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

[tonyrey]

Death may be unfortunate or even tragic, but it is not malevolent. Death is also inevitable because physical bodies will wear out eventually.

But to deliberately create a virus is not inevitable - it should have a purpose if it was created by design. If we claim everything is by design, we need at least be able to guess at the reason for each thing…

A virus is not deliberately created. It is a dysteleological by-product due to the immense complexity of physical reality which inevitably leads to misfortunes. There is no reason why such events occur because they not intended but permitted by God.

 

[tonyrey]

The same motive for designing death. This life is only a preparation for the next.

That is why God is still a very loving God who gives us every chance to be redeemed.

To be compelled to live here forever with no means of escape from malice and injustice. A normal death is not a curse but a blessing because it liberates us from evil and reunites us with our loved ones.

 

[openmind77]

Neither is God malevolent since he offers us life everlasting with him if we want it.

But we have to die first to get it.

And most of the ways we die are not fun at all.

Not sure the Zika virus is the worst way to die.

Zika virus does not usually cause death. It causes the birth of babies born with damaged brains (for infected pregnant women). That is why it seems so malevolent . That is why we need to explore the reason for designing and creating such a virus, if that is indeed what God has done (Death on the other hand can often be seen as a release from earthly suffering).

 

[meltzerboy]

The same motive for designing death. This life is only a preparation for the next.

That is why God is still a very loving God who gives us every chance to be redeemed.

Not according to Judaism. The purpose of this life is to love G-d, mankind, and the creation by deed as well as thought and feeling, as well as to work to make life better for all. It is a tall order but one that can be achieved only in the present life, not in the hereafter.

 

[Bradski]

**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.

How utterly, utterly convenient. Who could not fail to consider that so monstrously and transparently contrived.

 

[inocente]

Yes, God is greater than we can conceive, but he tells us a little about himself in Scripture.

We are told in Genesis he designed and created the universe. I believe this.

Why can you not say outright you also believe it?

After all, we have to talk about God in language that makes sense.

If you believe God did not design and create the universe, just say so.

I don’t see how it belittles God to say he designed and created the universe.

Please don’t hide behind the agnostic you are trying to become.

Did you make that personal remark in the hope I’d forget that you didn’t answer my questions?

I asked you whether you’re a young earth creationist. That’s easy enough to answer isn’t? Either you believe Genesis 1 is literally and historically true or you don’t. Which is it?

And for the third time of asking, do you think God is still designing? For example, is the zika virus God’s design?"

As for me, Genesis 1 is pure allegory, and the intent of the author is evangelical - its message is to those who believed in idols or tribal gods or were polytheists, and the message is that there is one God and absolutely everything is created by that God. Only some moderns, over-familiar with the text, miss that and concentrate on the piddling details instead (which even so never talk of design). The original message is it doesn’t matter how everything was created, there is but one God and we can relate to Him and He’s not our enemy. Now if you could just answer my questions. Tony did .

 

[inocente]

**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.

You’ll realize this allows you take any position on anything - if you like it, God designed it, it you don’t then God didn’t. You also lay yourself open to being accused of echoing the treacle of the children’s song All Things Bright and Beautiful.

Surely God is in everything? I mean suppose your job involves finding a cure for a disease. With the e-word, you have an all-embracing theory which allows you to understand how a disease interacts with the host, and how it develops. That’s why people use the theory, it explains, it allows progress to be made. Whereas your theory of two separate mechanisms appears to have no usable or useful explanatory power.

 

[tonyrey]

How utterly, utterly convenient. Who could not fail to consider that so monstrously and transparently contrived.

So you reject the distinction between success and failure, good health and disease, happiness and misery, beauty and ugliness, freedom and slavery, justice and injustice, fulfilment and frustration, harmony and conflict, integrity and corruption, love and hate, kindness and cruelty, egoism and altruism, war and peace, growth and decay, progress and regression? Cynicism and nihilism at their worst…

If you were the victim of an earthquake or a robbery you would soon realise how much you had to lose…

 

[tonyrey]

***Positive ***

It is not a question of liking but fact. Do you advocate promoting disease, deformity, deceit, misery, ugliness, slavery, injustice, exploitation, corruption, hate, cruelty, war and genocide?

Surely God is in everything?

God is ontologically present in everything but not personally, a vital distinction.

I mean suppose your job involves finding a cure for a disease. With the e-word, you have an all-embracing theory which allows you to understand how a disease interacts with the host, and how it develops. That’s why people use the theory, it explains, it allows progress to be made. Whereas your theory of two separate mechanisms appears to have no usable or useful explanatory power.

Chance is not an all-embracing explanation like Design. Anomalies and accidents occur within the framework of the laws of nature. Chaos doesn’t have the last word nor does absurdity. The universe is fundamentally rational and intelligible…

NB God is not a mechanism but the Creator/Designer. Chance is a byproduct of the immense complexity of a physical universe in which dysteleological coincidences are inevitable. A perfect world is a fantasy…

 

[tonyrey]

Not according to Judaism. The purpose of this life is to love G-d, mankind, and the creation by deed as well as thought and feeling, as well as to work to make life better for all. It is a tall order but one that can be achieved only in the present life, not in the hereafter.

In that respect Judaism and Christianity concur - although we also believe in the Communion of Saints, i.e. the power of prayer and intercession on our behalf in answers to prayer. We are not isolated individuals but brothers and sisters who have a divine Father in heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

Zika virus does not usually cause death. It causes the birth of babies born with damaged brains (for infected pregnant women). That is why it seems so malevolent . That is why we need to explore the reason for designing and creating such a virus, if that is indeed what God has done (Death on the other hand can often be seen as a release from earthly suffering).

Harmful viruses are not designed and created by God but caused by genetic mutations which are inevitable in an immensely complex biosphere.

 

[tonyrey]

And for the third time of asking, do you think God is still designing? For example, is the zika virus God’s design?"

There is no need for God to design but miracles are evidence that He intervenes because the laws of nature cannot cater for every contingency. Life has almost become extinct on several occasions but it has survived against all the odds for over three billion years in a notoriously violent universe.

In case you missed this:

Harmful viruses are not designed and created by God but caused by genetic mutations which are inevitable in an immensely complex biosphere.

 

[Aloysium]

For all of us who are damaged in one way or another,
the harm most obvious to the world usually being the least dangerous to our spiritual well-being,
a relationship with God, available to all,
offers us comfort and an awareness of our value
and of the miracle of human existence,
an awareness that fades into a distance when all is well.

Dear reader, I’m sure that until I just now bring it up,
the capacity to exist in the wonder of visible universe
and that which allows the understanding of these words
were nowhere close to the surface of consciousness.
Sometimes, until it is lost,
one never appreciates what one has.

In the end, as tragic as it is for the individual and family,
being or loving a person with special needs,
in the overcoming, transcendence of the worldly pursuits that bind us to death,
brings us closer to He who is Love, Beauty, Truth, joyous Life eternal.

By the way, the greatest concerns for those graced with this challenge lies in the knowledge of the world’s cruelty and indifference; how to protect the vulnerable.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

For all of us who are damaged in one way or another,
the harm most obvious to the world usually being the least dangerous to our spiritual well-being,
a relationship with God, available to all,
offers us comfort and an awareness of our value
and of the miracle of human existence,
an awareness that fades into a distance when all is well.

Dear reader, I’m sure that until I just now bring it up,
the capacity to exist in the wonder of visible universe
and that which allows the understanding of these words
were nowhere close to the surface of consciousness.
Sometimes, until it is lost,
one never appreciates what one has.

In the end, as tragic as it is for the individual and family,
being or loving a person with special needs,
in the overcoming, transcendence of the worldly pursuits that bind us to death,
brings us closer to He who is Love, Beauty, Truth, joyous Life eternal.

By the way, the greatest concerns for those graced with this challenge lies in the knowledge of the world’s cruelty and indifference; how to protect the vulnerable.

Beautifully put. Without flaws how can we know the grace of God? If everything was perfect there would be no need of Him.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

---

I asked you whether you’re a young earth creationist. That’s easy enough to answer isn’t? Either you believe Genesis 1 is literally and historically true or you don’t. Which is it?

And for the third time of asking, do you think God is still designing? For example, is the zika virus God’s design?"

As for me, Genesis 1 is pure allegory, and the intent of the author is evangelical - its message is to those who believed in idols or tribal gods or were polytheists, and the message is that there is one God and absolutely everything is created by that God

**. Only some moderns, over-familiar with the text, miss that and concentrate on the piddling details instead (which even so never talk of design). QUOTE]

I am not a young earth creationist. You don’t have to read “days” literally.

We knew that as long ago as St. Augustine.

The Zika virus is part of the overall design of creation. Nothing can exist without God’s permission. Do you think the Zika virus therefore demonstrates that God is malevolent? Or do you think that floods or earthquakes demonstrate that God is malevolent? If that is your take, I think it is a curious kind of Christianity that proposes a malevolent God.

It’s good to see you admit “everything is created by that God.” God created the universe, and you don’t just read the bible to that effect as pure allegory. You actually believe that God is a Creator, and that calling him a Creator does not belittle him. Now the answer to the next question I have to ask is very important but you will probably refuse to give it based on your past practice of ignoring questions you don’t like.

How do you create a universe without first designing your creation?

How do you create a universe and just leave everything to chance as to how it will turn out, when there is every possibility that chance alone will never produce anything more than stars and their planets. What would be the point in creating such a universe?

And since God exists outside time and can see the whole fate of the universe in his eternal now, how could he not know that he had programmed (designed) his universe to produce a good deal more than mere stars and their planets?*

 

[tonyrey]

There is no need for God to design…

Correction:

There is no need for God to design the universe again - or continue designing it…

 

[tonyrey]

To be compelled to live here forever with no means of escape from malice and injustice.

Correction:
To be compelled to live here forever with no means of escape from malice and injustice would be hell on earth!

 

[tonyrey]

---

inocente;13849313:

I asked you whether you’re a young earth creationist. That’s easy enough to answer isn’t? Either you believe Genesis 1 is literally and historically true or you don’t. Which is it?

And for the third time of asking, do you think God is still designing? For example, is the zika virus God’s design?"

As for me, Genesis 1 is pure allegory, and the intent of the author is evangelical - its message is to those who believed in idols or tribal gods or were polytheists, and the message is that there is one God and absolutely everything is created by that God

***. Only some moderns, over-familiar with the text, miss that and concentrate on the piddling details instead (which even so never talk of design).

I am not a young earth creationist. You don’t have to read “days” literally.

We knew that as long ago as St. Augustine.

The Zika virus is part of the overall design of creation. Nothing can exist without God’s permission. Do you think the Zika virus therefore demonstrates that God is malevolent? Or do you think that floods or earthquakes demonstrate that God is malevolent? If that is your take, I think it is a curious kind of Christianity that proposes a malevolent God.

It’s good to see you admit “everything is created by that God.” God created the universe, and you don’t just read the bible to that effect as pure allegory. You actually believe that God is a Creator, and that calling him a Creator does not belittle him. Now the answer to the next question I have to ask is very important but you will probably refuse to give it based on your past practice of ignoring questions you don’t like.

How do you create a universe without first designing your creation?

How do you create a universe and just leave everything to chance as to how it will turn out, when there is every possibility that chance alone will never produce anything more than stars and their planets. What would be the point in creating such a universe?

And since God exists outside time and can see the whole fate of the universe in his eternal now, how could he not know that he had programmed (designed) his universe to produce a good deal more than mere stars and their planets?

That is undoubtedly the fatal flaw in deism. Belief in a God who creates the universe without knowing or caring what He is doing is far worse than not believing in God at all. For all intents and purposes there is no practical difference between deism and atheism but at least atheism is consistent. What is the point of clinging to belief in God if life is regarded as fundamentally valueless, purposeless and meaningless?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is undoubtedly the fatal flaw in deism. Belief in a God who creates the universe without knowing or caring what He is doing is far worse than not believing in God at all. For all intents and purposes there is no practical difference between deism and atheism but at least atheism is consistent. What is the point of clinging to belief in God if life is regarded as fundamentally valueless, purposeless and meaningless?

This is an excellent point.

It always struck me as a severe defect of Einstein’s thought processes that he could see an intellect in God but nothing else. He was a Deist and sought to belittle his God by denying him as a person with purposeful ties to his creation. Einstein vociferously denied he was an atheist, but the practical effect of his Deism is that, for all intents and purposes, other than being a Super Intellect, God might as well not exist.

 

[tonyrey]

That is undoubtedly the fatal flaw in deism. Belief in a God who creates the universe without knowing or caring what He is doing is far worse than not believing in God at all. For all intents and purposes there is no practical difference between deism and atheism but at least atheism is consistent. What is the point of clinging to belief in God if life is regarded as fundamentally valueless, purposeless and meaningless?

There are flaws in pragmatism but one of the criteria of a scientific or metascientific explanation’s value is undoubtedly its fertility - which was anticipated by Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them”. His teaching that God is our heavenly Father who loves all His creatures is** the only rational basis** of the principles of liberty. equality and fraternity. It is also the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which would otherwise be no more than a set of human conventions. In an amoral universe morality is a dispensable luxury rather than a necessity. According to one atheist on this forum our aversion to the torture of children is sentimental rather than rational. In the sceptic’s scheme of things where nothing is designed we alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, unjust or unjust…