A complex case against intelligent design

[tas8831]

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.

What possible rationale would allow Adam's sin to be used to justify punishing all of his descendants?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...I think this argument fails...

And ultimately your reasoning is entirely based on:

if an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God exists

'
That is one huge, glaring, there-may-not-even-be-an-elephant-in-the-room "IF". And the OP's argument only actually posits an "intelligent designer" (infinitely intelligent, I grant you) of which an "omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent designer" would necessarily be a very specific subset.

 

[rrobs]

What possible rationale would allow Adam's sin be used to justify punishing all of his descendants?

I could answer your question from a scriptural view if you want. But please don't ask unless your are sincerely looking for an answer in the scriptures as it would involve a fair amount of time for me to answer your question as well as to digest the answer on your part. If your mind is already made up I won't waste either of our time.

 

[Axe Elf]

And ultimately your reasoning is entirely based on:

Yes, the argument that an omni-God cannot exist because there are so many "flaws" in His design fails because IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws--any that we think we see are just artifacts of our infinitesimally limited perspective.

Of course it's a big "IF"; but it's the same "IF" that the original argument is based on, so it only makes sense that my response would be based on the same "IF."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, the argument that an omni-God cannot exist because there are so many "flaws" in His design fails because IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws--any that we think we see are just artifacts of our infinitesimally limited perspective.

Of course it's a big "IF"; but it's the same "IF" that the original argument is based on, so it only makes sense that my response would be based on the same "IF."

You completely ignore the parts of my reply that specifically pointed out to you that it wasn't the same "IF" at all. I basically granted you "omniscient," because the OP mentions "infinite intelligence", but the OP says nothing of benevolence or the intelligent being possessing "maximal power." If there's fail to be had here, we need to lump your reply in with it, for sure.

 

[Axe Elf]

You completely ignore the parts of my reply that specifically pointed out to you that it wasn't the same "IF" at all. I basically granted you "omniscient," because the OP mentions "infinite intelligence", but the OP says nothing of benevolence or the intelligent being possessing "maximal power." If there's fail to be had here, we need to lump your reply in with it, for sure.

As you pointed out, my "if" is an even more stringent "if" than the OP suggested. I suppose if you're content to argue against the existence of some lesser intelligent designer, then so be it; I don't believe that such a being exists either, and wouldn't accept it as God even if it did exist.

For those who DO believe in the omni-God, though, they cannot rationally believe that we live in anything other than the best of all possible universes. Clearly, a lesser being than that could only design an inferior universe.

 

[ecco]

As far as finding truth in nature, I offer the following: Quantum mechanics is certainly part of nature. One of the main things about QM is that everyone has their own view of reality. Therefore, thare are no two people who see nature in the exact same light. Doesn't seem like a good yardstick for truth, does it?

Truth about what?

Maybe trying to come up with another source for truth would be in order.

Like what? Christianity? The Christian Bible?
One of the main things about the Christian bible is that everyone has their own view of its meaning. There are no two people who see Christianity in the exact same light. Doesn't seem like a good yardstick for truth, does it?

 

[ecco]

I see no need to ignore your comments. They are your thoughts and they deserve consideration. It's rude to ignore someone who is talking to you. Well, maybe not these days, but that is the way I grew up. Not that my day was any better than what goes on today. Things change on their own. I understand I gotta go with the flow. Anyway, that's why I didn't just ignore you.

Besides, I thought maybe you had never considered that much, most is probably better to say, of what the churches teach is not really scriptural. As I said, they are much more interested in tradition than the scriptures themselves. You hit the nail on the head in saying that most Christians say those things about God, but a majority is not the determining factor for truth. I was just giving you an alternate and perhaps new view of things, albeit with few details. I figured if you wanted details you'd ask.

Take care.

Geez.
Do you believe your God is Omniscient?
Do you believe your God is Omnipotent?
Do you believe your God is Eternal?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please read and digest my lengthy reply to It Aint Necessarily So above. It renders your objection ineffective, but I don't feel like explaining it all again.

I skimmed the Wall O Words. Found nothing in it worthy of further comment. It in no way excuses the FACT that IF this reality is the "best"? Then? Whatever "created" this Reality is not very creative.

Nor is it very intelligent-- a first year engineering student could improve on this Reality without much thought or effort.

 

[Axe Elf]

It in no way excuses the FACT that IF this reality is the "best"? Then? Whatever "created" this Reality is not very creative.

I don't know if LOL or WOW is the most appropriate response here. I suppose if I were more creative, I could come up with a succinct response that would somehow convey a level of shock and amusement commensurate with the shameless ridiculousness of that statement.

Do you know how many species of bugs there are alone?

Nor is it very intelligent--a first year engineering student could improve on this Reality without much thought or effort.

Easy to say; impossible to prove.

The fact remains that if the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes.

 

[ecco]

IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws

I would fully agree. Adam was created exactly as omnipotent God wanted him to be. What some may see as flaws are merely the traits that God wanted Adam to possess. Adam's levels of gullibility and morality were precisely instilled into him by God.

Omniscient God knew what would transpire in Eden. Omniscient God knew A&E would "fail the test" and that He would place blame on them.

 

[Axe Elf]

I would fully agree. Adam was created exactly as omnipotent God wanted him to be. What some may see as flaws are merely the traits that God wanted Adam to possess. Adam's levels of gullibility and morality were precisely instilled into him by God.

Omniscient God knew what would transpire in Eden. Omniscient God knew A&E would "fail the test" and that He would place blame on them.

In your first paragraph, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood you were talking about a metaphorical character--and in that regard, you were correct.

Your second paragraph, however, kind of makes it impossible for me to grant you that benefit of doubt; it appears that you think you are talking about actual events--and in that regard, you are incorrect.

The Eden myth explains how mankind is separated from God and His nature of love by mankind's nature of selfishness--a perfectly useful nature for surviving in a physical world, but a nature diametrically opposed to existence in the presence of God. Omniscient God knew this, of course--He created us this way--and thus prepared a mechanism by which those chosen to spend eternity in His presence could become compatible with that existence by taking on His nature of love and escaping from their own nature of selfishness, bridging the gap between God and man through Christ.

If you try to take the Garden of Eden story literally, you'll miss the point (not to mention putting yourself on some rather tricky footing from a scientific and historical perspective).

 

[ecco]

Axe Elf Previously:

IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws​

In your first paragraph, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood you were talking about a metaphorical character--and in that regard, you were correct.

Your second paragraph, however, kind of makes it impossible for me to grant you that benefit of doubt; it appears that you think you are talking about actual events--and in that regard, you are incorrect.

The Eden myth explains how mankind is separated from God and His nature of love by mankind's nature of selfishness--a perfectly useful nature for surviving in a physical world, but a nature diametrically opposed to existence in the presence of God. Omniscient God knew this, of course--He created us this way--and thus prepared a mechanism by which those chosen to spend eternity in His presence could become compatible with that existence by taking on His nature of love and escaping from their own nature of selfishness, bridging the gap between God and man through Christ.

If you try to take the Garden of Eden story literally, you'll miss the point (not to mention putting yourself on some rather tricky footing from a scientific and historical perspective).

You can't have it both ways.

I was working off of your "IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws".

If you DON'T to take the Garden of Eden story literally, there is no reason to discuss an omni-all entity.

So, you need to clarify your position before you criticize mine.

 

[Axe Elf]

You can't have it both ways.

I was working off of your "IF an omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that there are no flaws".

If you DON'T to take the Garden of Eden story literally, there is no reason to discuss an omni-all entity.

So, you need to clarify your position before you criticize mine.

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.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As you pointed out, my "if" is an even more stringent "if" than the OP suggested. I suppose if you're content to argue against the existence of some lesser intelligent designer, then so be it; I don't believe that such a being exists either, and wouldn't accept it as God even if it did exist.

You should replace the words "more stringent" with "more assumptive". That would fix your first sentence.

And I argue against the requirement of any sort of designer in the first place. There's simply no demonstrable evidence to support this that leads one directly to that conclusion. It just isn't there. The best I believe anyone can muster at this moment in time is "I don't know." And anyone who asserts otherwise is only doing that... asserting, not sharing "knowledge" they have gained or come to by any rational methods for doing so. Merely stating what they believe with a pinch of "Oh, I so hope this is true so that I can pretend I am something special... like a prophet maybe!"

For those who DO believe in the omni-God, though, they cannot rationally believe that we live in anything other than the best of all possible universes. Clearly, a lesser being than that could only design an inferior universe.

Your second sentence is also a baseless assertion. Are you absolutely certain that a being of "infinite intelligence" cannot create the same "best" universe as an "omni-god?" How did you come to this determination? Have you examined the very best work that an infinite intelligence can produce? If all you can point to is what you BELIEVE (key word here) to be the end product, then how did you know it was the product of an infinite intelligence or "omni-god"? Have you witnessed/examined the separate works of both a being of infinite intelligence and what you call an "omni-god" in order to be able to state, with certainty, that the work of the "infinite intelligence" falls short of that of the "omni-god" in some specific way(s)?

You haven't undertaken any sort of work that would be required for you to make statements like you have been making. To me that doesn't seem a very smart situation to be putting yourself in. It may lead people of certain persuasions to not give a flying rat's pa-toot what you have to say.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If I'm not mistaken, Axe Elf doesn't claim to be a theist. Ay least I don't think he does.

His arguments were theistic in scope. Therefore, I treated them as such. Anytime one invokes Magic (i.e. god did it), then the argument(s) are done. There can be no real discussion beyond that point, once Magic is used to "explain". In truth, "god did it" is a null statement, and actively suppresses more inquiry.

If you could have read my first reply to the OP, I said I assumed the poster was saying an intelligence did not create man. You can see that in reply #24. I think it was a good assumption because of the context of his post and the fact that usually when people use that phrase it does refer to God. Plus the guy that made the OP didn't correct my assumption..

That wasn't clear to me-- he used theistic arguments. Ergo, "god" or "magic" was invoked.

As far as finding truth in nature, I offer the following: Quantum mechanics is certainly part of nature. One of the main things about QM is that everyone has their own view of reality. .

Citation needed. I've made an armchair study of QM, where it's possible to do with my limited maths. I have never seen any actual scientist make this claim about QM.

I have seen con men and sellers of Woo, make such ludicrous claims-- and it becomes quickly obvious, that they have less understanding of QM than your average squirrel.

Therefore, thare are no two people who see nature in the exact same light. Doesn't seem like a good yardstick for truth, does it? Maybe trying to come up with another source for truth would be in order.

See above. In defense of the Scientific Method? I preset to you: THE INTERNET.

Without which, none of this conversation would be possible. The fact that humans have invented, and constructed artificial "thinking machines" that make the Internet even possible?

All by cooperating using a common perception of Reality?

Would seem to belie your statements quite effectively, rendering your "observation" moot.

Who cares if there are subtle inconsistencies of individual views of Reality? What we do have works quite well enough to have invented Airplanes, The Internet, Trips to the Moon and back, Rovers on Mars, Cures for many diseases, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Omni-gods cannot exist within Reality as we currently understand it.

For starters? OmniMax beings 100% eliminate Free Will.

If Free Will is removed, then all the Evil we observe daily, was Designed, and Deliberate.

Meaning this OmniMax being was/is Maliciously EVIL.

But that's unlikely, as we are Still Here-- such a capriciously Evil beast would have wiped us out long, long ago. Moreover? There is simply too much Good in the world, and Humans are making too much Progress (elimination of disease, etc) for an Evil beast to be OmniMax.

Thus? No such beings as you claim, actually exist.

The only possible "god" is one of 100% indifference, or one that is seriously limited in scope.

Either one of those is still possible, given what we Know So Far.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I could answer your question from a scriptural view if you want. But please don't ask unless your are sincerely looking for an answer in the scriptures as it would involve a fair amount of time for me to answer your question as well as to digest the answer on your part. If your mind is already made up I won't waste either of our time.

You can attempt to "explain" it all you like-- but whatever reason(s) you come up with?

Cannot possibly remove the glaring Moral Failure of punishing the Descendants for the behavior(s) of the Ancestors.

That is absolutely beyond Unfair. A very very poor example of a God, too.

Even a 2 year old's brain is developed enough to recognize the Unfair Nature of such a thing.

"Welcome to Class, First Graders! Everyone line up to get a Spanking. Because 10 years ago, most of the First Graders were Bad. Now-now-- stop complaining! Bend over and take your Punishment! Who are YOU to contradict ME? I'm your TEACHER!"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't know if LOL or WOW is the most appropriate response here. I suppose if I were more creative, I could come up with a succinct response that would somehow convey a level of shock and amusement commensurate with the shameless ridiculousness of that statement.

Do you know how many species of bugs there are alone?.

So what? I can "create" even more species, using a pair of dice and a simple computer program. Big deal.

Humans? Are about the worst possible design you can make-- if, as your premise desperately needs to be true, humans are allegedly the best of all possible designs.

Clearly, the list of (often fatal) flaws in the human species is without reasonable limit.

A first year engineering student, could improve on the "design" without much effort.

Easy to say; impossible to prove..

LMAO! See above. Not only is it simple to prove? I can list any number of superior designs for Humanity, without really trying. Just for starters? Eyes-- re-engineer the lens in the eyeball for constant replacement throughout the life of the individual. Moreover? Include a feedback circuit, that corrects poorly focused images. Add in conscious control of the focus mechanism too-- the ability to override the subconscious focus mechanism.

I could list improvements for literally hours-- proving what you, in your lack of creative thinking, claim is "impossible".

The fact remains that if the omni-God exists, then we live in the best of all possible universes.

Absolutely false. For starters? An OmniMax being such as you describe? Doesn't actually exist...

 

[Axe Elf]

You should replace the words "more stringent" with "more assumptive". That would fix your first sentence.

Everyone's an editor.

And I argue against the requirement of any sort of designer in the first place.

You would certainly be justified in doing so. The OP made one such argument, and I showed why his argument cannot be conclusive. There are other valid arguments as well, but like all arguments for or against the existence of God, they are doomed to inconclusiveness.

There's simply no demonstrable evidence to support this that leads one directly to that conclusion. It just isn't there. The best I believe anyone can muster at this moment in time is "I don't know." And anyone who asserts otherwise is only doing that... asserting, not sharing "knowledge" they have gained or come to by any rational methods for doing so.

Agreed (that's kind of what I just said). That's why we use "IF" when postulating the existence of the omni-God.

Your second sentence is also a baseless assertion. Are you absolutely certain that a being of "infinite intelligence" cannot create the same "best" universe as an "omni-god?" How did you come to this determination?

Yes, I am, and yes, I can explain it to you. A being that is of infinite intelligence (omniscient) that is not also omnibenevolent would not necessarily want to create the best of all possible universes. They might--but only omnibenevolence guarantees that they would. And an omniscient being that is not also omnipotent would not necessarily have the power to create the best of all possible universes--even if they wanted to and knew how to. They might--but only omnipotence guarantees that they would.

And if they did indeed create the best of all possible universes--then I would argue that they are indeed not only omniscient, but also omnipotent and omnibenevolent; in short, that they are indeed the omni-God.

Have you examined the very best work that an infinite intelligence can produce? If all you can point to is what you BELIEVE (key word here) to be the end product, then how did you know it was the product of an infinite intelligence? Have you witnessed/examined the separate works of both a being of infinite intelligence and what you call an "omni-god" in order to be able to state, with certainty, that the work of the "infinite intelligence" falls short of that of the "omni-god" in some specific way(s)?

All we have to observe is the universe that we have, and the choice to believe in the omni-God or not. And that brings us back to doe...

If the omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

You haven't undertaken any sort of work that would be required for you to make statements like you have been making.

I have done the reasoning that is required for me to make the statements that I have been making; what more do you want?

To me that doesn't seem a very smart situation to be putting yourself in. It may lead people of certain persuasions to not give a flying rat's pa-toot what you have to say.

I'm ok with that. If it helps you to understand the nature of the universe, then you're welcome. If not, then there's always the next post.