Discussion of the design argument

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
ShrimpMaster
Posts: 324
Joined: August 5th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: St. Augustine
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by ShrimpMaster »

Belinda wrote:Shrimpmaster, when I referred to the problem of evil and "God" I meant the theists' God. The conversation at that point was about the theists' God and it was in that context that I wrote.

I rebutted the theodicy which you presented, Shrimpmaster:
Post Number:#30 PostTue Aug 26, 2014 2:38 am

But Shrimpmaster, nobody has more than human understanding and judgement. To any human's understanding and judgement omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible. I claim, not that all evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence, but that the degree of evil is incompatible with omnibenevolence. The reason for my conclusion is simple: for instance a two year old dies in agony of spirit or body but has insufficient time to learn from her experience. There is no justice in that, no benevolence.

If there is a superintelligent, personal, interventionist Creator He is failing in his responsibility to His intelligent creatures when He neglects to explain to them why He allows such atrocities to happen.
please note that I wrote that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with regard to the fact of the incomprehensibly extreme degree of evil.
This is what you said before and it isn't defendable. You are a priori dismissing that God can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, which is a hidden assumption in your argument. There is no logical contradiction between omnibenevolence and omnipotence. You are saying that nobody can know the purposes of suffering, therefore, suffering and the existence of God are not compatible, but that conclusion does not follow from the premises. There is no reason to suppose that because you don't know the reasons for suffering that there is none. I have shown you time and time again that you are wrong. I don't think I can argue this further if there is no progression here. Thanks

-- Updated August 27th, 2014, 12:27 pm to add the following --
Platos stepchild wrote:Consider the claim that, if God is omniscient, then we lack free will. The argument is that, since God is "all-knowing", He must therefore know whatever it is we'll end up doing, in any scenario. And, that fore-knowledge (presumably) "locks" us into what's tantamount to being our destinies. But, if God counts on us to fulfill our destinies, and commits Himself, accordingly, then we can, in fact freely choose to thwart Him. That is, if (and this admittedly a "big if") we're able to discern how God has "committed Himself" to whatever His "omniscience" perceives. in other words, we must know that which God believes to be true, about us. But, is that possible?

You know, let's forget about "second-guessing" God. Just imagine all the various, and sundry times humankind has tried to "read" the Divine Mind. It really doesn't matter, though whether someone is actually clever enough to pull-it-off. Maybe, as a fluke someone stumbles into behavior which makes it seem as though he's "outwitted" God. But, regardless of whether this has ever happened, the mere possibility of it happening is quite enough. (And, it is possible, if only because the impossibility of doing so is not logically precluded). God's omniscience is therefore, at the very least vulnerable.

I submit that, if God did design the universe, then He necessarily has definite intentions, for it. "Divine Intentions", however are predicated upon "Divine Omniscience. And, if that "omniscience" is in any way impugned, then God's "intentions" (and therefore His "designs") concerning the universe suddenly become suspect. A flaw, however miniscule repudiates God, inasmuch as His perfection brooks no compromise. The Design Argument therefore collapses due to a hairline fracture in it's logic.
Plato, I won't respond to the latter of your argument, because I don't follow the logic that is there. If it is necessary for your next post could you please state it in a more concise manner.

I do take issue with your first sentence, "Consider the claim that, if God is omniscient, then we lack free will". God's knowing something has nothing to do with whether or not you will take said action. For instance, my son really likes Pokemon. If I offer him to go watch a Pokemon movie he would say yes. Does that mean that my knowledge determined him saying yes? Not at all. Now extend this to said "God". This being could have an infinite knowledge that understands every part of all existence (He created it, right?). Would God's knowledge of his creation's inclinations/desires/proclivities thwart those creatures from taking such actions? I don't think so... If you are interested in a Christian teaching on this subject please research Scientia Media
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Felix »

Platos stepchild said: I submit that, if God did design the universe, then He necessarily has definite intentions, for it.
That argument is easily refuted: His intentions are not absolutely definitive, there's some "wiggle room" there.

Browsing through my library, I find that Alan Watts does a superb job of arguing Shrimpmasters case in his book "The Supreme Identity" - specifically the chapter therein entitled "The Problem of Evil."
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Platos stepchild »

I won't respond to the latter of your argument, because I don't follow the logic that is there. If it is necessary for your next post could you please state it in a more concise manner.
Maybe you're right. I'll put my argument more succinctly. God is necessarily omniscient. it's possibly, though (at least, in principle) to thwart divine-knowledge. Therefore, God's omniscience isn't necessarily perfect, after all. But, since God is (at least, tacitly) presumed to be necessarily perfect, it seems we've found a hairline fracture which shouldn't exist. If the definition of God is impugned, then so is the existence of God. Therefore, if God does not exist, then, by default the universe cannot have been designed. (And, since He doesn't, itwasn't).
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Belinda »

please note that I wrote that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with regard to the fact of the incomprehensibly extreme degree of evil.
This is what you said before and it isn't defendable. You are a priori dismissing that God can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, which is a hidden assumption in your argument. There is no logical contradiction between [/quote]
omnibenevolence and omnipotence. You are saying that nobody can know the purposes of suffering, therefore, suffering and the existence of God are not compatible, but that conclusion does not follow from the premises. There is no reason to suppose that because you don't know the reasons for suffering that there is none. I have shown you time and time again that you are wrong. I don't think I can argue this further if there is no progression here. Thanks[/quote]

You may not have the last word because once again you misrepresent my stance. Misrepresentation is against the rules .I claim that the quantity and quality of evil is disproportionate to omnibenevolence. I also said that while suffering has benefits, you and your God have not sufficiently justified or even adequately explained the purpose of the suffering . Your God is supposed by you to have purposes or a purpose for us therefore he has a responsibility to acquaint us with his purpose especially when suffering is involved . The only reasonable answer to this is the faith , the love for God despite the unreason of suffering.
Socialist
ShrimpMaster
Posts: 324
Joined: August 5th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: St. Augustine
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by ShrimpMaster »

Belinda wrote:
please note that I wrote that omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with regard to the fact of the incomprehensibly extreme degree of evil.
ShrimpMaster wrote:This is what you said before and it isn't defendable. You are a priori dismissing that God can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, which is a hidden assumption in your argument. There is no logical contradiction between omnibenevolence and omnipotence. You are saying that nobody can know the purposes of suffering, therefore, suffering and the existence of God are not compatible, but that conclusion does not follow from the premises. There is no reason to suppose that because you don't know the reasons for suffering that there is none. I have shown you time and time again that you are wrong. I don't think I can argue this further if there is no progression here. Thanks
You may not have the last word because once again you misrepresent my stance. Misrepresentation is against the rules .I claim that the quantity and quality of evil is disproportionate to omnibenevolence. I also said that while suffering has benefits, you and your God have not sufficiently justified or even adequately explained the purpose of the suffering . Your God is supposed by you to have purposes or a purpose for us therefore he has a responsibility to acquaint us with his purpose especially when suffering is involved . The only reasonable answer to this is the faith , the love for God despite the unreason of suffering.
Granted, I did address the probabilistic version of the problem of evil in my previous post. I will accept that you can decide for yourself what is good enough evidence or reason. If you are truly interested in the biblical data that would explain suffering, then I would refer you to the following scriptures;

Christians suffer because it perfects them in Christ
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, (Philippians 3:7-10 ESV)
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:16-17 ESV)
For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. (2 Corinthians 1:5-6 ESV)
Also, the apostle Paul wrote the books of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon while he was in prison. The words he wrote are very amazing considering the amount of encouragement he provides while he is waiting in a jail cell for trial/persecution.

http://www.esvbible.org/Ephesians1/

-- Updated August 29th, 2014, 9:02 am to add the following --
Platos stepchild wrote:
I won't respond to the latter of your argument, because I don't follow the logic that is there. If it is necessary for your next post could you please state it in a more concise manner.
Maybe you're right. I'll put my argument more succinctly. God is necessarily omniscient. it's possibly, though (at least, in principle) to thwart divine-knowledge. Therefore, God's omniscience isn't necessarily perfect, after all. But, since God is (at least, tacitly) presumed to be necessarily perfect, it seems we've found a hairline fracture which shouldn't exist. If the definition of God is impugned, then so is the existence of God. Therefore, if God does not exist, then, by default the universe cannot have been designed. (And, since He doesn't, itwasn't).
I am interested... How do you thwart his divine-knowledge?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Belinda »

Shrimpmaster, I appreciate your Biblical quotations. Being one with Christ in his suffering means something worthwhile but different from what you find worthwhile in the texts. For me, being one with JC means that God became man and understood human suffering because God's incarnation enabled God to live human suffering. God was among us experientially, in the body as well as in spirit. This explanation of Christ's suffering is not a theodicy, a justification for suffering, but rests upon stoical acceptance of suffering as a fact of life in the world,
Socialist
ShrimpMaster
Posts: 324
Joined: August 5th, 2014, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: St. Augustine
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by ShrimpMaster »

Belinda wrote:Shrimpmaster, I appreciate your Biblical quotations. Being one with Christ in his suffering means something worthwhile but different from what you find worthwhile in the texts. For me, being one with JC means that God became man and understood human suffering because God's incarnation enabled God to live human suffering. God was among us experientially, in the body as well as in spirit. This explanation of Christ's suffering is not a theodicy, a justification for suffering, but rests upon stoical acceptance of suffering as a fact of life in the world,
You are right Belinda, I did not justify that properly.

I guess my question to follow up is; do you believe you are in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering or not, and why?
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Platos stepchild »

It's been suggested that God's putative intentions for having designed the universe cannot be definitively known. There is, in fact "wiggle room" in discerning any divine intent.

Is it possible to thwart God's omniscience? Well, how about thwarting a "being whose omniscient", yet devoid of any other "divine Attribute"? The question arose from a previous post. I was attempting to discredit The Design Argument, by impugning God's omniscience. I suggested certain conditions under which that could happen. A specific example, though has been requested. Consider, then the following:

Imagine that you're "playing chicken" with an omniscient being. He, like you has everything to lose, if you, two should happen to collide. But, inspite of getting ever closer, your opponent doesn't waver. You surmise that his omniscience tells him you'll "chicken out". You, therefore continue to aim straight for your opponent. Since you know he's omniscient, you know that he'll allow you to get only so close. He still figures that you'll veer-off, soon. But, you don't. As a "rational being", your opponent decides that, inspite of being "rattled" by your inexplicable behavior, he must veer-off, or die. So, he does, before it's too late.

The point is that, fore-knowledge of a being's omniscience can actually negate it. Now, true; the "omniscient being" in the example clearly isn't "God". But, it's equally clear that "omniscience" allows for certain "loopholes". That's true, no matter who the "omniscient being" is. And, if omniscience has "loopholes", then it's not "perfect", as God's "perfect nature" would require it to be. Once you impugn God's attributes, you've impugned Him, along with any act attributed to Him. This conclusion, at least in my opinion obviates The Design Argument.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Belinda »

Shrimpmaster wrote:
I guess my question to follow up is; do you believe you are in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering or not, and why?
No, I am not in that good position, and nobody can do such a thing. JC in the guise of God shared our suffering, but neither God nor JC His incarnation justified suffering. In the absence of any credible justification for suffering I have to rely on my own reason which is informed by my God-given empathy. My God-given empathy tells me that there is too much suffering and that therefore beneficent God cannot make the world's suffering a force for good.

The God that transcends and contains this world cannot intervene to change this world.

I will therefore accept that God is powerful as the original creator of time, causation, and space but I don't accept that God can intervene to change those, not even by his loving incarnation.
Socialist
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Platos stepchild »

Inasmuch as you can't "[a]ccept that God ntervenes [in t]ime and space", you come across as a garden-variety deist. Essentially then, He's a "principle-of-fecundity", and nothing more. You base this conclusion, though upon there being "[t]oo much suffering", thereby hobbling God from "nterven[ing and thereby] chang[ing the] world, [for the better]". This takes you well beyond-the-pale of traditional deism. Whereas David Hume saw God as being morally detached from the world (dismissing it as a mere "rude essay"), you appear saddened by His limitations. This is substantially different from Hume's contempt of a God whose dotage precluded any better effort. Reading between-the-lines, I hear you decrying that, although God is surely "beneficent", He's unfortunately also inept. But, how can you "square" such an "inept deity" with the terrifying Great-I-Am of scripture? I don't recognize, in your God the braggadocious Creator of, say the Book of Job. Why do you defend an emasculated God with such ironical zeal?
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Misty »

Belinda wrote:Nature is designed, not by some big god with clever ideas, but by natural regularities.

Nature, unlike the putative big god, does not intend anything.

Where did natural regularities come from? If natural regularities (or God) do not intend anything then how does one explain the intricacies and workings of things like human and animal bodies and of course all life whatever it may be? As I see life and the workings of the universe it is fraught with intention.

-- Updated Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:48 am to add the following --
Spiral Out wrote:I believe our world has been designed by the trial and error process of the success of random mutations.
How does your designer decide when a process is complete? The world "started" at some point out of something. Something never comes from nothing.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Felix »

Platos stepchild, The metaphysical conception of "omniscient" is different than the dualistic subject vs. object version of it you have described. Metaphysically speaking, omniscience is a direct knowledge of a beings nature. God intimately knows our nature, but he has granted us the free will to choose between good and evil. So then, Man's free will provides the "wiggle room" I mentioned.
Spiral Out wrote said: I believe our world has been designed by the trial and error process of the success of random mutations.
That's illogical, "random<>process and "random<>trial and error" are oxymoronic terms. That which is random by definition has no impetus to evolve or become anything other than what it is.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Platos stepchild »

......
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Present awareness »

And can you provide an example of a successful mutation?
Bacteria mutated to become resistant to penicillin.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Discussion of the design argument

Post by Felix »

Misty said: Can you provide an example of a successful mutation?
No one can. It's a hypothesis that's never been confirmed.
Present awareness said: Bacteria mutated to become resistant to penicillin.
That's an adaptation, not a random mutation.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophers' Lounge”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021