Intelligent design

[Bahman]

The creation is a very complex phenomena that some believe that is outcome of God plan/design. There are ideas/phenomena supporting that creation is the result of a design and some confronting the idea. The most relevant quality is free will that as we discuss cannot be designed. Free will as defined is an ability of an agent to choose between two minimal options. What really this ability is and how it functions, no one knows. But there is a certainty in free will that without it we would turn to simple agents who solely experience events and cannot affect anything.

The main question is if we accept the creation is the outcome of a design, then we are also a part this design. The main conflict arises from definition of design and concept of free will. The problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed, or if the agent is designed then the agent could not have free will.

Lets start with the first argument of the last sentence, namely the problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed since the other one could be deduce also:

First, designing an agent means that agent functioning is know in every situations.
Second, the outcome of free will as we defined cannot solely depend on a situation and agent has also central role in making a decision.
Third, this means that an agent with free will cannot be designed since otherwise there is no role left for agent.

This means that if we accept free will as a very important quality then we have to reject the concept of design. This also means that the action of agent is unknown to agent and God since the knowledgeability of action as we discuss means that the agent is designed. This put serious constraint on knowledgeability of state of creation so called omniscience.

 

[Perplexity]

Everything is contestable in philosophy, Bahman. You may be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of philosophers working on the metaphysics of free-will today reject the definition you’ve given. In fact, traditional philosophies such as Thomism agree.

The problem with defining free-will in terms of having multiple options to choose from is that it seems very clear that free-will can exist without any such options. Consider a standard Frankfurt-style thought experiment:

Suppose the Presidential elections are coming up in America: Hilary Clinton vs. Mit Romney. A team of scientists have inserted microchips into the brains of the American public. These chips will tell the scientist if an American is going to vote for Romney, allowing the scientist to push a button–firing a series of electrical charges in the brain–that force the American to vote for Clinton. Thus, Americans are not able to choose between a minimum of two options: they have to choose Clinton, no matter what.

Still, suppose election day comes and Americans freely choose to vote for Clinton so that the chip never activates. They’ve clearly still exercised free-will even though they were not able to choose from different options. This suggests that the essence of free-will is control, rather than multiple options. We need to have control over our decisions and actions, that way we’re responsible for them. That’s what free-will is all about.

But, suppose I’m wrong. Suppose that in order to have free-will, we need to be able to choose from among a pool of (minimally two) options. Is it impossible to design people with this free-will? No, not as design is usually understood. All theists typically mean when they say God designed humans is that he’s guided evolution so that human beings came about. That means, if we have free-will as you describe, then God ensured that we had free-will.

Any stronger sense of design (as you seem to be using) is a sense that theists won’t really hold to.

 

[Bahman]

Everything is contestable in philosophy, Bahman. You may be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of philosophers working on the metaphysics of free-will today reject the definition you’ve given. In fact, traditional philosophies such as Thomism agree.

The problem with defining free-will in terms of having multiple options to choose from is that it seems very clear that free-will can exist without any such options. Consider a standard Frankfurt-style thought experiment:

Suppose the Presidential elections are coming up in America: Hilary Clinton vs. Mit Romney. A team of scientists have inserted microchips into the brains of the American public. These chips will tell the scientist if an American is going to vote for Romney, allowing the scientist to push a button–firing a series of electrical charges in the brain–that force the American to vote for Clinton. Thus, Americans are not able to choose between a minimum of two options: they have to choose Clinton, no matter what.

Still, suppose election day comes and Americans freely choose to vote for Clinton so that the chip never activates. They’ve clearly still exercised free-will even though they were not able to choose from different options. This suggests that the essence of free-will is control, rather than multiple options. We need to have control over our decisions and actions, that way we’re responsible for them. That’s what free-will is all about.

But, suppose I’m wrong. Suppose that in order to have free-will, we need to be able to choose from among a pool of (minimally two) options. Is it impossible to design people with this free-will? No, not as design is usually understood. All theists typically mean when they say God designed humans is that he’s guided evolution so that human beings came about. That means, if we have free-will as you describe, then God ensured that we had free-will.

Any stronger sense of design (as you seem to be using) is a sense that theists won’t really hold to.

Thank you very much for your reply.

I don’t believe that we could control people free will with installing a chip inside their brain.

I do understand what theists think about intelligent design but my question is still valid. The main question is whether we a re part of God design or not? If no how God could create us, if yes then we become an agent without free will.

 

[tonyrey]

Everything is contestable in philosophy, Bahman. You may be surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority of philosophers working on the metaphysics of free-will today reject the definition you’ve given. In fact, traditional philosophies such as Thomism agree.

The problem with defining free-will in terms of having multiple options to choose from is that it seems very clear that free-will can exist without any such options. Consider a standard Frankfurt-style thought experiment:

Suppose the Presidential elections are coming up in America: Hilary Clinton vs. Mit Romney. A team of scientists have inserted microchips into the brains of the American public. These chips will tell the scientist if an American is going to vote for Romney, allowing the scientist to push a button–firing a series of electrical charges in the brain–that force the American to vote for Clinton. Thus, Americans are not able to choose between a minimum of two options: they have to choose Clinton, no matter what.

Still, suppose election day comes and Americans freely choose to vote for Clinton so that the chip never activates. They’ve clearly still exercised free-will even though they were not able to choose from different options. This suggests that the essence of free-will is control, rather than multiple options. We need to have control over our decisions and actions, that way we’re responsible for them. That’s what free-will is all about.

But, suppose I’m wrong. Suppose that in order to have free-will, we need to be able to choose from among a pool of (minimally two) options. Is it impossible to design people with this free-will? No, not as design is usually understood. All theists typically mean when they say God designed humans is that he’s guided evolution so that human beings came about. That means, if we have free-will as you describe, then God ensured that we had free-will.

Any stronger sense of design (as you seem to be using) is a sense that theists won’t really hold to.

A superb post! :tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you very much for your reply.

I don’t believe that we could control people free will with installing a chip inside their brain.

I do understand what theists think about intelligent design but my question is still valid. The main question is whether we a re part of God design or not? If no how God could create us, if yes then we become an agent without free will.

If we weren’t created by God how could we have free will? There is no evidence that natural processes are capable of such an astonishing feat.

 

[Bahman]

If we weren’t created by God how could we have free will? There is no evidence that natural processes are capable of such an astonishing feat.

Let me put my question another way around: Does God design its creation?

 

[tonyrey]

Let me put my question another way around: Does God design its creation?

God doesn’t need to design it because independent creative power is a divine attribute.

 

[bzkoss236]

First, designing an agent means that agent functioning is know in every situations.

I think this is a false premise. While we humans are limited with our minds and technologies, we cannot create something which can think for itself, but theoretically, it is possible to design something that can think and learn to do things for itself, free will essentially. And if we were created by an infinitely intelligent God, you could assume that he would know how to design something with the ability to make its own decisions.

Or, you could look at this another way and say, what’s to stop us from having been designed and then given free will, if free will is separate from being designed, as you claim? Could one not have been designed and then given free will?

 

[Michael42]

Hi

Great question!

There is indeed design in Creation. Everything from the molecule to the positions of the planets is connected by God’s design. This is one of the first molecules to be imaged in September 2012 and next to it the planets in the solar system at the same time.

As you can see, the outer atoms and the outer planets are synchronised. The inner planets/atoms are also in similar positions. Where Saturn is, the atom appears to be vibrating at a different frequency making it swell at the sides, just like Saturn’s rings. “Jupiter” appears larger than the other atoms. If this isn’t evidence of God’s Design, I don’t know what is…

Even though we are part of God’s Creation and the Grand Design, God gave us free will. Otherwise He wouldn’t have been so disappointed in Adam and Eve.

So there you have it. God’s Design and Free Will reconciled.

 

[Michael42]

Hi

Great question!

There is indeed design in Creation. Everything from the molecule to the positions of the planets is connected by God’s design. This is one of the first molecules to be imaged in September 2012 and next to it the planets in the solar system at the same time.

As you can see, the outer atoms and the outer planets are synchronised. The inner planets/atoms are also in similar positions. Where Saturn is, the atom appears to be vibrating at a different frequency making it swell at the sides, just like Saturn’s rings. “Jupiter” appears larger than the other atoms. If this isn’t evidence of God’s Design, I don’t know what is…

Even though we are part of God’s Creation and the Grand Design, God gave us free will. Otherwise He wouldn’t have been so disappointed in Adam and Eve.

So there you have it. God’s Design and Free Will reconciled.

 

[Bahman]

God doesn’t need to design it because independent creative power is a divine attribute.

How could God know the actions of creature in all possible situations if there is no design before creation?

 

[Bahman]

I think this is a false premise. While we humans are limited with our minds and technologies, we cannot create something which can think for itself, but theoretically, it is possible to design something that can think and learn to do things for itself, free will essentially. And if we were created by an infinitely intelligent God, you could assume that he would know how to design something with the ability to make its own decisions.

Why not? That is the definition of omniscience. God knows all our action in any possible situations. Once the being is designed then his/action is known for all possible situations (definition of design) so he/she could not have free will since the decision made for a situation is already a part of design, in other word the process of decision making is an illusion. I was also not talking about us creating something that could think for itself.

Or, you could look at this another way and say, what’s to stop us from having been designed and then given free will, if free will is separate from being designed, as you claim? Could one not have been designed and then given free will?

My claim is that you could not design a creature and give it free will, or in another world a creature with free will cannot be designed and as a result his/her action cannot be known.

 

[Bahman]

Hi

Great question!

There is indeed design in Creation. Everything from the molecule to the positions of the planets is connected by God’s design. This is one of the first molecules to be imaged in September 2012 and next to it the planets in the solar system at the same time.
As you can see, the outer atoms and the outer planets are synchronised. The inner planets/atoms are also in similar positions. Where Saturn is, the atom appears to be vibrating at a different frequency making it swell at the sides, just like Saturn’s rings. “Jupiter” appears larger than the other atoms. If this isn’t evidence of God’s Design, I don’t know what is…

Even though we are part of God’s Creation and the Grand Design, God gave us free will. Otherwise He wouldn’t have been so disappointed in Adam and Eve.

So there you have it. God’s Design and Free Will reconciled.

I am so sorry but I didn’t get your point. Once a thing is designed then it could not have free will.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The creation is a very complex phenomena that some believe that is outcome of God plan/design. There are ideas/phenomena supporting that creation is the result of a design and some confronting the idea. The most relevant quality is free will that as we discuss cannot be designed.

Unproven assumption. Thomas Aquinas explains that when God creates a substance, he creates its matter and nature also. Within the substance’s nature are the powers and " directions " God has given it for carrying out his plan. When God created man’s soul, he bestowed on his intellect the power to assess man’s surroundings objectively and thus determine God’s plan and he gave the soul the power of will by which to choose rightly or wrongly. Thus, God designs man with the natural ability to discover God’s plan and to act accordingly. You have drawn a false dilemma. There is no dilemma or contradiction.

Free will as defined is an ability of an agent to choose between two minimal options.

This is a textbook definition I reject. There may be many options.

What really this ability is and how it functions, no one knows.

I just explained it. It uses the knowledge the intellect has acquired from observatiion of the world. The intellect thus knows what is good and true. What is good and true is God’s Will for His creation. Then the will chooses based on this knowledge.

But there is a certainty in free will that without it we would turn to simple agents who solely experience events and cannot affect anything.

Wrong. We would be agents with no powers of our own. We would be guided directly by God. And if that were true, why would he create us?

The main question is if we accept the creation is the outcome of a design, then we are also a part this design.

No. Creation is not the outcome of design. It is a part of creation, it is built into created substances.

The main conflict arises from definition of design and concept of free will. The problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed, or if the agent is designed then the agent could not have free will.

Again, a false dilemma. It was God’s will that man use his intellect to discover God’s order and will. He designed man with the powers of intellect and will to do this. I think your problem is that you see God’s plan and his creation, designed to carry out this plan, as something which must be fulfilled infallibly in detail.

Clearly this is incorrect. Man has the ability to obsturct God’s plan and design through his free will. But God’s plan, in its overall objective of reconciling all of creation to His Divine Will is unfailing and infallible. Wherever man obstructs God’s plan, God has provided a countering move or answer. God has then, provided for and made allowances for man’s poor or evil choices so that God’s overall plan is infallibly fulfilled. We, as human beings, cannot know when or how this is accomplished.

Lets start with the first argument of the last sentence, namely the problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed since the other one could be deduce also:

First, designing an agent means that agent functioning is know in every situations.
Second, the outcome of free will as we defined cannot solely depend on a situation and agent has also central role in making a decision.
Third, this means that an agent with free will cannot be designed since otherwise there is no role left for agent.

I have just shown that this is not true. It is a false dilemma.

This means that if we accept free will as a very important quality then we have to reject the concept of design.

I have just shown that this is a false dilemma. Man’s free will is countered by God’s ability to make counter moves to correct man’s poor or evil choices.

This also means that the action of agent is unknown to agent and God since the knowledgeability of action as we discuss means that the agent is designed. This put serious constraint on knowledgeability of state of creation so called omniscience.

Your expression here is so awkward that one cannot understand what you are trying to say. So I will just say that nothing you have said harms God’s Will or His Omniscience.

Linus2nd

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The creation is a very complex phenomena that some believe that is outcome of God plan/design. There are ideas/phenomena supporting that creation is the result of a design and some confronting the idea. The most relevant quality is free will that as we discuss cannot be designed. Free will as defined is an ability of an agent to choose between two minimal options. What really this ability is and how it functions, no one knows. But there is a certainty in free will that without it we would turn to simple agents who solely experience events and cannot affect anything.

The main question is if we accept the creation is the outcome of a design, then we are also a part this design. The main conflict arises from definition of design and concept of free will. The problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed, or if the agent is designed then the agent could not have free will.

Lets start with the first argument of the last sentence, namely the problem arises from the fact that a agent with free will cannot be designed since the other one could be deduce also:

First, designing an agent means that agent functioning is know in every situations.
Second, the outcome of free will as we defined cannot solely depend on a situation and agent has also central role in making a decision.
Third, this means that an agent with free will cannot be designed since otherwise there is no role left for agent.

This means that if we accept free will as a very important quality then we have to reject the concept of design. This also means that the action of agent is unknown to agent and God since the knowledgeability of action as we discuss means that the agent is designed. This put serious constraint on knowledgeability of state of creation so called omniscience.

Since God can do all (logical) things, then in His case, He is quite capable of designing creatures which have freedom of choice. This may fly in the face of our human experience of design, where things we design do what they’re designed to do, including our attempts to fashion beings in our own image eg. robots with artificial intelligence.

But God doesn’t have our limitations.

In any case what we’re really talking about are moral choices. There are some things that are not negotiable - whether we need to breath, drink water or eat for example. We don’t have much choice there. But we do have a choice on moral issues.

If you want creatures that are not restricted by physical needs, then spiriitual beings fit that criteria. But they’re limited in other ways - they don’t have any desire for sex, drugs or alcohol for example since they are not sexual beings, and don’t need any physical things whatsoever. So their choices are more intellectual.

But they are still moral choices. And this is what “free will” boils down to - is a particular act right or wrong, good or evil. In that respect we really do have a choice. The other elements of our being cry out for a designer - for example the way the body holds together and its myriad parts work together for years on end, outlasting any man made replacement. But there is this one area where we still have some freedom.

In the end that is the area which we answer for - our moral choices, the things we did, and the things we failed to do.

 

[Bahman]

Unproven assumption. Thomas Aquinas explains that when God creates a substance, he creates its matter and nature also. Within the substance’s nature are the powers and " directions " God has given it for carrying out his plan.

Do you mean spiritual substance or material substance? If God has a plan for spiritual substance then that could clearly oppose our free will.

When God created man’s soul, he bestowed on his intellect the power to assess man’s surroundings objectively and thus determine God’s plan and he gave the soul the power of will by which to choose rightly or wrongly. Thus, God designs man with the natural ability to discover God’s plan and to act accordingly. You have drawn a false dilemma. There is no dilemma or contradiction.

First, how we could discover God plan?

Second, you clearly explain how God designs human being but does God also design soul? I mean does God know how does soul response in a specific situation or the response is unknown to God. In first case soul reaction to a specific situation is known so the soul could not do otherwise, so there is no room left for free will. In second case we are dealing with a paradox that says how God could create something he does not know.

Wrong. We would be agents with no powers of our own. We would be guided directly by God. And if that were true, why would he create us?

No, we could have the power to do many things, construct knowledge, and use the knowledge to react accordingly based on our knowledge. We just don’t own any free will, basically we are agent who could perform action based on our design (how to react in a given situation which is designed) using the knowledge at the same time.

No. Creation is not the outcome of design. It is a part of creation, it is built into created substances.

You already claim that God include his plan in creation of substance.

Again, a false dilemma. It was God’s will that man use his intellect to discover God’s order and will. He designed man with the powers of intellect and will to do this. I think your problem is that you see God’s plan and his creation, designed to carry out this plan, as something which must be fulfilled infallibly in detail.

Why false? A thing which is designed by definition means that the thing acts accordingly based on the design which is against the definition of free will.

I have just shown that this is not true. It is a false dilemma.

You haven’t shown anything.

Your expression here is so awkward that one cannot understand what you are trying to say. So I will just say that nothing you have said harms God’s Will or His Omniscience.

As I already mentioned, the concept of design has a serious conflict with free will and without concept of design the action of agent is not known and as the result the omniscience of God in strong form (knowing the action of agent) is wrong.

 

[Bahman]

Since God can do all (logical) things, then in His case, He is quite capable of designing creatures which have freedom of choice. This may fly in the face of our human experience of design, where things we design do what they’re designed to do, including our attempts to fashion beings in our own image eg. robots with artificial intelligence.

But God doesn’t have our limitations.

In any case what we’re really talking about are moral choices. There are some things that are not negotiable - whether we need to breath, drink water or eat for example. We don’t have much choice there. But we do have a choice on moral issues.

If you want creatures that are not restricted by physical needs, then spiriitual beings fit that criteria. But they’re limited in other ways - they don’t have any desire for sex, drugs or alcohol for example since they are not sexual beings, and don’t need any physical things whatsoever. So their choices are more intellectual.

But they are still moral choices. And this is what “free will” boils down to - is a particular act right or wrong, good or evil. In that respect we really do have a choice. The other elements of our being cry out for a designer - for example the way the body holds together and its myriad parts work together for years on end, outlasting any man made replacement. But there is this one area where we still have some freedom.

In the end that is the area which we answer for - our moral choices, the things we did, and the things we failed to do.

I understand your point about design, but how could God create soul with the power of will without any design? By design I mean the power in which the action of soul is known in every given situation. There will be no knowledge on soul functioning if there is no design.

 

[tonyrey]

How could God know the actions of creature in all possible situations if there is no design before creation?

God doesn’t need to design free will because it is an aspect of divine power which is a fundamental aspect of reality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” **

 

[Bahman]

God doesn’t need to design free will because it is an aspect of divine power which is a fundamental aspect of reality.

I don’t understand your answer. What you are saying is that free will is a part of divine power so it dose not need to be designed. My question from you is then does God knows what free will is? By know I mean that it knows free will’s outcome in every situation.