Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Inkfingers]

Who designed it this way?

Who designed that 1+1 = 2?

Nobody did.

This is just what real means, and when people feel rather than think about that they get confused (as if unreal could ever actually be a meaningful alternative).

God shapes the world this way because it is God's nature to do so, and God could not do other than that. Not because that's a limit on God's power (no more than an inability to make 1+1 =14 is a limit on God's power) but simply because this is what real actually is.

What's that? The idea that God has a nature that only expresses a certain way is a limit on God? Not at all. God isn't some huge random thing that could go any way at any time and do any thing including the genuinely nonsensical (like the aforementioned point on maths).

Sadly though, many people are too busy trying to either argue against God or argue for a contrived idea of God that they cannot see the truth for the ideology. They focus instead on "winning" instead of "truth", and the result is an internet full of ping-pong games between angels on opposing pinheads.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who designed that 1+1 = 2?

Nobody did.

This is just what real means, and when people feel rather than think about that they get confused (as if unreal could ever actually be a meaningful alternative).

God shapes the world this way because it is God's nature to do so, and God could not do other than that. Not because that's a limit on God's power (no more than an inability to make 1+1 =14 is a limit on God's power) but simply because this is what real actually is.

What's that? The idea that God has a nature that only expresses a certain way is a limit on God? Not at all. God isn't some huge random thing that could go any way at any time and do any thing including the genuinely nonsensical (like the aforementioned point on maths).

So it is in God's nature to design the world such that it includes a Satan, a fall, and a Hell? He could not have chosen otherwise? He was stuck with this one design, which he could not help but implement?

Sadly though, many people are too busy trying to either argue against God or argue for a contrived idea of God that they cannot see the truth for the ideology. They focus instead on "winning" instead of "truth", and the result is an internet full of ping-pong games between angels on opposing pinheads.

Isn't that what theology is?

 

[Inkfingers]

He was stuck with this one design, which he could not help but implement?

That is exactly the situation.

Because there is no other design possible. We can fantasise about others, but they could not actually exist. When it comes to real, this (*points to the whole universe*) is it.

Isn't that what theology is?

Sometimes, yes

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is exactly the situation.

Because there is no other design possible. We can fantasise about others, but they could not actually exist. When it comes to real, this (*points to the whole universe*) is it.

No other design is possible? That's interesting. So God was constrained? He didn't really design this universe with any particular purpose in mind. He didn't fine-tune it. He had to design it as is and couldn't have designed it any other way. That's not like any designer we know of, who usually has some creative freedom.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is exactly the situation.

Because there is no other design possible. We can fantasise about others, but they could not actually exist. When it comes to real, this (*points to the whole universe*) is it.



Sometimes, yes

So now that we've established that God was not capable of creating anything better than the current creation, what's all the brouhaha over "heaven"?

 

[Inkfingers]

No other design is possible? That's interesting. So God was constrained? He didn't really design this universe with any particular purpose in mind. He didn't fine-tune it. He had to design it as is and couldn't have designed it any other way. That's not like any designer we know of, who usually has some creative freedom.

The problem there is that you are looking to take human-oriented concepts of design and apply them to God. There are many ways to see a spoon, but only one way to see a real and completely consistent universe.

And the universe' purpose is inherent to Gods nature. The universe has purpose and that purpose is defined by, and in accord with, God's nature.

Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent doesn't mean you get to make it up as you go along. It just means that everything is done by and through God and he has everything in hand in a way that is filled with meaning and love.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem there is that you are looking to take human-oriented concepts of design and apply them to God.

That isn't what I'm doing. That's what believers do when they invoke the image of an artist or engineer to describe God as a designer.

And the universe' purpose is inherent to Gods nature. The universe has purpose and that purpose is defined by, and in accord with, God's nature.

Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent doesn't mean you get to make it up as you go along. It just means that everything is done by and through God and he has everything in hand in a way that is filled with meaning and love.

Then it doesn't make much sense to call God a "designer," does it? He must create the universe, and he must create it in a particular way. He lacks creative freedom. He doesn't have the opportunity to consider various designs before implementing his preferred one. He doesn't choose this design because it is "filled with meaning and love"; he chooses it (if he can be said to "choose" at all) because he must. The creation of the universe might not even be an intentional action, but simply the byproduct of his nature; he could not not have created it.

 

[Oafman]

When it comes to real, this (*points to the whole universe*) is it.

So, is that the multiverse, or just the visible universe?

 

[Inkfingers]

So, is that the multiverse, or just the visible universe?

No such thing as a multiverse.

If there were seperate universes, what would be between them? If there were nothing between them, they would all be part of one single universe. If there were something between them, they would all be part of one great continuity and thus still one single universe.

Claims and notions of a multiverse are sloppy thinking (usually hidden behind arcane nonsense that nobody understands but which relies on an "emperor's new clothes" approach).

There is this universe, and this is the way it is (and has to be) in order to be consistent and thus real.

That isn't what I'm doing. That's what believers do when they invoke the image of an artist or engineer to describe God as a designer.

They are trying to convey something and you are trying to muddle the matter by not approaching it with an attempt to understand but rather an attempt to play word-games in what is an inherently complex and subtle subject.

Maybe that is the essence of your confusion on this...

Then it doesn't make much sense to call God a "designer," does it? He must create the universe, and he must create it in a particular way. He lacks creative freedom. He doesn't have the opportunity to consider various designs before implementing his preferred one. He doesn't choose this design because it is "filled with meaning and love"; he chooses it (if he can be said to "choose" at all) because he must. The creation of the universe might not even be an intentional action, but simply the byproduct of his nature; he could not not have created it.

If He is the intelligence behind what occurs then it is fair to call Him the designer of it (unless your nature is to be placing obstacles to understanding for the sake of it, in which case you'll take the complexities and try to make space for your own agenda in there).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They are trying to convey something and you are trying to muddle the matter by not approaching it with an attempt to understand but rather an attempt to play word-games in what is an inherently complex and subtle subject.

In order to understand, don't we need to consider what it means to be a "designer"? If they don't want me to consider that then they shouldn't invoke a designer to begin with. It's not my fault that their reasoning is muddled when examined more closely.

Maybe that is the essence of your confusion on this...

If He is the intelligence behind what occurs then it is fair to call Him the designer of it (unless your nature is to be placing obstacles to understanding for the sake of it, in which case you'll take the complexities and try to make space for your own agenda in there).

It would be fair to call him the "cause" or perhaps the "catalyst," but he's not a designer, for reasons I've already enumerated.

 

[Inkfingers]

In order to understand, don't we need to consider what it means to be a "designer"? If they don't want me to consider that then they shouldn't invoke a designer to begin with. It's not my fault that their reasoning is muddled when examined more closely.

It would be fair to call him the "cause" or perhaps the "catalyst," but he's not a designer, for reasons I've already enumerated.

All it takes for someone to be the designer is for them to be the intelligence that laid out how something will come to be. It does not require that the design be subject to consultation by committee followed by a marketing strategy.

Design: 1540s, from Latin designare "mark out, devise, choose, designate, appoint,"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All it takes for someone to be the designer is for them to be the intelligence that laid out how something will come to be. It does not require that the design be subject to consultation by committee followed by a marketing strategy.

Design: 1540s, from Latin designare "mark out, devise, choose, designate, appoint,"

We wouldn't call someone who lacks creative freedom, and cannot not create something in a particular way, a "designer." If that's your definition of design, then you are currently "designing" carbon dioxide.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All it takes for someone to be the designer is for them to be the intelligence that laid out how something will come to be.

God didn't lay out how it would be; according to you, his nature did. He did only as nature dictated him to and couldn't have done otherwise, even if he wanted to. That isn't how a designer works. A designer isn't forced to design only one thing and only in one particular way. A designer has some level of creative freedom. According to you, God couldn't design multiple universes (he had to create only one), and he couldn't create it any differently (it had to be this way). This wreaks havoc for the concept of "fine-tuning" as well: God didn't "fine-tune" the universe to be this way; it had to be this way.

 

[Inkfingers]

We wouldn't call someone who lacks creative freedom, and cannot not create something in a particular way, a "designer." If that's your definition of design, then you are currently "designing" carbon dioxide.

Not really; I'm not appointing carbon dioxide to happen. God however appoints all that occurs to happen. The fact that he could not do other does not change that nor mean he ceases to be the designer of such.

I think you are playing word games for the sake of being awkward.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not really; I'm not appointing carbon dioxide to happen. God however appoints all that occurs to happen. The fact that he could not do other does not change that nor mean he ceases to be the designer of such.

Now you are using a synonym for design. That doesn't change the nature of the problem, just the wording.

I think you are playing word games for the sake of being awkward.

Or I'm exposing the awkwardness inherent in the word-games apologists play.

 

[Inkfingers]

Now you are using a synonym for design. That doesn't change the nature of the problem, just the wording.

No, I am using the definition I supplied from a dictionary. That's what definitions are; words that describe other words.

Or I'm exposing the awkwardness inherent in the word-games apologists play.

We are trying to discuss a complex and subtle subject, and you are making a point of misunderstanding on the basis of superficial matters. Which do you think that looks like...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I am using the definition I supplied from a dictionary. That's what definitions are; words that describe other words.

Insert those words in place of the word "design" and you end up with the same problem.

We are trying to discuss a complex and subtle subject, and you are making a point of misunderstanding on the basis of superficial matters. Which do you think that looks like...

The notion of design isn't a superficial matter. It's at the very heart of the argument! After all, the argument is an argument from design, which posits God as a designer and not merely a catalyst. If we are to consider the merits of such an argument, we need to reflect on what it means to be a designer.

If you want to argue that it is wrong for us to use "human-oriented concepts" in examining the argument (as you did earlier), then you might as well direct that critique to the apologist, and not to those examining the apologist's arguments.

 

[Inkfingers]

The notion of design isn't a superficial matter. It's at the very heart of the argument! After all, the argument is an argument from design, which posits God as a designer and not merely a catalyst. If we are to consider the merits of such an argument, we need to reflect on what it means to be a designer.

If you want to argue that it is wrong for us to use "human-oriented concepts" in examining the argument (as you did earlier), then you might as well direct that critique to the apologist, and not to those examining the apologist's arguments.

And being the mind that shapes events is being their designer. You don't need Freewill to be a designer; you just have to be the mind that shapes the event.

Clearly you are just using any means necessary to deny the point and push your own (as can be seen in your quibbling over the definition of design), so I'll leave you to your game until you stop playing games.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Life will always have conflicting interests; if there were no predators, you would simply complain about other 'unfairnessess' instead; because such cannot be avoided.

And humans working on photosynthesis cannot exist - it would not provide enough energy for the brain.

The universe is the way it is because this is what an internally consistent universe looks like; this is what the laws of physics and mathematics needed to make such a universe looks like. And those laws of physics etc are what are needed for a consistent universe.

Your lack of comprehension of that, and belief in a magical "could have been other" does not change this. Nor does it offer substantial counter-argument. The answer has been given to you; instead of being driven by a need to "win" or "be a skeptic", rattling off answers in an game of internet ping-pong, take time to consider what I have said to you.

I commend your naturalistic approach to the universe. But at the point at which you admit the universe has to be the way it is, free of miracles that could change the nature of the universe, or a heaven that throws out the rules the universe works under, it seems to me that the thing that caused the universe is hardly what most people would consider a god...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And being the mind that shapes events is being their designer. You don't need Freewill to be a designer; you just have to be the mind that shapes the event.

Clearly you are just using any means necessary to deny the point and push your own (as can be seen in your quibbling over the definition of design), so I'll leave you to your game until you stop playing games.

You speak as though the very notion of design is trivial to the point the argument is trying to make. It's not. It's at the heart of the argument. If you don't want anyone to "quibble" over it, then don't base an argument on it.