The Argument from Design vs. the Problem of Evil

[Robert Landbeck]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Plato wrote, "opinion is a consequence of persuasion not truth". Deduce anything you wish but it remains no more than opinion of human intellectual origin and thus has nothing to do with God. Natural reason is without the necessary potential to investigate that ultimate reality. Theology only exists because nothing has been revealed . . . Yet!

 

[Prestor John]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Well, evil doesn't really change anything that we see in the physical universe, does it?

I don't see the conflict.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neither are good arguments.

First, futile arguments from design have a long history with a few marginal scientists, and recently the Discovery Institute has taken up the subjective cause without any possible falsifiable theories or hypothesis to test with scientific methods.

Second, the arguments from Teleology like those of the 'problem of evil,' are subjective and anecdotal ;circular' arguments from the perspective of those that believe, to make comfortable their fellow naive believers that seek a comfort of a 'sense of belonging' offered by philosophers like Plantinga.

I believe in God, but reject these arguments of insecure fools that seek comfort in these soothing anesthetic arguments.

 

[arthra]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Evil in my belief is more the absence of Good.. God creates the universe "good" but as independent beings with the power of choice in our lives we can choose less than good out of say ignorance... lack of maturity... lack of instilled values. still God has mercy and compassion and allows us to grow spiritually and ask for forgiveness for the less than good or sinful life we have led:

O saints of God! at the end of Our discourse We enjoin on you once again chastity, faithfulness, godliness, sincerity, and purity. Lay aside the evil and adopt the good. This is that whereunto ye are commanded in the Book of God, the Knowing, the Wise. Well is it with those who practice [this injunction]. At this moment the pen crieth out, saying, 'O saints of God, regard the horizon of uprightness, and be quit, severed, and free from what is beside this. There is no strength and no power save in God.'"

~ Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 48

 

[Prestor John]

Since there is no god, both arguments are irrelevant.

There was no "dislike" button...so...

Boo!

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, evil doesn't really change anything that we see in the physical universe, does it?

I don't see the conflict.

The conflict comes in defining evil in the Christian view of 'Original Sin,' and the Fall from a mythical idealic perfect world free from evil. . . and blame two naive souls for the 'Fall' and the suffering of all humanity for thousands of years, for just being human.

It is just a bizzaro unrealistic mythical unreal totally in conflict with how we see the universe today.

 

[Prestor John]

The conflict comes in defining evil in the Christian view of 'Original Sin,' and the Fall from a mythical idealic perfect world free from evil. . . and blame two naive souls for the 'Fall' and the suffering of all humanity for thousands of years, for just being human.

It is just a bizzaro unrealistic mythical unreal totally in conflict with how we see the universe today.

I agree that the concept of "Original Sin" makes no sense and should by no means shape our moral view, but how does our perception of the universe really conflict with the concept of Evil in general?

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that the concept of "Original Sin" makes no sense and should by no means shape our moral view, but how does our perception of the universe really conflict with the concept of Evil in general?

Your going beyond the concept of Evil in Christianity, which is vague territory.

I do not consider a concept of Evil useful in describing the circumstances of either the human condition, nor the nature of natural events around the human journey. There is no consistent evidence for the 'fault of Evil' in the course of human events.

First, what concept of Evil would you be referring to?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

As already pointed out, the first one (Argument from Design) does not say we can deduce everything about the nature of God. It just says conclusions, it says nothing about the limits of those conclusions.

Also remember a typical response to the problem of evil is that evil comes from somewhere else other than God. From this perspective it would mean you can't deduce conclusions about God from evil.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well, evil doesn't really change anything that we see in the physical universe, does it?

I don't see the conflict.

Did you just claim evil has no impact on the world around us?

 

[idav]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

We should be able to tell that God didn't exactly have it all worked out. Besides gods having power doesn't mean not using it for bad, it just means the choice to use it for good or evil.

 

[Prestor John]

Your going beyond the concept of Evil in Christianity, which is vague territory.

I do not consider a concept of Evil useful in describing the circumstances of either the human condition, nor the nature of natural events around the human journey. There is no consistent evidence for the 'fault of Evil' in the course of human events.

First, what concept of Evil would you be referring to?

Well, the OP was not set within the bounds of Christianity, so why do you want to focus on only that one point of view?

 

[Prestor John]

Did you just claim evil has no impact on the world around us?

I believe that it does, but not exactly what we "see around us."

Evil does not account for anything in the physical universe.

Evil creates nothing. It only destroys.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I believe that it does, but not exactly what we "see around us."

Evil does not account for anything in the physical universe.

Evil creates nothing. It only destroys.

That is just silly.

 

[Prestor John]

That is just silly.

Would you mind explaining how that is "silly" or could you share an example of Evil creating something in our universe?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Would you mind explaining how that is "silly" or could you share an example of Evil creating something in our universe?

I can clearly see you are trying to turn this into an argument of "creating" and destroying". I don't know why people like you insist on playing these little word games, but I am not interested in your child like views of good and evil.

How about you justify this statement of yours:

Evil does not account for anything in the physical universe.

And this statement:

Well, evil doesn't really change anything that we see in the physical universe, does it?

As "destroying" is something in the physical universe and it changes things.

 

[Prestor John]

[aQUOTE="Jeremiahcp, post: 5126482, member: 61265"]I can clearly see you are trying to turn this into an argument of "creating" and destroying". I don't know why people like you insist on playing these little word games, but I am not interested in your child like views of good and evil.

How about you justify this statement of yours:



And this statement:



As "destroying" is something in the physical universe and it changes things.[/QUOTE]
The OP talked about things that we "see", so I went with the things we literally see, or the physical universe.

Therefore, since I have been talking about the physical universe, it became about creating or destroying those "things" that we see.

I am not playing word games or trying to change the argument or anything. There is a very clear logical path.

Whether or not you believe in a "Creation", you have to admit that Evil has nothing to do with the existence of what we see.

I meant "destroy" as in lives, not physical things like quasars.

If anything is "destroyed" in the universe (even though nothing can ever truly no longer exist) that event is void of Evil.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

.

"There is a very clear logical path."

I don't care about your logic, I care about reason. Logic alone can be misleading.

"Whether or not you believe in a "Creation", you have to admit that Evil has nothing to do with the existence of what we see."

I don't have to admit anything of the sort, evil has a lot to do with the shape of the world around us. Any rational person can see this clear as day.

"I meant "destroy" as in lives, not physical things like quasars."

Lives are physical things. You are here in the physical world living, guess what? You are part of the physical world.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So it seems according to @Prestor John the best way to reconcile the problem of evil, is to pretend evil does not exist.

 

[Prestor John]

"There is a very clear logical path."

I don't care about your logic, I care about reason. Logic alone can be misleading.

"Whether or not you believe in a "Creation", you have to admit that Evil has nothing to do with the existence of what we see."

I don't have to admit anything of the sort, Evil has a lot to do with the shape of the world around us. Any rational person can see this clear as day.

"I meant "destroy" as in lives, not physical things like quasars."

Lives are physical things. You are here in the physical world living, guess what? You are part of the physical world.

Then it was a reasonable path. Whatever.

Can you please explain how Evil shapes the universe?

Yes, "evil" can change our lives, yet that was not the point I was making.

You are trying to steer this discussion into metaphysical realms that neither I nor the OP mentioned.