Let's play intelligent designer

[ChainBreaker]

Hi, Greg

Well, it is part of some broader questions, like does the universe imply an “intelligent designer” and “is this the best of the possible worlds”? Both of which are philosophical questions. I simply chose the successive approximation method, and I am interested what other people might think about it.

You chose to do the next part of the question, and went into the fantasy land. No problem with it.

I see how tempting it is. But then what is the point of this earthly existence? I always thought that truly loving God would create everyone directly into heaven.

Its obvious to me that this is a philosophical exercise. Ie if you were God is it possible for you to create a better world than this one. Which will probably lead to the question “then why hasn’t God created a better world”. Of course, your opponents know this is going to happen, and so they have resorted to quibbling over whether or not your thread belongs in the philosophy section. Which is sad really.

What i will say is this. In principle, the quality of what you create depends on the purpose for which it is being created. Yes i could create a world that is ideal for my own purposes, but that doesn’t mean it is a world that truly benefits my soul and the souls of others. It merely benefits my creature comforts, my physical construct.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Its obvious to me that this is a philosophical exercise. Ie if you were God is it possible for you to create a better world than this one. Which will probably lead to the question “then why hasn’t God created a better world”. Of course, your opponents know this is going to happen, and so they have resorted to quibbling over whether or not your thread belongs in the philosophy section. Which is sad really.

I know. But hard questions tend to evoke an evasion reflex. Just like the “fight or flight” reflex in any threatening situation. As long as it is possible to evade, it is more appealing than to get into the “thick of it” and risk the possibility of losing.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Its obvious to me that this is a philosophical exercise. Ie if you were God is it possible for you to create a better world than this one. Which will probably lead to the question “then why hasn’t God created a better world”. Of course, your opponents know this is going to happen, and so they have resorted to quibbling over whether or not your thread belongs in the philosophy section. Which is sad really.

I know. But hard questions tend to evoke an evasion reflex. Just like the “fight or flight” reflex in any threatening situation. As long as it is possible to evade, it is more appealing than to get into the “thick of it” and risk the possibility of losing.

What i will say is this. In principle, the quality of what you create depends on the purpose for which it is being created.

Very true! Since God is notoriously silent, all we can do is observe this world, evaluate its features, and make an **educated guess **about the purpose. Unfortunately the signs are “mixed”. There are good things and there are bad things… If one looks without prejudice, the world looks very much random and undersigned. The “good people” (the devout believers) do not get any preferential treatment, and the “evil ones” (the atheists, who eat children for breakfast) are not slapped down. It looks like as if God would not care. Obviously this is contradicted by the assertion that “God loves us, and cares about us”.

But let’s suppose that God actually cares about us - despite all evidence to the contrary. In this case there is no reason to have all the natural disasters. And there is no reason to allow the devastating epidemics, which mow down untold numbers of thousands and sometimes millions. So, it is possible to have a “better”, more user friendly world.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I have found much greater joy and happiness when I design my life with love.

I like therefore to believe, after existential experimentation and rational analysis, that love is how our life should be design. For the Cosmos, physical and physic and immaterial, are designed by Love.

And love, in my view, has much more reason than reason.

 

[Bahman]

I have found much greater joy and happiness when I design my life with love.

I like therefore to believe, after existential experimentation and rational analysis, that love is how our life should be design. For the Cosmos, physical and physic and immaterial, are designed by Love.

And love, in my view, has much more reason than reason.

Love is not capable of designing. It however plays a role.

 

[ChainBreaker]

But let’s suppose that God actually cares about us - despite all evidence to the contrary. In this case there is no reason to have all the natural disasters. And there is no reason to allow the devastating epidemics, which mow down untold numbers of thousands and sometimes millions. So, it is possible to have a “better”, more user friendly world.

It would certainly be more pleasurable, but what if God does not “design” the world as such, but rather God as a creator actualizes potential allowing the world to freely evolve according to its nature or mathematical laws. Perhaps it is meaningless to speak of God as designing anything.

I think another assumption here is that God created the universe specifically for us. Perhaps we are just along for the ride, and our value is our capacity to know and have a relationship with God.

I think its a mistake to think of God as loving human beings more than he loves anything else that comes to exist. A virus may be dangerous to humans, but that does not mean its existence in and of its self has no value. We cannot see it as having value because of how it effects us, but if we were not here it’s value to God would be the same.

 

[Bahman]

It would certainly be more pleasurable, but what if God does not “design” the world as such, but rather God as a creator actualizes potential allowing the world to freely evolve according to its nature or mathematical laws.

I think another assumption here is that God created the universe specifically for us. Perhaps we are just along for the ride, and our value is our capacity to know and have a relationship with God.

Mathematical laws acts as a constraint. Hence they cannot cause evolution.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Mathematical laws acts as a constraint. Hence they cannot cause evolution.

I never claimed that it was a cause. But things clearly evolve in relation to mathematical laws as they are expressed through physical relationships. Things don’t just arbitrarily pop into existence.

 

[vz71]

I do not believe in God the intelligent designer. I don’t believe that God designed the universe. “The universe designs itself”. This is what scientists have discovered much to the embarrassment of those who think God is like a watchmaker (a very simplistic notion of God).

When I design some graphic on the computer, I do not draw it out each time it is viewed.
I establish the rules and the environment and let the rules play out.

The laws of physics dictate how our universe works.
The universe did not create these rules, it is subject to them.

 

[Bahman]

I never claimed that it was a cause.

And what is the cause? You claim in your signature that creation design itself.

But things clearly evolve in relation to mathematical laws as they are expressed through physical relationships.

Quite contrary the evolution is an attempt to break mathematical laws. How you could be free then?

 

[ChainBreaker]

And what is the cause? You claim in your signature that creation design itself.

Quite contrary the evolution is an attempt to break mathematical laws. How you could be free then?

I suppose freewill does not operate under physical laws and is not in and of itself a product of mathematical law.

As for my signature, i mean design in the blind watchmaker sense, which is really not design of course.

 

[Bahman]

I suppose freewill does not operate under physical laws and is not in and of itself a product of mathematical law.

You are correct. But how did we get free will?

 

[ngill09]

I haven’t read through this thread too carefully but it seems strange to me that many have opined that our universe is perfect when we are taught that the universe is in a fallen state and will be brought to a perfect state at the end of time.

 

[Bradski]

No one actually lives according to this principle. You do not get a hammer and pound your thumb - just because it feels so good when the pain stops.

I’m not saying that you should actively look to inflict pain (Why do you beat up your wife? Hey, she loves it when I stop).

Here’s an example. I was at the cricket on the weekend and we met someone in a certain part of the ground where you can only get one particular type of beer and it’s OK, but far from being great. And because you are sitting in the stand, it’s served in a plastic cup.

Later, we went to a reserved area where they serve very good beer indeed, in a glass, and it tasted, in comparison, so much better. My son and I clinked glasses and we nodded to each other, both meaning - hey, now this is much better. If we had been there all day, we wouldn’t have had that little frisson of pleasure.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I’m not saying that you should actively look to inflict pain

Of course you did not say that. But if the principle is that “some pain is good, because it is wonderful when it stops”… then I don’t see the difference.

Here’s an example. I was at the cricket on the weekend and we met someone in a certain part of the ground where you can only get one particular type of beer and it’s OK, but far from being great. And because you are sitting in the stand, it’s served in a plastic cup.

Later, we went to a reserved area where they serve very good beer indeed, in a glass, and it tasted, in comparison, so much better. My son and I clinked glasses and we nodded to each other, both meaning - hey, now this is much better. If we had been there all day, we wouldn’t have had that little frisson of pleasure.

I understand your point. When you make a comparison, the “good” is even “better”, when you compare it to something “not so good”. My point is this: “I already had three heart attacks, and as such life should be even better because I was so close to the alternative”. But it is not “better”. I loved living my life and enjoyed it, before I had those three brushes with death. There is no difference.

Of course we are different, and other people have a different opinion. I only say that the principle you espoused is not universal, one can enjoy a good sunny day in the summer, even if one never experienced a cold, freezing drizzle in November, when the wind cuts through to chill your bones.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Hi, Greg

Well, it is part of some broader questions, like does the universe imply an “intelligent designer” and “is this the best of the possible worlds”? Both of which are philosophical questions. I simply chose the successive approximation method, and I am interested what other people might think about it.

You chose to do the next part of the question, and went into the fantasy land. No problem with it.

I see how tempting it is. But then what is the point of this earthly existence? I always thought that truly loving God would create everyone directly into heaven.

Well, I told a lie. My answer wasn’t totally innocent either.

No, this is most certainly not the best of the possible worlds. A world resembling Perelandra was my answer to your question because Perelandra is one huge metaphor for the Garden of Eden. It’s C.S. Lewis’s idea of a world as God would originally create it, before it was ever corrupted by sin. As I’ve said before, if God created the world as Christianity teaches, he did, in his love, directly create it as a state of paradise.

That the world could be better is, hopefully, obvious… And it’s actually a popular argument for Christianity. Since I referenced C.S. Lewis before, I might as well go all out, and let him handle this one, too:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality namely my idea of justice was full of sense.

That’s from Mere Christianity.
To tie it together, there’s such a huge difference between saying that the world could be better in my opinion and saying it could be better absolutely, whether I or mankind thinks so or not. See, you’re stuck. Saying that the world could be better where “better” is only a matter of human opinion destroys your argument, and this thread then belongs in the clubhouse. (Because if a moral God created the world, it’s his idea of morality that counts–your’s wouldn’t count at all, and you couldn’t use it as an argument against him.) Saying that the world could be better absolutely necessitates something supernatural that gives “better” additional meaning.
You keep running into the fact that while for you morality is just made-up, for us it’s universally set. I apologize; I know you’re probably sick and tired of hearing that by now, but it’s a Christian’s one big trump card in any moral discussion with an atheist.

Best,

Greg

 

[fhansen]

Let’s try to create a much better world - at least on paper. As a first approximation let’s stick with already existing phenomena. Maybe later we could go off into fantasy land.

1. Instead of having a blood and claw type of nutrition system, we all could simply utilize the energy received from the Sun and some other energy sources - like the wind. That would eliminate the fight for resources - a huge improvement.
2. Instead of the crude indicator that something went wrong with our body - notably the existence of pain - we could have a regeneration system, so a lost or damaged body part would re-grow when necessary.
3. The one-cell organisms are practically immortal, they simply split and create their own replica. There is no reason not to have similar capability for multi-cell organisms, like us.

These just off the top of my head. According to the first, no wars. By the second, no more pain. And the third one gives immortality. All of these features already exist, no science fiction is needed. An intelligent designer would compose the best features into the one.

Add your thoughts to it…

The only relevant fact is, regardless of whether we’re considering this, present world, or your new improved version, intelligence is required, and an intelligence unfathomably greater than our own.

 

[ngill09]

The only relevant fact is, regardless of whether we’re considering this, present world, or your new improved version, intelligence is required, and an intelligence unfathomably greater than our own.

Well that’s debatable.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, I told a lie. My answer wasn’t totally innocent either.

That is fine. A little innocent and good humor is the spice of such conversations.

No, this is most certainly not the best of the possible worlds. A world resembling Perelandra was my answer to your question because Perelandra is one huge metaphor for the Garden of Eden. It’s C.S. Lewis’s idea of a world as God would originally create it, before it was ever corrupted by sin. As I’ve said before, if God created the world as Christianity teaches, he did, in his love, directly create it as a state of paradise.

That the world could be better is, hopefully, obvious… And it’s actually a popular argument for Christianity. Since I referenced C.S. Lewis before, I might as well go all out, and let him handle this one, too:

You say: “corrupted by sin”. But this is not the case. The world was cursed by God. There is no “natural” consequence of disobedience - unlike jumping off a high cliff would carry its own punishment of falling to your death. If I tell my child to behave in a certain manner, and he disobeys, that is no big deal. I am not a tyrant to throw a temper-tantrum over a bit of disobedience. I would not throw him out of the house for it. Moreover, if the result of disobedience would be “fatal” for him (“spiritual death”?), then I would make it absolutely impossible to for him to disobey. I would not place that ominous “tree of knowledge” into easy reach - just like I would not allow him to get access to a loaded gun.

That’s from Mere Christianity.
To tie it together, there’s such a huge difference between saying that the world could be better in my opinion and saying it could be better absolutely, whether I or mankind thinks so or not.

Not so fast. (First forget the term “absolutely”, the proper term is “objectively”) It is objectively true that pleasure is preferable to pain, or having a full stomach is better than go hungry, or being healthy is better than being sick… Here we talk about objective, biological terms, nothing “subjective” about them.

See, you’re stuck. Saying that the world could be better where “better” is only a matter of human opinion destroys your argument, and this thread then belongs in the clubhouse.

As I show right above, this is not true.

(Because if a moral God created the world, it’s his idea of morality that counts–your’s wouldn’t count at all, and you couldn’t use it as an argument against him.)

Why not? I don’t subscribe to the “might makes right” philosophy. The ancient Romans said: “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” - and I reject this concept.

You keep running into the fact that while for you morality is just made-up, for us it’s universally set. I apologize; I know you’re probably sick and tired of hearing that by now, but it’s a Christian’s one big trump card in any moral discussion with an atheist.

Unfortunately (for you ) it is not true. My standards are based upon the principle of reciprocity. Your standards are based upon what you “think” that God commanded. If God would command to “slaughter all the men and boys, and all the women who knew men by sleeping with them, but keep all the virgins for your use” - then THAT would be your moral compass. And that “morality” is not based upon reason and arguments, it is based upon the brute force of: “obey and you will get rewarded; disobey and you will get punished” (eternally!). So, you see, I reject your professed “morality”. There is nothing “moral” about obeying someone who uses the “carrot and stick” method to force you to behave “morally”. There is nothing “moral” about obeying a Mafia enforcer who holds your family hostage. Morality cannot be “commanded” or “forced”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The only relevant fact is, regardless of whether we’re considering this, present world, or your new improved version, intelligence is required, and an intelligence unfathomably greater than our own.

Why so? A fly has no intellect at all, but it will try to escape if you approach it with a burning match.