The Christian heaven is just as much a place of suffering as the Christian hell. The Buddha defines one form of suffering as separation from those you love. If you love your neighbours, then you are separated from them eternally. You are suffering in heaven.

This is a plan that comes from God, not from a human who thinks that on his own he has figured it all out, and whose disciples think their gods can be safely ignored.

From the time of the Buddha until the present day, people have become enlightened. The Buddha’s methods work, and continue to work. There are enlightened people alive today. The Buddha lived for 45 years after his enlightenment. Enlightenment is here and now.

rossum

 

[Ruqx]

A few posters insist that one is not qualified to criticize something, if one does not have a “detailed blueprint” of how to do it better. Let’s try this concept in real life.

1. A programmer designs and implements a system to help the users solving their problems. The programmer is NOT “perfect” and the solution is deficient in some respect. The users point out these deficiencies, and the company’s spokesman “demands” a “detailed blueprint” for a “perfect” solution. Is it NOT the job of the one who criticizes to help the programmer to fix his errors.
2. The user of a car observes problems with the vehicle’s design and manufacturing. He points it out to the maker of the car, who brushes it aside saying that the user must present a “detailed blueprint” of how to create a “perfect” car.
3. A person experiences angina, and asks the cardiologist to help him. The hospital’s spokesman demands that the patient must present a “detailed blueprint” about the necessary surgery. What scalpel to use, where the incision needs to be made, which kind of stent must be inserted into the clogged blood vessels.

Enough of the examples. One can and should criticize incompetent “design” even if it is the error of someone else.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Christian heaven is just as much a place of suffering as the Christian hell.

rossum

And you know this how?

Where is the Buddha now?

 

[Aloysium]

And you know this how?

Where is the Buddha now?

In eternity, he’s enjoying the Beatific Vision as we all hope to do. Just a gut feeling, I must admit.
Hell is the reality of wasting one’s life trying to avoid suffering when it could have been spent doing good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In eternity, he’s enjoying the Beatific Vision as we all hope to do. Just a gut feeling, I must admit.

I seriously doubt that rossum would agree. After all, as he says, the gods can be “safely ignored.”

 

[rossum]

And you know this how?

Do you love your family? Could you be happy knowing that they are being horribly tortured and suffering in ghastly pain? No, I suspect not. Since Christians are told to love their neighbour, then everyone in hell is every Christian’s neighbour. People you love are being tortured. You are forever separated from those people you love as they suffer.

Are you happy?

Where is the Buddha now?

“where” is a wrongly put question. You are asking for a description of nirvana, and all descriptions of nirvana are incorrect.

rossum

 

[inocente]

But that would go against the omnimax designer’s moral law that actions have consequences.

We are free to choose or refuse behavior that leads to AIDS.

Some choose to refuse. Some don’t. The ones who don’t are proud of their stupidity.

You say we are designed. And so some people were designed to be stupid, and will therefore be eternally stupid because they were designed to be stupid.

And, you say, AIDS is a judgment by the designer on those he designed to be stupid.

Do other design fans agree with this theological gem?

Or is there still not even an agree argument of intelligent design after a thousand posts?