A complex case against intelligent design

[rrobs]

One pole of a spectrum can exist without the other, but it can't be recognized as such except in contrast to its negation. Everything could be good (as it will be in heaven), but we wouldn't know it was good unless we had also experienced evil. It would be like a fish in water--it's all they know, they have nothing to compare it to, so they don't know that they live their whole lives underwater. Light can exist without darkness, but if there was never any darkness, any shadow, any night--everywhere you went and everywhere you looked (under the bed, in the closet, down the cellar stairs) was always a consistent 10,000 lumens per square foot like a bright sunshiney summer day (and there were never any clouds to darken the days)--then it would make no sense to talk about "light." EVERYTHING would be light.

If I told you that everything in the universe was blart, you'd ask me what blart was, and I'd tell you it's everything. Is that useful to you? Of course not. You'd continue on with your life in complete ignorance to the total blartness of the universe. The contribution of evil is to allow us to know, understand and appreciate goodness.

I've always thought of the brain as a contrast registering machine.

Visual contrast disappears in both an intense snow storm (all white) or complete darkness (all black). In both cases there is nothing to see. Our brains need a little bit of "this" and a little bit of "that" in order to work. The Chinese knew that thousands of years ago, yin and yang and whatnot.

 

[Bear Wild]

Right! How did it get that way, by design or chance?

Personally, I think free will is the best thing God (or whoever or whatever) gave us. I'm free to stick my hand in the fire if that's what I want to do. Not recommended, but permissible.

Nature and our world developed by both random events and directed events. All of the directed events are explained by natural means without any need for a god to be present. Natural processes is all you need to explain our world today. No need for higher intelligence and actually a directed higher intelligence not only unnecessary but does not make any sense in this amazing natural world. People may want it to be true to feel more important but our world exists because if itself without any supernatural help.

 

[Axe Elf]

I've always thought of the brain as a contrast registering machine.

Visual contrast disappears in both an intense snow storm (all white) or complete darkness (all black). In both cases there is nothing to see. Our brains need a little bit of "this" and a little bit of "that" in order to work. The Chinese knew that thousands of years ago, yin and yang and whatnot.

'zactly. We can't understand the yin except for how it differs from the yang.

 

[Bear Wild]

I got the following from the number one result on a Google search for "quantum mechanics and objectivity"

"Quantum mechanics has raised in an acute form three problems which go to the heart of man's relationship with nature through experimental science: (r) the public objectivity of science, that is, its value as a universal science for all investigators; (2) the empirical objectivity of scientific objects, that is, man's ability to construct a precise or causal spatio-temporal model of microscopic systems; and finally (3), the formal objectivity of science, that is, its value as an expression of what nature is independently of its being an object of human knowledge. These are three aspects of what is generally called the "crisis of objectivity" or the "crisis of realism" in modern physics."​

You'd be hard pressed to find any reputable scientist who would dispute that.

Yes performing an experiment has an influence on the outcome and the uncertainty principal shows that science has limitations which become more complicated in more complex systems. That being true there is no "crisis of objectivity" and no "crisis of realism" in physics or science. Science is built on multiple approaches the slowly confirm our what we know to be true about the natural world. Mathematics also plays a role especially in physics to confirm what is known. Just remember how the positron was predicted, then confirmed then used everyday in PET scans. We can also interact with nature through observation and repeated testing. The fact we are communicating on the internet with computers only helps to confirm that science does help man learn of the natural world.
What is the alternative? Well there is the I want to believe in it so it must be true.

 

[rrobs]

Nature and our world developed by both random events and directed events. All of the directed events are explained by natural means without any need for a god to be present. Natural processes is all you need to explain our world today. No need for higher intelligence and actually a directed higher intelligence not only unnecessary but does not make any sense in this amazing natural world. People may want it to be true to feel more important but our world exists because if itself without any supernatural help.

I would say from a scriptural perspective you are absolutely correct. They say that once God created the universe He put Adam in charge of it. I know religious tradition says God is in charge, but that is not at all what Genesis says.

Gen 1:28,

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
​

God declared all good (functional) when He finished. He then relinquished control of the earth to Adam. From that point on things went according to how Adam took care of them. God's hand was out of the equation. The world is what it is today, not by God's efforts, but by man's.

If someone thinks the world is a good place, then to them man did good and the world is still functional as God originally intended. Others, probably the vast majority, find problems with this world. The scriptures hold to the latter view. They say it'll all be fixed, but for now it's not the best existence. Death comes to mind. I know many say, "there is nothing wrong with dying. I'm not afraid to die." Perhaps that is a true sentiment of a few (I'm being generous), but on a whole people don't like it. Go to a funeral and it's pretty obvious.

I don't know many people who are thrilled about getting a nice terminal stage of cancer. Cancer isn't very functional when it comes to living a decent life. My point is that nature is not such a gentle mother, deserving of adulation of any kind. For every beautiful sunset there is someone dying a miserable death from cancer. Not really my cup of tea. I look forward to a new earth where is there is no disease or death. That's what Revelations promises in any case. Jesus will be in charge then and he'll be a better steward than Adam. Things will be much smoother.

 

[rrobs]

Yes performing an experiment has an influence on the outcome and the uncertainty principal shows that science has limitations which become more complicated in more complex systems. That being true there is no "crisis of objectivity" and no "crisis of realism" in physics or science. Science is built on multiple approaches the slowly confirm our what we know to be true about the natural world. Mathematics also plays a role especially in physics to confirm what is known. Just remember how the positron was predicted, then confirmed then used everyday in PET scans. We can also interact with nature through observation and repeated testing. The fact we are communicating on the internet with computers only helps to confirm that science does help man learn of the natural world.
What is the alternative? Well there is the I want to believe in it so it must be true.

A "crisis of objectivity" is absolutely a very real thing in the scientific community. I searched "crisis of objectivity science" in Google Scholar and got 250,000 results, 5,000,000 in Google itself. There must be something to it.

I might remind you that at one time science proved the world to be flat. OK, now we know it's round. But that illustrates it would be foolish to think we now know everything that their is to know about the material universe, that we've reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. Science is absolutely subject to change. It's a most fundamental tenet of scientific research. In contrast, the God of the scriptures never changes.

Mal 3:6(a),

For I [am] the LORD, I change not;​

 

[gnostic]

God made Adam perfect but he sinned. So his descendants are not perfect. Death has a grip on everyone now. Along with his buddy decay.

No where in Genesis did it say god created Adam immortal or to live forever, not even before he ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.

All it does say, that god warned him he would die that day should he eat the fruit from tree of knowledge (Genesis 2), but he didn’t, Adam went on to live 930 years (Genesis 5).

When I read Genesis 2 to 5, I see that god gave Adam him a command, that Adam broke, and in Genesis 3, there punishment was they would suffer through life and suffer in death, before banishing them from Eden. So Adam had to farm for his food (the “toils”). And he would die a lot later at 930.

Now the following is just hypothetical scenario. Supposed that Adam and Eve never ate from the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. And supposed that he never eat from the Tree of Life, so he doesn’t live forever. It is still possible that Adam would still die at age 930.

The only difference this hypothetical life to the one he did live, is that there would be suffering and toils - a life without pain, and death without pain.

Death would only be avoided, if he ate the fruit from the Tree of Life.

1. But, eating from the Tree of Knowledge brought about suffering,
2. while not eating Tree of Knowledge brought no suffering.

My point is that you are interpreting the story wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"If I have three arms, then the sky is blue." The sky is indeed blue, even though I don't have three arms.

Is that the quality of your argument - that you may have accidentally stumbled onto a true non sequitur? Weren't you claiming an expertise in logic earlier?

I have never tried to argue that this IS the best of all possible universes--only that it's POSSIBLE that this is the best of all possible universes

A trivial point if ever there was one. If grandma had testicles, she'd be grandpa. So what?

And no, it is not possible that this is the best of all possible worlds.

The rest of this nonsense is just repetition of defeated objections

Agreed. You're extremely repetitive. Concession accepted. Try to be be graceful in your defeat.

 

[Bear Wild]

I would say from a scriptural perspective you are absolutely correct. They say that once God created the universe He put Adam in charge of it. I know religious tradition says God is in charge, but that is not at all what Genesis says.

Gen 1:28,

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
​

God declared all good (functional) when He finished. He then relinquished control of the earth to Adam. From that point on things went according to how Adam took care of them. God's hand was out of the equation. The world is what it is today, not by God's efforts, but by man's.

If someone thinks the world is a good place, then to them man did good and the world is still functional as God originally intended. Others, probably the vast majority, find problems with this world. The scriptures hold to the latter view. They say it'll all be fixed, but for now it's not the best existence. Death comes to mind. I know many say, "there is nothing wrong with dying. I'm not afraid to die." Perhaps that is a true sentiment of a few (I'm being generous), but on a whole people don't like it. Go to a funeral and it's pretty obvious.

I don't know many people who are thrilled about getting a nice terminal stage of cancer. Cancer isn't very functional when it comes to living a decent life. My point is that nature is not such a gentle mother, deserving of adulation of any kind. For every beautiful sunset there is someone dying a miserable death from cancer. Not really my cup of tea. I look forward to a new earth where is there is no disease or death. That's what Revelations promises in any case. Jesus will be in charge then and he'll be a better steward than Adam. Things will be much smoother.

So god put Adam in control of everything how anthropocentrism. God did not put Eve In control I guess because she was just a woman. That's right Eve caused the falling out with god in the garden. Was Adam before dinosaurs or did the dinosaurs have first chance and tending the garden? Interesting though god set the world in motion but still show up as a burning bush to present to a man and not a woman. And there was that flood god created killing everything except for the few chosen by another man with an arc. God does not seem to favor women that much. God also came back as a man in the form of Jesus but not a woman. There is a trend here.

Yes nature is both gentle and fierce as in how a mother loving its offspring and fierce to defend or as gentle as a spring shower or as destructive as a Nature is creative and destructive a hurricane. Nature is everything both positive and negative. Its creative force gave rise to humans and all of the wonderous life we share this planet with. No intelligent designer needed nature is the ultimate creative force.

So Adam did not to a good job and next is Jesus who was already here, according to scripture, but did not warn humans not to destroy the world. I wonder why he did not warn us then or just does not come back set us straight. But no worries we have another myth that there will be another Earth with no disease, no death, no children, no lions, and tigers and bears oh my.

 

[Bear Wild]

A "crisis of objectivity" is absolutely a very real thing in the scientific community. I searched "crisis of objectivity science" in Google Scholar and got 250,000 results, 5,000,000 in Google itself. There must be something to it.

I might remind you that at one time science proved the world to be flat. OK, now we know it's round. But that illustrates it would be foolish to think we now know everything that their is to know about the material universe, that we've reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge. Science is absolutely subject to change. It's a most fundamental tenet of scientific research. In contrast, the God of the scriptures never changes.

Mal 3:6(a),

For I [am] the LORD, I change not;​

Well there you have it - google search better yet google scholar search. Did you read the articles listed? The concerns of biotechnology, political science, social science, encephalopathy. It was science that proved the earth was round not flat. Yes we do not no everything but science is willing to question itself for better answers. What makes science so powerful is that it is willing to accept change in view of improved understanding of the natural world.
The God of the scriptures never changes? And something written down long ago by humans is absolute because it does not change? The god in the bible versions I have read does not seem quite the same in every part of the bible. God of wrath and god of loving end things in between.

 

[Axe Elf]

Weren't you claiming an expertise in logic earlier?

Yep, that's how I keep schooling you on it.

A trivial point if ever there was one. If grandma had testicles, she'd be grandpa. So what?

So this "trivial point" is what YOU said caused you to dispute me in the first place--remember?

The dispute arises when you try to argue that this IS the best of all possible worlds...

And no, it is not possible that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Yes, I fully expect you to persist in your error.

Agreed. You're extremely repetitive. Concession accepted. Try to be be graceful in your defeat.

LOL

So let's review... You can't tell logic from nonsense, you have a short memory, and you don't know when you've been intellectually spanked like a red-headed stepchild.

Is there any wonder I'm done with you?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yep, you're done too. You clearly can't comprehend the lesson, can't formulate any coherent arguments against what you think is being taught (even though it's usually not what's being taught at all), and can't even understand why your arguments alternate between being irrelevant and incorrect.

My lesson has now been plainly stated and adequately defended; anyone who can benefit from it already has, and anyone who has not yet benefitted from it probably never will. There's no point in either of us wasting any more time.

Have a good one...

Wow. Ego, much? You think you are so superior that you can TEACH me? Wow... just... wow.

My arguments are quite sound, and guess what? I did not come up with most of the line of argument anyway-- it's as old as god-claims are. Much of it goes all the way back to the Greeks.

And so far? NO THEIST in all this time, has come up with a counter-argument apart from "is not" or "is so"...

Sad.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A "crisis of objectivity" is absolutely a very real thing in the scientific community. I searched "crisis of objectivity science" in Google Scholar and got 250,000 results, 5,000,000 in Google itself. There must be something to it..

All that means is there are a lot of people talking about something. It has little or no bearing on the reality of the issue(s). Lots of people talk about Kittens on Youtube. This does not mean kittens are in charge of Youtube.

Argument from popularity isn't a valid argument.

I might remind you that at one time science proved the world to be flat..

That would be entirely false, if you do claim that. The bible certainly describes a flat plate or disc of earth, never-ever describing a spherical world. Even in the NT, where Satan takes Jesus to view all the kingdoms of the Earth-- not possible on a sphere. Quite possible on a flat disc.

So, really, the only folk who claimed a flat earth? Were bible types and similar. Even the ancient Greeks knew it was not flat-- and indeed, several calculated the Earth's diameter pretty darn close.

OK, now we know it's round..

Yes-- by using science. Never by listening to the bible's claims-- which describe a flat earth.

But that illustrates it would be foolish to think we now know everything that their is to know about the material universe, that we've reached the pinnacle of scientific knowledge..

I defy you to find any working scientist, of the modern era, who claims otherwise. It's THEISTS who claim they know everything because it says so in this "holey" book...

Science is absolutely subject to change. It's a most fundamental tenet of scientific research..

Indeed-- yes-- science is always refining itself, correcting issues and so forth.

But. NEVER-EVER in the history OF science? Has anyone had to say, "Oh! We were WRONG. This Holy Book was RIGHT all along!"

Never happened. The opposite? Yeah-- pretty much all the time...

In contrast, the God of the scriptures never changes..

Mal 3:6(a),

For I [am] the LORD, I change not;​

Except when he DOES, of course. First he creates naive children, then blames them for being dumb. (garden of eden).

So he CHANGES HIS MIND about humans, and murders the lot-- but keeps the same fatally flawed seed stock? Well THAT didn't work. So he comes to them via flaming shrubbery and what-not, hands down Rules to fix the Eden Problem.

But that doesn't work either. CHANGES HIS MIND YET AGAIN, and tries human sacrifice shtick.

Maybe THAT will work? No? It's been 2000 years, and it's still not working ...

I wonder what god change his mind to try next?

 

[Axe Elf]

Wow. Ego, much? You think you are so superior that you can TEACH me? Wow... just... wow.

Wow. Ego, much? You think you are so superior that there's nothing you can learn from me? Wow... just... wow.

My arguments are quite sound...

Nope; to be sound, an argument has to be valid and its premises have to be true. The premise, "If God created evil, then God is evil," cannot be demonstrated to be true. God could have created evil in the course of creating the best of all possible universes as a necessary component thereof, and the creator of the best of all possible universes would have to be characterized as benevolent, rather than evil.

I did not come up with most of the line of argument anyway-- it's as old as god-claims are. Much of it goes all the way back to the Greeks.

And so far? NO THEIST in all this time, has come up with a counter-argument apart from "is not" or "is so"...

Wow, you mean I'm the first person in the history of the world to have solved the Problem of Evil? I think that's cause for a little ego boost, don't you?

(But alas, I am not. The Problem of Evil was discussed for a good week in my Philosophy of Religion class way back in the early 80s, along with various defenses and refutations, some of which share aspects of my own personal understanding of the solution--such as that a world with free will is better than a world without free will--even if that means that we have to have evil too. I reject the idea of free will, but I do believe that it's just as legitimate to suggest that a world in which we can recognize goodness by its contrast to evil is better than a world in which we cannot recognize goodness--even if that means that we have to have evil too.)

(Perhaps you should study up on the various solutions to the Problem of Evil before you go acting like you have nothing left to learn.)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Wow. Ego, much? You think you are so superior that there's nothing you can learn from me? Wow... just... wow..

Correct. No, it's not ego-- it's observation. Your incredible presumption, to have somehow cornered the market on argument-- when 2000+ years of theists far smarter and wiser than you, have failed so far-- is demonstrative of a massively overblown ego: yours.

Worse: you admitted you use unfounded faith with which to base your worldview. Using just faith (as you have done) anyone can argue anything-- how do you know the Universe was not created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, with a bit of indigestion? With faith-based systems-- you cannot truly say either way, and an Invisible Pink Unicorn Accidental Creator actually makes far more sense than the bible's very beastly, and immoral god does.

Nope; to be sound, an argument has to be valid and its premises have to be true..

Which none of your arguments, so far, have been. Sound, that is. As proven by me and several others on this very thread. But you continue to ignore, time and time again. Must be those fingers-in-your-ears thing.

The premise, "If God created evil, then God is evil," cannot be demonstrated to be true..

If I gave you a sandwich made of two slices of bread, 3 ounces of prime roast beef, lettuce (not Romaine), tomato and just a few grams of horse exhaust-- would you still consider it a Ham Sandwich? Or would you now consider it a sh-- sandwich?

The taint of even a fraction of excrement, ruins the entire sandwich.

So too with Evil: The tiniest of taint ruins the entirety of an OMNI-MAX BEING.

That whole Omni-Good claim that all purveyors of bibles keep claiming. In spite of the fact the bible says nothing of the sort, and indeed, agrees that it's god deliberately and with malice, created Evil.

But WAIT! IT GETS WORSE! Any being who creates infinite evil? Has to be infinitely evil as well-- that being the nature of Infinities. The bible is clear: It's god created "endless torment".

Infinite Torture. Torture is always Evil (it's the tool of Terrorists). Ergo? Your god: Infinite Evil.

And we have already dismissed that as cannot possibly exist, due to Progress by Humanity-- an Evil Omni-Max being would never stand for such things.

God could have created evil in the course of creating the best of all possible universes as a necessary component thereof, and the creator of the best of all possible universes would have to be characterized as benevolent, rather than evil..

Oh nonsense! Others as well as myself, have proven to any degree of Truth, that this cannot possibly BE the Best Possible-- unless your "god" is dirt-stupid, and less creative than your average potato.

Wow, you mean I'm the first person in the history of the world to have solved the Problem of Evil? I think that's cause for a little ego boost, don't you?.

Nice. STRAWMAN and some PROJECTION TOO. It is YOU who thinks such-- not I.

I have demonstrated that your god MUST be EVIL. But an EVIL god would not have allowed the steady IMPROVEMENTS.

As is asked in my signature? If there be EVIL? Your god, MUST BE EVIL-- or not existing at all.

(But alas, I am not. The Problem of Evil was discussed for a good week in my Philosophy of Religion class way back in the early 80s, along with various defenses and refutations, some of which share aspects of my own personal understanding of the solution--such as that a world with free will is better than a world without free will--even if that means that we have to have evil too. I reject the idea of free will, but I do believe that it's just as legitimate to suggest that a world in which we can recognize goodness by its contrast to evil is better than a world in which we cannot recognize goodness--even if that means that we have to have evil too.)

(Perhaps you should study up on the various solutions to the Problem of Evil before you go acting like you have nothing left to learn.)

Nonsensical Word Salad, and Unsupported Boasting is dismissed as Rambling.

I and several others, have wiped out the very stupid notion that Evil is a requirement for Free Will. Which you 100% ignored, as is your habit.

 

[ecco]

Non-sequitur.

The existence of the omni-God does not preclude the Garden of Eden parable from being interpreted metaphorically, and a metaphorical interpretation of the Garden of Eden parable does not preclude the existence of the omni-God.

I can indeed have it both ways--and I do.

As usual. Illogical, but consistent.

 

[viole]

Who said anything about "omni perfect"? As far as I know, that has never been postulated as an attribute of God. There is omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence--but no omniperfection.

Well, the only assumption that counts is that they both create the best of all possible worlds. As long as they have this property, they will always agree.

Secondly, the idea of a fight was a thought experiment, meant to illustrate the underlying point that if one being is omipotent--has all the power--then there is no power left for another being, let alone for another being to have ALL the power too.

According to this, if all powerful means monopolizing all poasible power, then i should be unable to write this post, since it requires a minimal amount of power, which I should not possess.

Therefore, all powerful must mean something else. For instance, being able to do whatever he wants, as long as it does not break logic.

As another thought experiment, consider the possibility of two omnipotent beings, neither of which is also omniscient nor omnibenevolent. NOW they can get into a fight--who wins?

Nobody. But that does not look like a contradiction that invalidates multiple gods. If it was, then since God cannot create a stone that he cannot move, either, then even one all powerful would be impossible, if I take your rebuttal at face value.

But since I expect that you accept that god cannot break logic, despite being omnipotent, then since winning against another all powerful would break that logic, i also expect that you do not apply special pleading to the multiple gods scenario.

l
But ok, let's say you want to insist on multiple identical omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent beings--now we're back to there being no difference between that and a single omni-being.

Well, that could be the best strategy for you to win this. However, I am not completely convinced that these beings cannot have different mental states while trying to acheive the same goals. Seems silly, but does not immediately seem to break any law of logic.

By the way, I think that omniscience is redundant under the premise of omnipotence if we define knowlege as the power to know things.

The only strange assumption is omnibenevolence, since it does not seem to be linked to some power. So, why not omnimalevolence, instead?

Hey, maybe you just described the Trinity!

Nah. Those three are useless when taken individually.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Uh oh! We're doomed.

Actually, there is a subtle difference. Nature, by nature, i.e. QM , is fundamentally relative.

Do you have any real concept about what you just wrote? Do you have anything other than a comic book understanding of QM?

The scriptures are different in that they are the truth which is absolute. Now, as usual, belief is optional in that as much as belief in anything else. So I'm just telling you what the book clearly says about itself, it says it is the truth. That is why I buy into it. That property is simply not found in nature.

A series of inconsistent stories claim to be Truth and the word of God and you "buy into it".

The Truth is that your Bible states that slavery is acceptable.
The Truth is that your Bible states that killing the young male survivors of a vanquished army is acceptable.
The Truth is that your Bible states that eating lobster is forbidden.

Why would you buy into anything like that?

 

[ecco]

You see, any Xian who has read his Bible already understands this. The Bible is literally littered with dozens of scriptures explaining how and why God is in control of everything, how and why we don't have free will, and how and why God is responsible for everything in creation--good and evil, pleasure and pain, up and down, black and white, and so on.

Are you stating that any Christian who disagrees with your assertions is not a real Christian?

 

[Polymath257]

A "crisis of objectivity" is absolutely a very real thing in the scientific community. I searched "crisis of objectivity science" in Google Scholar and got 250,000 results, 5,000,000 in Google itself. There must be something to it.

I might remind you that at one time science proved the world to be flat.

This is false. At no point did *science* prove a flat earth. Or even, for that matter, endorse such.

In fact, the demonstration that the Earth is NOT flat is, perhaps, one of the first uses of the scientific mindset. Remember that the Earth was known to be round from about 4-500BC and modern science didn't really appear until 1600AD or so (although there were certainly proto-scientific investigations prior to that).